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: 22
57
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Some critics actually that they landed on a satellite comma is you search for satellite on YouTube, there are pictures of round satellites full stop this is what they suggest Armstrong landed on full stop next paragraph I apologize for not providing a link but if you search for the satellites cold Death Star you might c it full stop next line not cold edits call names Death Star satellites full stop




posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Next line the YouTube video is called satellites aertificial full stop



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Nonsense. This is a typical "Emperor's new clothes" line of debate. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Do you have any kind of measurement to prove the difference in speed of movement? Anything? Or are you just relying on bold claims hoping no-one will check. Support your claim or don't bother with it.


You are claiming that the Apollo 11 clip at 2x speed shows an astronaut moving at the SAME speed as the Apollo 15 astronauts at 2x speed, correct?

You claim I am lying when I say they are NOT moving at the same speed, right?

On the second claim, please show me proof that I am lying...

If you cannot, then you need to retract your claim.

You cannot accuse me of lying, and have nothing to support your accusation. If you have no proof, which I know you do not, then it is YOU who is lying, about me.

Go ahead then - we'll soon find out who of us is really lying.



As for my claim they are NOT moving at the same speed, in Apollo 11 and 15 clips set to 2x speed....

Only an Apollo-ite would say they don't move at different speeds, and demand measurements to prove it, while never specifying what sort of measurements they need to prove it. That way, you can ask for more measurements, but not specify what sort of measurements to get, and over and over it goes.


Let's say you saw an old movie, where the actors are moving faster than normal speed.

Now, how do you know it is faster than normal, without measuring it?

By your argument, you do not know it is faster, because you have no measurements that prove it is faster.

So would you say the old movie is the same speed as today's movies?

I think you can see it with your own eyes that the old movie is too fast, just like everyone else would, right?

That is the same thing with the Apollo clips - we can see it with our own eyes that they are not the same speed. Only the Apollo-ites are blind to it, and demand that it be measured, while not saying what to measure, and demand that until it is measured, to their satisfaction (which is impossible to achieve), that there is no proof they are not the same speed.

So how would you prove an old movie is faster than a current movie, to meet your unattainable, impossible Apollo-ite requirements?



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

perhaps your ego is so big that you dont actually see how weak your argument is.

basically you are saying that the best proof you have is your OPINION

just because YOU think it is faster must mean that everyone will also think so.. you say that ONLY "apollo-ites" will see it as the same speed/faster/slower, but the exact same thing can be said vice-versa ie. ONLY moon hoax believers will see it as same speed/faster/slower.

the difference here is that you dont even realise because your ego is so large to the point that whatever you see or say must be 100% correct.. anyone with a different opinion is delusional apparently.

saying its faster/slower because YOU THINK IT IS, without any proof whatsoever is NOTHING apart from proving you have an OPINION.
but nobody cares for your opinion when you are trying to prove the moon landing was hoaxed.

what im trying to say is get over yourself.

p.s. looking back at how in two different posts you were looking for people to argue with, urging other people to come argue with you, its become quite clear that you have no intention of proving the moon landing hoax, it is quite clear that you are here to troll because you have nothing to do on weekends nothing to waste your energy on, so you log on here looking for an argument, judging by your posting pattern you dont have any time monday to friday to get online to waste your energy.
and the fact that you use personal opinion and label it as proof just adds fuel to the fire so to speak.
edit on 8-11-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Nonsense. This is a typical "Emperor's new clothes" line of debate. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Do you have any kind of measurement to prove the difference in speed of movement? Anything? Or are you just relying on bold claims hoping no-one will check. Support your claim or don't bother with it.


You are claiming that the Apollo 11 clip at 2x speed shows an astronaut moving at the SAME speed as the Apollo 15 astronauts at 2x speed, correct?


Nope. Show me where I said that. What I will keep repeating is that all you are doing is fiddling with video speed and insisting it proves something, which it doesn't. Except it isn;t even you doing it you'r ejust copying and pasting soeone else's made up nonsense.



You claim I am lying when I say they are NOT moving at the same speed, right?

On the second claim, please show me proof that I am lying...

If you cannot, then you need to retract your claim.


Show me where I called you a liar and I'll retract it.




You cannot accuse me of lying, and have nothing to support your accusation. If you have no proof, which I know you do not, then it is YOU who is lying, about me.

Go ahead then - we'll soon find out who of us is really lying.



See above. You are repeating a lie, the lie that the Apollo missions were faked, a claim for which you have apparently done absolutely no research of your own whatsoever. All you are doing is copying and pasting other people's lies, and that is what they are because the claim that we did not land on the moon is not true. If you believe it is true than I feel sorry for you, you are believing lies.




As for my claim they are NOT moving at the same speed, in Apollo 11 and 15 clips set to 2x speed....

Only an Apollo-ite would say they don't move at different speeds, and demand measurements to prove it, while never specifying what sort of measurements they need to prove it. That way, you can ask for more measurements, but not specify what sort of measurements to get, and over and over it goes.


Apply the same standard of proof to your own argument as you do to others. You are claiming that the videos show different speeds of movements. Prove it.




Let's say you saw an old movie, where the actors are moving faster than normal speed.

Now, how do you know it is faster than normal, without measuring it?

By your argument, you do not know it is faster, because you have no measurements that prove it is faster.

So would you say the old movie is the same speed as today's movies?

I think you can see it with your own eyes that the old movie is too fast, just like everyone else would, right?

That is the same thing with the Apollo clips - we can see it with our own eyes that they are not the same speed. Only the Apollo-ites are blind to it, and demand that it be measured, while not saying what to measure, and demand that until it is measured, to their satisfaction (which is impossible to achieve), that there is no proof they are not the same speed.

So how would you prove an old movie is faster than a current movie, to meet your unattainable, impossible Apollo-ite requirements?


Once again you are deciding for me what your argument is. Kind of you I'm sure.

What you need to do here is either prove your point or give up trying to make it. You have nothing but your own unsupported, unmeasured opinion to go on. You are relying solely on "gee, it kinda looks funny".

That is not enough.

If you can insist that people measure every gain of sand in a rooster tail video, I am insisting you back up your claim that the two different videos show different movement speeds. I'm sure someone out there has done the maths so that you can copy and paste it.
edit on 8-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 07:33 PM
link   
I believe the moon landing where real but it was not the footage we saw and the technology we used was not the technology in the footage(William cooper debunked the moon landings using the laws of thermodynamics and the isolating properties of the vaccuum of space).

I believe there was a totally different video with totally different technology to combat solar radiation(you can't refrigerate in space) and the whole van allen belt killing you with radiation with ALOT of lead protection.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
...and the whole van allen belt killing you with radiation with ALOT of lead protection.

There's no need for "alot of lead protection". The trajectory of the Apollo missions took them through the 'edges' of the Van Allen Belt, rather than through the bulk of it, and at such a quick rate that the spacecraft itself and the instruments lining the interior of it were able to provide more than adequate shielding. The astronauts received less of a radiation dose than Atomic Energy Commission employees do annually. The spacecraft and each astronaut were also equipped with dosimeters to monitor their exposure.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Not to mention that lead would be a terrible choice for particle shielding. Good for x-rays, not so good for particles. The secondaries are nasty.
en.wikipedia.org...

In some cases, e.g. 32
P, the bremsstrahlung produced by shielding the beta radiation with the normally used dense materials (e.g. lead) is itself dangerous; in such cases, shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. Plexiglas (Lucite), plastic, wood, or water;[19] as the atomic number is lower for these materials, the intensity of bremsstrahlung is significantly reduced but a larger thickness of shielding is required to stop the electrons (beta radiation).

edit on 11/8/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
I believe the moon landing where real


Good start.



but it was not the footage we saw and the technology we used was not the technology in the footage(William cooper debunked the moon landings using the laws of thermodynamics and the isolating properties of the vaccuum of space).


William Cooper did no such thing. William Cooper was a liar who made stuff up to make money. I've read the garbage he wrote about Apollo in 'Behold a pale horse' and he seems to base it entirely on a fictional TV programme made as an April Fool's joke. Not one does he use the word 'thermodynamics'. I doubt he could spell it.



I believe there was a totally different video with totally different technology to combat solar radiation(you can't refrigerate in space)


You have this video right?

You can refrigerate in space quite simply. Sublimation of ice, moving hot surfaces, reflective material. No magic fairy dust needed. There are dozens of probes out there working just fine without anything fancy to keep them cool.


and the whole van allen belt killing you with radiation with ALOT of lead protection.


You don't need a lot of lead to protect you from radiation in the VAB, you need to minimise your contact with it, which is what they did.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:43 AM
link   
There was a company that will not be mentioned, which manufactured radiation detection probes, that a colleague of mine was employed as a principal engineer, back when the nuclear power industry was booming (after 3MI and before CHNBL). We visited each others labs on occasion.

On his desk, he had a lead brick (same size as a red brick), in which between it, and the window, shielded a radioactive sample. He claimed it was safe, however he had detectors set up in there that were picking up clicks on 'our' side of the brick.

I always wondered about the safety of such a thing until hearing in this thread that lead might not have been the best choice to protect scientific workers. He is still alive and well, but perhaps was very lucky.


edit on 9-11-2015 by charlyv because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

It would depend on the emission source.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Cooling in space is definitely doable. It just takes a different approach.

You have to mostly depend on radiating the heat away. This is eased somewhat by the fact that your radiative sink is at absolute zero. You can also sublimate, and that was done a lot.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

Those clicks could have been random out of background noise, too, don´t worry to much about it.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AdmireTheDistance

Please explain how they where able to cool their spacesuits in a near perfect isolator(vaccuum of space)?



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Cooling in space is definitely doable. It just takes a different approach.

You have to mostly depend on radiating the heat away. This is eased somewhat by the fact that your radiative sink is at absolute zero. You can also sublimate, and that was done a lot.


Radiate into what?

Space is a near perfect insulator there is nothing to radiate into.

There is no gases or matter to transfer molecular vibration to.

Space has no temperature there is almost nothing there to vibrate(heat) and its a near ideal insulator.

Which is the reason why I believe the shielding(some type of classified gold based meta-material maybe?) on the module and the suits where different from what they have told us and the cooling systems are different from what they have disclosed to the public(a high efficiency re-pressurizing refrigeration unit would work but not what they told the public).


edit on 9-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 9-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 06:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: charlyv

It would depend on the emission source.



Plutonium, but have no idea of the amount.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

Which is the reason why I believe the shielding(some type of classified gold based meta-material maybe?) on the module and the suits where different from what they have told us and the cooling systems are different from what they have disclosed to the public(a high efficiency re-pressurizing refrigeration unit would work but not what they told the public).



why would you believe that??

the same science behind the cooling is still in use today, not just by NASA but by every other space faring nation in the world. even the Chinese are able to perform EVA's.

it sounds like you are worried about the sun heating everything up too much, but reflective surfaces will minimise that issue to a large degree, you dont need any special unheard of super classified material.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

Some type of layered gold based material would reflect radiation and heat and conduct heat away from the suit into the liquid water tubes out into space.

Space would not cool the water you would have either needed to re-pressurize it or just let it disperse into space taking heat out of the suit with it.

How much water would you need to keep cooling them down?

Look I am not saying they never walked on the moon. I believe that something happened up there that was censored from the public.(all the fake moon video and photos).

Ruins? ET contact? Off world space bases? Who knows. There has to be a reason for the fake photos.



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman



let it disperse into space taking heat out of the suit with it.

Which is exactly what they did.



How much water would you need to keep cooling them down?
On shorter EVAs, a couple of liters.

edit on 11/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Like I said before I believe they landed on the moon but the some of the footage is fake and a lot of the photos are fake.

Something happened up there that was censored. What would be the reason of releasing fake photographs?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

"I'm going to tell them that, for me, and my interpretation of everything that's come my way, I cannot arrive at the idea that we have been visited -- either in the past or now," Musgrave told The Huffington Post.

www.rt.com...

"White Sands was a testing ground for atomic weapons - and that's what the extra-terrestrials were interested in," the 84-year-old told Mirror Online. “They wanted to know about our military capabilities.”

"I have spoken to many Air Force officers who worked at these silos during the Cold War," he said. "They told me UFOs were frequently seen overhead and often disabled their missiles.”

This type of phenomena is famous in ufology. UFOs disabling missiles,aircraft electronics,cars etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Chillingly, he claimed our technology is 'not nearly as sophisticated' as theirs and "had they been hostile", he warned 'we would be been gone by now'.

I think something may have happened on the moon that was censored from the public.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are the edited/censored photos.


edit on 10-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 10-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join