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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 118
57
<< 115  116  117    119  120  121 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

About 30 or 40 people knew the actual plans, I'd say...

But thousands? Not a chance...


How could you possibly even know that, pulling figures out of your butt again.


originally posted by: turbonium1

Apollo's 'science' is mostly garbage, sorry to say.

Real technology/methods, compared to fake technology/methods...

A real technology will always hold up, after years, or centuries, the same way...

A fake technology cannot hold up, after years, or centuries. Because it never even existed, at all.


To have it replaced with new technology is very common, as we progress, of course....

But the old, outdated technology always exists, no matter how old, or how primitive it looks to us, years later


This was their plan for a 'return' moon landing. Use the same technology Apollo used, or as much of it as possible, anyhow.



Do you know anything at all?

The technology for it was mostly HAND made, fabricated by hand, can you give me one other example of technology from the beginning of that are that is still used TODAY? And I mean not updated to our standards today, not evolved or upgraded, but by your standards of then.

The memory and circuitry was done by hand, the computers were built by hand, the welding and joints were done by hand, the programming was inputted by hand, it was most of all done by hand, they do NOT fabricate those parts and technology anymore, they have no need to!
edit on 24-12-2016 by MuonToGluon because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 10:19 PM
link   
So when they tried to 'return' to the moon l, it was intended to be done with Apollo's technology. But it failed, dismally...

The Apollo side refuses to accept that Apollo's technology was fake, and was the reason the 'return' mission failed.

'It was a lack of money!', they claim.

In fact, NASA set the budget for the 'return' mission, themselves. And it is a fact that NASA received the money, which they had requested.

Not only that, NASA received even MORE money, later on, under the premise that they had originally underestimated the true cost.

Of course, NASA spent that money soon after, and this time, they didn't get it.

When asked, NASA said they didn't know what it would really cost, in the end.


So it's not a lack of money, because they don't even know how much money is needed.


As for using Apollo's technology...

Apollo's technology was supposed to be used in the 'return' mission. So NASA would have based their 'return' mission budget on the cost of Apollo missions, and adjusted it for inflation, and perhaps other factors. This makes sense, in that they assumed thre Apollo missions were genuine, that they could exclude the Apollo development costs, and exclude the other lunar missions. Since they planned the budget for only one moon mission, similar to an Apollo mission. Firther missions were not in the budget, at the time.

So here's the kicker -

It isn't that they lacked money. They received all the money they asked for. And they received even more money, a second time.

It was a lack of technology that caused it to fail.

NASA was instructed to use Apollo's technology, as much as possible, for the 'return' mission. Because Apollo's technology (supposedly) worked superbly, for every previous lunar mission, it would certainly work for a 'return' mission.

This was a mission which could not fail. We had the technology, and the money, to do it, once again.


WHY WOULD THEY COMPLETELY DROP THE APOLLO TECHNOLOGY, IF THEY COULD USE IT, AND IF THEY WERE INSTRUCTED TO USE IT?


Oh, right - now, it is not about money. It is about developing 'better' technology. Which they were not told to try and develop, but tried to anyway. Why? Oh, right, because they wanted to develop 're-usable' spacecraft, instead. And/or 'more efficient types of rocket fuel. And/or develop craft that could carry at least 5+ astronauts. And/or carry materials to build lunar bases, at a later time. And/or go to Mars, one day, with the same, or similar, spacecraft design.


I've heard all of these excuses, so I know them by rote.

You can make endless excuses, for anything at all. That doesn't mean they are valid. It means you have an excuse, which doesn't work, but you have something that maintains your illusion.

Nobody told NASA to drop the Apollo technology. Nobody told NASA to develop NEW technology, either.

Because Apollo's technology worked, and nothing else did, it was the logical choice to USE this technology.

The only reason they would NOT use it is if it didn't work, in the first place.


But you can believe it's something else, if you choose.


I prefer reality, myself.



posted on Dec, 24 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

How could you possibly even know that, pulling figures out of your butt again.


I didn't claim to know that...so I noted 'I'd say', at the end of my sentence..

We don't know how many people needed to know about it being hoaxed. If anyone pulls figures 'out of their butt', it is your side. 'Thousands of people would need to keep it a secret!' 'I've heard that claim, ad nauseum. Where do you get that figure from, if not your butt?

I'm basing the 30=40 figure on how many people would HAVE to know about the hoax. The astronauts, of course. Top level NASA administration, the film/camera crew (perhaps), and some others. I say 'perhaps' the film/camera crew knew, because they really didn't have to know what the plan was. They could have been told they were filming it for technical issues, or training purposes, and none of them would think anything of it. In fact, the more I think about it, the film/stage crews probably WERE told something like that. If I was trying to hoax a moon landing, I would not tell them the truth, either.


NASA tells you, a few months before Apollo 11, that you will be going to this enormous stage set. They tell you that it is necessary to understand everything about the lunar surface, before any humans attempt to land on the moon. Walking, and moving, and the soil, will be different than anything on Earth.

You are to film them on a simulated lunar surface, that's all.

A few months later, on the 6 o'clock news, you watch 'live TV footage, from the lunar surface'. However, it seems very similar to the footage YOU had taken, months earlier, on their massive stage set.

Indeed, that is YOUR footage. You'd think, 'why would they use this 'training' video, when they have 'actual' footage? Maybe they had issues with the camera, or something, and were under pressure to show footage, so they decided to use my footage. It could be a mistake, or a mix-up, during the process, as well.

Would you have ever thought that your footage was really used for a massive moon-landing hoax, though? Not very likely. And if they tell you that your footage was used for some reason, and you can't talk about it, and if you did, it would implicate you, in anything. They could simply threaten you, and your family, too.



originally posted by: MuonToGluon
Do you know anything at all?

The technology for it was mostly HAND made, fabricated by hand, can you give me one other example of technology from the beginning of that are that is still used TODAY? And I mean not updated to our standards today, not evolved or upgraded, but by your standards of then.

The memory and circuitry was done by hand, the computers were built by hand, the welding and joints were done by hand, the programming was inputted by hand, it was most of all done by hand, they do NOT fabricate those parts and technology anymore, they have no need to!



This supports my own argument, first of all.

A crude, primitive technology/method/process used at the time of Apollo, has been replaced with newer technology/method/process. No need to use the primitive methods, anymore.

We can do things much better - much faster, and more consistent, and more accurate, and cheaper, now.

This means it is not about lack of money. It would be cheaper, if anything, than Apollo.


Do you get the point, now?
edit on 25-12-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 01:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
no, they reflect light in the same exact way as any object does.. the difference is the amount in certain directions.

no it is relevant to all surfaces, all surfaces reflect light, smoother surfaces just reflects light more uniformly in a certain direction. rough surfaces also reflect light and can be arranged when in a large group to reflect more light in a certain direction..


No, these are two distinct surfaces - One surface is referred to as 'rough', the other surface is referred to as 'smooth'. The two types of surfaces reflect light in very different ways, as I said.

One is called specular reflection, and the other is called diffuse reflection. I've already explained this to you, many time - so what is not getting through to you,here?


What you need to understand is that they are two types of surfaces, which reflect light differently.

This is the scientific explanation, from several sources I've cited.


A lake will not be perfectly smooth, of course. Mirrors aren't perfectly smooth, either. They are both smooth surfaces, yet nothing is perfectly smooth, in reality.


originally posted by: choos
molecular level?? are you saying that water at the molecular level is smooth?? so if i compare a single molecule of water to a single molecule of sand one will be rough the other smooth??

do you even know what a molecule is?



Yes, at the surface, water molecules are 'smooth', like a mirror. Read the sources, if you are confused about this point.


You must understand this, to know why you have a big problem, here.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I can't be bothered reading this thread any more. You just keep going around in circles. Also, I don't really care as we went to the moon.

Merry Christmas turbo and everyone else



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 06:52 AM
link   


Nevertheless, Happy Holidays, one and all.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

I can't be bothered reading this thread any more. You just keep going around in circles. Also, I don't really care as we went to the moon.

Merry Christmas turbo and everyone else


^^^ I'm with this guy ^^^

Merry Christmas to you and all here.



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

I can't be bothered reading this thread any more. You just keep going around in circles. Also, I don't really care as we went to the moon.

Merry Christmas turbo and everyone else


But aluminum hulls and the Van Allen Belts and stuff!

And don't forget the shadows aren't parallel.

Oh yeah -- and where are the stars?




edit on 2016-12-25 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2016 @ 08:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, these are two distinct surfaces - One surface is referred to as 'rough', the other surface is referred to as 'smooth'. The two types of surfaces reflect light in very different ways, as I said.

One is called specular reflection, and the other is called diffuse reflection. I've already explained this to you, many time - so what is not getting through to you,here?


What you need to understand is that they are two types of surfaces, which reflect light differently.

This is the scientific explanation, from several sources I've cited.


you are not understanding what i am saying. nor do you understand what reflection is diffuse or specular..

they BOTH REFLECT LIGHT... specular just reflects light more UNIFORMLY IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION..

It has nothing to do with whether a molecule is smooth or not (i suppose you have proof of this statement?)

p.s. do you even know what a molecule is???


A lake will not be perfectly smooth, of course. Mirrors aren't perfectly smooth, either. They are both smooth surfaces, yet nothing is perfectly smooth, in reality.


you just cant stop making s*** up can you?? a lake reflects well because it is capable (in still water) to present a flat and smooth SURFACE, there are very little gaps in water for light to penetrate the surface and so more light is being reflected.. a mirror is the same..

the lunar regolith doesnt present a smooth surface, when look from afar it is a little smooth, but it still reflects light..
when compressed the lunar regolith particles will fill in empty spaces therefore reflecting MORE light back out when compared with undisturbed soil.. which is why it will appear brighter which is why the regolith around the bootprint is darker than the bootprints.



Yes, at the surface, water molecules are 'smooth', like a mirror. Read the sources, if you are confused about this point.


You must understand this, to know why you have a big problem, here.



dont just yes when you have no idea what you are talking about..

prove to me that water molecules are smooth.. (i dont even think you know what a molecule is)

FYI a water molecule is H2O..



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And yet you can't find a single shred of evidence that your filmed in a studio claim happened, you can't find where it was done, you can't find out how they did hours of footage with the speed altered, or how they manipulated the soil to behave as if it was done in zero gravity, or how they put live shots of Earth into the broadcasts. Not one single piece of evidence exists anywhere from anyone, not a single deathbed confession, not a single letter locked in a drawer waiting for publication, nothing.

Look at the footage the TV studios used when the Apollo cameras weren't on. Look at the quality of the special effects available in film. Now tell me that matches what was shown on TV.

You can't just make **** up and then go, "oh yeah that must be how it was done".
edit on 26/12/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: tyops



posted on Dec, 26 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
dont just yes when you have no idea what you are talking about..

prove to me that water molecules are smooth.. (i dont even think you know what a molecule is)

FYI a water molecule is H2O..


He does not. At all. As well as 99.5% of all Scientists and people with basic knowledge of science would not claim that.

If he had said a pool of Liquid Hydrogen I might of said "Yeah that MIGHT be considered smooth", but for some reason he keeps thinking that a molecular bond of Hydrogen and Oxygen is a smooth bond.

It was fun to argue for a while, but I think if we just stopped replying in here the topic may just start to slip away from the first page.
edit on 26-12-2016 by MuonToGluon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
So when they tried to 'return' to the moon l, it was intended to be done with Apollo's technology. But it failed, dismally...





You seem to enjoy repeating this lie in the hopes it will magically become true. Do you have any evidence for this claim or is it like every other claim you've ever made and is just a personal, ignorant opinion that is in no way based in fact or reality?



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

They found the old plastic sandwich bags and coke bottles up there that they couldn't explain



posted on Dec, 27 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: damwel

. . . those sealed plastic bags they left behind didn't have sandwiches in them :S



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 05:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

the lunar regolith doesnt present a smooth surface, when look from afar it is a little smooth, but it still reflects light..
when compressed the lunar regolith particles will fill in empty spaces therefore reflecting MORE light back out when compared with undisturbed soil.. which is why it will appear brighter which is why the regolith around the bootprint is darker than the bootprints.


The bootprints reflect more light, that's true. But nobody is arguing that point.

The bootprints are SEEN as more reflective from the surface. That's the point.

We DO NOT SEE the supposed LM Blast Zone as more reflective from the surface, which is the problem here. It would be seen, from the surface, just like the footprints are.

Aren't these footprints within the supposed LM Blast Zone, as well? That's what you've been claiming.

So you're claiming the footprints are more reflective, because they're flattened, yet so is the LM Blast Zone, which is NOT seen at all.

You want it both ways, at the same time.


Do you not grasp the massive contradiction here?



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

And yet you can't find a single shred of evidence that your filmed in a studio claim happened, you can't find where it was done, you can't find out how they did hours of footage with the speed altered, or how they manipulated the soil to behave as if it was done in zero gravity, or how they put live shots of Earth into the broadcasts. Not one single piece of evidence exists anywhere from anyone, not a single deathbed confession, not a single letter locked in a drawer waiting for publication, nothing.


If there was a 'deathbed confession', you'd never accept it, anyway. You'd say he was not of sound mind, at the time, because he was sick, and near death. And you'd also say he had no proof, either.

There is abundant evidence of the hoax, but you will never accept any of it, no matter how much, or how convincing. Nothing has, or can, ever convince you that it is actually just a hoax.

I've also explained how they did the footage at slow speed, being it is a perfect 66.66% of normal, Earth speed. How would the lunar gravity slow down human movements, first of all? That alone is totally absurd. But to then slow it down to a perfect 66/66% of normal speed, makes it a complete joke!



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding

originally posted by: turbonium1
So when they tried to 'return' to the moon l, it was intended to be done with Apollo's technology. But it failed, dismally...





You seem to enjoy repeating this lie in the hopes it will magically become true. Do you have any evidence for this claim or is it like every other claim you've ever made and is just a personal, ignorant opinion that is in no way based in fact or reality?


It's all true, from valid sources, which I've shown you already, right here...

They refer to Apollo technology as 'heritage' technology, and were told to use it, as much as possible, in their 'return' mission.

It wasn't used, despite being told to use it.


And there is only one reason to not use it, of course. Since it could NOT be used, in the first place.



posted on Dec, 30 2016 @ 10:46 PM
link   
You have claimed Apollo's technology was genuine.

So they tried to use that same technology, again, to prove it was genuine.

Yet when they failed, you say it is NOT proof of being fake technology!!

Nothing will ever convince you that Apollo's technology is fake, obviously.


The only reason it COULD fail is if it's fake technology....in reality.

They had already accounted for everything else....



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

We DO NOT SEE the supposed LM Blast Zone as more reflective from the surface, which is the problem here. It would be seen, from the surface, just like the footprints are.


Except where you do, which you've been show, but conveniently ignored.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


If there was a 'deathbed confession', you'd never accept it, anyway. You'd say he was not of sound mind, at the time, because he was sick, and near death. And you'd also say he had no proof, either.


I don't think you get to tell me what I would and wouldn't say.

I have met 7 Apollo astronauts. They all talked about their experiences on Apollo missions. That will do me just fine.

There will be no deathbed confession, there is nothing to confess.



There is abundant evidence of the hoax, but you will never accept any of it, no matter how much, or how convincing. Nothing has, or can, ever convince you that it is actually just a hoax.


There is no evidence of a hoax, just misunderstanding and fakery.



I've also explained how they did the footage at slow speed, being it is a perfect 66.66% of normal, Earth speed. How would the lunar gravity slow down human movements, first of all? That alone is totally absurd. But to then slow it down to a perfect 66/66% of normal speed, makes it a complete joke!


No, you haven't explained anything. You haven't explained how they could slow down live TV, complete with time and date specific images of Earth, for hours at a time. or how that would somehow make dust behave as if it was in a vacuum and lunar gravity, all perfectly synch'd with mission audio.

Lunar gravity doesn't slow down human movement. They do not move in slow motion. This is a myth you have fallen for, Differently? Yes. Carefully? Yes. Slowly? Don't be stupid.
edit on 31/12/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 115  116  117    119  120  121 >>

log in

join