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: 38
17
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

How about finding where Stanley Kubrick said 2001 was a scientifically accurate representation of outer space? What a silly argument you're trying to lure someone into




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

How about finding where Stanley Kubrick said 2001 was a scientifically accurate representation of outer space? What a silly argument you're trying to lure someone into


Suggest YOU read the posts before sticking your neb in, Ove made the claim that Stanley Kubrick faked things for NASA so when you get OBVIOUS errors that anyone with a photographic/film background should know it doesn't help his claim does it!



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

I understood it fine and the silly point you're trying to make. Now, where did Kubrick state that 2001 was a scientifically accurate recreation and not intended for entertainment purpose only so as to make your claim legit? Because, if you can't determine the difference between a movie and a possible hoax to fool the masses, then it may be time to reevaluate



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I understood it fine and the silly point you're trying to make. Now, where did Kubrick state that 2001 was a scientifically accurate recreation and not intended for entertainment purpose only so as to make your claim legit? Because, if you can't determine the difference between a movie and a possible hoax to fool the masses, then it may be time to reevaluate


Every claim re this so called hoax has been shown to be wrong because the people who believe just don't have a grasp of the basic science concepts and show a TOTAL lack of understanding of what they see in images or film.

So clutching at straws because someone from NASA meets Kubrick is a joke, he actually wanted to use a lens DEVELOPED for NASA in one of his films, the Zeiss 50mm f0.7 lens used in the film Barry Lydon because it allowed him to film with just candle light in the scene!!!!



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

I can give you evidence that Apollo 10 happened. What do you have to suggest it didn't?

The LM ascent stage was burnt to depletion to test if the engine could be re-ignited in an emergency. As they were in lunar orbit for some time after this, it makes sense to get it as far away as possible.

The plan was always to put it in heliocentric orbit, whether it made it into that orbit given the pull of the moon and Earth is another matter.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I understood it fine and the silly point you're trying to make. Now, where did Kubrick state that 2001 was a scientifically accurate recreation and not intended for entertainment purpose only so as to make your claim legit? Because, if you can't determine the difference between a movie and a possible hoax to fool the masses, then it may be time to reevaluate


Ove linked to this photo BELOW his link claims the picture was taken in the mid 60's but if you search the picture YOU will find something different.

Kubrick Clarke

Did you see the date!

See bob if you get ALL you info from other conspiracy sites then it will back your claims LAZY just pure LAZY!!!



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: Ove38

Did they ever find 'Snoopy' module?

news.discovery.com...


42 years later, UK-led astronomers now hope to track down Snoopy, which is believed to still be orbiting the sun.


That is total b.s. NASA landed Snoopy by remote control on the moon at one of the other Apollo landing sites. There is absolutely no reason to let that hardware go to waste by flinging Snoopy all the way out to the Sun. Complete CIA b.s.

Maybe they set Snoopy down on Tranquility Base...


The ascent stage of "Snoopy" (the Apollo 10 LM) was separated from the descent stage as part of the LM test. The ascent stage returned the astronauts to the CM without the descent stage legs, just as it would do for the Apollo landing missions. Therefore, Snoopy had no legs and could not land on the Moon after returning the astronauts to the CM.


Image source:
spaceflight.nasa.gov...



How did Snoopy get around the Sun? Who ordered that mission?

After the ascent stage of the LM (i.e., the stage without legs) got back to the CM, and after the astronauts transferred from the LM ascent stage to the CM, the ascent stage was then separated from the CM. After separation, the ascent engine was ignited remotely to burn the remaining fuel in the ascent stage. As a result of this engine burn, the ascent stage left lunar orbit and entered a solar orbit.

As for "who ordered it?", I'd have to say it was simply a mission decision to not crash it into the Moon. Maybe there was too much fuel left in the ascent stage to send it toward the lunar surface (maybe it would be going too fast on impact??). I don't know the reason, but whatever the reason, I don't see it as being any evidence of a hoax.


edit on 5/13/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

why am i not surprised that you have absolutly no idea what a scientific theory is



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I did some more checking on the AFJ Apollo 10 site (mission documents, can't link as I am on my phone).

They also wanted to check MSFN's ability to track the LM from Earth and monitor engine performance.

Demanding to know who 'ordered' it sounds like another strawman building exercise.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


simple answer it would require controlled burns to crash it inot the moon easier just to ignite its thrusters and get it out of the way for future lunar flights. Also im sure their were concerns of possibly causing problems with the fuel unplanned lunar impacts are nasty.

news.discovery.com...



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Ove38

Well have you spotted SK's ERROR in this STILL from his film 2001



And ?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

How about finding where Stanley Kubrick said 2001 was a scientifically accurate representation of outer space? What a silly argument you're trying to lure someone into


Suggest YOU read the posts before sticking your neb in, Ove made the claim that Stanley Kubrick faked things for NASA so when you get OBVIOUS errors that anyone with a photographic/film background should know it doesn't help his claim does it!

Do you have a link to this claim ?



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I understood it fine and the silly point you're trying to make. Now, where did Kubrick state that 2001 was a scientifically accurate recreation and not intended for entertainment purpose only so as to make your claim legit? Because, if you can't determine the difference between a movie and a possible hoax to fool the masses, then it may be time to reevaluate


Ove linked to this photo BELOW his link claims the picture was taken in the mid 60's but if you search the picture YOU will find something different.

Kubrick Clarke

Did you see the date!

See bob if you get ALL you info from other conspiracy sites then it will back your claims LAZY just pure LAZY!!!


1965 = mid 60's



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19340354]wmd_2008
Every claim re this so called hoax has been shown to be wrong because the people who believe just don't have a grasp of the basic science concepts and show a TOTAL lack of understanding of what they see in images or film.

So clutching at straws because someone from NASA meets Kubrick is a joke, he actually wanted to use a lens DEVELOPED for NASA in one of his films, the Zeiss 50mm f0.7 lens used in the film Barry Lydon because it allowed him to film with just candle light in the scene!!!!


That's the same nonsence over and over again.

I don't believe in your apollo-pseudo-science but at school I had good grades for science.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: webstra

no - the nonsense is the unevidenced claim that " kubrik did it "

theres a few choice questions for the kubrik did it camp :

did kubrik travel to america ? or did the astronauts travel to the UK ???????????????

where was it filmed ????????

when was it filmed ??????????

did they use a low pressure chamber [ hinges on answer one ] ????

where did the hardware [ LEM , rovers etc ] come from ?????????????? [ not a trick question ]

its easy to sit there JAQing off - but when you actuall attempt to answer how the hoax you alledge was perpetrated - the holes in your " logic " start to open up



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: webstra
where was it filmed ????????

when was it filmed ??????????


On Earth and on the Moon in 1969, it's a mixture of actual and fake material, like this


edit on 13-5-2015 by Ove38 because: text fix



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Saying something is fake does not make it fake.

Saying something was filmed on Earth does not mean it was filmed on Earth.

There is corroborating evidence to show that Apollo photographs, TV and video of the moon were taken on the moon. Prove otherwise with actual evidence, not broad sweeping unsupported statements.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

ah - the generalise hand waving of the hoax believer : give me ACTUAL locations and filming dates . that everyone aledged to have been involved could have attended - had the required facilities and didnt clash with any of the dramitis personas other appearences or projects .

hint - kubrik was VERY busy in 1969 on a famouse film



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: [post=19340354]wmd_2008
Every claim re this so called hoax has been shown to be wrong because the people who believe just don't have a grasp of the basic science concepts and show a TOTAL lack of understanding of what they see in images or film.

So clutching at straws because someone from NASA meets Kubrick is a joke, he actually wanted to use a lens DEVELOPED for NASA in one of his films, the Zeiss 50mm f0.7 lens used in the film Barry Lydon because it allowed him to film with just candle light in the scene!!!!


That's the same nonsence over and over again.

I don't believe in your apollo-pseudo-science but at school I had good grades for science.


Well I got good grades as well all science and engineering based which is why I now have a comfortable lifestyle and a nice detached house for my family to live in



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: Ove38

Well have you spotted SK's ERROR in this STILL from his film 2001



And ?


Obviously NOT then







 
17
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join