Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

reply to post by FoosM


the MSM has reported what it has been told - in this part of the world, at least, reports from Libya have almost always been prefaced with "Rebel sources say...", and often include "no independant verification couldbe obtained" or words to that effect.

So what would be inaccurate about reporting that rebel sources had said something if they had said something??

And why is it at all relevant?

all people pss on incorrect information from time to time - not just the Govt.

you are pretty good at it, as an example to hand.

The point about knowing that something is false is that you can actually point to good information - better information usually - than the original source, to show why the originalsource is false.

You have singularly failed to do so - this whole thread - almost 550 pages - is founded on a silly report that JW was "whipping" NASA when that was rubbish in the first place, then you & others have managed to drag it out with example after example showing you do not actually know what you are looking at or writing about.

It has been explained to you all in excruciating details where you are wrong - but rather than accept your human failings you have decided that your need to believe in this hoax is more important than your need to behave like a rational and intelligent human being.

And it continues now with you saying that reports of Qadaffi's capture are somehow good evidence that the moon landings never happened - it's par for the course for CT's in general really.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


CTs do tend to subscribe to multiple theories.

Originally posted 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.

There are over a million engineers employed in the US as of 2009, with more in training. Those "thousands" (1,500) of architects and engineers in AE911Truth represent, collectively, only 0.1% of their professions in the US alone. Except that they include things like software engineers, so the numbers go even farther up. And more when you include the global numbers. Don't make me include the numbers of firemen, paramedics, and cops, as this will only worsen your argument.

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.

Stop projecting. I use JREF, and there's a guy who says he used to be a Truther. And I've actually checked the archives, and he was. Here's a hoax believer who changed his mind, just to bring this back on topic.

Also, the amount of people who do or do not believe in a given theory does not confer legitimacy.

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.

To you. Suspect to you. And you are not a scientist. You're not a dietician. You're not a photographer. You're not an engineer. You're not an astronomer. You don't even have very good grammar. Your opinion, and those of your ilk, is the overwhelming minority, contradicted by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Oh, and you quote-mined again. If you're just joining us, he does this all the time.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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...

[words]

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders. :LOL:

So you have an Argument from Ignorance.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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!!

I believe it was FoosM who bought up the matter of the astronauts...waste disposal.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

"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.

No, I'm paraphrasing FoosM. He argued that the astronaut's would not have have pooped in bags, or sat in their own mess for extended periods.

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).

And I'm sure the landings were genuine.

The difference is, I have forty years of scientific examination backing me.

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.

In other words, you're arguing that because one deception was made, that another, much, much more complex deception could've been successfully planned, initiated, and pulled off,

That's like arguing that because I had McDonald's for lunch today, I could be having Room Service at the Four Seasons tomorrow. Because they're both food, right?

Also, that incident, according to some, was a simple bit of butt-covering that escalated into a war. Incompetence, not malice.

If YOU (000063 and MacTheKnife) can't understand the 1960's as a decade of turmoil and upheaval

That has absolutely no relevance to proving whether the landings were faked or not. At the very best, it merely speaks to motive.

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.

Why? You've not found any of the other data acceptable. Why, if this one were produced, would you not pick over it for "anomalies" and declare it faked?

An entirely rhetorical question, BTW. Here's another one; what makes you so much more qualified, able to unilaterally declare what makes others qualified?

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

I said already, that was FoosM, whom you apparently share a level of reading comprehension skills. Speaking of skills, let's look at his shadow analysis;

Originally posted by DJW001
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?

Tells me that if people had access to the internet back in the 60's - 70's the moon landing would have been debated from day 1. And these debates would have spilled over to discussions in academia and political circles world wide.

There would have been more of a push to include third parties (possibly instruments made by other countries to verify for scientific purposes and to verify the missions) & generally for independent scientists to be more closely involved in the moon landing as this was discussed earlier:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7bc86e950232.gif[/atsimg]
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May 1963, Report on Space Programs

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by FoosM

 

the MSM has reported what it has been told - in this part of the world, at least, reports from Libya have almost always been prefaced with "Rebel sources say...", and often include "no independant verification couldbe obtained" or words to that effect.

Sorry, but thats not real journalism. And you just bolstered why I said that the Government uses MSM to spread lies and disinformation. If you cant accept this by now, then I dont know what to tell you. It is this reason that you should not blindly accept that claims made by any government without fact checking. Government has told you fluoride is safe in drinking water, though we are warned not to swallow toothpaste, Carbon dioxide is deadly, though its a normal part of nature, etc. And most of these lies are intended as an excuses to take the money out of your pockets. Well NASA and the Apollo program grabbed much money out of peoples pockets. Where's my electric dune buggy?

Originally posted by 000063
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

CTs do tend to subscribe to multiple theories.

And a majority of those theories are based on facts, and have later proven to be correct.

Originally posted by 000063
Those "thousands" (1,500) of architects and engineers in AE911Truth represent, collectively, only 0.1% of their professions in the US alone. Don't make me include the numbers of firemen, paramedics, and cops, as this will only worsen your argument.

Maybe you need a million people to tell you something is wrong when its wrong. But I dont.
When the top demolitions expert says a building is being imploded by bombs. How many more people do you need to verify his observations to your own observations? If takes more than a thousand, you probably have to consider yourself officially brainwashed.

Also, the amount of people who do or do not believe in a given theory does not confer legitimacy.

Now what are you saying? You changed your mind to your above argument?

To you. Suspect to you. And you are not a scientist. You're not a dietician. You're not a photographer. You're not an engineer. You're not an astronomer. You don't even have very good grammar. Your opinion, and those of your ilk, is the overwhelming minority, contradicted by anyone who actually knows what they're talking about.

So now you know what I do for a living? No wonder you believe in moon landings. LOL.

If you're just joining us, he does this all the time.

Stay tuned for more

Originally posted by FoosM

And a majority of those theories are based on facts, and have later proven to be correct.

Funny mentality these hb's have. I have not seen a single thread of solid evidence against the moon landing vs. a mountain to support it. What exactly has been proven correct? Post a few?

Maybe you need a million people to tell you something is wrong when its wrong. But I dont.
When the top demolitions expert says a building is being imploded by bombs. How many more people do you need to verify his observations to you own observations? If takes more than a thousand, you probably have to consider yourself officially brainwashed.

One top expert guy vs. how many who don't agree? One guy who all we know could be incompetent or cookoo in his head? When the numbers start to go up I'd check what they have to say.

So now you know what I do for a living? No wonder you believe in moon landings. LOL.

As a professional photographer I can testify that you have shown complete and total lack of understanding of the very basics of photography. So at least we can say for sure that you are not one or you're just trolling these forums.

This debate is amazing how far its gotten. There's an easy way to solve this, just have amateur astronomers find the moon landings through expensive telescopes (probably not possible), and end the debate. If they left the things up there, they will exist and it did happen. However, if it is wrapped in a lot of stuff in order to elude people, its sort of the 'you went to that sort of lengths, really? oookkk'

Originally posted by 000063

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
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...

[words]

Read it and weep NASA cheerleaders. :LOL:

So you have an Argument from Ignorance.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

Yeah, thats why I cut out the rest of your post

SayonaraJupiter has come up with a good counter argument to the following silly excuses:

The federal government can't keep small secrets from the public most of the time. For someone to actually believe that the United States of America "Governement" could trick or fool 99.99 % of the planet is insane. So that gives you an idea of the mentality quacks who believe that the Apollo landings were all made up & a Hollywood movie trick!

They went and laned, alright. LOL.

But, umm... you wouldn't be scared of counter arguments that you cant counter are you?

Originally posted by darkcloak88
This debate is amazing how far its gotten. There's an easy way to solve this, just have amateur astronomers find the moon landings through expensive telescopes (probably not possible), and end the debate. If they left the things up there, they will exist and it did happen. However, if it is wrapped in a lot of stuff in order to elude people, its sort of the 'you went to that sort of lengths, really? oookkk'

Well here is the problem. Astronomers have said it is possible, but somehow are now pretending its not.
Jarrah White had interviewed one in Australia that stated their telescope would get special optics for such a possibility.

Then we have the following statement (November 24, 2002):

Now astronomers hope to kill off the conspiracy theory once and for all by
using the Very Large Telescope (VLT) - by far the most powerful telescope in
the world - to spot the Apollo lunar landers.

Operated by European astronomers in the Chilean Andes, the VLT consists of
four mirrors 27ft across linked by optical fibres. It can see a single human
hair at a distance of 10 miles.

Trained on the Moon, such astonishing resolution should enable it to see the
base of one or more of the six lunar modules which Nasa insists landed on the
Moon between 1969 and 1972. Any images of the modules would be the first not
to have been taken from space by Nasa.

Dr Richard West, an astronomer at the VLT, confirmed that his team was aiming
to achieve "a high-resolution image of one of the Apollo landing sites".

The first attempt to spot the spacecraft will be made using only one of the
VLT's four telescope mirrors, which are fitted with special "adaptive optics"
to cancel the distorting effect of the Earth's atmosphere. A trial run of the
equipment this summer produced the sharpest image of the Moon taken from the
Earth, showing details 400ft across from a distance of 238,000 miles.

www.freerepublic.com...

we also have regarding Mars:

The £45m lander was scheduled to put down in a near-equatorial region of the planet known as Isidis Planitia. But despite many attempts to locate it - using overflying spacecraft and Earth-based telescopes - no sign of it, not even any wreckage, has been detected.

What?! They expected to use Earth based telescopes??

Professor Pillinger accepts the sceptics will say Beagle 2 is too small to be seen from space... Now, he says, specially processed pictures from the camera on the US space agency's (Nasa) Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft show that it came down in a crater close to the planned landing site.

(I have modified the order of the statements)

"There is a lot of disturbance in this crater, particularly a big patch on the north crater wall which we think is the primary impact site," Professor Pillinger explains.

"There are then other features around the crater consistent with the airbags bouncing around and finally falling down into the middle. Then, when you cut the lace, the airbags fall apart giving three very symmetrical triangles."

Four roughly circular features to the right of the "airbags" could conceivably be Beagle's unfolded solar panels.

Professor Pillinger claims the images show Beagle 2 came very close to being the first spacecraft to mount a concerted search for life on the Martian surface.

news.bbc.co.uk...


Then you got the following:

During normal operating conditions, the smallest objects that can be resolved on the martian surface in these images are about 4 to 5 meters (13 to 16 feet) across. With the adjusted-rotation technique, called "compensated pitch and roll targeted observation," objects as small as 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) can be seen in images from the same camera. Resolution capability of 1.4 meters (4.6 feet) per pixel is improved to one-half meter (1.6 feet) per pixel. Because the maneuvers are complex and the amount of data that can be acquired is limited, most images from the camera are still taken without using that technique.

Umm.... what? Why cant we do that for Apollo artifacts on the moon?


mars.jpl.nasa.gov...

A few pages back we were talking about possible damage to the suits well I would have been worried about damage from all those arrows.




If you cant even work out how a shadow would look well

Originally posted by PsykoOps

As a professional photographer I can testify that you have shown complete and total lack of understanding of the very basics of photography. So at least we can say for sure that you are not one or you're just trolling these forums.

If you are one of those cannikon guys that thinks the more features he has on his camera, the better he can take photos, well I bet you I can take better pictures than you on my worst day.

And calling yourself a "professional" photographer while not being able to see anomalies in Apollo photography, video and film, I would say your using the word very loosely.

Originally posted by FoosM
Umm.... what? Why cant we do that for Apollo artifacts on the moon?

They have! YOU just refuse to believe what was shown and always will!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

A few pages back we were talking about possible damage to the suits well I would have been worried about damage from all those arrows.

Keep posting that photo, someday you will understand.

As a matter of fact, just print it, stick it on your fridge, and/or above your bed so you can stare at it for hours on end. At some point the subconscious will kick in and give your conscious a clue. You'll thank me later!

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

A few pages back we were talking about possible damage to the suits well I would have been worried about damage from all those arrows.

Keep posting that photo, someday you will understand.

As a matter of fact, just print it, stick it on your fridge, and/or above your bed so you can stare at it for hours on end. At some point the subconscious will kick in and give your conscious a clue. You'll thank me later!

What this photo shows Foosm



Is that unlike most junior school kids you cant understand what happens to a shadow when it falls on a sloping surface

reply to post by PsykoOps

Funny mentality these hb's have. I have not seen a single thread of solid evidence against the moon landing vs. a mountain to support it.

Well I'm still waiting for some 3rd party, independent proof from someone NOT associated with NASA or basing their findings on NASA information..

Got any???

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM
Umm.... what? Why cant we do that for Apollo artifacts on the moon?

They have! YOU just refuse to believe what was shown and always will!

What they showed us could be construed as anything. It was not conclusive.

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008

A few pages back we were talking about possible damage to the suits well I would have been worried about damage from all those arrows.

Keep posting that photo, someday you will understand.

As a matter of fact, just print it, stick it on your fridge, and/or above your bed so you can stare at it for hours on end. At some point the subconscious will kick in and give your conscious a clue. You'll thank me later!

What this photo shows Foosm

I tell you what. Take the same photo:
AS17-141-21608

And indicate with arrows which direction the shadows should fall:
The Astronaut
The Rocks
The Boulder
It should be easy because there was one light source.

Then we can compare the photos and see where I may have made a mistake.