Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 13
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 5 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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.

I think you've been watching too many hollywood films. This is just a bad movie plot, not representing reality. Do you want us to assume that the instant anyone works for the CIA they taint anything they ever do again with instant fraud?




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 



I think you've been watching too many hollywood films. This is just a bad movie plot, not representing reality. Do you want us to assume that the instant anyone works for the CIA they taint anything they ever do again with instant fraud?


No, but I have been reading a lot of Nixon stuff lately that relates to Howard Hughes and listening to the recordings of the late Mae Brussell, you should realize that Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes were probably two of the most powerful men in the world in 1969, and, with the CIA connections that have been made in this thread and other threads, Apollo is beginning to look like a mythology that was written by Nixon and produced by Hughes -for a TV audience brainwashed by hypnotic television waves.

As evidence I will present to you these puppets. On a simulated moonscape.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



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


And we're waiting for you to actually connect all the random dots you've splattered all over the wall. Why did Nixon conceive of this plan back in 1953, when his brother first hired Farouk el Baz? How did he know he would be president in 1968? Why did Kennedy play along? Or was he kept in the dark? If he was kept in the dark, why did he propose the project? Why didn't LBJ advance the time table so that he would get the glory instead of Nixon? Why cause a congressional scandal that set the program back by liquidating the crew of Apollo 1 on the launch pad instead of faking a traffic accident that made them look like they were breaking training by getting drunk? We're talking CIA here. They're professionals. They would want to take the rebel astronauts out in a way that made them look bad, not NASA. Well? Explain.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


First we have to take a look for the who, what, when,where questions. Then we look for the why's. The 'why' questions have to deal with big, big questions. About Big 'C' communism or corporate cronyism.

I think you got the dates for Ed Nixon, Farouk El-Baz wrong. That's a 'when' question.
edit on 12/6/2012 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix tags



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
No, but I have been reading a lot of Nixon stuff lately that relates to Howard Hughes and listening to the recordings of the late Mae Brussell, you should realize that Richard Nixon and Howard Hughes were probably two of the most powerful men in the world in 1969, and, with the CIA connections that have been made in this thread and other threads, Apollo is beginning to look like a mythology that was written by Nixon and produced by Hughes -for a TV audience brainwashed by hypnotic television waves.

Actually IMHO it is your posts that look increasingly like a hollywood film. You spend a lot of time giving us a sermon about how corrupt everyone is and how nobody who has any connection to any government agency can be trusted at all etc etc. You don't actually back it up with anything. Let's have a look at your evidence:


As evidence I will present to you these puppets. On a simulated moonscape.

Nothing whatsoever, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Ed Nixon.

Has not 1 but 2 geology degrees.

He can't find a job as a geologist.

He becomes a hiring manager at Bellcomm.

Ed Nixon puts a 'help wanted ad' in a Geology magazine for geology specialist.
Farouk answered the ad.

Farouk is hired by Bellcomm.

Farouk selected 6 out of 6 Apollo landing sites.

Please deny any of these facts.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Please deny any of these facts.


Have you seen the 'chewbacca defence'? This is all I can imagine reading your posts. They are all over the place and very unclear. You have started from a false premise and so you're having to reach increasingly far to tie events together.

There's a much more coherent explanation. I'll let you guess what it is.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Please deny any of these facts.


Have you seen the 'chewbacca defence'? This is all I can imagine reading your posts. They are all over the place and very unclear. You have started from a false premise and so you're having to reach increasingly far to tie events together.

There's a much more coherent explanation. I'll let you guess what it is.



Chewbacca defence? Wait... isnt that what you are doing?
He asks a specific question, and you are not providing any answers but
complaining about his posts being all over the place.
Maybe this discussion is just going over your head?



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.




Not true and Im still waiting for you to address my video(s).



in my thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 7-12-2012 by FoosM because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Please deny any of these facts.


Have you seen the 'chewbacca defence'? This is all I can imagine reading your posts. They are all over the place and very unclear. You have started from a false premise and so you're having to reach increasingly far to tie events together.

There's a much more coherent explanation. I'll let you guess what it is.


This is ATS. This is conspiracy theory home territory. You are walking on our turf here.

Could you please talk about Apollo and stop talking about me?

I'll repeat: Please deny any of these facts.



posted on Dec, 12 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   

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


The OP has abandoned his thread. Apollo was a CIA psyop.

Ed Nixon, Bellcomm, Farouk El-Baz, Richard Underwood, William Randolph Lovelace III, Howard Hughes, CIA, Be Be Rebozo, Richard Nixon, Alan Shepard, labyrinthitis, Jim Irwin, broken legs, Deke Slayton, Stanley Kubrick, George Mueller,



Medical Miracles!



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Chewbacca defence? Wait... isnt that what you are doing?
He asks a specific question, and you are not providing any answers but
complaining about his posts being all over the place.
Maybe this discussion is just going over your head?


The Chewbacca Defence is tying the truth of a statement to the truth of any other statement without connection. If there was such a strong case it wouldn't need post after post of irrelevant meandering between topics. Demanding the confirmation of unconnected facts etc.

This scattergun approach is very common, but I have yet to see a tiny bit of convincing evidence.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
This is ATS. This is conspiracy theory home territory. You are walking on our turf here.

Yet despite this you can find very few supporters and this thread is only occasionally revived by your continued efforts. If even in the home (your words) of conspiracy theories you don't have wild support, what do you think this implies?


Could you please talk about Apollo and stop talking about me?

Certainly, can you think of any mechanism to fake zero gravity in extended videos? Say for example the ISS, are videos from that faked?
edit on 13/12/12 by exponent because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Here is your "Best Shot" OP
I have presented it in many another post of this kind, and never has there been a serious challenge to it , not a plausible alter explanation of any kind. That means that your explanation has to be rooted in the realm of accepted scientific capability and reality. A bunch of aliens dumping them in a pile at the White House, is not one of those "accepted" scenarios.

(1)
Simply explain an alternate, plausible explanation as to how 800+ lbs of moon rocks got here, and you have a case for your moon hoax. Otherwise, you will always be on the wrong side of the fence, if you believe we have not walked on the moon.

It's that simple, and any other theory is trumped by that one fact.


---- go for it.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


Please read the OP.
Second line.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   
i just watched a documentary called

did we land on the moon?

on channel 5,

fake moon landings!



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Theres only one way to win this. Wait until a country other than the USA to send men to the moon, and have a look at their supposed landing sites, launch pads and buggys should still be there.

Providing that country isn't somehow bribed by NASA to lie about seeing the remains of their previous missions that is ha ha
< this will be the next conspiracy
edit on 13-12-2012 by SkuzzleButt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkuzzleButt
Theres only one way to win this. Wait until a country other than the USA to send men to the moon, and have a look at their supposed landing sites, launch pads and buggys should still be there.


You are exactly correct. The scientific method requires 4 steps.


I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. Source teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu...



A new Race to the Moon.



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



You are exactly correct. The scientific method requires 4 steps.


The scientific method has nothing to do with it. Does someone have to build an exact replica of the Titanic and wreck it on an iceberg before you'll believe that such a ship existed and sank?



posted on Dec, 16 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



You are exactly correct. The scientific method requires 4 steps.


The scientific method has nothing to do with it. Does someone have to build an exact replica of the Titanic and wreck it on an iceberg before you'll believe that such a ship existed and sank?


So you are admitting that the Apollo program is not based on the scientific method?





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join