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.
So... I remain open minded. And you should stop hating Jarrah so much...
Because no-one has ever repeated the feat. And independant photographic evidence of the LM on the moon just doesn't exist in a resolution high enough to believe.
But I'll believe they didn't go there when I see REAL proof..
You would think there would be one undeniable piece of proof, especially given this was the late 60's..
But that hasn't happened as yet..
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by manmental
So... I remain open minded. And you should stop hating Jarrah so much...
I thought you were skeptical... you know, questioning everything? Your trust in Jarrah is commendable. Why don't you trust mean old NASA in the same pure hearted way?
Originally posted by Facefirst
Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by nataylor
Other nations such as India and Japan have confirmed some of the NASA landing sites.
Why would they lie?
DJ... you love putting words in others mouths don't you?
I never said I was skeptical, I used the phrase 'open minded'... but I'm not surprised you don't know what that means.
It is good to doubt and question.
As for stating I 'trust' Jarrah... dude... you invented that. I never said anything like that.
I think Jarrah is an intelligent and sincere individual and I really enjoy his videos.
He has almost convinced me we didn't go to the moon.
Very sad. But, like I say, not too surprising... given your zealous attitude to defending all things NASA.
I have a healthy doubt about any outlandish claims from Government sponsered bodies, hence me doubting NASA being truthful all the time.
1hoax verb \ˈhōks\
Definition of HOAX
transitive verb
: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
— hoax·er noun
Originally posted by manmental
Originally posted by Facefirst
Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by nataylor
Other nations such as India and Japan have confirmed some of the NASA landing sites.
Why would they lie?
Hiya Face,
Are you referring to the even more blurry photos than the NASA ones? How are they confirmation of anything at all? Unless you really want to see the LM in those photos. I see blobs and artifacts.
But while you are here Face... do you think there is a possibility that NASA faked some of the Lunar photos?
Does an atheist have the right to call a priest a hoaxer because the atheist doesn't believe the beliefs the priest has?
Did you ever stop to think that Jarrah might actually believe what he preaches and therefore he is just doing his best, or worst, depending on the side of the fence you are on, to give credence for his BELIEFS.
He may make mistakes and/or embellish details but if HE truly believes them then who the hell are you or I or anyone else to call him a hoaxer.
Are you religious/ spiritual by the way?
Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Tomblvd
I didn't say NASA had doctored photos 'without making note of such'.... you said that. Putting words into my mouth.
I just said NASA has a history of doctoring and enhancing photos.
Example here about the classic Buzz Aldrin photo which was cropped and enhanced (adding the space above his head and not adding the back pack antenna, thus faking something).
"The simple answer is that when Neil took the original photograph, AS11-40-5903, the top of Buzz's OPS was at the top edge of the field-of-view and, therefore, that the original image necessarily does not include the antenna. When the image was prepared for release for publication soon after the mission, it was cropped at the bottom and sides and a black area was added at the top to give the released version visual balance."
So, according to your arguments against Jarrah... because NASA admits to doctoring some photos there is no reason why they haven't doctored all, and probably decieved us about other things too.
As for Jarrah's most compelling reason why men didn't go the moon... I'm afraid I can't pick one. There are lots I like.
All I can offer you is the reason I myself have major doubts.
Because no-one has ever repeated the feat. And independant photographic evidence of the LM on the moon just doesn't exist in a resolution high enough to believe.
So... I remain open minded. And you should stop hating Jarrah so much...
I ask because you had no trouble believing that China fired a missile off the coast of California a few months ago, despite all the evidence to the contrary. You fell for that media hoax, why are you "skeptical" about the Moon landings?
But I'll believe they didn't go there when I see REAL proof..
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by backinblack
Sorry, you're right. It somehow registered as a double negative in my brain,
It's an unlikely marriage between state-of-the-art and 40-year-old technology that has yielded extraordinary results.
Signals from seismic sensors left on the lunar surface by Apollo astronauts in 1971 have revealed that the Moon has a liquid core similar to Earth's.
Scientists at Nasa applied contemporary seismological techniques to the data being emitted from sensors placed by their colleagues during the U.S. space program's heyday.
Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... #ixzz1AODmkHBt