Avatar of DefusingTheAgenda

NASA SUPPORTERS SORRY DEBATE IS OVER AWE 130 WON!!!

2 rating, 4 votes2 rating, 4 votes (+2 rating, 4 votes, rated)
You need to be a registered member to rate this post.
Loading ... Loading ...

November 18, 2015 in Science

by

c

I must admit i had this link all the time but the supporters failed to provide this as it would prove them to be wrong claiming the still and the motion footage was taken at the same time. NASA has faked a lot of the footage and stills and this proves it beyond a doubt. There is no pretending after this and cant be put off any longer. You be the judge now and consider what this shows. Remember the only question is.

“Is the still taken at the same time as the motion footage.” We can see it was not.

This is why they could not show it during the debate as it proves them to be liars and for what reason they insist on this lie and inflicting it on other people is a complete mystery to me.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.rm

This was the topic for debate as just one photo was requested that would prove that NASA did fake and replace photos in the archive.

You can view this still as the maker of this video wishes you to look at the feet rather then the helmet, distracting you from the truth.

The claim was made that the movie footage did not exist and the still repeatably taken at the same time showing a flap raised on the suit would be visible if the entire footage was available.

Here is a still taken here on earth that shows the flap as it should be and the motion footage showing it as secured during the time the still was reportedly taken.

x

It is time to show this is not the case nor is it what NASA has in it archive.

This sequence shows clearly the condition of the suit that is suppose to be the same as the still taken at the same time…

No flap is unsecured. This proves that the motion footage and the still could not have been taken at the same time nor could it even be the same event.

Losing the debate for the supporters that claim nothing has ever been presented by NASA concerning the moon landing and opening the door to expose the remaining stills taken as fakes.

There is a reason this has been done and the evidence only proves the stills was not taken at the same time as the moon landing. This does not prove we faked going to the moon or prove that we did. It only proves the evidence presented to the public has been indeed faked. The reasons behind this could be as simple as saving face as the photos they brought back was never any good and required to be replaced with careful staging at a studio so as not admit something so important could have been screwed up. But when caught NASA can now only deny any wrong doing and the faked stills remain unanswered for.

The NASA supporters have lost every debate due to ignoring and distracting from the evidence presented. in any forum this can not be explained away.

Now that this debate is again over on the side of those who believe there is faked documents and images contained in the official records, we can now begin to explore the reasons why these fakes were created and who may be reasonable for the deception that has played the American public for over 40 years.

Welcome to the truth….

Infowars.com Videos:

Comment on this article:

54 responses to NASA SUPPORTERS SORRY DEBATE IS OVER AWE 130 WON!!!

  1. after all the comments as how a faint object can be seen in the motion footage between the pack and the helmet, those who does not understand the controversy, shed off another portion of evidence without another thought. This was expected as anything they can grab on to for glimmer of a moment can be seen.

    However it does take a moment to consider what they have presented…. The problem still remains.

    If you look at the images provided to some it would show this flap is sticking up, you will see something appearing “between” the helmet and the back pack.

    But if you look as to how this flap is made, as part of the backpack but not between the helmet and the pack the problem does not go away. the flap is made to go from the rear of the backpack to the front, not the other way around. if the flap is sticking up it would not be obscured by the back pack at all. But highly visible as it then wraps around the rear of the back pack… The evidence presented does not show this but appears between the pack and the helmet like a hoodie on a shirt, then the pack worn on top of that.

    It seems that answers come and go but the evidence remains the same.

    Thank you for all your comments and we will be picking up this topic again.

    • No, we won’t.

      What will happen is you will drop this topic in the vain hope that everyone will forget that you have been demonstrated to be flat out wrong.

      You may eve resume your usual tactic of deleting and editing posts. This will not work for you because…

      Saved at the usual venue, forever avail for all to see.

      And there is nothing you can do about it.

      • is that what you wish? i can do that if that is your goal… to be deleted so you can post silly stories about that instead of your own on topic? ya whatever stored in your usual place of off topic comments… good luck with all that

  2. The best the nasa hoax promoters can come up with is that the flap sticks up a little bit.. they are defending this to the end… reminds me of a lady that was in court for blowing a stop sign… she testified that she came up to the stop sign looking both ways stopped a little bit then drove on. the judge found her guilty and she freaked out… the judge then asked her if she ever heard of someone that was a little bit pregnant? either you are or you are not, either you stopped or you did not… GUILTY…. there is no place this flap was sticking all the way up.. and it has been known as a fake for a long time. either it is or it is not.. it is not sticking all the way up in the motion footage and that ends the confusion thanks for all the comments

    • Sorry, but you intentionally chose to use the lowest available resolution video.

      The flap is plainly visible in the higher resolution video behaving exactly as it should.

      Your choices are simply to admit this is the case, since anyone can check it right here:

      https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg

      Or to lie and claim the it is not.

      Which do you prefer BM? The truth or your lie.

      Saved at the usual venue.

      • you think just raising and argument of any type is working? just any old thing tossed out there? too many people strongly believe NASA has faked things as they did… not because people just think so.. NASA provided the fakes and people are calling them out… get over it

  3. after the jump, after they switch places the leading suit toward the camera has a ripple in the flap
    But that doesn’t fit in your story because you claim the flap is firmly secured as in the training photo on earth. It can’t ripple, however to fit your story all of a sudden the flap can ripple? Doesn’t add up. Why not take a look at a longer portion of that video which is one continuous shot (16:09) (wonder why Adrian didn’t show you this?) :

    Apollo 16 EVA

    This starts before the photo of the jump are taken and the flap is already clearly sticking up. (it also shows that the PLSS doesn’t look the same as the one in the training image).The timemark for the photo is starting around 20:15

    Sorry you’re wrong.

    • the reason i can say it? is because the still is a fake… that is a simple reason. if you choose to type away explaining Santa Clause and his workshop on the north pole, it does not change the evidence. the same evidence that photos and stills of the jolly old man is also available… but the evidence keeps changing.. from one santa to the next… it is easy to determine when a still and the motion footage does not match… and it does not… easy to call as it is the truth… lies require what we see below. complex reason why the lie must be right ans explanations redone as the lie falls apart… cause and effect… after 40 years there is few new claims but the confusion seems to be overwhelming to you… sorry but you need only look as all the other readers have been doing, what you choose to see rather then what is shown i can not explain for you… sorry

      • it is easy to determine when a still and the motion footage does not match… and it does not…
        But it doesn’t match in your story.. You claim the flap is firmly secured, but then after 30 seconds you say the flap has rippled. Doesn’t add up.

        And the flap is clearly visible (of course you can close your eyes and say you can’t see it…)
        flap visible

        Also if you would have taken the time in this video it is clearly visible.
        flap visible

        All you do is scream FAKE FAKE, but when it is pointed out to you you are wrong you start avoiding and sputter about Santa Claus;

        talk about loosing…

        • just to let you know what story i come up with that is designed around a lie and points directly to the flap sticking straght up is not the issue here. perfection of my description is not needed. the flap in the still and then in the supporting footage must match as they were taken at the same time front and back. they do not and we can speculate about how this may be before and after. but the footage that dont match proves it dont match and therefore proves it is from 2 different events. simple explanation nothing to debate.the still or the motion footage was not taken at the same time as claimed. now we can look deeper only to determine more fakes. as the flap would be the tattletale of having created them using the training suit for use on earth. but you are just expanding the amount of fakes not disproving them

        • well some piece of something between the helmet and the backpack is not what we are discussing sorry.. it is the flap on the rear of the pack that is being discussed…distractions and insults is all you seem to be able to do.. as i said you guys lost the argument and the readers know it

          • well some piece of something between the helmet and the backpack is not what we are discussing sorry.. it is the flap on the rear of the pack that is being discussed
            I hope with all your research skills by now you have found out there is more than one flap on the OPS…

            distractions and insults is all you seem to be able to do.. as i said you guys lost the argument and the readers know it
            You are the one started sputtering about Santa Claus, because the flap was clearly visible in both the motion footage and the still. It took you an awful lot of comments to finally admit it, and when you had, you immediately changed your argument.


    • so the triangle shape of the flap is only on the training suits? oh well thank you. that is further evidence that this was faked… your awesome even if you dont know it. so there you have it folks… the training suit was used to create fakes after the moon launch had ended… great job

      • so the triangle shape of the flap is only on the training suits?
        No, where did I say that?

        Why are you so afraid to click on those links? Everybody else will have seen by now how wrong you are.

        • short memory? here you go just a few lines above..
          . (it also shows that the PLSS doesn’t look the same as the one in the training image).The timemark for the photo is starting around 20:15

        • because it is simple… all i need is the footage of the SAME TIME the still was claimed to be taken… how many cameras are you claiming are running at the same time? and why would each one show something different?

          • ever heard of photoshop? this is not what the motion footage shows but thanks for the effort… funny how it is wrapped to the front but shows it is wrapped to the back instead on this photo.. but hay NASA has had 40 years to cover their tracks and make up for the errors in the story as well… i will stick with the motion footage nasa displays here, the official release
            https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.rm


          • ever heard of photoshop? this is not what the motion footage shows but thanks for the effort…
            Yes, I am familiar with it, that is why I know you are wrong.

            I myself took that screenshot from this video:
            Flap video
            It is the same footage only better quality (and it shows one continuous shot).

            The only thing I added was the red circle where you can clearly see the flap sticking up. You once again proved yourself wrong.


          • the others in this debate has claimed that the use of photoshop is just someone playing with sliders and making up what ever they want… you dont seem to have that same position. are you saying it is a useful tool to evaluate photos? that is can bring out details not normally viewed by the eye? if this is so i would like to invite you on the next topic for discussion… as i have a great deal more to share and discuss… depending on the view is not the goal here but looking at things objectively in favor or not of our belief and instead looking at the evidence… are you in?


          • First finish off this ‘flap’ business. Here is another screenshot from the same NASA source you are using:
            flap visible
            Only I didn’t use the realmedia file but the mpeg one (BIG FILE WARNING 30MB)
            flap

            I really can see the flap clearly sticking out, but as someone always says: let the reader by the judge…
            (and to make one small little stab; don’t blindly trust Adrian’s ability to judge videos or pictures; he can mistake a knee for a stagehand :) ).


          • are you saying it is a useful tool to evaluate photos?
            It can be in a some cases when you know what you are doing, however it is evenly important to have knowledge of how photo/data is being processed, saved and/or edited or things like what the effect of a simple jpeg compressor can be.

            that is can bring out details not normally viewed by the eye?
            Hmm, not really. One can emphasize certain details with brightness, contrast and levels, but, once again, it is also important to have knowledge how these tools work.

            The most important thing is the source itself and that is most of the time the problem. (e.g. in that other topic where photoshop was used to show certain things the source was unkown and none of the images seemed to come directly from NASA or related.)

            are you in?
            I always have to judge depending on the topic at hand and more importantly; my available time….


          • ok lets finish this then… but it is a story a bit larger then the comments section should hold… both the motion footage and the stills are faked… the only way for me to determine this is by your use of photoshop objectively. i can show how the world was saved by nasa while he death star approached… the only true source is NASA as well as any confirmation this poses a real problem. You want a new argument i can give you one … it may have been brought up at one time but that does not mean i have heard it. Think this way, what a great truth could come about if this progressed to show that a government agency was part of a cover up? I dont have to show you this happens all the time. but what if it was just a fraction of what is to be discovered? I know we went to the moon. I heard the broadcasts directly from the moon as my father was a radio mech during WW2 and highly placed. My problem is unhearing what i did hear, and unlearning what i have been a witness to… things dont add up…. that is the purpose i have here and the reason why i am writing… i dont wish credit, i wish to the truth… I can rewrite some things i have writen in the past and show you what bothers me and you can debunk these things away and then my childhood beliefs would be restored… But a technical background to include over 20 years of drones as they are called and experimental aircraft blocks my long standing beliefs…i joined this debate as i seen plausible arguments met with nothing more then insults and so i chose a side. this misunderstand as to what i am to awe130 is nothing but conjecture as you say. He has archives that has amazed me and has given me things i have searched for in the last 10 years and could not find in little less then a day.. rare stories and newspaper stories that has not surfaced in over 30 years. some way off topic for here. So in his defense i can see the issue and i have taken it from my own point of view. i am not his keeper and he is not mine. But with the information he has gathered he has a strong argument and i have nothing in my experience to counter it. He believes it must be all or nothing, either we did go to the moon or we did not. i cant support that view… i believe we went to the moon based on personal experience, but we for what ever reason did not get the full story.. since then i have been digging and finding what i can to support both beliefs and not just the narrow point of view with strict adherence. so if you want to continue i would love to… my goal is not to find you wrong or how you think or i think something happened, but what the evidence says happened regardless of what i wish to believe. that is my goal… are you in? because we have lots more o look at to validate the claims NASA has made


          • yes time is an issue with me as well… i am expanding to servitude with some companies and that by itself denies me a great deal of time. it also places constraints i did not have before this. i am able to prepare vids and do my own work pertaining to photoshop. i have not had the time. as for the sources i have shown, i have nothing to disqualify their results. Smudges carefully placed and details missing from official footage and stills are common with NASA releases, that can not be denied, if it were deliberate can be questioned all to easy… lets take this to the next level and find out what can be questioned before we offer solutions to those questions ok


          • both the motion footage and the stills are faked…
            Then I don’t think there is much to discuss. This discussion was about indescrepencies between this motion footage and the still; There isn’t any.

            However instead of admitting you were wrong you now draw the “NASA faked everything” card. With the above topic you wanted, no even claimed, to prove NASA had been
            faking things, becuase you thought things didn’t match up. When shown otherwise, with no other evidence or argument, you simply throw away everything you have written by simply saying ‘they faked everything’.
            Sorry that is not my way of having a discussion.


          • you may wish to stick around.. of course the video feed was replaced in front of the public… i know that to be true… the question is how much was and to what extent worse is why… but that is ok… the motion and the still does not match up and yes that is the topic here…

            the problem is all the evidence that NASA wishes to show is photographic, the same argument stands for the UFO topic, after the government shuts the area down and takes any physical evidence remaining there is nothing left but photographic evidence… either it is real and proves something is a tangible thing or it is untrue and proves a hoax,,, you can not have it both ways….


        • this is the original footage, during the time the still was taken. it does not show the flap sticking straight up… that ends it … what more do you need? this is not my claim or some other persons 30 years ago.. this is NASAs claim and it is still they claim they are making just yesterday… it is a impossibility, as they do not show the same thing…

          • it does not show the flap sticking straight up
            It shows the flap sticking up rather clearly. I understand you can’t admit it isn’t at this point anymore, so I won’t take it to hard on you.
            Together with the video link I posted earlier it shows the flap sticking up before, during and after the photo was taken:
            Flap sticking up


          • well then i guess we are going to have to leave it to the jury of readers and let them decide what they want… thank you … and yes i do mean thank you for your input and observations… there is a huge amount of information to sift threw as this is not the only point to make… but your comments have been right on target and for that i owe you my gratitude and respect…


  4. This nonsense about the flap is not a new hoax claim, nor is it even your claim BM.

    You have copied it from Bennett and Percy, who first came up with it.

    Secondly, the flap is plainly visible both in the stills and in the video.

    Why would you make a claim that is so easily shown to be abject rubbish by anyone who takes the time to view the original material?

  5. Funny, I can see the flap rather clearly in that video, best seen between 43 and 47 second when he turns around.

    • yes it is funny… never does it stick straight up for when the still was taken but thank you for pitching in to the debate after it is over… there is no debate as to when the still was taken or when the motion footage was. NASA has provided that information… but hay they had to do something because the stills never came out or some other reason they had to be replaced. but replaced they have been and that is no longer up for debate the evidence speaks for itself… thank you for commenting and have a great day

      • Oh you can see it a also when the still is taken, but it is more clearly visible at the 43/47 seconds. Since it seems like you agree with the visibility at that time (43/47secs) you are saying he unsecured it somewhere between the time the still was taken (about 15secs into your video) and the 43 sevond mark.
        Now where in that clip did he do that?

        • after the jump, after they switch places the leading suit toward the camera has a ripple in the flap… but the still was taken during the jump… at no time does the motion footage show the flap straight up… PBR has now tried to support the flap being loose in other footage and stills… to me when i find the timeline broken then he is pointing out a tattle tale of further fakes… he is desperately trying to change the time line of the photo still. but he cant as this jumping salute was performed only one of them and the flap on 2 separate jumps remained fastened.. so there is at no point it is sticking straight up… this would be clearly visible from the rear as the photo taken on earth wold show the hinge point is at the rear of the pack… the photo is fake thats all there is to it… he can do nothing but complain and distract the issue and even on you tube has done nothing but rant… OBM after seeing this also backed out of this one as he knows it cant be disproved… thank you for your comment and you have my attention as you posed a question instead of a bald faced lie contrary to the evidence presented… yes i give you 4 out of 5 stars at this point trying to find the facts rather then blindly smashing on ignoring everything…

    • please note in the first few sec of the first vid shows the still in question… i can get a better copy from NASA but i tried to leave a little moving room… and i wanted to feature the tactic of distraction pulling your attention to his feet rather then the real problem with the still…

  6. claiming ??? just pointing to the facts i guess could be described as a claim… write your own story and see how well you can do please … stop embarrassing yourself here… because you dont need my help to do that…

  7. really you havent figured out the basics yet??? no wait you cant figure much out at all… yes i have taken awe130 arguments and just re-branded them… i am not going to take the credit away from him… i am just reposing the argument in a way for you to eat your words and let him watch you do it… well you and the others… the evidence does not change the argument and presentation does… and you played right in to this one… where do you think i got the handle “bewaremouse”??? Because i sent traps for liars like yourself and then chaos follows… (no really i thought that self explanatory)

  8. Seems to me that all you’re doing here, as usual, is putting words into people’s mouths and claiming a victory where none exists.

    Where did anyone claim that the film did not exist? Show that anyone said that complete footage of the EVA didn’t exist. You can buy DVDs with the entire broadcast on from Spacecraft Films.

    The jump salute photographs occur in a magazine with time and date specific images of Earth taken from orbit. How were they faked?

    Which images are you claiming were faked and replaced exactly> Because I have my own copy of the preliminary Science report showing them and they look fine to me. Likewise all the other images in the PSR, and in the Geology report that I own, all of them match what is available on line.

    The astronaut jumps, the flap (which is vertical before he jumps) flaps around as he jumps. His jump is consistent with a lunar environment. There are no wires.

    I’ve met the photographer. I know what he thinks about people like you.

    • ?? no really this is so plain i really thought you would not embaress yourself with any attemppt at all… nope i am going to let this stand and not even think about it further… there is no argument to be offered the 2 views does not show the same thing and there is nothing your words or even my words are going to change about it… sorry man i guess i should not have baited you in to this one. there is plenty of other thing me and you can debate that you could put up some kind of plausable argument for… but not this one… its over here… the still is faked…this debate is dead,,, no matter how much you type away..

    • you seem to be lost,,, maybe after reading this story you missed you will understand why i really didnt expect you to join in on this mess..

      http://planet.infowars.com/science/nasa-fake-footage-response-to-rabbit

  9. wait a sec, are you suggesting since the still does not match the motion footage that we need to look at even more footage that has been faked? lets say the footage that shows the flap bouncing around is the indicator that anything showing this flap moving is a fake… great job man… we already know that the still does not match up. so all we need to do is look for this tattletale to ID the other fakes as well? Thank you i will check it out… funny when you are caught in one lie the others are quick to fall as well…..

  10. you lost give it up… the only thing you can claim is the photo is a fake and move on… you have been set up and you lost your bluff… now you have to face the truth in all its glory… you lied and tried but failed to support your false god NASA… its over and it is not the first time… you have lost every debate presented

    this is the real link https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.rm

    this motion footage was suppose to be taken at the same time as the still. it does not show the flap bouncing around at all… by the way did you pay attention the the feet as well? the jumping salute? the feet is off the ground in the still… did both of them do a jumping salute? NO THEY DID NOT>>>>>> YOU lost completely

    • “view from the back is partially obscured ” by what? the flap is fashioned to the back. the motion footage shows a good view of the back… what would be in the way of the camera? what is in the way from the front is the helmet… you get things backwards all the time so this does not surprise me at all…. be gone now or write you own story. you certainly have written enough here to have done so already… i just have a hard time not looking for myself rather then taking your word for it… good luck trying to confuse others as you dont have access to change the archives to suit your argument…

    • ok i am looking at the video again here is the link to the still that was taken at the same time..

      https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.rm

      nope nothing changed in the time i wrote this story… sorry i dont see what your trying to point to here. the flap is still not sticking straight up like it is in the still taken at the same time…no it didnt change… did you attempt to change it? you must have grabbed the wrong file

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.