Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by Un4g1v3n1


Welcome to the thread, and ATS. I would like to applaud your honesty in owning that you are the author of the videos you cited. For purposes of discussion, please try to provide a transcript of any relevant argument made on the videos in order to allow proper discussion.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, that cannot be found on the NOAA/NGDC server anymore...Hmmm....If anyone here can find the new location for the CFI listings please post it here in this thread or feel free to PM me.

There are several places where you can find the raw data, but this site is probably the most convenient for current purposes:

isgi.cetp.ipsl.fr...

Originally posted by CHRLZ
Rules are simple:
- all points must be agreed/conceded before proceeding
- only credible information from expert sources is admissable
- videos from anonymous Youtube users are not admissable
- videos from credible sources may be used, but only if they are properly cited and the points are made by way of 'screenshots' and annotations.
- handwaving and personal opinions are not allowed - claims must be measurable
- any ad hominem attacks will result in the appropriate action from moderators.
I agree in advance to all the rules. If you don't like any of them, explain why.

Problem you have here is, if the government has lied how can they be credible?
When can you say the government is telling the truth or if its its lying?
So who do you consider as expert sources?
Because Im assuming Apollo supporters would cite scientists, corporations & universities who are subsidized & contracted by the US government to validate their claims.

When one administration or regime lies, the following administrations continue the lie.

Lets talk about lying, suppressing information, and not sticking out your neck for the truth. Im going to pick a subject that occurred around the same time as the supposed moonlandings.

Sydney Schanberg, a former New York Times reporter who won a Pulitzer prize for his reporting from Cambodia that formed the basis for the Oscar-winning movie, The Killing Fields.

In recent years Schanberg has worked relentlessly on one of the great mysteries of the Vietnam War, one that still causes hundreds of American families enduring pain. Did the US government abandon American POWs in Vietnam?

Is Schanberg credible? Does he know his subject matter?

By 1990 there were so many stories, sightings, intelligence reports, of American POWs left behind in Vietnam after the war was over, that pressure from Vietnam vets and the families of the MIAs prompted the formation of a special committee of the US Senate to investigate. The chairman was John Kerry, a Navy man who had served in Vietnam. McCain, as a former POW, was its most pivotal member.

Are Kerry and McCain credible? They were very close to becoming US presidents.
Will a senate committee, headed by these men uncover the truth? My personal belief with these committees they are designed to obfuscate the truth. but OK moving on lets see what happened

In 1993, an American historian unearthed in Soviet archives the record of a briefing of a Vietnamese general to the Soviet politbureau. The briefing took place in 1973, right before the final peace agreement between the US and Hanoi. What the Vietnamese general told the Russians was that his government was intent on getting war reparations, $3.25 billion in reconstruction money, pledged by the US in peace negotiations headed on the US side by Henry Kissinger. The general told the Russians that Hanoi would hold back a large number of POWs until the money arrived. It seems the Vietnamese had successfully used the same tactic with the French, to elicit promised funds, after which POWs were transferred.

But Nixon and Kissinger had attached to the deal a codicil to the effect that the US Congress would have to approve the reparations – which the two knew was an impossibility in the political atmosphere of the time. Thus they effectively sealed the POWs fate. On signature of the 1973 treaty Hanoi released the names of 591 POWs scheduled to be returned. , At the time there was widespread consternation in the US – in the New York Times for example -- at the unexpectedly low number. In fact, as top official in the US government knew, about 600 POWs were being held back, against delivery of the promised $3.25 billion.

All of this was suppressed by the Kerry-McCain committee, with the complicity of the US press, enamored of both McCain and Kerry. McCain was particularly vicious in mocking what he and his press allies suggested were the fantasies of MIA families and Vietnam vets.

The the Senate Committee suppressed information to the public, who they serve, and even made them look like fools. How nice.

Lets see how the The Fourth Estate served the US public

Schanberg stigmatizes the indifference of the press:

“In recent years, I have offered my POW stories to a long list of editors of leading newspapers, magazines, and significant websites that do original reporting. And when they decline my offerings, I have urged them to do their own POW investigation with their own staff under their own supervision. The list of these news organizations includes the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, New York magazine, The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Harper’s, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, Vanity Fair, Salon, Slate, Talking Points Memo, ProPublica, Politico, and others. To my knowledge, none have attempted or produced a piece. Their explanations for avoiding the story have never rung true. … Some said they didn’t have enough staff to do the story. Others said the story was ‘old’ —even though we have never found out what happened to the missing prisoners. …

No help either. And this is not about some crazy "conspiracy theory" like moon landing or 911.
This is about US heroes, who have served their country but have been abandoned to torture and death. Sold out. This is how America takes care of her own? Then how can she be trusted?

Hopefully, the McCain election will bring this issue to the forefront, but will it last? Will justice be served in the face of all the available evidence?

But why did McCain lie?

In one of his two pieces in The American Conservative, titled 'McCain and the POW Cover-Up', Schanberg insinuates, without saying so directly, that the Pentagon blackmailed McCain to squelch the MIA hearings:

"Reportedly, he confessed to being a war criminal who had bombed civilian targets. The Pentagon has a copy of the confession but will not release it. Also, no outsider I know of has ever seen a non-redacted copy of the debriefing of McCain when he returned from captivity, which is classified but could be made public by McCain."

Can this nation's major newspapers and television networks sedulously refuse to discuss assertions that US servicemen were abandoned by their government? The answer is yes.

www.counterpunch.org...

So now you want me to trust Nazi run NASA?
Who lied about Global Warming?

Originally posted by FoosM
Problem you have here is, if the government has lied how can they be credible?
When can you say the government is telling the truth or if its its lying?
So who do you consider as expert sources?
Because Im assuming Apollo supporters would cite scientists, corporations & universities who are subsidized & contracted by the US government to validate their claims.

Problem you have here is that the facts can usually be verified by multiple sources. All paid, are they? What an obvious (and highly surprising ) copout. End of useful discussion. If you doubt everything, then there is nothing to debate.

Wear your alfoil hat with pride. Keep changing the subject, and avoid the challenge any way you can.

And I'll be reporting further ridiculously offtopic posts. I hope that one stays, simply to indicate how far your rantings go.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

reply to post by FoosM


My god your derailing your own thread i assume at this point your admitting defeat? We can talk about pows if you like but i hardly think its relevant.

reply to post by FoosM


Do you honestly not understand the difference between suppressing rumors and the wholesale manufacture of a planet wide hoax?

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
Problem you have here is, if the government has lied how can they be credible?
When can you say the government is telling the truth or if its its lying?
So who do you consider as expert sources?
Because Im assuming Apollo supporters would cite scientists, corporations & universities who are subsidized & contracted by the US government to validate their claims.

Problem you have here is that the facts can usually be verified by multiple sources. All paid, are they? What an obvious (and highly surprising

) copout. End of useful discussion. If you doubt everything, then there is nothing to debate.

Wear your alfoil hat with pride. Keep changing the subject, and avoid the challenge any way you can.

And I'll be reporting further ridiculously offtopic posts. I hope that one stays, simply to indicate how far your rantings go.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Oh its not off topic, it goes to show credibility. Why are you afraid of the truth?
And you asked the question:

"If you don't like any of them, explain why. "

So I explained why. So now your feeling are hurt and you want to go cry to mommy? You got a problem with my explanation, be clear what your problem is. You want to refute that administrations dont habitually lie, then show proof, as I did to the contrary.

Apollo landings happened during the Nixon presidency, if Nixon was a known liar
then how could we trust that his administration didnt perpetrate the hoax?
Everything is open to scrutiny when it comes to Apollo, from photographs to the cold war to the people behind it.

When people ask why there haven't been more people come forward about the apollo hoax. I explained why by using US POWs as an example. If the USGOV can lie about that, if News Reporters dont want to touch a subject, after 30-40 years, well that tells you how easy it has been to keep Apollo has a hoax going. And if you want to know about more long running hoaxes, try

Piltdown man:

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

Now imagine how long a hoax can run if its been carried out and backed by a government. So sorry Charlie, credibility is an issue when it comes to NASA and the administration.


Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?

Originally posted by FoosM


Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?

You were asked first for your best proof of a hoax, and you tried to change the subject. Now please start with that and we can then move on.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?

You were asked first for your best proof of a hoax, and you tried to change the subject. Now please start with that and we can then move on.

And I would respectfully ask that no one else be fooled into responding to this attempt by Foos to save face. He was asked directly to state the best proof of a hoax, without the crutch that is youtube, and defend it. He knows he can't do it so we get these long screeds rambling on about conspiracies.

Don't let him change the subject. He was asked a direct question and he needs to answer it.

How can Nasa after finding 'contamination' of water in the first moon mission then go another 5 times and fail to confirm it ?

Water was not important

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
I am delighted to see this website has highlighted the work of Jarrah White. Being a personal friend and fellow investigator into the Apollo project as well as other faked space missions prior to Apollo, I completely concur with the original assessment of originator of this thread.

Welcome onboard Un4g1v3n1.
You had made a video series regarding noise onboard the Apollo craft:



and we have
from 'When astronauts go wild'
Alan Bean and Eugene Cernan contradicted each other concerning being able to hear any engine noise whilse onboard the Apollo.

Sibrel: What was the power of the engine that descended to the Moon

Bean: The Rocket engine?

Sibrel: Yeah

Bean: The rocket engine we used to descend to the Moon was a very simple rocket engine. It operated at low pressure, so that it was like running your car at 30mph, not running your car like a race car. The engines we used to launch from Earth were like running your car at race car speeds, you know, so everything had to be just right, but we were interested in safety, paramount, right there. We didn’t have last minute checks we could do, we only had one engine, it couldn’t fail. So it ran at lower pressure and uhh, when you were in it you couldn’t hear it in the vacuum of space.



Sibrel: Was the engine loud as you were descending?

Cernan: Well the engine is very loud, it gets very difficult to tell the difference between feeling sound and hearing sound, but yes its loud.

Can you offer any other findings regarding this issue? How does this issue go towards establishing the hoax, and how have people tried to debunk it?

I love how skeptics seem to do always miss a point well defending NASA or even there trusted government sources.

Radioactive Moon
science.nasa.gov...

September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list. Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier. The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.

So it took NASA until 2005 to expose to us, that the moon has radiation, thus making it impossible for a recent moon mission to due exposure of radiation

This explains why there are have been no recent moon mission of any kind, speaking of which, if NASA so trust worthy why dont they send a drone like the one on mars to check the moon??


If NASA doesn't have anything to hide.

news.discovery.com...

heres some more for your information, funny how they always add those image from the 1950s with high head lighting exposed down.



If NASA doesn't have anything to hide, why are they always sending back with false data?



One more thing, the astronauts that claim they landed on the moon, look preferably healthy almost like they never landed on the moon, all astronauts.

Who do any space missions, will experience health problems.


one image showing the extent of the exposure of radiation.
www.ahrq.gov...

NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.

NASA owns words.


[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I love how skeptics seem to do always miss a point well defending NASA or even there trusted government sources.

Radioactive Moon
science.nasa.gov...
So it took NASA until 2005 to expose to us, that the moon has radiation, thus making it impossible for a recent moon mission to due exposure of radiation

And I love how hoax believers come across information they've never seen, and sounds scary (neutron radiation......scary) and assumes it is automatically true and doesn't bother to look into it any further...

And you obviously never read the article becuase it makes a differentiation between short stays (like, you know, Apollo), and the longer missions planned in the future. But of course that would require reading the whole article, not just the scary quotes.

Here is a report (posted on this thread multiple times) that discusses radiation, including the dreaded neutron radiation, from 1969:

Neutron Exposure to Lunar Astronauts

If NASA doesn't have anything to hide, why are they always sending back with false data?

Of course, the fact that the poster is using NASA information to make his point is completely lost on him.

Don't you people ever think???

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
I love how skeptics...

Perhaps, "Agent", you should read threads thoroughly to enure you don't repeat EMBARRASSING 'mistakes'.

Coz, you know that thread you carefully quoted.. - how is it that you left out this part:

"We really need to know more about the radiation environment on the Moon, especially if people will be staying there for more than just a few days," says Harlan Spence, a professor of astronomy at Boston University.

That is a very clear reference to Apollo and the fact that the type of radiation damage is largely recoverable and non-cumulative, hence the fact that apart from a slight increase in old-age cataracts, the Apollo astronauts were largely unaffected.

Funny how you left that bit out... Every other Apollo denier seems to do the same thing... Coincidence, I guess.

A cynical person might suggest that you are deliberately misleading the forum, but I wouldn't. Oh no.

Originally posted by FoosM
And you asked the question:
"If you don't like any of them, explain why. "

And you gave a copout that clearly and unequivocally means that you will never accept any source. Oh, except Youtube loonies trying to get advertising revenue...

When people ask why there haven't been more people come forward about the apollo hoax. I explained why by using..

..an example of some things that were busted? Things that don't involve an enormous, publicly accessible and complete historical record, including a huge body of photographic and video evidence, all scrutinised in immense detail by the entire, worldwide scientific and engineering community.. Events that involved hundreds of thousands of participants, the majority of whom were technically trained/qualified? Not to mention the number of witnesses of many aspects... Not to mention the returned regolith, not to mention... etc..

You can't spot the difference?

I rest my case. That pretty much sums up your powers of observation, and your logic processes.

Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?

Not by your standards of 'irrefutability'.

But YOU were asked to cite YOUR favorite irrefutable proof that man didn't land on the moon.

And you ran away from that, as fast as you can.

As for me, I *can* cite irrefutable proof (for the majority of folks on this forum), but YOU don't want to go there, do you?

Why don't you just admit that you are afraid of the result?

I mean, if your proof is 'better', that will be shown during the discussion, won't it?

Was finding 'water' on the moon not a priority ?

how could they miss it 6 times ?

Originally posted by nonamoose7
Was finding 'water' on the moon not a priority ?

how could they miss it 6 times ?

Where, exactly, was this water they recently found?

Ever notice how long it takes for HBs to reply to questions?

It's almost like they don't know what they're talking about.

Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and gave each other a star , for your attacks.



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and started each other, for your attacks.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Pity doesn't work here, sparky. You make a false statement, you're going to get smacked. The reason we both "attacked" you (really? attacked? are you that pathetic?), is because your "proof" has been debunked on this thread multiple times already.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and started each other, for your attacks.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]

Pity doesn't work here, sparky. You make a false statement, you're going to get smacked. The reason we both "attacked" you (really? attacked? are you that pathetic?), is because your "proof" has been debunked on this thread multiple times already.

You really believe LRO is your best proof of the moon landing was real? Rolf! your laughably

debunked? nope it wasn't debunked



[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]