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.

 

I thought we went to the moon....until I viewed these videos

page: 7
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: yuppa
Heres something to consider. the ORION would not be inside the VAn allen belts long enough to kill anyone same as it was with apollo. 3200 miles is how far they extend out. the rad levels drop really signifigantly from the inner belt though.

OH NOES MOON HOAX AWWRRR MUH GUUDNESSS!!

Orion was inside the intense inner Van Allen belt longer than Apollo. The dose of radiation expected for Orion was greater than Apollo. Review my first post on page 1 of this thread.


We must be talking about 2 different ORIONs. the ORION nuclear ROCKET was what I was talking about. Those are not designed to be orbiters. The program WENT DARK(aka black) after it was "cancelled" in the white world although it was used in the secret space program. Unless ORION has some extreme shielding it would not be hanging around longer than a shuttle in space.




posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I find it very strange we have never went back to the moon is the biggest factor in all this.Like they realy care about how much it cost.
I cannot understand why drones are not sent to the moon,maybe it is the gravity issues.Just is wierd why they make money an excuse when we are so far in massive debt.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jobeycool
I find it very strange we have never went back to the moon is the biggest factor in all this.Like they realy care about how much it cost.
I cannot understand why drones are not sent to the moon,maybe it is the gravity issues.Just is wierd why they make money an excuse when we are so far in massive debt.


most obvious answer is they are told they cant go back. prolly some deep black moon base there anyway.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

That debunking compared two completely different scenes of the same videotape. What a scam. Sibrel's brief scene is not the same as the little gem passing through the window from an entirely different part of the Apollo 11 CM footage.

Anyways, we need to discuss why the video always cuts from showing the astros to going outside the "window". That's a production, plain and simple. No matter how you slice it.

ETA: In fact, as Soylent Green pointed out - he asked why Sibrel didn't show the later on footage of the window scene described in your link. Yet, another attempt to confuse the casual reader by the Apollogist/propagandist side. Sad

edit on 19-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Critical thought is dead. Trust authority. Believe it because it's stamped science!
!


I keep seeing this accusation. Yet, I haven't seen anyplace on these threads recently where anyone has made an appeal to the "authority" of "science." Could you point out where anyone has done that?

I see people making specific arguments based on rational analysis of data that is not refuted. That's not a blind appeal to "science."



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DelMarvel

That's because you're nearly blind from your cognitive dissonance. You actually argued with me about a rock formation, just meters away, that didn't change 3-d perspective on 16mm film - whatsover - You then proceed to piggy back other's arguments without any concepts made by yourself other than trying to trap posters with derailing questions like "what the coffee guy was doing" etc...

You can keep posting in these threads but I'll just ignore you from now on. I think you're more interested in attacking moon hoaxers than having a discussion. Which, in turn, reveals your fear of finding out we're right. Fear makes you lash out and shows all of your weakness. But, I won't entertain that poor character flaw anymore



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify


That's because you're nearly blind from your cognitive dissonance.

Surely you mean deaf?

If you're going to spew absurd insults, at least try not to mix your metaphors.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

That debunking compared two completely different scenes of the same videotape. What a scam. Sibrel's brief scene is not the same as the little gem passing through the window from an entirely different part of the Apollo 11 CM footage.

Anyways, we need to discuss why the video always cuts from showing the astros to going outside the "window". That's a production, plain and simple. No matter how you slice it.

ETA: In fact, as Soyant as the Green pointed out - he asked why Sibrel didn't show the later on footage of the window scene described in your link. Yet, another attempt to confuse the casual reader by the Apollogist/propagandist side. Sad


Here is the entire 1 hour and 29 minutes of video taken in cislunar space of that Apollo 11 trip to the Moon.

Frankly, this video also totally debunks the idea that it was filmed in LEO rather than in cislunar space, especially given all of the other evidence about weather patterns and still images of the whole Earth that match the images in the video, but you can decide for yourself:



edit on 5/19/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

That debunking compared two completely different scenes of the same videotape. What a scam. Sibrel's brief scene is not the same as the little gem passing through the window from an entirely different part of the Apollo 11 CM footage.

Anyways, we need to discuss why the video always cuts from showing the astros to going outside the "window". That's a production, plain and simple. No matter how you slice it.

ETA: In fact, as Soyant as the Green pointed out - he asked why Sibrel didn't show the later on footage of the window scene described in your link. Yet, another attempt to confuse the casual reader by the Apollogist/propagandist side. Sad


Here is the entire 1 hour and 29 minutes of video taken in cislunar space of that Apollo 11 trip to the Moon.

Frankly, this video also totally debunks the idea that it was filmed in LEO rather than in cislunar space, especially given all of the other evidence about weather patterns and still-images of the whole Earth that match the images in the video, but you can decide for yourself:




Right, but that debunking page compared two different scenes that were separated by cuts in the footage, which is disingenuous.

Now, nothing I've seen there couldn't be replicated on Earth. As most know, these videos weren't seen until Sibrel released the footage in his film, then, NASA's film contractor made them public (Spacecraft Films?).

Here's how they were faked. The scenes with the Earth out of the window are always preceded by a black out/cut. These were filmed much later on. Nobody studied the actual 1969 footage of this. It's been altered and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax

I apologize if that came off as an insult. I was purely having some fun with words - which by the way - "blind" made sense if you read further on in my post.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: ngchunter

That debunking compared two completely different scenes of the same videotape. What a scam. Sibrel's brief scene is not the same as the little gem passing through the window from an entirely different part of the Apollo 11 CM footage.

Anyways, we need to discuss why the video always cuts from showing the astros to going outside the "window". That's a production, plain and simple. No matter how you slice it.

ETA: In fact, as Soyant as the Green pointed out - he asked why Sibrel didn't show the later on footage of the window scene described in your link. Yet, another attempt to confuse the casual reader by the Apollogist/propagandist side. Sad


Here is the entire 1 hour and 29 minutes of video taken in cislunar space of that Apollo 11 trip to the Moon.

Frankly, this video also totally debunks the idea that it was filmed in LEO rather than in cislunar space, especially given all of the other evidence about weather patterns and still-images of the whole Earth that match the images in the video, but you can decide for yourself:




Right, but that debunking page compared two different scenes that were separated by cuts in the footage, which is disingenuous.

Now, nothing I've seen there couldn't be replicated on Earth. As most know, these videos weren't seen until Sibrel released the footage in his film, then, NASA's film contractor made them public (Spacecraft Films?).

Here's how they were faked. The scenes with the Earth out of the window are always preceded by a black out/cut. These were filmed much later on. Nobody studied the actual 1969 footage of this. It's been altered and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago


Cool story. Do you have any evidence. or is that just unsubstantiated wild speculation?

Anybody can make up a story about anything. Your stories have no corroborating evidence, and your only assertions are "well, it could have happened this way". On the other hand, there is actual evidence that we did actually go to the Moon, and that evidence is consistent with itself.

Do you have evidence that these still images that were reportedly taken at the same time as the Apollo 11 video was taken showing the same cloud patterns in the video were doctored long after the fact?


AS11-36-5341 (HR)


AS11-36-5366 (HR)


AS11-36-5373 (HR)

(Image courtesy of Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory, NASA Johnson Space Center.)

(Images taken from the post by ATS member 'Saint Exupery' from three years ago (linked below):
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sibrel's claim that the views of the Earth in that video were taken through a stencil cut-out while the spacecraft was in LEO (his claim is that the Earth would have filled the field of view, so the cut-out was required) is just plain silly. There is absolutely NOTHING in the video record that backs-up that wild assertion.



edit on 5/19/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:31 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

What most people don't take into account is that not many people have the original broadcasts recorded. Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information. Such as the video of the Earth passing through the windows of the command module.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: bobbypurify

What most people don't take into account is that not many people have the original broadcasts recorded. Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information. Such as the video of the Earth passing through the windows of the command module.



Okay. Then show me your evidence that the original broadcast was totally different than the video.

Even Bart Sibrel doesn't make that claim. He only claimed that the Earth was seen through a stencil cut-out, which had been debunked several times on ATS over the years. At least he tried (but failed) to provide evidence of his story.

If you want to blindly believe the claim that the images were shot in LEO without having seen any evidence, then fine by me. However, I like evidence, rather than simply "blindly believing" something.



edit on 5/19/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Right, but that debunking page compared two different scenes that were separated by cuts in the footage, which is disingenuous.


Why are you accusing someone of dishonesty without actually making any effort whatsoever to verify things for yourself? Why are you so happy to swallow someone else's version without doing the bare minimum of checking?

Are the images of Earth genuine or not? Are the weather patterns genuine or not? Is the position of the terminator correct in terms of the time of the transmission? Do the astronauts describe what they can see?


Now, nothing I've seen there couldn't be replicated on Earth.


Do explain how. Fully, completely, without resorting to made up fantasy technology.


As most know, these videos weren't seen until Sibrel released the footage in his film, then, NASA's film contractor made them public (Spacecraft Films?).


Not true at all.

The videos were live TV broadcast to the press room at Houston. They existed in VCR tapes before Sibrel got hold of them. The 16mm footage that shows the same views could also be obtained easily.

Sibrel's claim that he was 'accidentally' given them is a lie. They were never secret. The fact that there were screenshots from the supposedly secret videos shown in newspapers, magazines and on TV news shows that they were public. He asked for copies, he got them. That's how secret they were.


Here's how they were faked. The scenes with the Earth out of the window are always preceded by a black out/cut. These were filmed much later on.


Nope, they were broadcast live. Prove they weren't. How did they get the view of Earth from that distance? In colour? Try actually watching the continuous footage, not Sibrel's edited lies where he deliberately mixes up dates and times.


Nobody studied the actual 1969 footage of this.


And you know this how? The footage was broadcast on TV before they could possibly have known what the weather patterns would be.


It's been altered


When? By whom? How? How did they edit it in time to get it in the next day's news and on the nightly news broadcasts? Don't make mistake of thinking these images weren't out there, because they were. I have original copies of lots of them.



and used as damage control so propagandists can construct false arguments such as the weather pattern malarky that fools the kiddos who dried up their pineal gland long ago


Ad homs again? Is that all you have? It makes a change from "it kind of looks funny". You keep switching between your "Hey I don't know I'm just asking" and the abusive "yes I do know and you're all idiots" style. Make up your mind who you want to be.

Prove they aren't genuine images of Earth, broadcast live to the press and shown on the news and published in newspapers.
edit on 19-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Of course I don't have evidence. If anyone did, your dream would be over. I just explain in laymen terms how easily this was pulled off.

1969 - Satellite takes photo of Earth (yes, I know you'll say record doesn't show of this)
1969 - Apollo 11 fakes showing Earth with transparency (nobody studied the weather patterns of Earth in live broadcast combined with horrible resolution)
1995 - "Internet is scary" - NASA
Afterwards - retouched film and photos introducing "evidence" such as cloud patterns that match the real satellite photos/record of the time.


It's simple. And I see people trying to shove this psuedo-sciencey crap down our throats as DEFINITIVE PROOF. It's far from it. It just takes a tiny bit of imagination. Something NASA surely had but sadly, the patriotic don't seem to
edit on 19-5-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Of course I don't have evidence. If anyone did, your dream would be over. I just explain in laymen terms how easily this was pulled off.

1969 - Satellite takes photo of Earth (yes, I know you'll say record doesn't show of this)
1969 - Apollo 11 fakes showing Earth with transparency (nobody studied the weather patterns of Earth in live broadcast)
1995 - "Internet is scary" - NASA
Afterwards - retouched film and photos introducing "evidence" such as cloud patterns that match the real satellite photos/record of the time.


It's simple. And I see people trying to shove this psuedo-sciencey crap down our throats as DEFINITIVE PROOF. It's far from it. It just takes a tiny bit of imagination. Something NASA surely had but sadly, the patriotic don't seem to


So you have only a blind belief to go by. You are totally basing your assertion not on evidence, but rather on the blind faith you have regarding your per-conceived notions that the Apollo program was fake.

It seems you are saying that no matter how much evidence is presented to you that we went to the Moon, you can just blindly dismiss it all with a wave of your hand, saying "Although I have no evidence, I'm claiming it could have been faked."

Okay then.


edit on 5/19/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: bobbypurify

What most people don't take into account is that not many people have the original broadcasts recorded. Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information. Such as the video of the Earth passing through the windows of the command module.



So when did they sneak in in the night and edit my original NASA photographic reports, preliminary science reports, newspaper cuttings, magazines. 35mm slides issued as souvenirs by newspapers, 8mm and super8 films, the Luanr Science Conference Proceedings, the books published at the time long before there was anything like Photoshop, the compiled volumes of satellite data freely available for purchase or kept in libraries for public use? Who came in and altered all these things without me noticing?

If you are basing all your opinions on youtube and electronic media, you really need to buy some books.



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: bobbypurify

What most people don't take into account is that not many people have the original broadcasts recorded. Nobody saw much of what was put out, unless they watched it on TV or bought it on VHS/Beta/or Laser Disc (all carefully controlled by NASA) UNTIL the advent of the internet age. That's when, IMO, that most of the damage control photo retouching and video effects/retouching were done, to protect the lie they started way before they knew about the availability of information. Such as the video of the Earth passing through the windows of the command module.



So when did they sneak in in the night and edit my original NASA photographic reports, preliminary science reports, newspaper cuttings, magazines. 35mm slides issued as souvenirs by newspapers, 8mm and super8 films, the Luanr Science Conference Proceedings, the books published at the time long before there was anything like Photoshop, the compiled volumes of satellite data freely available for purchase or kept in libraries for public use? Who came in and altered all these things without me noticing?


"Who?" you ask. The underpants gnomes, of course:



edit on 5/19/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Of course I don't have evidence. If anyone did, your dream would be over. I just explain in laymen terms how easily this was pulled off.

1969 - Satellite takes photo of Earth (yes, I know you'll say record doesn't show of this)


The satellite took photographs of the weather. The weather is a unique time and date specific signature, the images are all timestamped and could be intercepted by anyone with an FM receiver. Some people did, and still do, make a hobby of it. I did it myself in the 80s using a very early computer and a satellite dish for an educational facility I worked in. Even this predated photoshop.

The images these satellites took were not even in colour.



1969 - Apollo 11 fakes showing Earth with transparency (nobody studied the weather patterns of Earth in live broadcast combined with horrible resolution)


Really? Poor quality? You need to look closely at them, the resolution is good enough to make out clear details. You are assuming they were poor quality based on rubbish youtube reproductions.



1995 - "Internet is scary" - NASA


Really? Where on earth are you getting that ridiculous nonsense from?

I was using the internet before then. No-one from NASA told me it was bad. All of the photographs and documents reproduced by NASA were publicly available in actual paper copies. I have some.



Afterwards - retouched film and photos introducing "evidence" such as cloud patterns that match the real satellite photos/record of the time.


See my earlier post. Your argument completely disintegrates in the presence of actual paper copies of actual books that compare perfectly with electronic versions.



It's simple. And I see people trying to shove this psuedo-sciencey crap down our throats as DEFINITIVE PROOF. It's far from it. It just takes a tiny bit of imagination. Something NASA surely had but sadly, the patriotic don't seem to


Why are you assuming I am American? I couldn't give a flying youknowwhat about the US, or NASA. i do care about lies and fraud masquerading as the truth and fooling the gullible.

All you seem to have is fabrication with nothing to back it up. Find some unsinkable proof that any of it was faked and you might get some respect.
edit on 19-5-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No, you're misunderstanding me. I'm stating how easy this could have been acheived, and most likely was. Like, instead of just saying "dang, I guess it could have happened that way" you'll say "do you have any concrete evidence???" No, I don't. I don't require something to be written down to see what I need to form an opinion. When a guy gets shot in the head by a .50cal, I don't wait for his death certificate.




top topics



 
22
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join