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.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 25
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

How do you know it's the same LM ?


How do you know it isn't? There are post-TLI docking sequences showing the extraction and docking of a lunar module that also feature Earth. There are shots of the Apollo 11 LM in lunar orbit and on the ground with time and date specific images of Earth in it. Prove it isn't.


How do you know it was broadcasted from the moon ?


Why don't you ask (for example) the nice people in Australia what their dishes were pointed at when they got the TV signal. You could also look at the images that were printed in the next day's newpapers. I have one on my website from Apollo 16 that shows rocks and craters visible in LRO images but not in pre-Apollo photographs. How did they do that?



BTW moon rocks don't look like that ! they look like this


Garbage.


edit on 3-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: grammar




posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Making stuff up again? Any proof or evidence to offer other than your hastily cobbled together fake videos?

Having spent more time researching this than you ever will, my considered opinion that on being asked about the so called 'fake moon rock', Middendorf was actually recalling the visit of an Apollo 11 rock for an exhibition in Rotterdam in February 1970, and the old man the newly appointed ambassador remembers is not Drees (who he would have met rarely), but Prins Bernhard (who he would have met a lot).

Here they are together:


There is actually more evidence to support my idea than there is to support claims that anyone handed over a fossil and claimed it was a moon rock.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Still waiting for your evidence, any at all, that shows Middendorf stating clearly and unequivocally that he gave the fossil to Drees.

Still waiting for any proof whatsoever that the rock was even linked to the card in any way before two artists put them together for an art exhibit.


He didn't it was his sons that made the claim. By the way he had already been out of office for 11 yrs by the time Apollo went to the moon. The cards given were presented to guests on apollo worls tour. They were handed out along with pictures which were sequentially numbered. Gets better know how the mueseum found out a former Nasa employee visiting the museum informed them their Moon rock was a fake. In fact he told them that lunar rocks were not given out that early after apollo 11. As in None zero or zilch. The astronauts or the state department would not have had access to it. Both moon rock samples the dutxh were given is on another muaeum. Aparently alot of people were faking moon rocks in museums there was a huge intrest at the time.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Just an FYI regarding the moon rock in the Smithsonian. In the 80s it was in the open on a pedestal and you could touch it. I have a photo of me touching it on a trip to DC in 1981.



posted on May, 3 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's why we have to take everything into account - the available evidence, mainly - and assess if his story is valid, or not valid, to that point.


but you think your version is somehow valid?? they purposefully mislead an old man who is bad of hearing and has bad eyesight as he was the good candidate to fool.. even though they already managed to fool a US ambassador??


And that's why his account is a problem for you, and all the Apollo-ites...because if it is the truth, it supports the hoax argument. With all of the evidence showing that it IS the truth, you make up ridiculous, far-fetched scenarios, which you call "possible'. Same as winning the 'Mega-Millions State Lottery' (MMSL) is possible. Same as winning the 'MMSL' lottery for 30 weeks in a row is "possible".


his account is FUZZY at best.. you are the one putting all your eggs into one fuzzy basket..




No. All of the evidence indicates that Middendorf DID NOT KNOW it was petrified wood. Nothing supports your claim that the card was not linked to the fake 'moon rock', it matches perfectly, in all details.


everything supports that the card is NOT linked to the rock.. there is no mention of the word rock or anything related to rock on the card, there was no rocks passed around officially during the good will tour neither.. you are the one trying your hardest to join the two together and failing at it..


Middendorf said he got the fake 'moon rock' from the State Dep't, gave it to Drees, and said he didn't know anything about it not being real.


how certain are you that he is talking about the drees rock?? his memory of it is fuzzy at best..


The first sentence ... "With the compliments of...US Ambassador of the United States of America'...

Do you understand the term "With the compliments of..."? It means something is linked to the card, which is a gift, which is given "With the compliments of" someone, or some group.... The card would also have been placed with that gift, perhaps above it, or below it, of course.

So the card is...ahem...'linked' to the gift...


how do you know that it wasnt chocolate?? how do you know that the card and the rock came together at the same time?? the ONLY thing you know is that they were found after the death of Drees in a drawer together..


The card names Middendorf as the person who gives out this gift, as well.


but no receiver name?? no mention of what the gift was??


The card states the gift is to commemorate the visit of the Apollo 11 astronauts to the Netherlands.


the card doesnt even mention the word gift.. how do you know that the card itself isnt the "gift" to commenmorate the visit?


A gift was given by Middendorf to Drees, which was a fake 'moon rock'. A moon rock would be the perfect gift to commemorate the visit of astronauts who collected rocks from the moon, no?


ONLY Drees was given the fake moon rock.. no one else not the active PM not the queen who were both in attendance during the goodwill tour.. no other country official ever received any rocks as a commemoration gift.. only Drees because he was old with poor eyesight and bad hearing.. and Middendorf is the perfect candidate to give it to him because he is also bad with poor eyesight and bad hearing so easy to fool both of them.. oh wait..




I've explained the reason why it has no description of ANY kind.


and it doesnt fit, you are linking two items together without any evidence..


Why do you think his name would need to be put on the card? He had the card and 'moon rock', in his possession, so why is it relevant to name him on the card, other than you just saying it's relevant?





It wasn't protected because they took it out of the display it was presented in, obviously, and that's why the card is not 'linked' to it anymore, physically, on the display.


how do you just simply take it out of the display?? have you seen the actual moonstone gifts given to other countries?? do you think they can be taken out of their protective casings??

so you are saying that during the time when the Apollo 11 rocks were still being studied and more or less still under quarantine, they just simply unpacked this one..


And you should know by this point why it doesn't need the word "Gift" put on the card, in order to know it is, indeed, a gift....right?


all other gifts given to the netherlands states what the gift is, including the real moon rock gifts.. the problem with your commemoration gift is that it could be anything, including the card itself. it is you trying to link them together desperately..



You don't understand the point here...

It is not 'an obligation'. They are giving out a fake 'moon rock' in a private ceremony, which has nothing to do with 'official' presentations to QEII, etc., which are public ceremonies.


it is an obligation.. why?? because the queen and the acting PM were both there when the astronauts were there..




And certainly that would have made him an excellent candidate for passing off fake moon rocks, I'd say!


you say.. but you forget that it was enough to fool middendorf completely so why the need to fool an old man with bad eyesight and poor hearing?? Middendorf wasnt an excellent candidate?? your logic is flawed..



Certainly there would be a motive to pass off a fake moon rock, if they had faked the Apollo 11 moon landing .


none whatsoever.. they gave out real samples a few month later.. they had no obligation to give out moon rocks during the good will tour.. you are simply making stuff up..


However, it would need quite a stretch to accept Middendorf had a motive, or even any grounds, to create and give out a fake moon rocks, if it had been a real moon landing.


your story doesnt line up with itself, they wanted to fool Drees as he was an excellent candidate.. but first they had to fool Middendorf who would seemingly be an even better candidate?? no logic at all..


It doesn't even work in a logical sense, to think a moon rock would be used for personal gain, as it has no value, and it also assumes there IS something to gain, and Middendorf knew about those potential gains, and that he desired those gains.


moon rocks are quite priceless.. ofcourse such an extravagant gift will be given with no strings attached..


The US Government also had the means, capability to create the fake moon rock, far more than Middendorf. It isn't important to the issue, but I wanted to mention that point, anyway..


and yet they make one as sloppy as this petrified wood?? no logic at all..


As I said earlier, if Middendorf was behind it, he would've said the gift was already known to them, as a token, not a genuine 'moon rock'. He would say someone must have thought it was a real moon rock, over the years, etc. Middendorf is immediately off the hook, and solves the whole problem, with nobody the wiser.



all he needs to say is he got the rock from someone else who told him it was a real moon rock and he was none the wiser.. and he would be off the hook.. is that what you are claiming??



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
have one on my website from Apollo 16 that shows rocks and craters visible in LRO images but not in pre-Apollo photographs. How did they do that?



I have a very strong intuitive feeling that the team of agents who could kill goats by staring at them astral projected to the moon and then designed the sets for Kubrick. Nixon probably had G. Gordon Liddy manage that part of the project.



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 02:48 PM
link   
There's a new Moon Hoax movie out ! have fun


vimeo.com...




edit on 4-5-2015 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Awesome. Thanks!



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Great movie.

So new problems for the apollo fairytale.

I pick 3 :

1) Orange Juice on the camera lens
2) Rings for fishrope on the astronauts backpack.
3) Inpossible sound, astronaut throw something away against the lunarmodule and you here that sound :-)



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra


1) Orange Juice on the camera lens
2) Rings for fishrope on the astronauts backpack.
3) Inpossible sound, astronaut throw something away against the lunarmodule and you here that sound


Please elaborate in your own words so we don't have to waste time watching the video.



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Oh God, I made it 5 minutes in before my brain shut off out of self preservation. They're just going on about how signal degradation from video being broadcast 384,000km is somehow evidence of a hoax



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: DJW001

Oh God, I made it 5 minutes in before my brain shut off out of self preservation. They're just going on about how signal degradation from video being broadcast 384,000km is somehow evidence of a hoax


Yeah I watched it started laughing so hard I spit up my orange juice. He apparently didn't understand signals were sent back to earth and the process involved so he basically sees the bands caused by signal loss and thinks it's a shadow. And it amazed him a bag under the table was swinging not realizing If it didn't that is a problem. And his thoughts are strange he doesn't follow a logical order he mentions stuff than tells you about something else made it half way and just had to atop. The reason for the color bands is they used 3 filters to make a color film. If any signal loss occurs you see banding of the other 2 colors.
edit on 5/4/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

its quite funny indeed..

he did mention that it was ALL LIVE which is why there were no "do-overs" for mistakes made..

so he has straight out thrown the slow motion theory out the window..



posted on May, 4 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: dragonridr

its quite funny indeed..

he did mention that it was ALL LIVE which is why there were no "do-overs" for mistakes made..

so he has straight out thrown the slow motion theory out the window..


After watching that now I get why people think apollo is faked. They don't understand science they don't understand electronics. So to them it looks like magic. And everyone knows magic is fake lol. Really still amazed he doesn't understand signal loss during camera scans. My god are they really that stupid and what does this say about our public schools ??
edit on 5/4/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 12:17 AM
link   

a reply to: ....
I made it 5 minutes in before my brain shut off out of self preservation


there the propagandists go again ,,flaunting their cognitive dissonance



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Thanks for providing more evidence that hoax believers dont have a leg to stand on.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation


a reply to: ....
I made it 5 minutes in before my brain shut off out of self preservation


there the propagandists go again ,,flaunting their cognitive dissonance



There go the Trolls again, mocking the Hoaxies.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:35 AM
link   
I got bored after half an hour of this garbage (probably only half of which actually has him making any kind of claims in it, but here's something for people who fall for this to chew on:

Why does he start off with the Nike missile defence battery and then not mention it again?

Why does he keep insisting that the Apollo 16 TV footage he uses is B&W? It's colour, hence the colour distortions. Why does a filmmaker not understand how colour TV works, or bothered to check how that colour TV as broadcast?

It's good that he mentions the UV camera in his second clip - you know, the UV camera that takes photographs you couldn't take from Earth. He claims that the 'take a look' comment is the astronaut referring to the ETB, when it could be anything, and then infers sinister motives behind them taking off a camera from their chest mount and putting near the bag. At the end of the EVA. So it can can go back in the LM. It's almost as if they wanted to put stuff in a bag to make it easy to get it back inside.

At no point does he make the connection between low gravity and lack of atmospheric damping as being a possible cause of the bag continuing to move for such a long time. He simply puts 2 and 2 together, makes 7, and assumes there is a magical vent somewhere that isn't visible in any shot and has no impact on anything else at all - including the straps on the ETB.

His next dumb mistake is to claim that the camera has been put in the ETB bag. It hasn't - the magazine from the camera is in the bag. Duke throws the camera off to the left and you can see that throwing motion in the clip he uses. Nowhere does it say that Duke is not supposed to touch the bag again after unhooking it, just that Young is the person responsible (as the last person on the surface) for sending it up via the cable.

He trots out the usual compartmentalisation argument about the number of people involved in the hoax and lists the astronauts, the people filming, people building the sets and peope authorising it. That's still quite a hefty chunk of people. Where are they?

It's great he admits it was live TV - makes it massively difficult to fake all those time and date specific images of Earth broadcast on TV.

The smearing on the reseau plate is absolutely not a spill, it is very obviously a smear that has dried, and could be on the magazine itself, the lens or the plate. He claims to identify when the smear occurred (and may well be correct) but there is self-evidently no liquid involved in the footage he shows.

It seems likely to me that the dirt on the magazine gets transferred to the reseau, which has a sticky residue from cleaning and that is what the dirt sticks to. The fact that it occurs on different magazines proves it is not the film itself. He also claims that it is somehow leaking onto the chest plate from their helmet drinking straws - in which case how does it end up on the lens?

The fact that there is confusion about when that smearing occurs is insignificant - the ALSJ also mentions the smear in its image library record for EVA-2, it is not a secret. The details in the mission report were discussed several days after the mission. You're asking people to recall minor details some time after the event. In the technical debrief the astronauts describe how they cleaned things, and what they've been told about is the reseau plate.

They do not claim themselves that they know it was smeared in the LM between EVAs, nor do they specifically say they cleaned it between EVA 2 & 3, just that they wiped the cameras down. The film claims that they say they wiped the reseau plates down, however they do not say specifically that they cleaned them (read the words he shows!) just that they wiped the cameras down with a wet cloth.

At least part of the conclusion comes from his interpretation of wording. The mission report says that it occurred between EVA-2 and 3. He takes this as meaning "in the LM between the two EVAs",
rather that "at some point during EVA-2 and 3. You need to bear in mind that when writing the reports they are still going through the process of identifying which photographs were taken when and where - this is not the digital age and they would have no idea what was on them.

The link he then makes, having basically invented a mechanism for the smearing, is to say that if the helmet was leaking orange juice then it was leaking air and therefore death. Well, firstly leaks can be managed - there is a difference between a leak and a blow out, and secondly he has entirely invented one scenario and used it to entirely invent another. 2+2=11 this time.

His amazing research skills as far as the 'rings' on the side of the OPS unfortunately didn't extend far enough down the page on which he got his first picture of it. The rings are there for if the OPS is in a helmet mounted position, eg Ron Evans EVA on to retrieve the SIM bay camera magazines:



Lazy, sloppy, ignorant research. Despite his wild claims there is most definitely an official explanation and technical documentation for them, he was just too hasty in jumping to conclusions and too lazy to read down a page to see it.

Couldn't be bothered with the rest.
edit on 5-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: correction



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

a reply to: onebigmonkey
The fact that there is confusion about when that smearing occurs is insignificant -...
They do not claim themselves that they know it was smeared in the LM between EVAs,


without going into to much detail, I have my own theory concerning the source of the smear

but the propagandists confess they're incognizant ,, leaving themselves with no other recourse than too embark upon a literal smear campaign ...



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

This is not the first time you have claimed to have information relevant to the Apollo discussion and not divulged it.

Put up or shut up.

The last time you did I pointed out that if your next post didn't contain the information you claimed to have, we would be left with no alternative but assume you had no such thing. You did not post it, therefore you were making it up.

Same here: post what you have, or admit you have nothing.
edit on 5-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join