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.

 

Moon landing conspiracy theory

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Okay, here goes, my original moon landing conspiracy, though surely other people have noticed.

I typed "moon landing" in google www.google.ca... , to try to research the conspiracy theories floating around after that fox documentary. Now what would you expect to find?

I expected to find Nasa.gov saying 1969 mankind accomplished their greatest feat ever, landing on the moon.

what i found however, on the very first hit, was a conspiracy theory.

this is an excerpt from the page:


One thing that I would like to call to attention, is that I am not an expert on anything that is written in this report. I don't know much about camera's, or non-atmospheric conditions, or physics or anything. I am just a senior in high school, and about the only thing that I know professionally is how to run movie projectors. I challenge all that read this page to find something wrong with it, and tell me about it, so I can more accurately disprove one of the most historical events of the century..... The Landing on the Moon.


Okay... so when you type moon landing in google, you get a conspiracy page made by a highschool student who doesnt know anything about anything. Then the next who knows how many are all ridiculing the idea that the moon landings could have been faked, then eventually you will find more conspiracy theory sites, far down in the results.

In case some of you dont know how a search engine gets its search results, refer to www.searchengines.com...

Google's most important ranking mechanism is link popularity (how many pages link to the page in question, also, if the pages linking to it have good link popularity). So how does a terrible conspiracy page by a highschool student get to the top of the list, above nasa even? why does the next conspiracy theory site appear so far down the list that i cannot even find it? Well... because they wanted you to see the crappy conspiracy page, so that when you look at the next 20 or 50 or whatever results all making fun of the first page, or fox's documentary, you would just assume that we did in fact land on the moon.

One good site ive found on the moon landings is www.xenophilia.com...




posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:33 PM
link   
hmmmmmmmm.... i still think there is about 75% chance noone landed on the Moon.... well at least noone from Earth that is...but thats just me ... what do i know anyway...



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
umm... thats what i was trying to imply.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Agreed afklop, and has been covered and then subsequently debunked.
Hard Evidence against moon landing
The Apollo 11 Moon landing

More can be found by using the ATS search (top of the page).




seekerof

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   


Agreed afklop, and has been covered and then subsequently debunked.


have my specific claims been addressed or just others? did you read my post?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:55 PM
link   
The BBC documentary "Conspiracy Theory: Did we land on the moon?" deals with many inconsistancies in the broacasting and photo's of the moon landings...

I have seen this documentary and I feel that there is more to this issue than meets the eye, there is a good deal of evidence that at least some of the footage and photo's are in fact fake...

However, even if this is the case, it doesn't nessecarily prove that we haven't been to the moon, just that the available media wasn't suitably impressive for a worldwide audience...

Without good images how would the government justify the expense of the Apollo program?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 04:56 PM
link   


Google's most important ranking mechanism is link popularity (how many pages link to the page in question, also, if the pages linking to it have good link popularity). So how does a terrible conspiracy page by a highschool student get to the top of the list, above nasa even? why does the next conspiracy theory site appear so far down the list that i cannot even find it? Well... because they wanted you to see the crappy conspiracy page, so that when you look at the next 20 or 50 or whatever results all making fun of the first page, or fox's documentary, you would just assume that we did in fact land on the moon.



The "agreed" was in error.
Did not get a chance to rectify due to other topic considerations being looked at. My bust, but admitting such, I re-read your intial post and have two questions:
1) Are you insisting or believing that the moon landing was indeed a hoax?
2) Did you try the ATS search engine to see just how many threads are addressing the Moon landing 'conspiracy'?



seekerof



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
The "agreed" was in error.
Did not get a chance to rectify due to other topic considerations being looked at. My bust, but admitting such, I re-read your intial post and have two questions:
1) Are you insisting or believing that the moon landing was indeed a hoax?
2) Did you try the ATS search engine to see just how many threads are addressing the Moon landing 'conspiracy'?
seekerof


1. Well, i am pretty sure it is a hoax, because of the impossible search engine results, and also because of the audio of the astronauts talking to mission control. there is a very short pause between the two speaking, but light takes 2-3 seconds to travel that far.

2. I did look at the volume of posts available here, but i thought that since my theory is original, it warranted a new thread. I did not however read all of them.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:03 PM
link   
c'mon, people, why would they fake a moon landing? could you not see neil "jumping" on the moon? what're you going to say, wires? oh, now you're going to say the flag wouldn't wave on the moon? well, how 'bout I said it wasn't waving, that was the tin wires in the flag HOLDING IT UP! Oh, and the "coke can" in the corner of one shot? trick of the light? yes. stupid mistake by filmographers? no. stop thinknig this is a conspiracy, as i don't understand why you people would belive such a thing. if you can't belive your own governemnt, who will you believe?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by satchbfoot
c'mon, people, why would they fake a moon landing? could you not see neil "jumping" on the moon? what're you going to say, wires? oh, now you're going to say the flag wouldn't wave on the moon? well, how 'bout I said it wasn't waving, that was the tin wires in the flag HOLDING IT UP! Oh, and the "coke can" in the corner of one shot? trick of the light? yes. stupid mistake by filmographers? no. stop thinknig this is a conspiracy, as i don't understand why you people would belive such a thing. if you can't belive your own governemnt, who will you believe?


umm... i cant tell if you are sarcastic or not... what is clear is that you didnt read my post.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   
The camera's used to take still photographs on the Apollo missions lenses had cross hatchings on the lens to help in NASA analysis...

On some of the photo's examined in the Conspiracy Theory documentary. parts of the foreground details appears to be superimposed over sections of the cross hairs...

This is simply not possible, if the images had not been tampered with...

But as I said before, this doesn't prove that we havn't been to the moon.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by satchbfoot
if you can't belive your own governemnt, who will you believe?


I was agreeing with what you said until you said this!!
AHAHAHAH,, that was a good one!!

if you can't believe your own government who can you beleive!
whoooo hooooo thats a good one!
Tell us another!

EDIT - Seriously, I don't think I've heard a sheep Baaaa that loud in a long time! Sorry its still cracking me up. What the heck R you doing on this site!?

"if you can't believe your own governemnt, who will you believe?"
So classic!


[edit on 10-12-2004 by kdx175]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:20 PM
link   
is anyone going to explain how a highschool student who doesnt know anything about anything got their page above nasa in googles search results?



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I might be wrong but i think that the high page rank may be due to the page being hosted at freeservers.com. The rankings is probably based on the top level domain (freeservers.com) not on the individual subpages and subdomains.



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:27 PM
link   
Maybe this will help?


Below you'll discover what the search engines look for when determining your page rank so you can optimize your pages for best results.

Get Listed on Google & More...

From:
how are Google results listed?



seekerof

[edit on 10-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 05:32 PM
link   
here is a geocities page about moon landings... www.geocities.com...

the search engine doesnt work like that... you would constantly see free pages at the top of the results when you search for anything. companies would try to host on geocities and free servers all the time to get their ranking first.

i looked it up... batesmotel.8m.com has a 1607 link popularity wheras freeservers.com has 5,745,865 and nasa has 1,603,252 as its link popularity

[edit on 10-12-2004 by afklop]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kdx175
I was agreeing with what you said until you said this!!
AHAHAHAH,, that was a good one!!

if you can't believe your own government who can you beleive!
whoooo hooooo thats a good one!
Tell us another!

EDIT - Seriously, I don't think I've heard a sheep Baaaa that loud in a long time! Sorry its still cracking me up. What the heck R you doing on this site!?

"if you can't believe your own governemnt, who will you believe?"
So classic!


[edit on 10-12-2004 by kdx175]


dude, I live in Canada, I can believe my government (to an extent, damn referendum). But hey, I don't care about america (to an extent, damn florida) ..... whatever the presidents say past '71 is in one and out the other.. or what-not...

[edit on 10-12-2004 by satchbfoot]

[edit on 10-12-2004 by satchbfoot]



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Hum - ok, so care to explain how those mirrors that you too can bounce a laser off of get up there?? It wasn't the Apollo 11, 14, and 15 flights by chance now was it?? We did not send any unmanned probes to the surface, let alone have any robotics back then to deploy it or did we now??


So did the ham operators and Russians hear us talk about aliens on the moon or didn't they??


And BTW, we also faked hundreds of pound of lunar dust and rocks that have been worked on by researchers around the globe??


The best laid plans or mice and conspiracy theorists often go awry....



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 08:33 PM
link   
ok you know how you can't see stars in the back ground well when your around light

it's cause of high contrats or somthing they siad i eman when your in the city when you look up there are no stars at night right?

also the one about the flag lol should heard this one

it is joined by two poles like so


|
|
|
____________

and the flag is in kind of the middle of that


and since the poles where kind of bendy when one of the astronaughts touch the bottom bit it flinged cause the flag to bend but there is no wind in space

and the best one is the shadows

the shadows are actually going diffrent directions in some case's

one of the rocks by the landing ship was pointing lets say se when it should be pointing north

the excurse was the sunlight on the gorund was making it bright causing shadows in bends to go diffrent directions

also the foot print under the landing ship

this is the big one none of the astronaughts actually touched undernieth the ship so it was a human

that was the onew hen the went auite on so i rest my case



posted on Dec, 10 2004 @ 09:01 PM
link   
lepracornman - have to poke some fun here a bit as I thought NZ was an English speaking country....



signature
ammu-nation leading the fight agaisnt comunisum


Should sig as "ammu-nation leading the fight agaisnt comunisum and promoting really atrocious spelling and/or the Newzebonics...."


Those right click browser spell checkers really do work wonders....

So are you saying you believe we hoaxed it or we didn't??



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join