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: 29
57
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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??


I'm referring to Apollo 11...not the ISS.

The Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed - approach it as normal, repeatable, speed.

Proof of it as normal, as reality.


Game over.




posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

But anyone can manipulate video speed and say it means something because it looks vaguely like something else.

Example: Find a video of people walking down a street. Increase the speed by 15%. They still look relatively normal.

Does that mean everyone is actually walking 15% faster so my eyes are lieing to me? No, it means I sped up the video to see what I wanted to see.

If Apollo were going to fake the moon landings and walks them surely they would keep the tape speed at a constant? Why adjust it from 50% to 66%?

Also, earlier in this thread you stated they changed it for a reason. Later on you said it was a mistake. I think you need to decide on which one it is as your credibility goes down when you don't stick to your own story.



posted on Dec, 11 2015 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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??


I'm referring to Apollo 11...not the ISS.

The Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed - approach it as normal, repeatable, speed.

Proof of it as normal, as reality.


Game over.


you see that is still your opinion.

you are the one claiming that Apollo 11 at double speed is "normal" and all the other missions at double speed too fast. have you ever once calculated it to show things are falling too fast/too slow??

like OBMonkey suggested why dont you compare the throwing away of the PLSS from Apollo 11 and any other mission?? if you have so much confidence in your "argument" you should have no issue proving it to me.

and before you say thats my job, no its not. YOU made the claim, YOU need to back up your claim. an opinion is not proof of anything apart from proving you have an opinion.

and also, you might be referring to Apollo 11 and not the ISS because you completely ignored what i said about low gravity giving the impression of slow motion. that or you completely forgot what you were arguing about again?
edit on 11-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

so now it was just a mistake?

from deliberately due to technological limitations to mistake without reason?

this coming from the organisation that was capable of using a harness system that is still more technologically advanced than what can be found today?
this coming from the organisation capable of representing lunar gravity so accurately? where even the smallest detail represents lunar gravity..



It doesn't represent genuine lunar gravity - not even close.

Genuine 1/6g is seen in the Vomit Comet - in a Mythbusters clip, for example.

The harness system required no advanced technology, that's just ridiculous. Again, see Mythbusters for proof of my point. No problem at all.

Apollo does not represent genuine 1/6g, because it is not in genuine 1/6g.

We know this for a fact.

We compare it to the Vomit Comet, which is in genuine 1/6g - and it is not even close to what we see in the Apollo 'version' of 1/6g.

The speed changes along the way, which confirms beyond any doubt, Apollo was not in a genuine 1/6g, of lunar gravity.

All movements of Apollo astronauts claimed to be in 1/6g are shown to be in normal speed, when the footage is put 2x, and 1.5x, the original speed.


Even the little details? Get serious...


We cannot calculate how fast those dust clouds are falling towards the surface. I've explained this to you, over and over again, ad nauseum. You must identify a specific object, falling towards ground, to measure how fast it is falling to the surface. If you can't identify a specific object, you cannot claim to have valid measurements of any sort, let alone claim it as 'proof' of anything!

You know that an object cannot be measured, within those dust clouds. And you also know that there ARE objects which can be measured, such as an astronaut, jumping and falling to ground.

At 1.5x speed, the astronaut almost matched a Mythbusters jump using a harness, without even trying to match it!

Somehow, you think this actually proves the Apollo jump was done in genuine 1/6g, lunar gravity!

Based on a Mythbusters jump (on Earth) using a harness, never intended to try and match to an Apollo jump, yet almost matched it perfectly, proves that it is impossible to match the jump here on Earth, is that right?

The Mythbusters jump is the closest we can get to matching it, because you say it is, and this 'fact' proves the jump was done on the moon!

You are aware that a harness was used in the jump, right? Good.

Are you aware that a harness is adjustable? It is.

Like adjusting it to your 'impossible' jump.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

But we see no harness on any of the astronauts. We also see no pulley system or cables. We see absolutely no rigging whatsoever that you could use for your theory. None from a distance and none up close. Not any sign of them.

Plus they go on diverging courses, which means the "cables" would get tangled.
edit on 120412/12/1515 by TerryDon79 because: Spelling



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

If Apollo were going to fake the moon landings and walks them surely they would keep the tape speed at a constant? Why adjust it from 50% to 66%?

Also, earlier in this thread you stated they changed it for a reason. Later on you said it was a mistake. I think you need to decide on which one it is as your credibility goes down when you don't stick to your own story.


There's no contradiction in my argument here...

They changed the speed for specific reasons, and the change was subsequently found out to be a fatal mistake.

We can only see that it was a mistake, many years later.

And now...

The first mistake was to slow it to 50% speed, because that limited what they could do, with the 'lunar' footage. They had to shoot film in short segments, etc.

At the time, it probably wasn't thought to be a problem. Since nobody saw a change in the speed, it worked out at the time, and for many years after, as well.

You ask why they would have changed the speed, if they didn't need to..

Perhaps they didn't need to do it, but they still did it. That's what matters here.

It was a big mistake, for sure.

That's the reality everyone must try and face up to, here...



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

But we see no harness on any of the astronauts. We also see no pulley system or cables. We see absolutely no rigging whatsoever that you could use for your theory. None from a distance and none up close. Not any sign of them.

Plus they go on diverging courses, which means the "cables" would get tangled.


The wires, etc were simply edited out of the footage - that's why we can't see them.

However, there are obvious clues to these wires, in the Apollo footage.


The speed change is still the main issue to face here.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   



It doesn't represent genuine lunar gravity - not even close.


And you know this how? You have only one source for actual lunar gravity: the moon.



Genuine 1/6g is seen in the Vomit Comet - in a Mythbusters clip, for example.


Parabolic arcs in planes are just brief and estimated simulations.
How long can 1/6g be maintained in a plane executing a parabolic arc?
How many people are involved in the training on those planes?
How big are they?
How long are the unbroken sequences of live TV from the moon taking place without anyone else in view over vast areas?



The harness system required no advanced technology, that's just ridiculous. Again, see Mythbusters for proof of my point. No problem at all.


But it does require harnesses, wires, rigging and operators. Where is your evidence of any of these?


Apollo does not represent genuine 1/6g, because it is not in genuine 1/6g.


And you know this how?


We know this for a fact.


No. We do not You have decided you know it.


We compare it to the Vomit Comet, which is in genuine 1/6g - and it is not even close to what we see in the Apollo 'version' of 1/6g.


And you know this how?


The speed changes along the way, which confirms beyond any doubt, Apollo was not in a genuine 1/6g, of lunar gravity.


No it doesn't. no it doesn't and yes it was.


All movements of Apollo astronauts claimed to be in 1/6g are shown to be in normal speed, when the footage is put 2x, and 1.5x, the original speed.


No. You have consistently been asked to prove this with evidence, you have deliberately failed to do this. Speed changes mean the astronaut's movement becomes too fast and material travels an inappropriate distance for Earth gravity.



Even the little details? Get serious...

We cannot calculate how fast those dust clouds are falling towards the surface. I've explained this to you, over and over again, ad nauseum. You must identify a specific object, falling towards ground, to measure how fast it is falling to the surface. If you can't identify a specific object, you cannot claim to have valid measurements of any sort, let alone claim it as 'proof' of anything!


You can measure the movement of wave fronts, you can measure the aggregate behaviour of a mass of particles, all of which has been done. You can look at the way material moves, which is entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere low gravity environment. Prove it isn't.


You know that an object cannot be measured, within those dust clouds. And you also know that there ARE objects which can be measured, such as an astronaut, jumping and falling to ground.


And yet you haven't. You can measure how far an object like a PLSS can fall from a know height, like the LM hatch, which is available in at least two different TV broadcasts, and which would prove your point. You haven't done this. Why not?


At 1.5x speed, the astronaut almost matched a Mythbusters jump using a harness, without even trying to match it!

Somehow, you think this actually proves the Apollo jump was done in genuine 1/6g, lunar gravity!


You think that manipulating a video speed to an arbitrary value somehow proves something? All it proves it that you can pick a figure out of thin air and manipulate video

Have you seen now many people were involved in the mythbusters jump? How much equipment? Where is this in the Apollo video?


Based on a Mythbusters jump (on Earth) using a harness, never intended to try and match to an Apollo jump, yet almost matched it perfectly, proves that it is impossible to match the jump here on Earth, is that right?

The Mythbusters jump is the closest we can get to matching it, because you say it is, and this 'fact' proves the jump was done on the moon!

You are aware that a harness was used in the jump, right? Good.

Are you aware that a harness is adjustable? It is.

Like adjusting it to your 'impossible' jump.


Where is all the equipment needed to provide the harnesses in hours of unbroken live TV footage on the moon? How is it possible for the astronauts to cross and re-cross repeatedly? Where are the harnesses attached? How did they somehow magically edit these harnesses out of live TV? How did they slow down live TV for hours and hours at a time?

Your harness argument is as bogus as your film speed argument. I'm saying bogus, I'm smelling something else.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

But we see no harness on any of the astronauts. We also see no pulley system or cables. We see absolutely no rigging whatsoever that you could use for your theory. None from a distance and none up close. Not any sign of them.

Plus they go on diverging courses, which means the "cables" would get tangled.


The wires, etc were simply edited out of the footage - that's why we can't see them.

However, there are obvious clues to these wires, in the Apollo footage.


The speed change is still the main issue to face here.


What are these clues you speak of?

All of what you have said is pure speculation. If the speed was at 50% they would have twice the footage. If it was at 66% they would have 1.5 times the footage. How would that limit anything they could do?

You've also failed to give an explanation of why the video would be slowed down to 50% then to 66%.

Have you seen any video of an astronaut in full gear (same as on the moon) in the vomit comet to compare movement speeds? Simply put, you can't. The comet is simulated 0g. The moon is 1/6th g. 2 completely different amounts of gravity influence on mass.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

Have you seen any video of an astronaut in full gear (same as on the moon) in the vomit comet to compare movement speeds? Simply put, you can't. The comet is simulated 0g. The moon is 1/6th g. 2 completely different amounts of gravity influence on mass.


While turbonium is utterly wrong in his claims about wires and manipulating film speeds, parabolic arcs can e created that simulate lunar gravity.

gozerog.com...

and they did use it during Apollo. I've seen plenty of images of that training, but not video.

You can only do it in a plane, the plane is small, and you only get 30 seconds or so to work with.



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It doesn't represent genuine lunar gravity - not even close.


that is a bold claim that im sure you are going to back up..


The harness system required no advanced technology, that's just ridiculous. Again, see Mythbusters for proof of my point. No problem at all.


the harness system you have been describing is much more advanced than the one mythbusters used.. the one you have described is one capable of simulating lunar gravity at all times, changes in direction, no wobbles mid air while hopping from one foot to the other like you see in mythbusters, astronauts crossing each other multiple times etc.


Apollo does not represent genuine 1/6g, because it is not in genuine 1/6g.


it is genuine 1/6g we know this because we can easily calculate how long it will take something to fall from a certain height over a specific period.

there are many youtube videos doing so.. if you want to claim that Apollo does not represent 1/6g you are claiming that objects fall faster or slower than what was shown around the world. i sure you are going to follow up with your evidence of this right?


We know this for a fact.


we know for a fact apollo represents 1/6g and it can be proven very easily. you want to claim that it doesnt then prove that the hammer and feather experiment that they do not fall at 1/6g.


We compare it to the Vomit Comet, which is in genuine 1/6g - and it is not even close to what we see in the Apollo 'version' of 1/6g.





The speed changes along the way, which confirms beyond any doubt, Apollo was not in a genuine 1/6g, of lunar gravity.


you talking about the supposed speed reduction?? you still using your opinion as proof??
im pretty sure if you were to write a scientific paper it would start with the premise and conclude with "because i said so."

and what are you talking about apollo was not in 1/6g of lunar gravity.. ofcourse they werent they were at 1g of lunar gravity. which is equivalent to about 1/6g of earths gravity.


All movements of Apollo astronauts claimed to be in 1/6g are shown to be in normal speed, when the footage is put 2x, and 1.5x, the original speed.


opinions are great arent they. everyone has one.


We cannot calculate how fast those dust clouds are falling towards the surface. I've explained this to you, over and over again, ad nauseum.


as i have explained to you how it can be done over and over again ad nauseum.


You must identify a specific object, falling towards ground, to measure how fast it is falling to the surface. If you can't identify a specific object, you cannot claim to have valid measurements of any sort, let alone claim it as 'proof' of anything!


have you ever heard of the term average? doesnt sound like you have.


You know that an object cannot be measured, within those dust clouds. And you also know that there ARE objects which can be measured, such as an astronaut, jumping and falling to ground.


the dust cloud give an average of billions of individual particles. do you know what the term average means? sounds like you dont.

if dust can raise to a visible certain point over a specific time it is fine calculation will work.. if there are particles that reach a higher height that we dont see, it will take a LONGER time to reach there STILL giving us the same results.

therefore using the visible heights and the specific time related to that height will give us the average highest point reached in a specific time.

saying it cant be done is being intellectually dishonest.


At 1.5x speed, the astronaut almost matched a Mythbusters jump using a harness, without even trying to match it!


almost.. but wasnt.. and only one person moving in a straight line.. wobbling while hopping from one foot to the other.. great example.


Somehow, you think this actually proves the Apollo jump was done in genuine 1/6g, lunar gravity!


because it is. it isnt my fault that all objects fall at the rate dictated by lunar gravity in apollo footage.


Based on a Mythbusters jump (on Earth) using a harness, never intended to try and match to an Apollo jump, yet almost matched it perfectly, proves that it is impossible to match the jump here on Earth, is that right?


there is one specific way to replicate a lunar gravity jump on earth accurately. and its not done vertically like in the mythbusters. and its not on the vomit comet neither. but that has limitations.


The Mythbusters jump is the closest we can get to matching it, because you say it is, and this 'fact' proves the jump was done on the moon!


because i say it is??

maybe you misunderstand, john youngs jump salute was on the moon because his "airtime" represents lunar gravity.
plus everything else in the video and all the other supporting evidence.

the mythbusters jump was close but NOT right, they reach a higher height and complete the jump faster.. that makes no sense unless the local gravity is higher.


You are aware that a harness was used in the jump, right? Good.

Are you aware that a harness is adjustable? It is.


yes the harness was adjusted to take off 5/6 of the weight of adam to attempt to represent lunar gravity.

further adjustments would mean that the weight taken off would NOT represent lunar gravity.


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



posted on Dec, 12 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The first mistake was to slow it to 50% speed, because that limited what they could do, with the 'lunar' footage. They had to shoot film in short segments, etc.


so now back to the "technological limitations"??

you havent answered yet.

if i have 1 hour of footage that fit in 10 metres length of film.

how long will the film be if i played it back at 50%?
how long will the film be if i played it back at 66%?

also how long was andy warhols orginaly film?? 6hours?

how long was apollo 11 EVA?? apollo 12 EVA's??

answer all these before you continue with your "technological limitation" reason.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
But it does require harnesses, wires, rigging and operators. Where is your evidence of any of these?


They edited out the wires, as I said. The harnesses are under the spacesuits. The rigging and operators are above the stage. Simple as that.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
No. You have consistently been asked to prove this with evidence, you have deliberately failed to do this. Speed changes mean the astronaut's movement becomes too fast and material travels an inappropriate distance for Earth gravity.


No, the speed change to 2x in Apollo 11 shows an astronaut moving in normal speed. The later missions at 2x speed clearly show the astronauts are NOT moving at normal speed, they move much too fast.

This proves the Apollo missions were NOT shown to us at the same speed. The Apollo 11 astronaut should be moving much too fast at 2x speed, just like all the other astronauts are moving much too fast at 2x speed in the later missions!

You cannot get around that fact.



originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You think that manipulating a video speed to an arbitrary value somehow proves something? All it proves it that you can pick a figure out of thin air and manipulate video


No, "manipulating a video speed" CAN prove something, and is often a useful tool in analysis, as it is here.

An "arbitrary value" that I picked "out of thin air"? Not a chance. The 2x speed is called a control variable, applied to all the Apollo clips, to compare and contrast against one another.


control variable
noun
1.
Also called control. Statistics. a person, group, event, etc., that is used as a constant and unchanging standard of comparison in scientific experimentation


dictionary.reference.com...

That's how science works, btw.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Have you seen now many people were involved in the mythbusters jump? How much equipment? Where is this in the Apollo video?


Sigh...so you don't see it, and if you don't see it, then it must not exist, right?

Look at 2001: A Space Odyssey, hint, hint. Where are the people, and the rigging? Not there, so they were really in space, right?

Sheesh, get a clue.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Where is all the equipment needed to provide the harnesses in hours of unbroken live TV footage on the moon? How is it possible for the astronauts to cross and re-cross repeatedly? Where are the harnesses attached? How did they somehow magically edit these harnesses out of live TV? How did they slow down live TV for hours and hours at a time?



Again, it wasn't "live". You THINK it was live, because they said it was live, and went out of their way to make it seem "live". But it was not "live".

Why do you think they couldn't "cross and recross" wearing wires/harnesses? Peter Pan has actors flying all over the place, without crossing wires. The wires go directly up above the actor/astronaut, to a platform, and they stay directly above the actor/astronaut as he moves across the stage. Other actors/astronauts move in the same way, and the entire thing is choreographed. The wires don't cross/tangle up, because they are always above each actor/astronaut.

It seems impossible, to you, for some reason, so I suggest you research how flying is done on/above a stage.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 03:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
you talking about the supposed speed reduction?? you still using your opinion as proof??


As much as you'd hope it to be, this is not a matter of opinion.

I claim the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed is moving in normal, Earth speed. I have shown you that, with a clip of the Apollo 11 astronauts walking on Earth, which is normal speed, compared to the Apollo 11 astronaut walking on the, ahem, 'moon', at 2x speed.

This proves it is in normal speed, because the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed is walking (with a harness) NO FASTER than the Apollo 11 astronauts are walking on Earth. Even a child would know it, simply by looking at it. You pretend this proves nothing, because it has to be 'measured'. Which is utter bs, of course. I could show you frame-by-frame comparisons of the two clips, as they are walking, and measure their speeds, and even then, you would still not accept it as proof.

Just to prove it once more, here is the Mythbusters guy 'bouncing' along, while in a harness, at normal, Earth speed. It goes from 30:57 to 31:22 in this clip..

www.dailymotion.com...

And here is the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed..look at it from 0:20 - 0:28 in the clip, when he 'bounces' along...

www.youtube.com...

And again, here are the Apollo 11 astronauts walking on Earth..

After I've shown you it is easily repeatable on Earth, at normal speed, you will just keep on claiming it is not, that it is my opinion. Which is ironic, since you are the one who has nothing but an unsupported opinion on the matter.

If you still want to claim it is faster than normal speed, you need to show some evidence for it. Otherwise, it's just worthless 'prove it is normal', 'that's just your opinion' drivel.

And if you really need a frame-by-frame analysis to convince you, I'd be happy to show you that, too.

You'll never accept the truth, which is sad...



originally posted by: choos
maybe you misunderstand, john youngs jump salute was on the moon because his "airtime" represents lunar gravity.
plus everything else in the video and all the other supporting evidence.

the mythbusters jump was close but NOT right, they reach a higher height and complete the jump faster.. that makes no sense unless the local gravity is higher.

yes the harness was adjusted to take off 5/6 of the weight of adam to attempt to represent lunar gravity.

further adjustments would mean that the weight taken off would NOT represent lunar gravity.



You still don't get it.

Harness/wires are adjustable. Do you know what that means?

It means harnesses/wires can make you 'bounce' a little bit above the ground, like in the Apollo 11 clip, or they can make you 'bounce' a little higher off the ground, like in the Mythbusters clip, and in some later Apollo clips. They can also make you 'fly' above the ground, like in Peter Pan.

When you understand that harnesses/wires can make you 'fly' above the ground, you should get a clue that harneses/wires take gravity out of the equation. So for instance, could you calculate the gravity for the actor 'flying' above the stage in Peter Pan? No, you cannot, because gravity has been taken out of the equation.

This is what you think is "airtime", representing lunar gravity. It means nothing.


You cannot calculate the gravity for the Mythbusters guy as he descends from his jump, because his harness has taken gravity out of the equation. That is why you cannot calculate for gravity by simply looking at an object falling to ground, because the object could be attached to wires, like the astronauts, like the Mythbusters guy.

Their movements CAN be shown as normal speed, or faster than normal speed, as I've done. These same movements can be put in a frame-by-frame analysis, to verify that it is at normal speed, or not.

Do you get this?



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

They sure had a lot of advanced tech to edit out the harness, wires, rigging etc in the 60s.

How many frames per second was it for the Apollo 11 footage?

10 for black and white and 30 for colour.

So for every minute they would have to edit 600 frames for b&w and 1800 for colour. PER MINUTE. That means it would be 36,000 b&w and 108,000 colour frames PER HOUR.

If we go on the BBC (UK) footage of 27 hours over 10 days that equates to 972,000 b&w frames alone.

Now PCs and PC software as we know it now didn't exist the way they do now. Let's say it took them 1 minute per frame to edit out everything. That's 1 minute times 972,000 frames. That's 16,200 hours. 675 days. 1 year and 310 days. Almost 2 YEARS to edit the footage. And that's just for black and white.

Sounds completely reasonable that they would do that and no one would know about it, right? No, no it's doesn't.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
NASA scientists have yet to discover how to adequately reach out too muslims that have created ISIS networks, let alone how to sufficiently satisfy the hype of their two-dimensional computer models in pursuance too their three-dimensional phenomenon known as "global warming".

Yet the propagandists somehow brazenly declare apollo landed men on the moon ...


NASA - A Muslim Outreach Program

edit on 13-12-2015 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

From the video....

`Everytime the USA wants to get one of their astronauts into space they have to pay Russia close to 100 million Dollar. And those astronauts have to learn russian. JFK must be spinning in his grave.`



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Non-sequiter. Irrelevant. Probably racist and certainly a stupid conclusion to draw.

Climate change is a whole other thread, and not something that was under discussion during Apollo.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: webstra

I suggest you discuss the failure of successive governments to fund their space programme adequately with the US government.

it does not prove Apollo did not go to the moon. Apollo landed on the moon thanks to budget commitments and willingness to invest in a space programme that satisfied a national ideal.

Also from the video:


Watch 30 seconds from 1969, when America was great, the greatest country in the world, when NASA put a man on the moon.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
The Apollo 11 landing and subsequent first man to walk on the moon was a significant event in my childhood and I don't recall an event since that was as exciting to witness on live television.

Those of you skeptics that were not alive at the time are not aware of how big of event the moon landing was. We all knew mankind had been looking at the moon for thousands of years and now the realization we were about to see what at the time was one of the most significant events in history. News broadcast showed excited people all around the world who gathered and watched wherever they could. Televisions were mostly black and white and live television was not common.

I don't know how long the broadcast was or how much it was broken up, but I would guess Apollo 11 might be one of the longest live broadcast in television history even today - not counting webcams etc.

Imagine going to a superbowl party that you thought was going to be a few hours but then goes on all night. NASA were having their normal multi-hours delays and broadcasters just kept it going.

I was only 6 at the time, but I remember going to my dad's friends house because they had a bigger tv. We waited for hours for the landing and even longer for Armstrong suit up and walk down the steps. I slept for hours to be woken up when something was about to occur.

I believe if that was hoaxed then our whole world would have to be a hoax which is just bs.
edit on 12/13/15 by verylowfrequency because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join