It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 11
44
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by Pinke
 


The logical implication of your statement is that because A,B,C all question said data then D should be precluded from doing so. Since when did consensus dictate truth (moreover, lack of truth)?
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar


No, that's not the implication, or not intended.

scientific consensus would say we went to the moon. Scientific consensus would also say we orbit the sun, and that dinosaurs existed. So would historical consensus. I know scientific consensus is different from ordinary consensus ... There are plenty of things that are in the same area of 'certainty' as the moon landing they get a much easier run.

Even the most innocuous activities by NASA get a pile of attention. It's not that I don't believe NASA wouldn't hide something if the U.S government asked, I think they would ... I just think the long term repercussions of hiding a moon landing would be far too massive to even consider.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Could you do us a favor and cite the videos where you noticed the things you talk about in this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reason that I ask, is that:

1) I want to make sure we are on the same page as to the things you are seeing.

and

2) There are several hours worth of video to go through, including those that were edited for news broadcasts and of course docus.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ckno1
 


It will only take time before it will show this guy is a paid actor, fed with cinotechno bable...There are just too many things that are questionable...Maybe NASA went to the moon but there is something they are not telling us.

...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina

Obviously you are INCAPABLE of dealingwith someone... Who might have just a little MORE horsepower than you apparently seem to be able to deal with...

(That would be me Bakatono
)


For someone who likes to toss around "ad hominem" in their response your above grammatical error, tautological error to be specific (well pretty close to one anyway, even if you didn't use two words which mean the same thing), is pretty funny. That and "hominem" sounds like hominy; anyone up for a snack?

Oh, and I don't have any problem dealing with someone with the horsepower to deal with them while dealing the deal. Deal?



So when it's pointed out that this supposedly WORKING ARTIFACT at best generates a 2 lumen return... Count them... 1, 2 LUMENS!

Now surely a guy with you mad SKILLZ can explain to our fellow threadmates EXACTLY why this presents a problem.

You still with me there?




Yup, still with you, you can count to two.

Nasa can count to one.


Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.


NASA Source

So, it doesn't appear that you are the sole possessor of some great knowledge. Especially since it doesn't appear that they are measuring luminous flux. BTW, I may have misunderstood you earlier in the thread where I thought you were attempting to say that they weren't measuring visible light; however, you seem to be fixated on lumens, which are a measurement of visible light. Here is a link to the definition of a lumen.

It appears, based on NASA's details regarding the mirrors, that they 1) are affected by heat from the sun, probably like everything else in the universe and 2) that they aren't looking for lumens but for the return of a particular wavelength and may only receive a single photon. It is possible for them to measure this of course.



When you're taken to task cuz the 'web site' you offered is using FALSIFIED representations... that what? It's somehow my fault?

Huh?

Your comments remind me of this:


And falsified representations based on...?



Dude... these were simple observations I was making.


Finally, you're 'explanation' as to why the 'mirror arrays' are not working...

That is also 100% FAKE.



If you understand the inherent design of the 'array', you would understand that 'fluctuations' in temperature isn't a factor...

Think I will trust NASA on this one. Besides, your grammar and lack of proper sentence structure don't really help with your argument. Nor do all those LOL faces throughout the thread. Kind of childish.



At least get the COVER STORY right about the 'why' of the suddenly 'WE CAN'T'!



So... Bottom line is Bakatono...

When the smoke clears... And the sound of your emotional outbreak stops ringing in nice folks ears...

You've got NOTHING.



That is REALLY unfortunate...

So, you really don't seem to be making a point. You are just repeating the same thing over and over and putting a bunch of LOL faces in it. Oh, and capitalizing words unnecessarily.




Hey Bakatono, this has been great fun.

Look me up, we could talk physics, AI, Ah... WHO am I kidding... We can talk about ANY of the 'ologies.

Serious.


Somehow I don't really believe you are serious.

Call me crazy
edit on 22-1-2013 by Bakatono because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
me

technically, we should have been able to see that smoke cloud from earth!


you

You do understand that rocket exhaust works and looks different in the vacuum of space vs an atmospheric environment, right? The type of rocket propellent also plays a role as well.


me

NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.


you

Firstly, I think you mean compartmentalization. Decompartmentalized is the opposite of what you are trying to say.

I'd like to see the slightest shred of evidence for NASA being compartmentalized however. Because I don't believe a program as big as Apollo could ever be put together in such a fashion.The Apollo program had to be very open between all the companies and organizations working on it. Communication and major program management was key for being successful. So if you could provide some evidence, that would be nice. Everything I see about how the program was run and managed says otherwise.


1. rocket exhausts may well look different on the moon as opposed to earth, due to atmospheric pressure, but I think you'll find that red exhaust fumes don't suddenly become INVISIBLE on the moon.

2. yes, it turns out I meant 'compartmentalized', so whenever you read 'decompartmentalized' interchange it with 'compartmentalized'.

3. believe what you want, NASA WAS compartmentalized, more than 500 individual contractor firms worked for the project.

www.nps.gov...

you

The Apollo program had to be very open between all the companies and organizations working on it


1. mere subjective opinion and based on assumption/presumption.

2. the fact that you concur numerous companies and organisations worked on the project actually adds to my argument that the project WAS compartmentalized, and it detracts from your argument that it wasn't!

I think we have an issue here of you misunderstanding the concept of compartmentalized; either that or you've inadvertantly contradicted yourself.
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further further clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further further further clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further further further further clarification



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I believe that we HAVE been to the moon.

I believe that much of what is presented as EVIDENCE of this fact is very much fake.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Could you do us a favor and cite the videos where you noticed the things you talk about in this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reason that I ask, is that:

1) I want to make sure we are on the same page as to the things you are seeing.


www.spacecraftfilms.com...



2) There are several hours worth of video to go through, including those that were edited for news broadcasts and of course docus.


Is this a subtle platform/foundation for you, further down the line, to rebuke any criticisms raised by myself by saying "well, as I've said, it was edited for interviews/documentaries"?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Could you do us a favor and cite the videos where you noticed the things you talk about in this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Reason that I ask, is that:

1) I want to make sure we are on the same page as to the things you are seeing.


www.spacecraftfilms.com...



2) There are several hours worth of video to go through, including those that were edited for news broadcasts and of course docus.


Is this a subtle platform/foundation for you, further down the line, to rebuke any criticisms raised by myself by saying "well, as I've said, it was edited for interviews/documentaries"?



Thank you very much for the link.

Now I and others on here (no matter what side of the fence you sit on, pro, con, in the middle) can take a look at what you pointed out in your earlier post and see for ourselves.

ATS content is very dependent upon it's members. Posting the link like you did helps enhance this site, member's experience and discussions.

And no. No "plan" from me. Simply as I said: the internet is a HUGE place, there is a LOT of film and video to look at, and it's important to be able to look at the same footage that you looked at.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


No sweat.

Yes, I agree.
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: elaoation



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive



all those people involved in a cover up?
reply to post by chrome413
 


NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Plus, most of the vast numbers spoke of are comprised wholly of outside contractors/production-assembly.

Finally, notwithstanding the fact that NASA was highly incentivised to 'secure' future employment, in a way similar to most unions/government departments.




what incentive was there to fake it?


If you have to ask that then I guess we're not going to get very far with this debate. There are a million and one reasons, some obvious and some more subtle, as to why faking (or at least partially misrepresenting certain 'data') would be more desirable than full disclosure.


Ok, so I think either ATS or my brain must be fried. I used my post list on ATS to see where I made those statements you quoted here- and nowhere in my two previous posts did I ever use those words that you are quoting me as saying. I became curious when I read this "reply" because I didn't recall ever writing that.

There is another possible explanation, but I don't think we should go there. Unless you have some information you would like to share?

Oh, and to me, it's not a debate. I get on here and state my opinion and that is it. So, yeah, we aren't getting very far.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by 1nquisitive



all those people involved in a cover up?
reply to post by chrome413
 


NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Plus, most of the vast numbers spoke of are comprised wholly of outside contractors/production-assembly.

Finally, notwithstanding the fact that NASA was highly incentivised to 'secure' future employment, in a way similar to most unions/government departments.




what incentive was there to fake it?


If you have to ask that then I guess we're not going to get very far with this debate. There are a million and one reasons, some obvious and some more subtle, as to why faking (or at least partially misrepresenting certain 'data') would be more desirable than full disclosure.


Ok, so I think either ATS or my brain must be fried. I used my post list on ATS to see where I made those statements you quoted here- and nowhere in my two previous posts did I ever use those words that you are quoting me as saying. I became curious when I read this "reply" because I didn't recall ever writing that.

There is another possible explanation, but I don't think we should go there. Unless you have some information you would like to share?

Oh, and to me, it's not a debate. I get on here and state my opinion and that is it. So, yeah, we aren't getting very far.


You're right, ATS is fried.

I made that remark, but directed to another user, let me see.

UPDATE

IT WAS AIMED AT YOU,JUST NOT THAT SPECIFIC COMMENT, ATS MUST BE FRIED

SCREENSHOT ATTACHED BELOW

I PARAPHRASED YOU IN THE INTERESTS OF BREVITY


edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification

edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further clarification



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by chrome413

Originally posted by 1nquisitive



all those people involved in a cover up?
reply to post by chrome413
 


NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Plus, most of the vast numbers spoke of are comprised wholly of outside contractors/production-assembly.

Finally, notwithstanding the fact that NASA was highly incentivised to 'secure' future employment, in a way similar to most unions/government departments.




what incentive was there to fake it?


If you have to ask that then I guess we're not going to get very far with this debate. There are a million and one reasons, some obvious and some more subtle, as to why faking (or at least partially misrepresenting certain 'data') would be more desirable than full disclosure.


Ok, so I think either ATS or my brain must be fried. I used my post list on ATS to see where I made those statements you quoted here- and nowhere in my two previous posts did I ever use those words that you are quoting me as saying. I became curious when I read this "reply" because I didn't recall ever writing that.

There is another possible explanation, but I don't think we should go there. Unless you have some information you would like to share?

Oh, and to me, it's not a debate. I get on here and state my opinion and that is it. So, yeah, we aren't getting very far.


You're right, ATS is fried.

I made that remark, but directed to another user, let me see.

UPDATE

IT WAS AIMED AT YOU,JUST NOT THAT SPECIFIC COMMENT, ATS MUST BE FRIED

SCREENSHOT ATTACHED BELOW


edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification


Or could this be an example of "selective editing?" I'm sorry to question your integrity, but it looks awfully shady for you. Care to fess up, or should I just show this to the moderators?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

There is another possible explanation, but I don't think we should go there. Unless you have some information you would like to share?

Oh, and to me, it's not a debate. I get on here and state my opinion and that is it. So, yeah, we aren't getting very far.


What do you mean by that?


Oh, and to me, it's not a debate. I get on here and state my opinion and that is it. So, yeah, we aren't getting very far.


No, evidently.

Why do you deny making such comments when the screenshot proves otherwise?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Because you misquoted me. Nowhere in the screen shot does it show those exact words you quoted. I won't deny the that is the basic premise of my comment, but you can't quote someone as saying something they didn't. You do understand what "quote" means don't you?



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrome413
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Because you misquoted me. Nowhere in the screen shot does it show those exact words you quoted. I won't deny the that is the basic premise of my comment, but you can't quote someone as saying something they didn't. You do understand what "quote" means don't you?


You do understand the concept of paraphrasing, don't you?

nb. I even make it clear I've paraphrased you in my post@9:44am
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by chrome413
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Because you misquoted me. Nowhere in the screen shot does it show those exact words you quoted. I won't deny the that is the basic premise of my comment, but you can't quote someone as saying something they didn't. You do understand what "quote" means don't you?


You do understand the concept of paraphrasing, don't you?


Yes, but you don't paraphrase with the quotes.

I did admit that you did "paraphrase" my basic premise correctly. Again, my issue is not that, but that you chose to "quote" me as saying something I did not. You can surely see how this does affect credibility? If you can't then there is no point to taking anything else you say seriously.

I gave you an "out" earlier and had you just said, you know, sorry about misquoting you, but I got in a hurry and paraphrased, then I would be cool with that. But you seem unable to admit any fault on your own. There is no point in continuing the conversation. I'm not a bad guy, just want some honesty. And I am not perfect either. I'm not reporting this to the moderators right now. I'll consider it, but be forewarned that your actions concerning this matter from here on out could influence my decision.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 10:37 AM
link   

I did admit that you did "paraphrase" my basic premise correctly. Again, my issue is not that, but that you chose to "quote" me as saying something I did not. You can surely see how this does affect credibility? If you can't then there is no point to taking anything else you say seriously.


I made it clear @ post 9:44am that I paraphrased you.


I gave you an "out" earlier and had you just said, you know, sorry about misquoting you, but I got in a hurry and paraphrased, then I would be cool with that. But you seem unable to admit any fault on your own. There is no point in continuing the conversation. I'm not a bad guy, just want some honesty. And I am not perfect either. I'm not reporting this to the moderators right now. I'll consider it, but be forewarned that your actions concerning this matter from here on out could influence my decision.


I haven't done anything wrong, so why would I admit fault? You've took offence at being paraphrased, well TS, I made it clear that this was so, and you even agree that I've paraphrased you.

I don't see why your inability to A.read posts thoroughly, B. remember what you've posted should necessitate your reporting of me to moderators.

So, likewise, consider yourself forewarned too.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

I did admit that you did "paraphrase" my basic premise correctly. Again, my issue is not that, but that you chose to "quote" me as saying something I did not. You can surely see how this does affect credibility? If you can't then there is no point to taking anything else you say seriously.


I made it clear @ post 9:44am that I paraphrased you.


I gave you an "out" earlier and had you just said, you know, sorry about misquoting you, but I got in a hurry and paraphrased, then I would be cool with that. But you seem unable to admit any fault on your own. There is no point in continuing the conversation. I'm not a bad guy, just want some honesty. And I am not perfect either. I'm not reporting this to the moderators right now. I'll consider it, but be forewarned that your actions concerning this matter from here on out could influence my decision.


I haven't done anything wrong, so why would I admit fault? You've took offence at being paraphrased, well TS, I made it clear that this was so, and you even agree that I've paraphrased you.

I don't see why your inability to A.read posts thoroughly, B. remember what you've posted should necessitate your reporting of me to moderators.

So, likewise, consider yourself forewarned too.


First of all, paraphrasing and passing it off as a quote is wrong. I simply cannot fathom how someone cannot understand this.

Secondly, I do read posts thoroughly and that is why I called you on it in the first place.

Thirdly, I do remember what I post, that is why I investigated and called you out in the beginning.

You should have made it clear in the original that it was a paraphrase rather than a quote. That's why you use the quote button- to quote someone. It is nice you edited, but only after you got caught. Then when I called you on it you tried to play dumb saying ATS must be fried or something instead of just admitting it. LOL I knew what had gone down before even posting my first reply to this, but thought some people may have the integrity to admit a mistake.

Furthermore, if you want people to take you seriously then there are certain rules of etiquette that need to be followed. I know I won't ever take anything you post again seriously; I'll always have that little voice in my head questioning your authenticity. Again, a simple "Sorry" to begin with would have avoided this mess. I don't enjoy arguing with people, but I won't back off when I know I am right and have been misrepresented. And again, I do appreciate your edit, but it is too little too late to save your credibility.



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by chrome413
 


Ah, the battle for the last word continues...



posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by chrome413
 


Ah, the battle for the last word continues...



Actually, I'm done. Post whatever you like and I swear I will not reply. I don't really feel the need to anymore. Anyone who is insane enough to read our posts can make up their own mind.



new topics

top topics



 
44
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join