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: 30
57
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 07:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.


You can suggest what you want, that doesn´t make the apollo moonlandings real.

The USA has totaly stopped bringing astronauts in LEO themselves, one of many reasons


Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

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




posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   
a reply to: webstra


You can suggest what you want, that doesn´t make the apollo moonlandings real.


And simply being contradictory does not prove them to be fake.


The USA has totaly stopped bringing astronauts in LEO themselves, one of many reasons


Unless you are suggesting that the ISS is also a fake, and that the Russians are in on it, what you just said supports the claim that the failure to return is indeed a financial, not engineering, issue.



posted on Dec, 13 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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



that would atleast be the first step to actually getting around to proving your opinion.. why dont you get on that now?


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...


are you being a bit specific??

the whole EVA lasts about 2hours and 31minutes.

so all i need to do is find a few seconds worth of footage at 2x speed to prove your theory completely wrong.

like say here:




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.


then its not the same harness that mythbusters used at all.

you are talking about a harness system that doesnt have the "buoyancy" seen in the mythbusters harness system.

you are describing a harness system that has no "stretching" the wires you speak of a more steel wires rather than a bungee like cord that the mythbusters used.

and not to mention in the Apollo 11 clip Neil is moving forward back left and right darting around.
the mythbusters is restricted to moving forward and back. everytime Adam tries to move "off course" his harness system pulls him back into place as shown with him wobbling about while hopping from one foot to the other.

but you dont see this in betamax 2x speedup footage of apollo 11.


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


the part you dont get about this is that regardless of whether or not it is real lunar gravity objects all fall at 1.6m/s/s

therefore all objects in apollo footage fall a certain distance over a specific time.

every one that has calculated how long an object falls on the lunar surface over a specific period has found that the acceleration is 1.6m/s/s.

meaning that (assuming your argument) 66% slowdown with their high tech harness system, displays all objects falling at a rate of 1.6m/s/s.

the problem with this is that, you claim that apollo 11 was at 50% slowdown. meaning that should anyone try to calculate the acceleration of falling objects they would NOT get 1.6m/s/s.

and in the 40+ years of Apollo 11 existance.. not a single hoax theorists/believer has ever been able to prove it with calculations even though it should be straight forward.

the only person ever to be able to "prove" it is yourself. but another problem with your "proof" is that you are only giving your opinion on videos you post.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: webstra


You can suggest what you want, that doesn´t make the apollo moonlandings real.


And simply being contradictory does not prove them to be fake.


The USA has totaly stopped bringing astronauts in LEO themselves, one of many reasons


Unless you are suggesting that the ISS is also a fake, and that the Russians are in on it, what you just said supports the claim that the failure to return is indeed a financial, not engineering, issue.


So you are 'suggesting' me something and after that try to get m e involved in a totally other aspect of space exploration ?

Please start your own thread about the ISS scam if you want ?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: webstra


Please start your own thread about the ISS scam if you want ?


You're the one who believes ISS is a scam, you start a new thread. (That would be much more fun than rehashing Apollo!)



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: webstra


Please start your own thread about the ISS scam if you want ?


You're the one who believes ISS is a scam, you start a new thread. (That would be much more fun than rehashing Apollo!)


I think it's more wise to expose the apollo fantasy then go into the ISS thing. This thread is about

"Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked".

Further i think Turbonium is going full steam in the weekends about the mess nasa made about the acceleration of the films they made don't you think ?



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
We faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident and no one admitted it until a few years ago.


AUCH! This happened after a fashion on Aug.2nd it was a nothing that was exaggerated, so certian factions in our gov. could get what they wanted. They didn't completely. All that the American people got was PAIN. Do NOT use this example,
there are still people around who LIVED it! As much as certain people would like us to just go away.

From Wiki:
In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated regarding the first incident on August 2 that "at 1500G,[note 1] Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G,[note 1] the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first."


An abysmal excuse to use people i agree. And it P***s me off to this day. To compare this act of greed and adverice to the Moon Landings is well at best ridiculous.



posted on Dec, 14 2015 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: webstra


Please start your own thread about the ISS scam if you want ?


You're the one who believes ISS is a scam, you start a new thread. (That would be much more fun than rehashing Apollo!)


I think it's more wise to expose the apollo fantasy then go into the ISS thing. This thread is about

"Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked".

Further i think Turbonium is going full steam in the weekends about the mess nasa made about the acceleration of the films they made don't you think ?


No.

Turbonium is looking at a signal broadcast from the moon and then recorded on Earth, then recoded to get on to youtube and then drawing erroneous conclusions without any kind of suggestion of a hint of a possibility of an attempt of backing up his ideas with actual measurements and numbers. He is then comparing that footage with that of later missions broadcast using different cameras and drawing the same conclusions with the same mix of unfounded allegation and bombast.

The reference points exist within the footage for him to prove that they are filmed in Earth gravity, but he refuses to do so. He claims the use of wires and harnesses, but fails to identify the mechanisms and personnel that must have been involved in their operation and refuses to acknowledge the physical factors that make their use impossible.

He also claims that live TV was slowed down for hours at a time and wires and harnesses edited out of that live TV despite having absolutely no evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

So no, he is not doing a good job.
edit on 14-12-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
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.


Such tricks had been used before Apollo 11, in various ways, in sci-fi films, as explained here...

cinefex.com...

With a budget like Apollo's, making wires disappear would've been no problem.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

In that link it's referring to small harnesses for model planes, Star Wars etc. And part of it even said about moving a model plane a fraction each frame (stop frame motion). Even today to do an hours stop frame motion would take quite a while, per frame to move everything in context with everything else.

Still no argument there about how they used harnesses, rigging etc for Apollo missions.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

With a budget like Apollo's, making wires disappear would've been no problem.



exactly what has a big budget got to do with manually editing out wires??

the bigger the budget the more people involved.. you hoax believers keep saying only a couple of people need to be involved.. and here you are describing enormous man-power.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

that would atleast be the first step to actually getting around to proving your opinion.. why dont you get on that now?


I'll go ahead, asap, then get back to you..


originally posted by: choos
are you being a bit specific??

the whole EVA lasts about 2hours and 31minutes.

so all i need to do is find a few seconds worth of footage at 2x speed to prove your theory completely wrong.

like say here:



They run in normal speed, so what about it?


originally posted by: choos
then its not the same harness that mythbusters used at all.

you are talking about a harness system that doesnt have the "buoyancy" seen in the mythbusters harness system.

you are describing a harness system that has no "stretching" the wires you speak of a more steel wires rather than a bungee like cord that the mythbusters used.

and not to mention in the Apollo 11 clip Neil is moving forward back left and right darting around.
the mythbusters is restricted to moving forward and back. everytime Adam tries to move "off course" his harness system pulls him back into place as shown with him wobbling about while hopping from one foot to the other.

but you dont see this in betamax 2x speedup footage of apollo 11.


The Apollo 11 astronauts barely go above the ground, compared to Mythbusters.

It is simple to dart around more, by using extra rigging, etc....

Mythbusters didn't show it, but could have done so, that's all...



originally posted by: choos
the part you dont get about this is that regardless of whether or not it is real lunar gravity objects all fall at 1.6m/s/s

therefore all objects in apollo footage fall a certain distance over a specific time.

every one that has calculated how long an object falls on the lunar surface over a specific period has found that the acceleration is 1.6m/s/s.

meaning that (assuming your argument) 66% slowdown with their high tech harness system, displays all objects falling at a rate of 1.6m/s/s.

the problem with this is that, you claim that apollo 11 was at 50% slowdown. meaning that should anyone try to calculate the acceleration of falling objects they would NOT get 1.6m/s/s.


Falling objects can support anything, to show you whatever you want...as I've explained to you, in detail.

And that's assuming your calculations are accurate, which is quite a stretch, to begin with!

Bottom line, falling objects can't be used to measure gravity, since they can alter the speed of objects...by using wires, etc.

If falling objects you've measured (or claim were measured) showed 1/6 g rate of acceleration towards the ground, all you would prove is that those objects appear to fall in 1/6 g. And if I prove the opposite, ie: objects are not falling in 1/6 g, it isn't proof, for the same reasons...


It is absurd to claim the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed is moving about faster than normal speed, after I've already shown you comparisons of walking on Earth, to confirm it is repeatable on Earth, at normal speed, from making observations....

Science makes observations all the time, which just a personal opinion, right?

Don't the scientists know that? You should tell them, since you obviously know it's merely a personal opinion, so it's clearly nothing of scientific relevance.....


Get serious, please.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No.

Turbonium is looking at a signal broadcast from the moon and then recorded on Earth, then recoded to get on to youtube and then drawing erroneous conclusions without any kind of suggestion of a hint of a possibility of an attempt of backing up his ideas with actual measurements and numbers. He is then comparing that footage with that of later missions broadcast using different cameras and drawing the same conclusions with the same mix of unfounded allegation and bombast.

The reference points exist within the footage for him to prove that they are filmed in Earth gravity, but he refuses to do so. He claims the use of wires and harnesses, but fails to identify the mechanisms and personnel that must have been involved in their operation and refuses to acknowledge the physical factors that make their use impossible.

He also claims that live TV was slowed down for hours at a time and wires and harnesses edited out of that live TV despite having absolutely no evidence to support that claim whatsoever.


Claiming it was shown 'live' from the moon, when there is no proof of it whatsoever, is just worthless babbling.

They stated the footage was shown in real time, in actual speed, for Apollo 11, through to Apollo 17, all the footage was authentic, exactly what was seen 'live' on TV,


They said it from day one, and ever since then, up to this very day.

They pointed out any and all of the changes, or modifications, to their equipment, and/or with their processes, etc.

So they obviously know the cameras, and the footage, and the processes, and so forth...

They knew the speed, of all footage, right?

They showed it at the actual speed - not.

They SAID it was all in actual speed, which was a massive lie.


Now, after it's been exposed (so to speak), you suddenly make up all sorts of excuses...


You think it was the same speed, but using different cameras, processes, etc. caused the variation in Apollo 11's footage speed. Nobody noticed a change in footage speed at that time, only over 40 years later. So...


This doesn't work, because the audio would either be slower, or out of synch with the footage, and either case would be noticed, right away. They had no such problems, as we all know.


That means you have to show Apollo 11 is faster than normal speed (Earth speed), as fast as the other missions are, to support your claim that the missions are all at the same speed.

There is nothing to support your claim, as we all know, as it also proves the hoax, for a fact.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 04:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They run in normal speed, so what about it?


you call that running do you?? even though they arent running, they still look like they are in a benny hill movie.

there are more examples.. they spent about 2 and a half hours on the surface.. have you reviewed the entire EVA to check if your "theory" is correct??

you know they spend some time planting the flag and salute the camera after Nixon has a quick chat with them.. but im sure you have checked your speed theory with all of these things.



The Apollo 11 astronauts barely go above the ground, compared to Mythbusters.

It is simple to dart around more, by using extra rigging, etc....

Mythbusters didn't show it, but could have done so, that's all...


barely above ground? i guess you havent seen the video of the astronaut jumping downhill?

extra rigging?? so like when the astronauts cross each other the extra rigging disappears?

also how do you suppose the guy controlling the ascent and descent is supposed to keep up when the astronaut is running around the place since the rigging you have described is using taut wires and not a bungee like rope. the timing of the guys are impeccable.



Falling objects can support anything, to show you whatever you want...as I've explained to you, in detail.


if that was the case hoax believers would have used it by now right? i guess they just arent smart enough.


And that's assuming your calculations are accurate, which is quite a stretch, to begin with!


coming from someone that cant follow the calculations.


Bottom line, falling objects can't be used to measure gravity, since they can alter the speed of objects...by using wires, etc.


bottom line that doesnt matter.
what matters is that NASA showed the world objects falling at 1.6m/s/s.

whether or not you want to believe that objects falling at 1.6m/s/s is lunar gravity or not is your opinion.
but whatever method you want to believe they used to fake the apollo footage they would have faked it to the extent that all objects fall at 1.6m/s/s.

otherwise the smartest hoax theorist would have been able to prove this by now, it has been over 45 years.


If falling objects you've measured (or claim were measured) showed 1/6 g rate of acceleration towards the ground, all you would prove is that those objects appear to fall in 1/6 g. And if I prove the opposite, ie: objects are not falling in 1/6 g, it isn't proof, for the same reasons...


the thing is you are unable to prove that objects dont fall at 1.6m/s/s.. no one can, otherwise it would have been done so already.


It is absurd to claim the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed is moving about faster than normal speed, after I've already shown you comparisons of walking on Earth, to confirm it is repeatable on Earth, at normal speed, from making observations....


because it is just your opinion, the video i posted shows people moving like in a benny hill chase movie, but you call it normal running.

and not to mention, you have yet to review the entirety of the EVA.


Science makes observations all the time, which just a personal opinion, right?


the observations are just opinion (although professional since that is their expertise) the difference between them and you (apart from the profession) is that they can back it with data.

you are showing videos and giving your opinion of which i can do too, you lack any sort of solid data.

if scientists want to prove that a certain material can withstand a certain amount of force, they would show you that data. not just a video of someone breaking the material.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

In that link it's referring to small harnesses for model planes, Star Wars etc. And part of it even said about moving a model plane a fraction each frame (stop frame motion). Even today to do an hours stop frame motion would take quite a while, per frame to move everything in context with everything else.

Still no argument there about how they used harnesses, rigging etc for Apollo missions.


How is Peter Pan rigged up?

I don't know, do you?

They did it.

It is not relevant to know how it was done, or that it is required, just because you say it is.

Same as Apollo's rigging is not relevant to know, just because you say it is.


As for wires...

They didn't need to remove wires in each and every frame of all their 'moon' footage. These wires can hardly be seen in the first place, so no need for them to edit wires in most frames, as we cannot see them, that is the whole purpose.

I'm referring to any evidence of wires being used, within the footage. They removed any such evidence of wires, in those frames, and therefore, it would very likely be simple to edit out these wires.

Why do you think they would film it like this? Any idea?

All the lunar footage lacks definition - Apollo 11 being the most absurd case.

Add on a completely black and darkened background for all of the 'lunar' scenes...

Now, use the finest, thinnest wires possible.

Show the jumps from a distance, to further obscure the wires when used for such special effects.



Actual wires might have been unseen, but the reflections would be noticed from wires, and a few remain in the footage, too



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Why do you keep saying "frames?" We are talking about video. Why do you demand evidence that it is real, but don't feel that it is necessary to provide evidence that it is not?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

and they edited the wires out on live TV how?

They managed to to entangle themselves on the numerous occasions they cross paths how?

Where are the wires attached? Who is operating them? Where are those operators?

It absolutely is essential for you to explain how it was done, because you are claiming it was. No-one is actually claiming Peter Pan can actually fly.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you call that running do you?? even though they arent running, they still look like they are in a benny hill movie.

there are more examples.. they spent about 2 and a half hours on the surface.. have you reviewed the entire EVA to check if your "theory" is correct??



At closer look, it is too fast for normal speed.

So it is either not at 2x speed, or it is not consistent with the footage I've cited here.

Assuming it is at 2x speed, which you claim for your argument....

It might be consistent with the later mission footage, yet it is NOT consistent with its OWN mission footage!

And this would be no better, perhaps even worse than before...


You have one mission, Apollo 11. One of the scenes shows movements at normal, Earth speed. I showed you this scene.
Another scene from the same mission shows movements which are NOT at normal, Earth speed. It is faster than normal in this scene. You showed me that scene.


The movements cannot be at different speeds, in the same environment, and - even worse - within the very same MISSION!

It has to be at only one, and the same, and wholly consistent, speed.... right?

You see the big problem, no?



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Your 'logic' is entirely based on the assumption that the live TV footage was manipulated.

It was not, and now you can't even decide whether all of it was or what speed it was changed to.

Ask the people who had their antennae pointed at the moon where the signal was coming from.



posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

and they edited the wires out on live TV how?

They managed to to entangle themselves on the numerous occasions they cross paths how?

Where are the wires attached? Who is operating them? Where are those operators?

It absolutely is essential for you to explain how it was done, because you are claiming it was. No-one is actually claiming Peter Pan can actually fly.


It wasn't 'live', as I keep telling you again and again. Saying it was 'live' doesn't make it true.

I've also explained how the wires won't cross up, or tangle together, because the wires are above each person, and remain that way, throughout. Nothing is getting tangled by their crossing of paths, therefore. Get it?

All stagehands are off camera, so why would we ever see them? We wouldn't, that's clear enough, no?




top topics



 
57
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join