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

page: 24
43
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I meant it kinda sarcastic to appeasse the people that think this guy actually debunked anything.

He does seem to know more about films than I do though.




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Flawless logic there. Cant be an expert on techniques used 10 years before.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I meant it kinda sarcastic to appeasse the people that think this guy actually debunked anything.

He does seem to know more about films than I do though.


But as you admittedly know little about the films how can you confirm that what he says is factual? *cue X-files tune*



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians directly attached/seconded to the Apollo program, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: edit
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: more edits



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Flawless logic there. Cant be an expert on techniques used 10 years before.


Well, he over emphasises his 3 decade 'experience' as if to say he was familiar and exposed to Apollo era tech...fact is he worked in the industry since 1982, the tech he would have been using is 10 years more advanced.

The claim he has 30 years experience adds zero to his validity ( note...I don't claim it detracts from such, merely that it is actually quite a redundant and vacuous addition).



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians attached to the Apollo programming, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.


Link, please.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Well, he over emphasises his 3 decade 'experience' as if to say he was familiar and exposed to Apollo era tech...fact is he worked in the industry since 1982, the tech he would have been using is 10 years more advanced.


And even ten years later, with better tech, it could not be duplicated.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Well, he over emphasises his 3 decade 'experience' as if to say he was familiar and exposed to Apollo era tech...fact is he worked in the industry since 1982, the tech he would have been using is 10 years more advanced.


And even ten years later, with better tech, it could not be duplicated.


An anecdotal and unsubstantiated blurb.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 





But as you admittedly know little about the films how can you confirm that what he says is factual? *cue X-files tune*


Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I explained my choice of words, I never said that what he says was factual, I said he seems to know more about film than me.

The whole point, again, of my post was to point out that his whole "debunking" is worthless. Why are you trying to put some sort of label on me?


And btw, this guy reminds me of that dr. Sal guy, feels like the same type of disinformation project.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians attached to the Apollo programming, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.


Link, please.


No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 





But as you admittedly know little about the films how can you confirm that what he says is factual? *cue X-files tune*


Dude, you are barking up the wrong tree here. I explained my choice of words, I never said that what he says was factual, I said he seems to know more about film than me.

The whole point, again, of my post was to point out that his whole "debunking" is worthless. Why are you trying to put some sort of label on me?


And btw, this guy reminds me of that dr. Sal guy, feels like the same type of disinformation project.


No, I agree with what you say, I was trying to add a little humour, hence the laughing smiley. I guess humour doesn't travel very well by fibre optics!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:56 AM
link   
30 years plus experience in a field does not always negate knowledge of the field's history, and devices used prior to that.

If that were true, my almost 30 years in the field of electricity and electronics, means that anything prior to a certain year I don't know about.

Utter bunk.

In order to be an expert in a field you have to know the history of it, and how the things you work with now, came to be from what they were.

Care to point out how many vacuum tubes are used in today's electronics? Yet it's required learning.

Trying to say that someone that started out in filmography and videography in 1982 means that they can not understand anything or any equipment that was used prior to that has to be THE worst argument I have ever heard in my life.

It's like saying if I bought a fully refurbushed Model-T Ford, there is no way I could drive it, nor understand how the car works, because I didn't learn to drive and get my drivers license prior to 1983.

Bunk.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Well, it didn't help that the humour wasn't really called for in the context of our conversation. It was a bit confusing.

But let's agree to agree.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians attached to the Apollo programming, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.


Link, please.


No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link.


Wow, what a lovely hoaxer tactic. I'll make a claim that isn't in any way factual, then when asked to provide proof I'll decline. Either provide a link or admit you were lying.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians attached to the Apollo programming, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.


Link, please.


No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link.


Wow, what a lovely hoaxer tactic. I'll make a claim that isn't in any way factual, then when asked to provide proof I'll decline. Either provide a link or admit you were lying.


Agreed.

This is not the Skunk Works or Grey Matter forum. This is the Space Exploration forum.

As such, if you make a claim, you need to back it up.

If you can't back it up, your credibility goes to zero.

Please provide the link to the info.



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

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



Have you seen the 2 hour+ documentary featuring Kodak and hasselblad technicians attached to the Apollo programming, they concur there is 'evidence' that doesn't add up. It's made by a bunch of experts and scientists. Good viewing.


Link, please.


No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link.


Wow, what a lovely hoaxer tactic. I'll make a claim that isn't in any way factual, then when asked to provide proof I'll decline. Either provide a link or admit you were lying.



No, incorrect.

I simply don't like your tone or attitude and thus I decline your communications. The video is all too very real and I'll PM the link to atomicwedgy101 in due course, as I'm sure they'll confirm if they so wish.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Same applies to you:


No, incorrect.

I simply don't like your tone or attitude and thus I decline your communications. The video is all to very real and I'll PM the link to atomicwedgy101 in due course, as I'm sure they'll confirm if they so wish.

No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Same applies to you:


No, incorrect.

I simply don't like your tone or attitude and thus I decline your communications. The video is all to very real and I'll PM the link to atomicwedgy101 in due course, as I'm sure they'll confirm if they so wish.

No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link


If you had wish to have a private convo with someone, then you should not have posted it in a thread.

Period.

Yes you can reply specifically to someone on a public thread. However, when you make a claim, then refuse to back it up, you make yourself look very, very bad around here.

Your replies smack of immaturity. Your credibility has completely dropped below zero now.

Don't like my tone? Then report me. Go ahead I'll wait.

However, you are the one that is stonewalling and derailing the thread.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by AtomicWedgy101
 


Yep, agreed


This thread is a pure echo chamber, a place where the 'debunkers' come to stroke their egos, 'starring' each others posts and dog piling on people who ask legitimate Qns...a classic tactic is for them to deny/ignore any data/evidence you put forward, then they go on to say "you haven't cited you remarks" (knowing full well you have, and that they're ignoring it), whilst simultaneously providing zero citations for their own claims.

I simply choose not to engage them, it's a blatant close minded discussion with individuals who have made up their minds prior to hearing all you arguments or seeing all the data.

Nb. Another tactic they can use is 'consensus truth', as we sceptics/open minds are comprehensively outnumbered in this thread.

Confirmation biases abound!
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: edits



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Same applies to you:


No, incorrect.

I simply don't like your tone or attitude and thus I decline your communications. The video is all to very real and I'll PM the link to atomicwedgy101 in due course, as I'm sure they'll confirm if they so wish.

No, sorry, don't think so. I was specifically addressing atomic wedgy 101, I'll pm them the link


If you had wish to have a private convo with someone, then you should not have posted it in a thread.

Period.

Yes you can reply specifically to someone on a public thread. However, when you make a claim, then refuse to back it up, you make yourself look very, very bad around here.

Your replies smack of immaturity. Your credibility has completely dropped below zero now.

Don't like my tone? Then report me. Go ahead I'll wait.

However, you are the one that is stonewalling and derailing the thread.


No, I was willing to post it here initially, but after encountering your bullying and close minded attitude I have since chosen not to.
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: edited



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
30 years plus experience in a field does not always negate knowledge of the field's history, and devices used prior to that.

If that were true, my almost 30 years in the field of electricity and electronics, means that anything prior to a certain year I don't know about.

Utter bunk.

In order to be an expert in a field you have to know the history of it, and how the things you work with now, came to be from what they were.

Care to point out how many vacuum tubes are used in today's electronics? Yet it's required learning.

Trying to say that someone that started out in filmography and videography in 1982 means that they can not understand anything or any equipment that was used prior to that has to be THE worst argument I have ever heard in my life.

It's like saying if I bought a fully refurbushed Model-T Ford, there is no way I could drive it, nor understand how the car works, because I didn't learn to drive and get my drivers license prior to 1983.

Bunk.


No, that wasn't my argument, but please don't let this stop your excellent story telling





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join