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: 70
17
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
cognizant individuals are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the essential constituent that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that the astronauts weren't entirely sober or undeniably do or do not know what the hazards inherent in consumption of stupefying intoxicates shouldn’t probably be,if that indeed wasn't intrinsic too what degree they aren't ....


OK, this has got to be a joke, right?




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   
The Moon Landings belong to Richard Nixon's first term and the Apollo Defenders have a hard time admitting the truth.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

what Sibrel is doing is trying to force all the astronauts to confess, and he is persistently calling them liars and other foul names..

have you added this to your scenario?? no why not??

you have consistently ignored the effect of continuous pestering of the astronauts.. after mitchell tells Sibrel to leave why does he stay for more than one and a half minutes trying to further provoke mitchell??


Sibrel had to gather all the equipment he brought into Mitchell's house, and to do that is under two minutes actually shows how quickly he responded to Mitchell's request that he leave his house!

At one point, Sibrel is bending down to a table, to collect something he had brought into the house. Mitchell suddenly kicks him (actually knees him) in the butt....

Soon, after leaving the house, Mitchell and his son each make a death threat to Sibrel.

This is unacceptable behavior, as I've clearly explained to you.

Sibrel did not say or do anything to justify a physical assault, or death threats. Mitchell is the true criminal here, beyond a doubt.

Same as Aldrin was the criminal who punched Sibrel in the face, without any justification.

You keep trying to make excuses for their foul behavior, that it was Sibrel to blame, by provoking them, pestering them, and so on. You say the responses of the astronauts were quite justified, and they showed more patience and restraint than most people would show, in the same scenarios.....


That is absolute BS.

If they were not taken to be like 'gods', among the world's greatest ever heroes....

They would never get away with such things. But they always have, and that is so wrong.


If you followed me across the street, up the same steps I took, and said I was a liar, a thief, and a coward...

Now, if I punch you in the face, do you think I would be legally justified in my actions?

You must think I would be, since you seem to believe Aldrin was legally justified for punching Sibrel..

In fact, it is NOT justified to punch someone who followed you across a street, up some steps, and burned you with a variety-pack of nasty insults.

Do you know this? Look it up, and see if it's legally justified to punch someone in the face for insulting you, and pestering you to swear on a Bible...

Sibrel was also to blame, when he followed Aldrin around, and called him a liar, a thief, and a coward...his actions led to him being punched by Aldrin...

Sure, Sibrel went too far in what he did, and it was wrong, but it does not justify a punch to the face, not in any (typical) court of law.

We are not allowed to punch out people who call us bad names, or pester us wherever we go while calling us foul names. Not in cases similar to the Sibrel-Alrin case, anyway.


Making death threats was even worse, as Mitchell was completely to blame for it.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

my thoughts on the ceiling at 475 km...?

Honestly havent red much about the "evidence" for the theory...perhaps its because it sounded ridiculous at first mention.

The notion alone would include a thousand other conspiracies...i just cant stretch that far. I know there are conspiracies...but this would take the cake. Russia, china, india..the US. Everybody who's anybody...must be in on it.


Its just too much man.



P.s. ill take a look at the "evidence" and get back to you



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:43 AM
link   
To say Apollo has so much proof is remarkable...

Apollo proved that their spacecraft could not shield a human crew beyond LEO, because it was made mostly of thin aluminum. They tried bluffing about aluminum being an adequate shield for a human crew going into deep space, since nobody could prove them wrong. We've proven they were lying all along, because in the deep space environment, aluminum actually makes radiation more dangerous to a human crew than it was to begin with. A paper bag is better shielding for a crew than aluminum is against such radiation. It is an embarrassing thing for NASA to now find out they made a radiation cooker, which could never fly humans to the moon.

Apollo also proved that they don't have any landing sites on the moon. Images taken years later of the lunar surface years later indicated areas of surface disturbance at the exact same spot the lunar landers were said to have landed on the moon. Apollo-ites have held this up as evidence confirming that Apollo landing sites exist on the moon. It actually proves they didn't land on the moon. Apollo images show NO disturbance of soil around the lunar landers, while later images show disturbances at the exact same locations where Apollo lunar landers were supposed to have landed on the moon. In their efforts to help confirm the Apollo landing sites truly do exist on the moon, at those exact locations, they actually confirmed that Apollo landing sites cannot exist at those locations. Quite ironic, I'd say..



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:22 AM
link   

a reply to: turbonium1
Sibrel did not say or do anything to justify a physical assault, or death threats. Mitchell is the true criminal here, beyond a doubt. Same as Aldrin was the criminal who punched Sibrel in the face, without any justification.

You keep trying to make excuses for their foul behavior, that it was Sibrel to blame, by provoking them, pestering them, and so on. You say the responses of the astronauts were quite justified, and they showed more patience and restraint than most people would show, in the same scenarios.....

That is absolute BS.



Propagandists Privilege is a legitimate issue and one worth further investigation, until unaffected individuals outside the moon hoax community begin to acknowledge the apollo lies beyond their purview, propagandists will continue to act with impunity.
Undoubtedly, the propagandists hierarchy is continuously fueled by the benefits of this privilege. Ergo, concordantly, the potential for the disastrous rise of the Propagandists Superiority Complex exists and will persist...



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

FFS :

put down the thesaurus and step away from the dictionary



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

my thoughts on the ceiling at 475 km...?

Honestly havent red much about the "evidence" for the theory...perhaps its because it sounded ridiculous at first mention.

The notion alone would include a thousand other conspiracies...i just cant stretch that far. I know there are conspiracies...but this would take the cake. Russia, china, india..the US. Everybody who's anybody...must be in on it.


Its just too much man.



P.s. ill take a look at the "evidence" and get back to you


There are very few nations with any capability to prove whether or not the Apollo moon landings were faked, first of all. Russia, China, and India, and that's about it. A very select group of nations, I'd say...

So these three nations could prove a hoax, then..

They would have reasons to find out if manned mission beyond LEO were done, in order to plan for their own missions in deep space going forward.

If they found it was a hoax, what makes you think they would reveal it to the world? It would be extremely difficult to prove they hoaxed it, for many reasons. We have to take their word on it, because we can't get to the moon and find out whether the landing sites are there, or not there, in person. NASA would simply insist it was genuine, should China or India ever claim to the world that it was a hoax. China could have images of the lunar surface, proving that Apollo landing sites were not found to exist on the moon, anywhere at all. The US could just say China is mistaken, since the landing sites are really on the moon. They show images to prove it, as well.

You say a hoax would be known by thousands of people, so it would be impossible for all those thousands of people to keep it a secret. In fact, few people would ever know the truth. Those at the top, and the people working on the hoax. That's not many people who know, and they are not about to tell the world it's a hoax.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


You say a hoax would be known by thousands of people, so it would be impossible for all those thousands of people to keep it a secret. In fact, few people would ever know the truth. Those at the top, and the people working on the hoax. That's not many people who know, and they are not about to tell the world it's a hoax.


When you go to see the summer blockbuster of your choice this summer, watch all the way through the credits at the end. That is the absolute minimum number of people who would be "in on the hoax." Every last one of them would want to boast about the gig of a lifetime. Think about it.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

a reply to: DJW001
watch all the way through the credits at the end. That is the absolute minimum number of people who would be "in on the hoax."


without exposing that fallacy in too much detail ... its doubtful that John Lithgow's dialect coach was in on it ...




posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

When you go to see the summer blockbuster of your choice this summer, watch all the way through the credits at the end. That is the absolute minimum number of people who would be "in on the hoax." Every last one of them would want to boast about the gig of a lifetime. Think about it.


Think about who would say 'I know the moon landings were hoaxed, because I was a stagehand on the Apollo 15 lunar set. Unfortunately, I have no evidence to prove it was a hoax, but I'm telling you the truth'

Without any proof to support the claims of those "in on the hoax", what would happen? Nothing. The claims are made by people with a grudge against NASA, a few publicity seekers who want to gain from it, and so on.

The astronauts could confess it was a hoax, but Grissom's 'accidental death' sent a clear message to every astronaut that speaking the truth isn't a good idea.

Anyway, it doesn't make any difference. 50, 500, or 5000 people - they are all in the same boat.

The 'thousands of people would be in on it' claim is worthless, no evidence for such a claim. That someone would talk among those supposed thousands of people assumes that it's 'too big to keep a secret'. Nonsense, because thousands of people involved in developing the atomic bomb kept it a secret.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Nonsense, because thousands of people involved in developing the atomic bomb kept it a secret.
For 46 years?

But there were leaks, you know.
io9.com...



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The "pro-landing" material is on the table, and it is extraordinary.


Yes, it is extraordinary... to actually believe it is evidence of moon landings!

Apollo has been disproven over and over again, with their own 'evidence'.



originally posted by: FlyingFox
I don't see that coming from the anti-landing camp, just a lot of theory, speculation and empty assertions.

The only theory that seems logical is the popular astronauts were held back as trump cards, and unknown astronauts were actually sent...insuring a "success" one way or another, as far as the public end of things.


Here's what you claim is 'proof'...

It was the hoax side who noted the landers didn't disturb the lunar soil, with 10 thousand pounds of thrust descent engine ...

Your side replied - The lunar landers didn't disturb the lunar surface very much, because the descent engines had variable thrust controls, and the crews greatly decreased the thrust levels as they approached the lunar surface. And the thrust was dispersed over the entire area of the cone, too, further decreasing thrust.

Then, new images of the (supposed) Apollo landing sites were released.

They had identified the Apollo landing sites by a small region on the lunar surface which was disrupted, matched to the exact same spot where the lunar landers (supposedly) set down. The soil was disturbed by the lunar landers, and it confirms that Apollo really did land men on the moon.

Now let's go back to your original claim -

You agreed with the hoax side that the Apollo images showed very little, if any, evidence of the surface being disturbed by the landers. You had no choice, but to agree.

I know your side agreed, because you came up with various 'reasons' why the landers hardly disturbed the lunar surface- due to minimal thrust, during the descent, and so on.

Then, new images came out. The images showed a disturbance of soil over a large area, at the exact spots where it is claimed the lunar landers descended on the lunar surface.

You immediately changed your claim - the landers DID disturb the lunar surface!

Again, you had no choice. Your entire argument had to change after those images came out.

Of course, that meant you had to come up with new excuses, to 'explain' your new, totally revised argument.

Your 'reason' for this - at close up, we cannot see the surface disruption around the landers. The disturbance is very 'subtle', and 'diffused', over a large area around the LM. It is only visible from far distances, such as in lunar orbit. Your side then finds a couple of Apollo images taken at a distance from the lander, showing lighter areas ('strips') all over the place. One of these lighter 'strips' is around the lander, which is the disturbed surface created by the lander. The other lighter 'strips' are ignored, since they are not around the lander. The lighter areas are similar in shape - a 'strip' shape. The images show an area which is roundish in shape, however. The lighter areas are found all over the surface, in those images, not only one area, not only around the lander, As well, only a few images even show these lighter areas, the vast majority show none of the lighter areas.

Ignore the fact these images show lighter areas all over the place, nowhere near the lander. Ignore the fact these lighter areas are merely narrow 'strips', not at all roundish. Ignore the fact the 'strip' is longer in length than the actual area is in the recent images. Ignore everything else that doesn't fit in, as long as one thing fits in, you have evidence to support your claim.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I'll bet you're one of those people that also believes the Earth is flat, aren't you?



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

what Sibrel is doing is trying to force all the astronauts to confess, and he is persistently calling them liars and other foul names..

have you added this to your scenario?? no why not??

you have consistently ignored the effect of continuous pestering of the astronauts.. after mitchell tells Sibrel to leave why does he stay for more than one and a half minutes trying to further provoke mitchell??


Sibrel had to gather all the equipment he brought into Mitchell's house, and to do that is under two minutes actually shows how quickly he responded to Mitchell's request that he leave his house!



watch the video again..

when it cuts to the point where Mitchell had had enough he asks Sibrel to leave this cut occurs right after making him swear on the bible..

what does SIbrel do?? he chooses to stay and provoke him some more.. not to mention it cuts out between leaving the house and entering the car, so you have no idea how long it actually took them to leave.

also i dont see him packing anything up.. i see him get his card and give it to Mitchell while standing there provoking him some more..


At one point, Sibrel is bending down to a table, to collect something he had brought into the house. Mitchell suddenly kicks him (actually knees him) in the butt....


complete lie on your behalf..

why do you continue to lie??

Sibrel chose to stay there and continue provoking Mitchell..
Mitchell kneed his butt because of Sibrels taunting.. end of story, almost everything is on film everything else has been cut out by sibrel..

do you honestly think that when asked to leave you should slowly pack your things while mouthing off at the property owner?? is that how your world works??
edit on 28-6-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your side replied - The lunar landers didn't disturb the lunar surface very much, because the descent engines had variable thrust controls, and the crews greatly decreased the thrust levels as they approached the lunar surface. And the thrust was dispersed over the entire area of the cone, too, further decreasing thrust.


yet you cant use actual physics to disprove this?? and yet we can use physics to prove this.. why??


You agreed with the hoax side that the Apollo images showed very little, if any, evidence of the surface being disturbed by the landers. You had no choice, but to agree.


you have pictures of the undisturbed soil of the Apollo landing sites before they landed there to compare?? no?? so how do you know it changed very little??


I know your side agreed, because you came up with various 'reasons' why the landers hardly disturbed the lunar surface- due to minimal thrust, during the descent, and so on.


hardly disturbed??? if i remember correctly someone was able to calculate about an inch or so or lunar soil spread of a about a metre or more due to the thrust..

you only have images of the lunar soil after it has been disturbed, and you are using that to compare with photos of what it looks like after it has been disturbed.. makes no sense..

you dont know how much regolith was disturbed, you are just making guesses.. but i find it crazy though that you even bother making this an issue..

are you saying that the stage crew that meticulously set up every location accurately to resemble video footage and images that they just forgot to clearly put in the blast crater even though they took multiple close up high definition images of it?? because that is exactly what you are saying and it is ridiculous..


Then, new images came out. The images showed a disturbance of soil over a large area, at the exact spots where it is claimed the lunar landers descended on the lunar surface.

You immediately changed your claim - the landers DID disturb the lunar surface!


you are making it up.. i dont know who said it didnt disturb the regolith.. but you must have misunderstood the difference between little and no..

most likely peopl would have said little disturbance and you understood it as NO disturbance..


Again, you had no choice. Your entire argument had to change after those images came out.


except those images have been available for a very long time.. and what you are suggesting now is that, ONLY moon hoax theorists are smart enough in the last 40+ years to have thought of it..




Ignore the fact these images show lighter areas all over the place, nowhere near the lander. Ignore the fact these lighter areas are merely narrow 'strips', not at all roundish. Ignore the fact the 'strip' is longer in length than the actual area is in the recent images. Ignore everything else that doesn't fit in, as long as one thing fits in, you have evidence to support your claim.


how about you show us mathematically how rocket blast behaves in a vacuum since you know so much??



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I was talking about the ceiling thing..



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1



Nonsense, because thousands of people involved in developing the atomic bomb kept it a secret.
For 46 years?

But there were leaks, you know.
io9.com...


Nobody even knew what an atomic bomb was, until two of them had obliterated two cities in a few seconds. The Russians said they didn't know America had developed the A-bomb, the Germans said it surprised them, and obviously Japan didn't know about it either. It obviously was a well-kept secret, otherwise it would have been known about before it was used.

The source you have states the Manhattan Project had about 1500 leaks. Not quite. The article states there were about 1500 reports of possible leaks, which they investigated. They found a scientist mentioning how uranium could potentially be a source of power, a Lutheran minister who said one field of science today is the development of uranium 235 as a power source, and so on.

The existence of atomic research being conducted was not a secret. It was a field of science. Atomic power was being researched/developed in Germany, and in the USSR, at the very same time thousands of Americans were involved in the Manhattan Project.

The 1500 'leaks' were investigated, and they found none of them to be leaks. Secrets of the Manhattan Project were not leaked out, which is my point



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The existence of atomic research being conducted was not a secret. It was a field of science
That an atomic weapon was being constructed was indeed a secret. Or supposed to have been.




The 1500 'leaks' were investigated, and they found none of them to be leaks.

False.

We are naturally much perturbed about it and Major [Peer] de Silva [Los Alamos security head] is preparing a memorandum to Lt Col [John] Lansdale [Manhattan Project security head] as to the source of the data collected by the reporter while vacationing in Albuquerque and Santa Fe. There are many rumors around town about this project since thousands of construction workers from this vicinity have been employed at Los Alamos, many of our personnel go into town for shopping and weekends, and Dr. Oppenheimer’s name is fairly well known in Santa Fe.

In discussing this with Major de Silva, he indicated that he felt the “leak” was not something we could have prevented, but that the reporter had doubtless picked up some local gossip, and put it together with information on Dr Oppenheimer in “Who’s Who.”

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com...

"Local gossip." And in the 46 years since the first Apollo landing, not a bit of gossip from anyone who was involved.

edit on 6/28/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   
This is what I'm talking about. The hoax guy is pointing to a NON-thing. The *absence* of something imaginary doesn't negate all of the physical evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join