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: 39
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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


I'm very happy for you that you ALSO were good in science. The BIG difference between us is that i don't tell you all the time the apollo believers don't underststand anything concerning science.
edit on 13-5-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 13 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

It was "kept secret from the ones who didn't know", using the "need to know" policy.


And Arthur C. Clarke "needed" to know because--well, it's always good to include a loquacious novelist from another country who has nothing to do with the conspiracy in a top secret project.


edit on 13-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Ove38

It was "kept secret from the ones who didn't know", using the "need to know" policy.


And Arthur C. Clarke "needed" to know because--well, it's always good to include a loquacious novelist from another country who has nothing to do with the conspiracy in a top secret project.


Wasn't this Arthur the infentor of the satellite ?
edit on 13-5-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2015 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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


I'm very happy for you that you ALSO were good in science. The BIG difference between us is that i don't tell you all the time the apollo believers don't underststand anything concerning science.


Quite agenda revealing, no? Ive seen quite a bit of nonsense in this thread to know that there's people who question apollo and people whove got an agenda to shove their NASA straight down your throat. Too much attitude from that side to even have a convo and it's completely tolerated by mods even when insulting other members. But guess what, they're either liars or have an agenda because they've yet to show me one thing that can't be recreated by earth-bound techniques and the rest is filled in with fairy tales/faith. Choose wisely and just follow the attitudes delivered in this discussion. It's easy to see who has a lot to lose



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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


I'm very happy for you that you ALSO were good in science. The BIG difference between us is that i don't tell you all the time the apollo believers don't underststand anything concerning science.


Quite agenda revealing, no? Ive seen quite a bit of nonsense in this thread to know that there's people who question apollo and people whove got an agenda to shove their NASA straight down your throat. Too much attitude from that side to even have a convo and it's completely tolerated by mods even when insulting other members. But guess what, they're either liars or have an agenda because they've yet to show me one thing that can't be recreated by earth-bound techniques and the rest is filled in with fairy tales/faith. Choose wisely and just follow the attitudes delivered in this discussion. It's easy to see who has a lot to lose


Indeed, it's like a sex-bomb losing here sexuality because getting old....but that is normal, it's more then 45 years ago now.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify


Quite agenda revealing, no? Ive seen quite a bit of nonsense in this thread to know that there's people who question apollo and people whove got an agenda to shove their NASA straight down your throat.


No agenda here. It's not 'my' NASA. As far as I'm concerned it's denying, and combating, ignorance.



Too much attitude from that side to even have a convo and it's completely tolerated by mods even when insulting other members. But guess what, they're either liars or have an agenda


Read your first sentence and then what you wrote next.

Ask yourself if there isn't just a tiny bit of hypocrisy there.



because they've yet to show me one thing that can't be recreated by earth-bound techniques


Show me one thing that was created on Earth. Describe how it was done. Where. When. By whom.

Show me the behaviour of soil in zero atmosphere low gravity environment. Show me extended sequences of weightlessness. Live TV with audio showing Earth from space.




and the rest is filled in with fairy tales/faith.


Fairy tales like the data transmitted back from instruments installed on the lunar surface? Fairy tales like rocks and craters shown on TV video and in photographs that were not pictured before Apollo? Fairy tales from China, India and Japan whose evidence completely corroborates Apollo? Imaginary time and date specific images of Earth? Fairy tales like the 100s of Kgs of rocks and soil brought back that are provably not terrestrial in origin?

Countered by what? Inference, nudges and winks, no supporting evidence, 'gee it kinda looks funny', blatant lack of knowledge and understanding that somehow gets glossed over and buried when it's pointed out? I don't believe I have seen you post one single item in support of your claims. Let's see what you have that backs up your opinion. Try and make it stick.

The only agenda I see is a desperate attempt to cling on to immature and ill-informed ways of looking at the world and a refusal to listen to any kind of reason. Constant demands for answers and evidence balanced by total failure to reciprocate.



posted on May, 13 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Ove38

It was "kept secret from the ones who didn't know", using the "need to know" policy.


And Arthur C. Clarke "needed" to know because--well, it's always good to include a loquacious novelist from another country who has nothing to do with the conspiracy in a top secret project.


Wasn't this Arthur the infentor of the satellite ?


Depends on how you define 'invent'.

Describing how something could be done and actually doing the work to develop and launch a satellite are different things.

What's your point?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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


I'm very happy for you that you ALSO were good in science. The BIG difference between us is that i don't tell you all the time the apollo believers don't underststand anything concerning science.


Well it's OBVIOUS you don't because even when explained to you why thing are seen in images or video YOU still don't understand.

Also A C Clarke wasn't the inventor of the satellite.


Sir Arthur C. Clarke's most famous prediction on the future is his proposal of geostationary satellite communications published in the Wireless World magazine in 1945


See if you were brought up and saw Apollo missions live, or 2001 when it was released and went through the education system more than 30 years ago YOU got a real education!



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

I don't think the landing was fake but I do think the footage may be; in WW2 they made propaganda films to sell the war at home, including one said to be on the beach at Normandy. However the footage was actually filmed on a beach in California, this was so no military secrets were leaked, the government needed to completely control what was seen. The same may have been the case for the moon landing; especially that the shuttle is seen in the shot, it is possible the Soviets could see technology it has and reverse engineer it for their own advantage. To control the moon footage may have been very important.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: wmd_2008

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


I'm very happy for you that you ALSO were good in science. The BIG difference between us is that i don't tell you all the time the apollo believers don't underststand anything concerning science.


Quite agenda revealing, no? Ive seen quite a bit of nonsense in this thread to know that there's people who question apollo and people whove got an agenda to shove their NASA straight down your throat. Too much attitude from that side to even have a convo and it's completely tolerated by mods even when insulting other members. But guess what, they're either liars or have an agenda because they've yet to show me one thing that can't be recreated by earth-bound techniques and the rest is filled in with fairy tales/faith. Choose wisely and just follow the attitudes delivered in this discussion. It's easy to see who has a lot to lose


More like sour grapes on your part as everything brought up as a possible flaw is explained away the trouble with the hoax side as I have said before YOU LOT think you only have to show one thing being wrong for it to be a hoax yet our side of the argument has to prove everything is correct.

The videos of objects dropped on the Moon, the pendulum etc show the proper effects of objects under the Moons gravity because YOU can't work it out doesn't make it wrong.

The positions of objects on the surface are recorded the distance between objects and craters are recorded, very small objects photographed on the surface can be seen in the LRO shots not one or two but hundreds.

When China landed their Moon rover we had images of the area taken before that mission and a new object showing up were the Chinese said their rover was the only people in denial are the hoax believers.

NASA and the USA could NEVER risk faking it as at that point they did not know when another country would send a probe or mission or build a telescope that could image the sites.

The motto here is Deny Ignorance if you want everyone to agree with everything you say re this there is another web site about the Moon with many idiots sorry members who make claims like this.

Spaceship lol

If that's the level you want you can find the site easily!
edit on 14-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Raytrek

The USSR was more thsn capable of producing the technology needed. Their main issue was getting a heavy lift vehicle off the ground.

The US showed the lunar module all the time in TV broadcasts.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:12 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

People that aren't lying to themselves or protecting something can tell that the photos and videos from the moon look studio-based. In every instance, to the point that it's becoming laughable. But continue to pretend you're smarter than everyone for what you promote, cool tactic!

Enjoy!

youtu.be...

Can YOU see the flat screen? I'll bet you PRETEND you can't. Lmao at Apollo. But I guess I should respect something that's duped, albeit dwindling, so many for so long. Just stamp science next to it and here come the authority worshipers, ready and willing!
edit on 14-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: Ove38

It was "kept secret from the ones who didn't know", using the "need to know" policy.


And Arthur C. Clarke "needed" to know because--well, it's always good to include a loquacious novelist from another country who has nothing to do with the conspiracy in a top secret project.


Wasn't this Arthur the infentor of the satellite ?


No. But he was close to openly gay with a history of foreign partners. It would have been impossible for him to get even low level security clearance in those days. Yet he was included in this top secret government conspiracy for no apparent reason whatsoever?
edit on 14-5-2015 by DelMarvel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify


People that aren't lying to themselves or protecting something can tell that the photos and videos from the moon look studio-based.


Why? Be specific.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

You won't admit to seeing it. It's kinda funny too. Anyone who is honest knows the photos looks staged. I mean, I was just in a wedding and the photographer took her time lining up photos so they would be just right and everything, including the background, was in the shot. But on Apollo, no viewfinder, a fishbowl helmet, pressurized gloves, and on the spot improvisation of camera settings produced this:

s.hswstatic.com...

Good lord. I feel really bad for those that think that's on the moon. Like really bad. Like, you still sleep in a race car bed bad.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

You have obviously only seen the good photos. There are plenty of bad ones, but magazines and newspapers don't publish bad photos. Browse through the archives. I'd post a few bad photos but I'm off to work.



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, I've looked at the photo record. Probably not all of it. Now, what does DJ see when he looks closely at that photo? Does it look like it's on the moon?



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

Apollo image archive has all the Hasselblad images so you can see the good and the bad only hoaxers and hoaxer sites claim all the images were good. Any photographer worth his salt knows how to take pictures to get maximum depth of field and correct exposure as you are not you dont so instead you post dumb comments on the subject.

How do you think little point snd shot cameras work again making comments like yours just shows your total lack of knowledge on the subject.

So do you not think that the astronauts would have practiced before going the exposure settings were worked out before going because the source of light was well known the Sun.
edit on 14-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Lol, just as predicted. How about I slap you into a presurized suit and a fishbowl helmet, then shoot you in a rocket 237k mi away as you stew in your own filth for a few days, then you land on a foreign body and drop feathers, play golf, fall on rocks like your suit is invincible and proceed to take staged photos. You wouldn't last a couple days in your own shed, confined to your own filth let alone In outer space. I get that it's your job to make this all believable but it's not, to anyone with a rational mind and not blinded by cognitive dissonance. So since you can play coy and pretend everyone is dumb for not believing this load of crap, I'll turn the tables, and call out the obvious. I can't believe you think you're rational and don't entertain the possibility of a hoax. Like, it blows my mind.

Think of everything that could go wrong in this video:

youtu.be...

Let's make a list of why NOBODY would do this on the moon, shall we?

What could go wrong with:
Suit
PLSS
helmet
Etc



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

People that aren't lying to themselves or protecting something can tell that the photos and videos from the moon look studio-based. In every instance, to the point that it's becoming laughable. But continue to pretend you're smarter than everyone for what you promote, cool tactic!

Enjoy!

youtu.be...

Can YOU see the flat screen? I'll bet you PRETEND you can't. Lmao at Apollo. But I guess I should respect something that's duped, albeit dwindling, so many for so long. Just stamp science next to it and here come the authority worshipers, ready and willing!


I'm not sure how you can push your assertion that the rock perspectives on the alleged "flat screen" don't change when in fact I can easily see they DO change, just by watching your video. What you are telling me does not match what your video is alleging.

Here is an enlarge still from the 1:03 mark. I've picked out a few rock examples (with arrows and guide lines) behind the big rock. You allege that these are painted on a screen, and thus the perspective of the rocks does not change as camera on the rover drives past:



Now here is an enlarged still from the 1:12 mark after the rover has driven past the rock a bit. As you can clearly see, the perspective has in fact changed on the example rocks that I have indicated with arrows and lines:



I mean, you tell us that the perspective doesn't change, but when I look at the perspective, it certainly does change. I'm not sure why you think that just by TELLING us that it doesn't change, that will make it true.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join