Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

page: 12
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


If I had a star for every time somebody posted ad hominem attacks against me....
wait. You've got nothing, pal.

But seriously. If NASA could choose any photo expert in the USA to work on the Gemini/Apollo photos. ANY EXPERT. So they chose a CIA employee over all other experts?

C I A.

Does that not ring any alarm bells for you?

The Richard Underwood obit comes from Space.com by the way. Did you refute my sources? No.
And the Farouk El-Baz oral history is also a good source. Did you refute that? No, you didn't.

Instead you want for the cheap shots and ad hominem attacks. Hopefully, in the future, you will take a look at the words which appear above your posting window and consider them before making your replies. You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter. .

I accept your criticisms at full face value and that means you've got nothing .




posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Foundryman
 



Do we really need another one of these?


The idea is to consolidate them all in one thread. I'll be back in a while to see what everyone brings to the table.
\

this was done before ...

or don't you remember the mega thread about Jerrah .. i'm sure you do.. since it was pretty much brought down by shear name calling and million attempts to be derailed.. so i'm assuming that you'll just bring the old rethoric as you did before ..

but.. I guess you need something to argue about and a few more stars ..so .. instead of posting up on any of the current threads.. you .. actually created another ..



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
But seriously. If NASA could choose any photo expert in the USA to work on the Gemini/Apollo photos. ANY EXPERT. So they chose a CIA employee over all other experts?

C I A.

Does that not ring any alarm bells for you?


No, it doesn't. They could choose any photo expert, so they chose one who had a lot of practical experience analyzing photos, many of which were taken from space or high-altitude.

Who else do you think they're going to find? Do you think the government took their SR-71 photos to the guy at the Kodak photobooth to develop and analyze? Where do you think these other experts at extreme condition and space-based photography were going to come from?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



Are you really so naive to believe that a CIA photographic expert was just " changing jobs " ?
And why did Richard Nixon's bother, Ed Nixon working for Bellcomm, hire Farouk El-Baz?
You have to admit that Farouk El-Baz chose each and every Apollo landing site. Isn't that true?


And why would Richard Nixon spend so much energy on a conspiracy to immortalize John F Kennedy?


Answering that question is not within the scope of my investigation.

I mean, what are the odds? Richard Nixon's youngest brother, Ed, holds not one but TWO geology degrees. Somehow the poor guy can't find work as a geologist! So he joins Bellcomm as a "hiring manager".

What a coincidence that Richard Nixon's brother would hire Farouk El-Baz for a geology position at Bellcomm. It's important to note that Farouk is not a "NASA" employee during the Apollo days, rather, he was always a Bellcomm contractor for NASA.

And Farouk El-Baz selected each and every Apollo landing site, didnt' he?



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
But seriously. If NASA could choose any photo expert in the USA to work on the Gemini/Apollo photos. ANY EXPERT. So they chose a CIA employee over all other experts?

C I A.

Does that not ring any alarm bells for you?


No, it doesn't. They could choose any photo expert, so they chose one who had a lot of practical experience analyzing photos, many of which were taken from space or high-altitude.

Who else do you think they're going to find? Do you think the government took their SR-71 photos to the guy at the Kodak photobooth to develop and analyze? Where do you think these other experts at extreme condition and space-based photography were going to come from?


I'd say that you haven't studied the 1960's or the Cold War or the Viet Nam War or Lyndon Johnson or Richard Nixon. Apollo does not exist in a vacuum space of history... It exists in the context of all the things I just described.

You need to admit that Richard Underwood was a CIA photo expert and he was the first person to see every space image from Gemini to Apollo to the Shuttle. Just admit the facts. Stop denying them.



posted on Dec, 4 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I'll bite... Although all your evidence that I've read thus far is circumstantial (Forgive me if I missed some) you at least present your argument in a cogent, meaningful way.

As far as a former CIA man being involved in the space program, I don't see how you can imply anything out of it. This was during the space race and a bitter feud with Russia. Anything found on the Moon would have major national security implications.

Is it not fair to say a CIA man in that role could be doing nothing more than making sure information was relayed back to HQ if something popped up, not only that though, but to ensure leaks were not passed on to the Russians who were actively trying to recruit spies in just about every defence agency there was at the time?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


boncho, you really need to catch up on your history lessons! Go listen to some Mae Brussell tapes (many of them available on youtube). Try to immerse yourself in the politics of the 1960's. Read some of the Watergate books.

There is a money trail from Howard Hughes to Richard Nixon to Richard Nixon's brothers to Apollo astronauts.

I don't think there is anyone on ATS who would argue the fact that Howard Hughes was not a CIA front. He was a CIA front. This fact has been acknowledged in mainstream literature. And Hughes built the Surveyor spacecrafts. And Hughes had the money connections with Apollo astronauts and Richard Nixon.

You need to admit the fact that Richard Nixon's brother hired Farouk El-Baz at Bellcomm and that Farouk selected each and every Apollo landing site. Am I right or am I wrong?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You need to admit the fact that Richard Nixon's brother hired Farouk El-Baz at Bellcomm and that Farouk selected each and every Apollo landing site. Am I right or am I wrong?

 


By his own admission, in the NASA Oral History Project El-Baz reflects these facts.

Where you are going from there however, is swiss cheesed in meaning. You have to cease with the insinuations, and the rhetorical questions are pointless because you can simply link/copy and cite these things for people that are unaware.

I know you are not ignorant or stupid, so I guess what I'm asking, is to formulate this into something sans innuendo and insinuation.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



You need to admit that Richard Underwood was a CIA photo expert and he was the first person to see every space image from Gemini to Apollo to the Shuttle. Just admit the facts. Stop denying them.


why is this relevant ?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



this was done before ...


Every Moon Hoax thread always has the same arguments:

1) No stars.

2) Deadly radiation.

3) This picture looks fake. (Shadows, reflections, allegedly missing tracks/footprints.)

4) Richard Nixon was involved.

This thread has seen all of the above. Hoax proponents seem unable to find anything new. I want something new. Just repeating the same old rubbish is boring.


or don't you remember the mega thread about Jerrah .. i'm sure you do.. since it was pretty much brought down by shear name calling and million attempts to be derailed.. so i'm assuming that you'll just bring the old rethoric as you did before ..


I think you're confusing me with someone else. I'm the one who did things like track down Jarrah's references to prove that he was lying, remember?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


but.. I guess you need something to argue about and a few more stars ..so .. instead of posting up on any of the current threads.. you .. actually created another ..


I'm not in it for the stars, I'm in it for the challenge to my research skills. The ones who continue to start new threads using long debunked material instead of joining this thread are in it for the stars.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
...
I'm not in it for the stars, I'm in it for the challenge to my research skills.
...

Oh, research skills! That makes sense.
I just thought you were some kind of masochist.
These threads just cause me much anguish and consternation.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by delusion
 



Oh, research skills! That makes sense.
I just thought you were some kind of masochist.
These threads just cause me much anguish and consternation.


Same here, but at least there is some room for educating people. Unfortunately, I've found that many topics are filled with "open minded" people who refuse to use logic or look at facts because they "know what they know."



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 





As far as I can tell, the Mods let this thread thrash on so that all of the people who think that the Moon landings were a hoax will come here to vent rather than start endless new threads in other forums. This thread is a sort of storm sewer for blatant ignorance.


and you got your wish ..

that being your last post on that mega thread..
what exactly more would you actually add to this thread than what you did on the last thread.. .. anything that someone comes up with as logical/rational/ or data.. it's gets twisted/bash/buried under a mountain of name calling blah blah blah..

so .. why even start a new thread with the ones that are posted already ?? if members wanted to see what will ensue.. all they have to go is go to that mega thread and read the first 5 pages LOL

ETA: I'm not pointing fingers .. just making a general statement ..
edit on 5-12-2012 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



what exactly more would you actually add to this thread than what you did on the last thread.. ..


The whole point is for someone to make a new and convincing case!


anything that someone comes up with as logical/rational/ or data.. it's gets twisted/bash/buried under a mountain of name calling blah blah blah..


The problem is no-one ever comes up with something logical or rational. Incidentally, it seems to me you are the one doing name calling here. Instead of attacking me, why don't you rise to the challenge and present some evidence?



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Komodo
 



what exactly more would you actually add to this thread than what you did on the last thread.. ..


The whole point is for someone to make a new and convincing case!


anything that someone comes up with as logical/rational/ or data.. it's gets twisted/bash/buried under a mountain of name calling blah blah blah..


The problem is no-one ever comes up with something logical or rational. Incidentally, it seems to me you are the one doing name calling here. Instead of attacking me, why don't you rise to the challenge and present some evidence?


name calling.. ??

1) where did i call you any names?!?

never mind.. I'm out..



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



name calling.. ??

1) where did i call you any names?!?


Sorry. I seem to have misunderstood this post. Apparently you were trying to compliment me:


or don't you remember the mega thread about Jerrah .. i'm sure you do.. since it was pretty much brought down by shear name calling and million attempts to be derailed.. so i'm assuming that you'll just bring the old rethoric as you did before ..

but.. I guess you need something to argue about and a few more stars ..so .. instead of posting up on any of the current threads.. you .. actually created another ..


www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you have a problem with any of my arguments, engage them. Don't just accuse me of twisting facts, straighten them out. As for rhetoric, what have you contributed to this thread but derision?



never mind.. I'm out..


Because you know you have nothing to bring to the table but attempts to derail the thread into a slanging match.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The whole point is for someone to make a new and convincing case!



Well I think the one about the moon being altered to appear grey because in reality it's brown is a new one...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As for the benefits of this debate, it is useful in learning some fundamentals of sorting, questioning and presenting information. Most defenders of the moon landing are good at this, probably because they've had so much practice trying to convince someone of some very basic concept that underpins their argument.
It is rare to find a pro-hoax argument that is well-presented in the first place; it is refreshing when one is.

I've been really impressed with every one of exponent's posts as an example of reasoned thinking in response to a proposition.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion
Oh, research skills! That makes sense.
I just thought you were some kind of masochist.
These threads just cause me much anguish and consternation.


My recommendation as an experienced 911 debater. Just go outside. Go and get some fresh air, don't read the forum for a week or two.

This is after all just a pointless internet chat board, it's not going to get you a career, or give you a religious epiphany. Stress isn't worth it, take care of your own health and general emotional wellbeing before coming online

edit:

I've been really impressed with every one of exponent's posts as an example of reasoned thinking in response to a proposition.

*blushing*
edit on 5/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Sigh.

This is a conspiracy website. When the CIA is involved there should be automatic red flags! You guys just deny, deny, deny.


CIA people don't just " change jobs ". They get different assignments. Richard Underwood went from the CIA to NASA. He was changing assignments. He had physical control of every Gemini/Apollo image because he was the first person to view every image from Gemini thru Apollo and beyond. THE FIRST PERSON. PHYSICAL CONTROL. As claimed by Space.com.

Why won't you people, you NASA defenders, simply admit : the CIA created all the Apollo images. All of them.



posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Here are 2 things that the pro-Apollo crowd and the Hoax Believers should get to grips with:

The Lovelace Clinic was run by CIA asset William Randolph Lovelace II who died in a plane crash. Many Apollo astronauts had passed through his clinic during the earliest stages of astronaut training. And then he dies in a plane crash. Hmmmmm.


CIA/NASA connections were further established in my thread here Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review where we discussed some CIA connections to Jim Irwin and Howard Hughes.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The pro-Apollo crowd wants to shut down any discussion of CIA/NASA connections. But these connections really exist. Howard Hughes built the Surveyors and shortly after he went underground. Hughes was also a successful movie producer. One of his highly acclaimed films was


And if you just scratch the surface of Apollo you can see everywhere the money connections and the medical miracles and the moon rock inventories that needed to be revised, to the 700+ missing boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes, and recently, the NASA task force project to basically audit all the Nixon gift rocks. It all stinks.

As a researcher, all I can do is scratch the surface of the Apollo mythology. And what I keep finding are all these crazy other things like the Corvettes ....


Stories about stamp smuggling... and fired astronauts...


And the digitally altered Apollo evidence.... that was discussed in my thread NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images


Or the lack of visible floating objects in Apollo 15's televised press conference.


I await your excuses and your hand waving arguments. This will be good entertainment.






top topics



 
21
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join