Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
[
And had some Apollo astronaut aimed some camera skyward and taken some picture with stars in it what would likely be the HB'er claim ?
So I find the whole "they should have taken pics to prove to me that they were there" bleating to ring just a tad hollow.

You've got a point, it would probably take more than photos of stars to convince many skeptics that the missions were not faked. But it would have been a good start.

Originally posted by FoosM
And yes, a once in a lifetime opportunity and they didnt take photos of the heavens as part of the moon, as in using it as a perspective of being there. They bothered to take photos of the Earth, they could have bothered to do stars as well. And if it was an issue of over exposing the land vs the stars, they could have used split filters.

Let me see if I understand your position. You think they should have mounted a split filter and high speed film so as to take picture or two or three of the Moon w/stars in the background. And then reloaded the film, removed the filter so as to go about the rest of their photographic duties. They should have done this to provide more "proof" that they were there for a hoax theory that hadn't been invented yet, more proof than the other photos and video and film and rocks and measurements that they made. And this seems reasonable to you ?

Just as an aside, let me play at counterfactual history for a moment. So let's have an astronaut do all the above and a beautiful picture of the Moon against a backdrop of stars is published in Time. Fast forward to today and it's a sure thing, based on past history, the JW would have pooped out another video showing how the dynamic range of the film available would not have been able to record both the Moon's surface and faint stars at the same time and therefore NASA has doctored said photo and therefore Apollo was a hoax.

reply to post by FoosM

You've got a point, it would probably take more than photos of stars to convince many skeptics that the missions were not faked. But it would have been a good start.

Does this count?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75c5cbfe160c.jpg[/atsimg]

The Earth, photographed in far-ultraviolet light (1304 angstroms) by astronaut John W. Young, Apollo 16 commander, with the ultraviolet camera. The auroral belts 13° on either side of the magnetic equator can be seen crossing each other on the middle of the right side of Earth.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Of course, we've been over the Apollo 16 UV telescope at least twice before on this thread. Why do you keep pretending to be ignorant of everything that has gone before? Do you honestly think some newbie will blunder onto this thread and think that you are making an original point?

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
[
And had some Apollo astronaut aimed some camera skyward and taken some picture with stars in it what would likely be the HB'er claim ?
So I find the whole "they should have taken pics to prove to me that they were there" bleating to ring just a tad hollow.

You've got a point, it would probably take more than photos of stars to convince many skeptics that the missions were not faked. But it would have been a good start.

And why should those skeptics' opinions be worth a two hoots? They're the vast, vast minority, and there are always people who disagree with even proven facts. I know, I know, you're about to post about how "the scientists"--every scientist for forty years, apparently--have more to gain from staying silent, so they would stay silent. Problem is, even if this were true, it would only come into play if the conspiracy were true. It's circular logic. Remaining silent is also explainable by there simply being no hoax, instead of an institutional conspiracy among communities which can't even agree on who gets parking spaces, much less willingly avoiding fame and fortune for decades.

Also, you said "a start". This seems like it would lead to moving the goalposts, especially when pictures of stars have been produced and were ignored or handwaved by HBs.

Hello again threadsters

From time to time some NASA cheerleaders will try to make the argument that goes like this:

"thousands of people were involved with Apollo program..."
"if the Apollo moon landing were a hoax somebody would have blown the whistle..."
"if the Apollo moon landing were a hoax the Russians would have spilled the beans..."

Now I give you a highly credible source which contradicts and cancels that argument.

Source: www.washingtonsblog.com...
2nd Source: www.dailykos.com...

It is a commonplace that "you can't keep secrets in Washington" or "in a democracy," that "no matter how sensitive the secret, you're likely to read it the next day in the New York Times." These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn't in a fully totalitarian society. Bureaucratic rivalries, especially over budget shares, lead to leaks. Moreover, to a certain extent the ability to keep a secret for a given amount of time diminishes with the number of people who know it. As secret keepers like to say, "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.
--Daniel Ellsberg
Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders. :LOL:

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Just as an aside, let me play at counterfactual history for a moment. So let's have an astronaut do all the above and a beautiful picture of the Moon against a backdrop of stars is published in Time. Fast forward to today and it's a sure thing, based on past history, the JW would have pooped out another video showing how the dynamic range of the film available would not have been able to record both the Moon's surface and faint stars at the same time and therefore NASA has doctored said photo and therefore Apollo was a hoax.

You are attributing motives and actions to Jarrah White which :

1. You created out of whole cloth.
2. To further your strawman fallacy.
3. In the pursuit of your NASA cheerleading.

You cannot attribute motives to Jarrah White. This is not allowed in a fair debate. We can only render our opinions on his videos and his research.

You are outside the bounds of logic and your argument is seriously weakened when you do this.

"pooped"

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by lestweforget

 

In other words, there is no possible way you're wrong.

Thank you for exposing your utter lack of objectivity and falsifiability.

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
What's stupefying is how you persist in posting that because someone doesn't do what you think they should, that's somehow evidence of a hoax.

I especially liked when he said that the guys wouldn't have pooped in a bag because he wouldn't poop in a bag.

NASA cheerleaders referring to "poop" in different instances is a sure indicator that these same NASA cheerleaders can't, won't and fail to bring logic to the debate. "POOP" indeed!!

"POOP" is not a valid argument against Jarrah White videos!

000063 is losing credibility because he is quoting the "poop" from a fellow NASA cheerleader. That is not a debate, it's "poop" slinging at it's best.

I'm pretty sure NASA faked the moon landings with the help of Hollywood and with the coordination of a few key insiders (CIA Langley, ex-Nazis at NASA and American neo-Nazi power mongers, i.e., LBJ and RMN).

In the historical context of 1964 we can already see that USA citizenry were EASILY duped by the Gulf of Tonkin " gunboat attack" and this resulted in more than 50,000 servicemen deaths in Viet Nam over the span of 10 years.

If YOU (000063 and MacTheKnife) can't understand the 1960's as a decade of turmoil and upheaval then you are perhaps NOT QUALIFIED to comment on the Apollo program, the Cold War, Nixon, or the subsequent loss of.... the original Apollo tapes which contained the telemetry data which, IF we had this data TODAY, this valuable data could conceivably prove or disprove the reality of Apollo moon landings once and for all.

Of course the NASA cheerleaders will come up with another "poop" argument. I'm pretty sure of that, too.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


In the historical context of 1964 we can already see that USA citizenry were EASILY duped by the Gulf of Tonkin " gunboat attack" and this resulted in more than 50,000 servicemen deaths in Viet Nam over the span of 10 years.

Is that it !

There is real evidence they have have been but like I have said before YOU GUYS wont except any of it and I repeat even if you were taken to see it first hand you would claim that had somehow been faked

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter


In the historical context of 1964 we can already see that USA citizenry were EASILY duped by the Gulf of Tonkin " gunboat attack" and this resulted in more than 50,000 servicemen deaths in Viet Nam over the span of 10 years.

Is that it !

There is real evidence they have have been but like I have said before YOU GUYS wont except any of it and I repeat even if you were taken to see it first hand you would claim that had somehow been faked

If the average American (and Congress!) in 1964 believed that a couple of NV gun boats posed a grave threat to the USA then that same American would readily accept... the Viet Nam draft, 65,000 dead American servicemen and 10 years of f###ing hell on Earth. They would also accept the Hollywood fantasy of landing on the moon in 1969.

My estimation is that you don't know anything about how propaganda works and you underestimated the abillity of the average American to believe a totally fabricated lie.

The fact is that you are not here to defend NASA or the Apollo program. YOU are here to personally defend YOUR OWN personal belief system which is biased toward the official NASA story.

Where are the original telemetry tapes? Oh yeah, they got deleted. NASA deleted them all by their own admission. It's very convenient, isnt it?

Greatest human accomplishment of ALL TIME. WTF? NASA deletes the tapes. Why? They needed those tapes for something else? budget saving measures? NASA's budget was virtually unlimited in the 1960-'s so the rationale for re-purposing the tapes is a complete lie and fabrication.

Ex-Apollo astronauts are selling their Apollo issued sunglasses at auction sales for a personal profit and you still believe (like a 1964 believer) that everything NASA says or prints is the truth.

wmd_2008 let me ask you a real question. Did you believe that there were WMD in Iraq in 2003?

WMD's has nothing to do with this. You present opinions against facts that have been proven over and over again. Doesn't matter how many times you repeat these opinions that does not make them facts.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

You are attributing motives and actions to Jarrah White which :

1. You created out of whole cloth.
2. To further your strawman fallacy.
3. In the pursuit of your NASA cheerleading.

You cannot attribute motives to Jarrah White. This is not allowed in a fair debate. We can only render our opinions on his videos and his research.

You are outside the bounds of logic and your argument is seriously weakened when you do this.

On the other hand, Moon Hoax propagandists attribute motives and actions to NASA which:

1. You created out of whole cloth.
2. To further your strawman fallacy.
3. In pursuit of America bashing.

You cannot attribute attribute motives to NASA or the United States of America. This is not allowed in a fair debate. We can only render our opinions on the historical record.

You are outside the bounds of logic and your argument is seriously weakened when you do this.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
Just as an aside, let me play at counterfactual history for a moment. So let's have an astronaut do all the above and a beautiful picture of the Moon against a backdrop of stars is published in Time. Fast forward to today and it's a sure thing, based on past history, the JW would have pooped out another video showing how the dynamic range of the film available would not have been able to record both the Moon's surface and faint stars at the same time and therefore NASA has doctored said photo and therefore Apollo was a hoax.

You are attributing motives and actions to Jarrah White which :
1. You created out of whole cloth.
2. To further your strawman fallacy.
3. In the pursuit of your NASA cheerleading.
You cannot attribute motives to Jarrah White. This is not allowed in a fair debate. We can only render our opinions on his videos and his research.

You are outside the bounds of logic and your argument is seriously weakened when you do this.

"pooped"

Originally posted by FoosM

 

 

Wait a second, posting a video about Jarrah White discussing the moon hoax on a thread about Jarrah White and the moon hoax is now off topic?

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by MacTheKnife
[
And had some Apollo astronaut aimed some camera skyward and taken some picture with stars in it what would likely be the HB'er claim ?
So I find the whole "they should have taken pics to prove to me that they were there" bleating to ring just a tad hollow.

You've got a point, it would probably take more than photos of stars to convince many skeptics that the missions were not faked. But it would have been a good start.

And why should those skeptics' opinions be worth a two hoots?

Well considering that there are thousands of engineers, scientists, politicians, first responders, etc all questioning and demanding an investigation into 9/11, shows me that it doesn't matter how many scientists, engineers would come out to question the moon landing, the US and NASA would not admit to it. And neither those that defend the "official" 9/11 story on forums, etc. People take sides and for whatever reasons will go down with the ship defending the side they are on.

If NASA can prove, via third party evidence, or by pointing a telescope to the moon for anyone to be able to see the LM and Rover, etc, on the moon. Then I would say the moon landings were real. Till that day, I'll stay skeptical because the evidence that NASA has provided is suspect at best.

Originally posted by FoosM
If NASA can prove, via third party evidence, or by pointing a telescope to the moon for anyone to be able to see the LM and Rover, etc, on the moon. Then I would say the moon landings were real. Till that day, I'll stay skeptical because the evidence that NASA has provided is suspect at best.

Well the LRO team has temporarily lowered the orbiter to 20km in altitude and they will take images of the Apollo sites. One should expect some image blurring due to the lowered altitude and increased speed of the orbiter. Either way, it should be interesting.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

If the average American (and Congress!) in 1964 believed that a couple of NV gun boats posed a grave threat to the USA then that same American would readily accept... the Viet Nam draft, 65,000 dead American servicemen and 10 years of f###ing hell on Earth. They would also accept the Hollywood fantasy of landing on the moon in 1969.

My estimation is that you don't know anything about how propaganda works and you underestimated the abillity of the average American to believe a totally fabricated lie.

Just look at whats happening with LIBYA.
How many times die Gaddafi flee his country?
How many times did this sons get captured, arrested or killed?

Are people really willing to defend the main stream media?
Ron Paul? Who is he?
And if they dont trust it now, why trust it back in the 1960's?

Government has always lied. And uses the media to spread those lies.

Angry post, that, upon reflection, is better off removed.

reply to post by FoosM

Well considering that there are thousands of engineers, scientists, politicians, first responders, etc all questioning and demanding an investigation into 9/11, shows me that it doesn't matter how many scientists, engineers would come out to question the moon landing, the US and NASA would not admit to it.

Consider the implications of your argument. Thousands of engineers, scientists and politicians are tacitly accusing the government of slaughtering its own people on 9/11, yet there are no reprisals. Meanwhile, no engineer, scientist or politician (save Fidel Castro, Chavez, Ahmadinajad and the usual suspects) seem to find anything wrong with the moon landings. What does that tell you?