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: 31
57
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
It wasn't 'live', as I keep telling you again and again. Saying it was 'live' doesn't make it true.


And constantly bleating that it was all recorded in advance doesn't mean that it was all recorded in advance. All you have done so far is insist that it wasn't live and expect us to accept it with absolutely no evidence or effort on you part while you expect everyone else to jump through hoops to provide you with proofs.

Prove it wasn't live.

Again, ask the people at the various tracking stations around the world where their dishes were pointed, or the amateur radio enthusiasts, or Jodrell Bank. Tell us how they got time and date specific shots of the Earth in to the live TV broadcasts.



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?


What I get is how ludicrous your suggestion is. You are talking about two people suspended by very very thin very long wires from the ceiling and somehow the mechanisms suspending them never ever come into contact. What happened to your idea that it was all done in parabolic arcs anyway? That idea seemed to disappear down the toilet pretty fast.



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


And who were they? Where are they now? Where was the studio? When was it filmed? When did they get all the live sports news and other headlines ready? Who built the stage sets? With what and over how long?

You have absolutely no answers to those questions. Not one. Until you start providing them then it's just hot air.




posted on Dec, 19 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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


and down the toilet goes your theory 50% slowdown for Apollo 11.


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


its from the same person that made the video you posted earlier..


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


woah there cowboy, its actually YOUR argument. i simply found footage from the same person that supplied the footage YOU posted about earlier that didnt look right.


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


so now you are claiming that Apollo 11 changed between both 50% slowdown AND 66% slowdown mid mission.. because reasons.


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.


earlier you posted that using two different slowdown speeds was somewhere along the lines of preposterous.. and now suddenly you want to entertain the idea..

the only thing that is shown here is that YOUR THEORY of 50% slowdown for Apollo 11 and 66% for all the others is completely and utterly bogus. nothing but random numbers plucked from thin air.


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?


the only problem i see is the fact that your theory has fallen apart again.

what you have proven by your admission here is that your slowdown theory is rubbish and the 50% and 66% figures were plucked from thin air



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

and down the toilet goes your theory 50% slowdown for Apollo 11.


No, Apollo 11 footage at 2x speed IS at normal, Earth speed. I've shown you that, in the clip I cited.

You said it is too fast for normal speed. IN THAT CLIP. I asked you to point out any of the astronauts' movements which you consider faster than normal. You did not point ANYTHING out, which means you CANNOT point anything out of that clip.

You can't point anything out, yet you somehow think I need to prove it is at normal speed. Again, all you need to do is point out a specific movement(s) made by the astronaut YOU claim is faster than normal. And then I could prove to you those specific movements ARE at normal speed. I've compared his walking speed to Earth speed, and even a moron could see the astronaut is walking no faster than the astronauts are walking on Earth. I'm sure you aren't a moron, but you will never, ever, admit the astronaut is walking no faster than normal speed. If you admit to that, you are essentially admitting that it was faked. And you will never admit to that, as we know.

You have said it is faster than normal, and I've asked you to show me what is faster is my clip. If you think it is faster, you would be able to point out ANY of his movements that you consider faster than normal. Right? Of course.

How can you claim it is faster than normal, but not be able to point out anything to support your claim?

The only reason is that you CANNOT support your claim with this clip. There is NOTHING faster than normal in it.

You know this, obviously. So why won't you admit it? It is the truth, after all. If you cannot admit to the truth, you are not after the truth.

I admit your clip is faster than normal speed, because it is. That is the truth. I will not hide from it, as you did with my clip.

And your clip actually confirms this. Why did you need to come up with a completely different Apollo 11 clip to point out movements which are faster than normal speed? I showed you a clip well before you did, and you claimed it was faster than normal speed. But you needed to find a completely different clip for that.

You've confirmed that my clip is at normal speed, from what you've done here.

Then, you pretend you've won the argument! Sad...



originally posted by: choos
so now you are claiming that Apollo 11 changed between both 50% slowdown AND 66% slowdown mid mission.. because reasons.


If your clip is truly at 2x speed, then it is faster than normal speed, and - here's the point - it is faster than the speed in my clip, of the same mission

I think your clip might not be at 2x speed, however. This is yet to be determined.

As I said, I am after the truth. If it is truly at 2x speed, then it is also faster than the clip I've shown you.

So the problem doesn't go away, if one scene is not at normal speed.

The clip I've shown you IS at normal speed.



originally posted by: choos
earlier you posted that using two different slowdown speeds was somewhere along the lines of preposterous.. and now suddenly you want to entertain the idea..


I never said it was preposterous, or along those lines. I said they used two different slow-down speeds, for the missions, and that it was a big mistake, which it was.



originally posted by: choos
the only thing that is shown here is that YOUR THEORY of 50% slowdown for Apollo 11 and 66% for all the others is completely and utterly bogus. nothing but random numbers plucked from thin air.


No, as I've explained above, the problem still exists, and you can't avoid the problem, by trying to push in a completely different clip.

Are you that afraid of admitting the truth, too scared to simply admit that my clip IS at normal speed? Or, do you have another agenda?

You were able to find a clip from Apollo 11 which IS faster than normal speed. You compared it to a 'Benny Hill' skit, also. Obviously, it is faster than the clip I showed you.

Let's compare this a 'Benny Hill' skit, then...

In 'Benny Hill' skit, the speed does not change, or appear to change, within the skit. It is faster than normal speed, throughout the skit. It is at one, CONSISTENT (faster than normal) speed.

In the two Apollo 11 clips, the speed DOES change, or appear to change. One clip is at 'Benny Hill'- type speed, but the other clip is at normal speed. The clips should be at one, consistent, speed, like the 'Benny Hill' skit is.

I am quite sure you can grasp what I'm saying here.

You will never admit to it, though.


As long as I'm getting through to one person, it's worth debating through all the bs, fear, and/or denial.

And one person did get it, at least, so far. It's good to know that.



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

And constantly bleating that it was all recorded in advance doesn't mean that it was all recorded in advance. All you have done so far is insist that it wasn't live and expect us to accept it with absolutely no evidence or effort on you part while you expect everyone else to jump through hoops to provide you with proofs.

Prove it wasn't live.


That's like someone claiming flying pink elephants exist, without a shred of proof, yet insisting those who say they do not exist, must prove that they do not exist! And if they cannot prove him wrong, it supports his claim that they DO exist!

Get the point?

YOU have the original claim, that it was shown 'live' on TV. YOU must prove that claim, in the first place. Saying it over and over without any proof is worthless - like those flying pink elephants.

Asking for you to prove your claim is hardly 'jumping through hoops', so please drop the 'big crybaby' act..


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Again, ask the people at the various tracking stations around the world where their dishes were pointed, or the amateur radio enthusiasts, or Jodrell Bank. Tell us how they got time and date specific shots of the Earth in to the live TV broadcasts.


THIS is an example of 'jumping through hoops', which is quite ironic...

Don't put out your crap and say it's my problem, it won't fly.

Is all of this supposed to be your 'proof' of being shown 'live' on TV? Think again.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
And who were they? Where are they now? Where was the studio? When was it filmed? When did they get all the live sports news and other headlines ready? Who built the stage sets? With what and over how long?

You have absolutely no answers to those questions. Not one. Until you start providing them then it's just hot air.


Ironic, once again.

YOU are the one speaking 'hot air', not me.

I am presenting my evidence which proves the moon landings were hoaxed. I am not trying to prove who was behind the hoax, because it isn't relevant to my argument.

If you saw a guy who was dead, and his body was riddled with bullet-holes, you would have pretty good evidence to prove he was murdered, right? Sure. Now, would you also need to prove who murdered him, and exactly how it was done, in order to prove he was murdered? No, of course not. You would already know he was murdered, from the evidence - all the bullets. You don't need to know who was involved in the murder, etc. to know it WAS murder.

Get it?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


That's like someone claiming flying pink elephants exist, without a shred of proof, yet insisting those who say they do not exist, must prove that they do not exist! And if they cannot prove him wrong, it supports his claim that they DO exist!

Get the point?


Nope, you aren't making a point. There is ample evidence that Apollo genuinely happened exact;y as described, that the Apollo TV broadcasts were live, that the film and TV of Earth and moon are entirely consistent with the times and locations.

You have nothing but "no it wasn't".



YOU have the original claim, that it was shown 'live' on TV. YOU must prove that claim, in the first place. Saying it over and over without any proof is worthless - like those flying pink elephants.


Been done already, you just refuse to acknowledge it. You are the one making the claim that it was done with wires, in advance, in a studio but make absolutely no effort whatsoever to back that up with any kind of proof at all. Your claims are less than worthless. Evidence, or find some other goalposts to move.




Asking for you to prove your claim is hardly 'jumping through hoops', so please drop the 'big crybaby' act..

THIS is an example of 'jumping through hoops', which is quite ironic...

Don't put out your crap and say it's my problem, it won't fly.

Is all of this supposed to be your 'proof' of being shown 'live' on TV? Think again.


You have put no effort into backing up your claim, why should I repeat, again, all the evidence supporting Apollo on your say so. Go read my website. Find the images of Earth broadcast in live TV that show time and date specific weather patterns. Find the small details in the surface footage that were not known about before the missions. Prove them wrong. Go to the Honeysuckle Creek website and email them - call them liars, see how that pans out.



Ironic, once again.

YOU are the one speaking 'hot air', not me.

I am presenting my evidence which proves the moon landings were hoaxed. I am not trying to prove who was behind the hoax, because it isn't relevant to my argument.


No. You have presented nothing but "the speed was changed", which suddenly has changed to "some of the speed might have been changed but I'm not sure which bits." with no effort made to support that claim. It's not even your evidence, it's a tired piece of claptrap that you have borrowed from other people.



If you saw a guy who was dead, and his body was riddled with bullet-holes, you would have pretty good evidence to prove he was murdered, right? Sure. Now, would you also need to prove who murdered him, and exactly how it was done, in order to prove he was murdered? No, of course not. You would already know he was murdered, from the evidence - all the bullets. You don't need to know who was involved in the murder, etc. to know it WAS murder.


Specious nonsense. Your methodology is that you would find a body, not bother with any kind of forensic analysis, decide that it was a murder, point at the first random passer-by, declare them to be the murderer, demand that they prove otherwise and refuse to listen to any kind of alibi proving that they were not.

Get it?



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I think your clip might not be at 2x speed, however. This is yet to be determined.

As I said, I am after the truth. If it is truly at 2x speed, then it is also faster than the clip I've shown you.

So the problem doesn't go away, if one scene is not at normal speed.

The clip I've shown you IS at normal speed.


i guess searching for proof is just too hard for you to do??

the originals are on youtube and easy to find as the poster has posted the originals.

just to run it down for you:

clip 1 normal speed length: 2mins 14 seconds
clip 1 double speed length (your video that you posted: 1 min 7 seconds.

is it half as short as the original?? yes it is

clip 2 normal speed length: 30.72 seconds
clip 2 double speed length (video i posted): 15.36 seconds

basically what im saying is the post you posted in reply is just a long winded rant of DENIAL.
you have successfully proven your theory as complete horse droppings. the more you try and deny it the more it looks like you have plucked numbers out of thin air.

and for the record i didnt admit to "your" clip being normal, that is YOUR opinion. ive repeated this many many times already.
edit on 20-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 20 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   

ATTENTION!



Please refrain from Off Topic posts.

Make your posts about the points brought up in the OP.

If anyone had different points, then please create a new thread to address those points, but not in this thread.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   


Chinese informants have essentially exposed the apollo paradigm by providing a new ground truth, proceeding to identify unique mineralogical characteristics entirely unlike anything collected by apollo, that would seem to agree to disagree with the prototypical apollo compositional assemblages...

Scientists were surprised, “We’re still trying to figure out how this happened” said American partner in the Chinese team Bradley Joliff..


Acknowledgements of Chinese Correlated Agreement Arrangements



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

translation :

the chinese probe examined a sample from an area of the moon not visited by any previous mission and discobered that the geology of the moon is not homogeneous

this only demonstrates your utter ignorance

the apollo samples demonstrated geological diferences of the 6 landing sites



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I am presenting my evidence which proves the moon landings were hoaxed.


Nothing you have posted proves the moon landings were hoaxed.... as they were not.

How about showing some evidence that the landings were hoaxed! Any evidence at all?
edit on 23-12-2015 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Apollogists practitioners & their activist associates "believe" the apollo moon landings were real but admit the only way to resolve it is to actually go to the Moon and acquire an assessment of three times the quality resolution of NASA's pictures ...

prognosticated chance of successful achievement in the next 20 years... Zero

the Apollo Activist Organizers have already planned a pretext for when it fails saying "this project has other goals" ...



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
Chinese informants have essentially exposed the apollo paradigm by providing a new ground truth, proceeding to identify unique mineralogical characteristics entirely unlike anything collected by apollo, that would seem to agree to disagree with the prototypical apollo compositional assemblages...

Scientists were surprised, “We’re still trying to figure out how this happened” said American partner in the Chinese team Bradley Joliff..


Acknowledgements of Chinese Correlated Agreement Arrangements

Apollo 17 found rocks that were completely unlike those of the previous five Apollo missions, too (such as the rocks associated with ther famous "orange soil" found by Jack Schmitt). Apollo 16 rocks taken from Mare Nectaris was different than any other rocks taken from different areas of the Moon by the other missions. The other Apollo missions found rocks that were unique to those missions, too.

So I'm not sure what point it is that you think you are making. I can go to different places on Earth and probably find rocks that are unique to each of those places. Does that mean my trips to those different Earth places was a hoax?


edit on 12/23/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

a mineralogical smorgasbord of integrative compositional anomalies is not conducive to verifying the authenticity of apollo.


edit on 23-12-2015 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

So the earth is made up of one type of material?



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

AS STATED PREVIOUSLY - THE MOON IS NOT HOMOGENOUS - GET OVER IT



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Images taken by Chinese orbital probes show details that are an exact match for those in Apollo images, but which are not shown in any photographs taken before Apollo.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
Apollogists practitioners & their activist associates "believe" the apollo moon landings were real


I don;t believe they are real, I know they are real.


but admit the only way to resolve it is to actually go to the Moon and acquire an assessment of three times the quality resolution of NASA's pictures ...


I for one admit no such thing. I am more than happy that the evidence in existing photographs, TV footage, 16mm footage and scientific data are more than enough proof to dispel the thin and noxious vapour of so-called hoax 'evidence'.




prognosticated chance of successful achievement in the next 20 years... Zero


Based on absolutely no evidence at all.



the Apollo Activist Organizers have already planned a pretext for when it fails saying "this project has other goals" ...


There will be no failure. Apollo will be proven to have happened and the various ill-informed hoax believers of the world will scuttle off and find some other nonsense over which to fulminate.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey


Apollo will be proven to have happened and the various ill-informed hoax believers of the world will scuttle off and find some other nonsense over which to fulminate.


utter bollox - idiots of the intullectual dishonesty required to deny all evidence for the apollo missions presented thus far have no problems denying anything

they will just claim " fabrication " wait 2 weeks and start again with the " shadows are wrong " lunacy



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

No. You have presented nothing but "the speed was changed", which suddenly has changed to "some of the speed might have been changed but I'm not sure which bits." with no effort made to support that claim. It's not even your evidence, it's a tired piece of claptrap that you have borrowed from other people.


No. I have shown you absolute proof of the change in speed.

You were asked to refute the footage, as it's specifically the example I've cited as my proof...

You have tried avoiding this footage, with another clip.

It doesn't refute my point, whether or not the speed is faster than normal. My clip IS normal speed, and that's the whole problem here. It has to be addressed, not ignored.

The speed change is not a matter of personal opinion, whatsoever. It is based on proof.

If you have anything to support your case (of it being faster than normal speed), it must refute my own evidence, as that's what I've cited as proof!

..




originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Specious nonsense. Your methodology is that you would find a body, not bother with any kind of forensic analysis, decide that it was a murder, point at the first random passer-by, declare them to be the murderer, demand that they prove otherwise and refuse to listen to any kind of alibi proving that they were not.

Get it?


That's not close to my analogy, at all...

I'm saying murder is proven with only the evidence at hand. It doesn't require proving who was involved in the murder to prove it WAS a murder!!

Same as proving a hoax - based only on the evidence at hand proves a hoax, as I've done here. It doesn't require proving who was involved in the hoax, to know it was a hoax!!

Get it?




top topics



 
57
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join