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: 27
57
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The speed changed after Apollo 11, which is not possible in any way, shape, or form...

So let's all try and deal with the reality, for once...




posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
typically in human history, we've never ever accomplished something then abandoned it. Especially when it comes to realestate. Any place we've gone, we've gone back, in larger numbers, and with better ways of getting there.

the moon is actually the death star



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 08:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The speed changed after Apollo 11, which is not possible in any way, shape, or form...

No, it didn't, as has been explained and shown to you countless times.

So let's all try and deal with the reality, for once...

Yes, please do.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They did have the technology to slow it down to 66.66%, as described here...

This is proof of my claim, clearly.

You get it, right?


i get it but do you??

you have said it many times before, the reason Apollo 11 was slowed 50% and the others were slowed 66% was because the technology did not exist during Apollo 11.

but now you say that the technology does exist since atleast 1964.

so which technology didnt exist again?



Nonsense.

Nothing shows an illusion of all our movements slowed down in 0g, when moving around in the ISS, for example...

Apollo is the illusion, not based on reality.

Human arms, for example, which all move much too slow, in your 'Apollo-world'.


have you seen people walking around on the ISS?? do you even know how long it would take to complete one step on the ISS?

the human arms moving too slow is your opinion only.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: turbonium1
The speed changed after Apollo 11, which is not possible in any way, shape, or form...

No, it didn't, as has been explained and shown to you countless times.

So let's all try and deal with the reality, for once...

Yes, please do.


You have 'explained' Apollo is simply religion, a faith, with countless excuses, for false gods - such as Neil Armstrong, and Buzz Aldrin, et al.


We know that the Apollo 11 astronaut is moving at normal speed when at 2x original footage. We can easily repeat all of his movements, here on Earth, at normal speed. I've shown you a clip of normal walking speed, here on Earth, to prove my claim....

That's reality.


Saying the Apollo 11 astronaut moves faster than normal, Earth speed, is NOT based on reality. It is purely delusional.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 01:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you have said it many times before, the reason Apollo 11 was slowed 50% and the others were slowed 66% was because the technology did not exist during Apollo 11.

but now you say that the technology does exist since atleast 1964.


You are just confused about my whole argument...just as usual...

The technology to slow footage to 66.66% existed before Apollo 11 came along...

I was the one who brought it up in the first place. I also showed you proof of that claim. I'm sure you realize all this, right?....

So why would you think I said the technology didn't exist before Apollo 11, when I'm the one who told you about it existing, in the first place?



They slowed Apollo 11 to 50% speed. I never mentioned any reason(s) for it, as you seem to believe...

Technology was the reason they CHANGED speeds, from 50%, to 66.66%.

They wanted to show hours of continuous footage, and 50% couldn't do it, but 66.66% could. So they chose to change speeds for that reason.

That's what I'm saying about their limited technology.


Humans make mistakes, and this was a doozy!

Perhaps they were unaware of 66.66% speed at the time of Apollo 11, and thought 50% was all they could use.

If so, then they could have stayed with 50% speed for all the later missions, and have all the movements in a single, consistent speed...

But it wouldn't allow them to show hours of continuous footage, as we know. And half-speed is too obvious, and the technology was in our home projectors.

Maybe they thought nobody would ever notice such a change. Nobody did, so it worked out, as they predicted it would...

They didn't predict for the long-term effects, though.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

have you seen people walking around on the ISS?? do you even know how long it would take to complete one step on the ISS?

the human arms moving too slow is your opinion only.


If it is normal speed, it is repeatable as normal speed, not an opinion..


You must approach the Apollo 11 example, in the very same way..

But you won't.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: lavatrance
typically in human history, we've never ever accomplished something then abandoned it. Especially when it comes to realestate. Any place we've gone, we've gone back, in larger numbers, and with better ways of getting there.

the moon is actually the death star


The death star theory is more believable, though!



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Apollo made me think of Santa Claus, an ideal fantasy story we are led to believe is real, as true...

What is the purpose of making up Santa Claus for our innocent, and very young, children?

Christmas is for getting stuff, from a man who knows everything about you, so be nice or you won't get any stuff from him....

Then, we find out Santa doesn't exist. It was all just a big ....hoax.

We don't believe it, at first. We know Santa is real, and it's proven by the fact we get presents, at Christmas.

And later, we hate our parents for lying to us about Santa, and don't trust anything they say, they're just big liars!


That's the main purpose, I guess...to make all parents look like devious liars to their kids!


Anyway, if a child is crushed to hear Santa isn't real, how would people react to Apollo when they find out it was just a massive hoax?!?

edit on 5-12-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Here's a clue about Apollo...

They claim to land men on the moon, and safely back to Earth, at very first attempt in history, with a lander never built before, never tested in decent or ascent to the moon, yet works to perfection anyway, and they do it again and again, within a few years.

The claim cannot be verified as true, but all the scientists don't need verification. Science doesn't bother to verify any facts . They believe NASA, at their word, so no worries, mate!

No proof, no verification, no problem! It is accepted as fact, by all scientists around the world, without a single doubt. without question, it is universally accepted as entirely true, and factual.


And that's how real scientists would act, in the amazing fantasy-land.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


The technology to slow footage to 66.66% existed before Apollo 11 came along...




They did not have the technology to do it for hours at a time on live TV.



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Verified by Japanese, Indian and Chinese data.

Verified by the material they brought back.

Verified by data intercepted by other countries.

Verified by data sent back by equipment installed at the landing sites.

Verified by photographs, 16mm and live TV images that confirm surface details not known about before.

Verified by photographs, live TV and 16mm time and date specific images of Earth that could only have been taken on the moon.

Prove the equipment couldn't have done the job they said it could do.

Still waiting for you to identify the features taken at ground level on a photo from Earth I posted that according to you should be easy to work out.

Still waiting for you to attempt to prove that your claim of live TV being slowed down is true by making measurements and calculations, despite providing all the information you need to do the job.

Still waiting for you to provide any support for your continuous and basesless repetition of the Apollo hoax lie other than "it looks kinda funny" and "I just plain don't believe it".

Your evidence, not your unsupported opinion, is all that is required. I've provided you with lots of it, where is yours?



posted on Dec, 5 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Not this tautological argument again: it was never done before, therefore it is impossible to do.



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you have said it many times before, the reason Apollo 11 was slowed 50% and the others were slowed 66% was because the technology did not exist during Apollo 11.

but now you say that the technology does exist since atleast 1964.


You are just confused about my whole argument...just as usual...

The technology to slow footage to 66.66% existed before Apollo 11 came along...

I was the one who brought it up in the first place. I also showed you proof of that claim. I'm sure you realize all this, right?....

So why would you think I said the technology didn't exist before Apollo 11, when I'm the one who told you about it existing, in the first place?


so what you are saying now is that they were 100% capable of having Apollo 11 at 66% speed but chose instead to do it at 50% speed and all the other missions at 66% speed because they felt like it?


They slowed Apollo 11 to 50% speed. I never mentioned any reason(s) for it, as you seem to believe...


apart from you saying that they didnt have the technology


Technology was the reason they CHANGED speeds, from 50%, to 66.66%.


so they had the technology to have the speed at 66% but decided to use 50% because they didnt have the technology.. ok.....


They wanted to show hours of continuous footage, and 50% couldn't do it, but 66.66% could. So they chose to change speeds for that reason.


stupid reasoning.. how long would one length of film be for a feature length movie if it was played back at 50% as opposed to 100% speed??

dont understand?? ok then..

assume one hour of film at 100% is 100m long, 100% speed being 24fps..

if this film was slowed 50% (12fps) how long will the film be? (not the time but the length in metres)
if this film was slowed 66% (16fps) how long will it be now? (again not the time but the length in metres)


That's what I'm saying about their limited technology.


which completely doesnt make any sense..


Humans make mistakes, and this was a doozy!


yea when you realise how little sense your claim makes.


Perhaps they were unaware of 66.66% speed at the time of Apollo 11, and thought 50% was all they could use.


yea.. apart from the whole andy warhol thing that was well known about.. i mean this is the organisation capable of using technology that doesnt exist today to completely fake lunar gravity 100% with out CGI.


If so, then they could have stayed with 50% speed for all the later missions, and have all the movements in a single, consistent speed...

But it wouldn't allow them to show hours of continuous footage, as we know. And half-speed is too obvious, and the technology was in our home projectors.


how long is andy warhol's film?? 6 hours or so?? how long was apollo 12 EVA?? under 4 hours... so how does your argument make sense?? Apollo 12 was at 50% also??


Maybe they thought nobody would ever notice such a change. Nobody did, so it worked out, as they predicted it would...


or maybe just maybe you are 100% wrong.
edit on 6-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 6 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

If it is normal speed, it is repeatable as normal speed, not an opinion..


You must approach the Apollo 11 example, in the very same way..

But you won't.


i am approaching it the same way.. but you arent following or refusing to follow.

have you ever seen an astronaut complete one full step aboard the ISS?? do you even realise how long it would take an astronaut to complete one full step aboard the ISS??



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
I think Kubrick filmed it

Here's his interview about it

vimeo.com...

Password

godlike



posted on Dec, 8 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to:

The Hoax runs deeper than you know.

By nefarious unmanned craft, paralogistic powers has cobbled together a bootprint upon the moon & have breed an army of propagandists in the Caverns of Kennedy Space Center. An army that can contradict itself in paradox and conceal great conundrums at speed.

It is in the moon hoax theorists that we must place our hope...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

It is in the moon hoax theorists that we must place our hope...


place your hope on hoax theorists??

you dont sound too confident on the hoax theory.



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to:

The line of Apollo is broken, the fallacy is all but spent, its pride and dignity forgotten. Its became a relic of propagandists, who've taken it deep within the recesses of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and there it has consumed them, poisoning there minds.
It awaits for its perceived time to effectively abandon the propagandists and be inevitably exposed ...
For the time will soon come when moon hoax theorists will shape the fortunes of Apollo ...



posted on Dec, 9 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

You're not funny. There are actually people who think like that. You are basically mocking the afflicted, Patrick.




top topics



 
57
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join