Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   
1) I'd say at least 90% of moon hoax "proof" is based on people not understanding how physics/photography/geology etc. works. So that point is shot down rather quickly.

2) If people did any research at all they'd know that 100% of the evidence is on the side of the moon landing having happened as reported. The majority of moon hoax believers get their info from Jarrah White's youtube videos or websites so devoid of evidence and facts they might as well not even exist. So this point is also totally wrong.

3) This is just a massive strawman that has been beaten to death almost as severely as the moon hoax itself.

4) Now the OP is claiming that those people who prefer to use facts and reality "refuse to accept the truth"

As I had previously pointed out this "true believer" is siding with a librarian, a carpenter, an art student, a mentally unstable, religiously fanatic cab driver and various people in tinfoil hats vs. the global scientific community whose claims are backed up with mountains of evidence which has withheld scrutiny for over 40 years.

Here you have a person who ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his pre-determined conclusions, calls anyone who would dare contradict his pseudo-science and lies a shill and he has the gall to essentially describe himself while projecting on people who actually believe in evidence based discourse. Yes, shame on those of us who believe the evidence as opposed to uneducated, proven liars and con men like Percy/Renee/White/Sibrel.

One final point, notice how in his long, angry rant, he fails to provide even one single shred of evidence. Only his freakishly bias and downright delusional ramblings?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
1) I'd say at least 90% of moon hoax "proof" is based on people not understanding how physics/photography/geology etc. works. So that point is shot down rather quickly.

2) If people did any research at all they'd know that 100% of the evidence is on the side of the moon landing having happened as reported. The majority of moon hoax believers get their info from Jarrah White's youtube videos or websites so devoid of evidence and facts they might as well not even exist. So this point is also totally wrong.

3) This is just a massive strawman that has been beaten to death almost as severely as the moon hoax itself.

4) Now the OP is claiming that those people who prefer to use facts and reality "refuse to accept the truth"

As I had previously pointed out this "true believer" is siding with a librarian, a carpenter, an art student, a mentally unstable, religiously fanatic cab driver and various people in tinfoil hats vs. the global scientific community whose claims are backed up with mountains of evidence which has withheld scrutiny for over 40 years.

Here you have a person who ignores all evidence that doesn't fit his pre-determined conclusions, calls anyone who would dare contradict his pseudo-science and lies a shill and he has the gall to essentially describe himself while projecting on people who actually believe in evidence based discourse. Yes, shame on those of us who believe the evidence as opposed to uneducated, proven liars and con men like Percy/Renee/White/Sibrel.

One final point, notice how in his long, angry rant, he fails to provide even one single shred of evidence. Only his freakishly bias and downright delusional ramblings?


Dude... You are seriously long on rhetoric.

Your arguments are based on a boatload of hyperbole.

And finally you come across with 0% credibility as an impartial HONEST observer.

I've got some entries in this very thread that basically repudiate your entire viewpoint... Please do feel free to engage on the slice of the facts I'm totally making fun on...

And as to your precious 'Scientific' community, they are basically a bunch of semitards that are basically incapable of seeing that ALMOST NONE of their 'viewpoints' match the physical reality.

You can start from the very beginning (so to speak
) that would of course be the so-called Big Bang theory and though it's adherents frequently engage in major rhetorical backpedaling because of it's blatant ABSURDITY they can't get away from it's basic premise...

Which of course there was a whole lot of NOTHINGNESS which suddenly became a whole lot of SOMETHINGNESS.

Creation myth much...



Or to reduce to mathematical terms

0 = 1!

Tada!

This total violation of the basic tenets of an admirable human endeavor called 'Science' knows NO LIMITS.

And pretty much involves EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 'Sciences'.

Please DO enlighten us with a complete accounting of the physics of how Apollo astronauts flew ROCKET ships to the Moon and back.

Of course, don't forget to account for the true 'gravitational' neutral point, not being where it was expected and how that would destroy the entire basic logistics and physical design limitations of the craft in terms of fuel consumption.

It is always SO exciting to have so many knowledgeable people in one of these threads...

Please educate me, the HONEST observer.

edit on 23-1-2013 by golemina because: At what point do 'minor edits' become open heart surgery?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by chrisb9
posted on 1/20/2013 @ 03:58 PM - www.abovetopsecret.com...



edit on 1/23/2013 by chrisb9 because: (no reason given)


-----------------
My Apologies to the Mods for the long quote earlier - Here is the link to the page referenced in the quote.


Facts surrounding the Apollo missions. web site link here---> apollofacts.atspace.co.uk...

FACT: Pro Apollo Nutters persistantly state there are no scientist's in the world who refute the Apollo Moon landings. That is complete and utter balderdash, (which is to be expected of PAN's), because there are more scientist's who support the hoax theory, than those who refute it. To start off with here is a list of scientist's who support the Moon landing as being genuine. Prof Michael Brant Shermer, American. Prof Steven I. Dutch, American. Prof Brian Cox, British. Prof Harald Lesch, German. A grand total of 4.

Now here is a list of scientist's who support the Moon landing as a hoax. Prof Lawrence S. Pinsky, American. Prof James M. McCanney, American. Prof Luke Sargent, American. Prof Andre Balogh, British. Prof Colin Rourke, British. Prof Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski, Russian. Prof Takahiko Soejima, Japanese. Prof Li Zifeng, Chinese. Prof Federico Martín Maglio, Argentinian. That makes a grand total of 9. So the Moon hoax supporters are way out in front on 69% with Moon landing supporters way behind on 31%.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 

Very true,the same can be said about chemtrails and all the other internet myths and ridiculous urban legends that get propagated just because people don't understand even the most basic science that controls them.The fact that people take Jarrah White's so called "evidence" (a term I use VERY loosely) as gospel I find mind boggling.Some young guy in a flat in Melbourne (I think it's Melbourne anyway) trying to prove how flags flap about in low gravity and a vacuum is about as scientific as trying to prove the Higgs-Boson exists while sitting in Mc.Donalds using a Big Mac wrapper and couple of gherkins
.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by chrisb9
 

Statistics can be made to say or "prove" what ever you want them to.Did this asking of the scientists whether they believe the Apollo missions were a hoax or not include every single scientist in the world? If not then it can't be treated as an accurate representation of what they all think can it?
I could give a statistic like "20 men said they'd eat cat food" when the important bit that was missed out was "We asked the question to 20 men which they'd eat if given the choice of broken glass or cat food". So how does 9 scientists out of (insert guess here) in the whole world mean they're correct just because they don't believe something?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by chrisb9
 


James McCanney is a scientist now? www.jmccanneyscience.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


So to sum it up you're basically saying science and all those who practice it are wrong. Care to back that up in any way, shape or form? I know you can't, but I'm at least giving you the opportunity to try.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by golemina
 


So to sum it up you're basically saying science and all those who practice it are wrong. Care to back that up in any way, shape or form? I know you can't, but I'm at least giving you the opportunity to try.


My post seemed pretty clear.

My specific 'Science' example concise.

Is this (going to be ) your type of participation?

Rhetorical gymnastics?




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina


Dude... You are seriously long on rhetoric.

Your arguments are based on a boatload of hyperbole.

And finally you come across with 0% credibility as an impartial HONEST observer.


-----------

Brilliant Post Golemina, Although I think you hit them with more information and facts than their minds can process or even fathom at one time.

One must stop and realize that there are still Plenty of Brain Washed Mass's that still Believe Everything that Nasa tells them or puts out on the Boob Tube! Yes, I know it's really sad, but there are still some people left that still believe the Apollo Moon Missions actually happened. There are also, sadly to report still a few left in the world who Actually believe the " Official Story of 9/11 " too...

 


Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
edit on 1/23/2013 by Blaine91555 because: Big quote edited out.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ajmusicmedia
By the way, you do realize that the moon is so close that if there were a road, most cars would be able to drive right to it? Going there was brute force, period. The rockets did exist.


I'm not disagreeing with a lot of what you said, but this analogy is just bogus.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Imagewerx
 


reply to post by wmd_2008
 


no way, thank you both! I didn't know such things existed. I will dig into this tonight. thank you!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by chrisb9
 


So there is only a total of 13 scientist in the world?

Wow.

There are quite a few names missing from your list.

Make that many, many, MANY names missing from your list.

Let's see.....Colin Rourke......Colin Rourke.........

Oh yes, the Colin Rourke that published a paper entitled: "Hadley: a study in fakery" in which he claimed the photos from Apollo 15 were faked......a paper that he has since removed....especially once it was shown that he was wrong, due to errors in the topography map that he used, and because of how me measured the distances....

I seem to remember a video....

Yes, here it is from back in 2009:



Still I guess we should make sure we listen to Colin Rourke as he is one of only 13 scientist on the face of this planet according to you?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jessejamesxx
 


I think their analogy was more that the moon, being about 240,000 miles away would be within the distance a car could travel in its lifetime, I think we're all safe in assuming they weren't talking about the logistical possibility, they was just pointing out that the moon is close enough that it's not outside the realm of possibility that a car could drive that far.


jra

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Would you be able to address my previous post back on page 12 that was in regards to the compartmentalization? Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Would you be able to address my previous post back on page 12 that was in regards to the compartmentalization? Thanks in advance.


Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Now here is a list of scientist's who support the Moon landing as a hoax. Prof Lawrence S. Pinsky, American. Prof James M. McCanney, American. Prof Luke Sargent, American. Prof Andre Balogh, British. Prof Colin Rourke, British. Prof Krassimir Ivanov Ivandjiiski, Russian. Prof Takahiko Soejima, Japanese. Prof Li Zifeng, Chinese. Prof Federico Martín Maglio, Argentinian. That makes a grand total of 9. So the Moon hoax supporters are way out in front on 69% with Moon landing supporters way behind on 31%.


Dr David Grove notwithstanding.

Many anomalies exist in the 'data' put forward by NASA, and it is conjusive to the good of greater scientific knowledge to question them, and those suggesting it is wrong to ask such questions misunderstand the scientific method.

Science is not an absolute, it's in a constant state of flux, changing when bold men ask questions that suggest a deviation from the norm.

Advancement can only be achieved when a deviation from the norm occurs.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   




Neither I, Brandon, nor anybody else use shadow direction as an argument of Apollo irregularity, you're arguing a straw man.

As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Neither I, Brandon, nor anybody else use shadow direction as an argument of Apollo irregularity, you're arguing a straw man.

As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


Please cite a video that you can either link or embed for everyone to look at and see what you are talking about please.

Thanks.


jra

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.


Can you read my post and explain what you mean exactly?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.


Can you read my post and explain what you mean exactly?


It is my conclusion that the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized.






top topics



 
43
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join