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: 32
57
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
based only on the evidence at hand proves a hoax, as I've done here.


The "evidence" you have shown here is not evidence, it just shows your very poor understanding of science, physics and how things really work.




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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.


Repeating his movements in normal speed is not a matter of personal opinion, it is fact-based knowledge. As I told you before, many times.


How it looks to you doesn't matter, only the proof does, as it does in this case.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You are repeatedly claiming you have proved something without actually providing any proof other than saying you have proved something.

You claimed firstly that Apollo missions used recorded footage but provide no evidence to support this claim.

You then claimed that this footage has had the speed altered, but provide no evidence to support this claim.

You then claimed that Apollo 11's rate of speed change was different to later Apollos, but provide no evidence to support this claim - despite me spoon feeding you all the information you need to prove your point. You now seem unsure as to whether this is the case or not.

You have never provided a single calculation of your own in support of your claim.

Apollo 11 missions were broadcast on live TV, with audio that matched their movements, had contemporary information in it, and that contained visual information that could only have been obtained on the lunar surface.

You have never provided a single coherent explanation as to how this was done other than by being on the lunar surface.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Repeating his movements in normal speed is not a matter of personal opinion, it is fact-based knowledge.
Seeing as how nobody agrees with you, I'd say it's not 'fact-based knowledge', and is a matter of personal (and wrong) opinion; Yours, to be specific.

As I told you before, many times.

It doesn't matter what you've told anybody, or how many times, you're still wrong.

How it looks to you doesn't matter, only the proof does, as it does in this case.
I couldn't agree more. So why is that you still keep repeating the same nonsense despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? Hypocrite much?



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

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.


Repeating his movements in normal speed is not a matter of personal opinion, it is fact-based knowledge. As I told you before, many times.


How it looks to you doesn't matter, only the proof does, as it does in this case.



wtf are you talking about??

let me get this straight, how it looks to you is considered irrefutable proof but how it looks to anyone else doesnt matter?
because up until this point you have not posted any proof you have only posted videos and given your opinion.

also im guessing that proving the clip i linked to was at double speed which is in direct contradiction to your claim that it wasnt, add in the fact that you have already agreed that it looked wrong at double speed can be completely ignored now?? like it never happened?

p.s. have you decided on your random slowdown % yet for Apollo 11?
edit on 24-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

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



I completely agree.

Therefore I suppose your post in which you pointed out...


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...

...was not presented by you as evidence that Apollo was a hoax, but rather you were just presenting an interesting fact about lunar geology (i.e., that lunar geology varies depending on the location from which specific geological samples were taken)?


edit on 12/24/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You claimed firstly that Apollo missions used recorded footage but provide no evidence to support this claim.


Because you made the original claim that the footage was shown live on TV, with no evidence to support that claim. It is that simple.




originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You then claimed that this footage has had the speed altered, but provide no evidence to support this claim.


Wrong.

I've shown you a comparison of walking normally, on Earth, which is clearly as fast, or even slightly faster, than the Apollo 11 astronaut walks (when the footage is set to 2x speed). This is not a matter of opinion, it is an absolute fact.

Any movements done by the Apollo 11 astronaut, when this clip is set to 2x speed, can easily be repeated on Earth, at NORMAL speed. That's why I compared his walking movements to walking normal speed on Earth - to show the movements are easily repeated on Earth...

I've asked you many times to support your claim that his movements are faster than normal. Of course, you can't do that. Instead, you just ignore my clip, grasp at anything else you think supports your claim, and act like my entire argument is refuted!


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You then claimed that Apollo 11's rate of scpeed change was different to later Apollos, but provide no evidence to support this claim


I did, as I've noted above.


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Apollo 11 missions were broadcast on live TV, with audio that matched their movements, had contemporary information in it, and that contained visual information that could only have been obtained on the lunar surface.

You have never provided a single coherent explanation as to how this was done other than by being on the lunar surface.


Claiming over and over that it was shown live on TV does not make it so. It is a mindless mantra, with no proof of any kind.

As I've told you, the audio is a silly argument. We do not see their faces, their mouths, so you don't know if they're actually talking at all! You just assume they are, without any proof of it - that's pure nonsense.

Their movements match the audio, because they match it later, after slowing down the footage. It is that simple.

Tell me exactly what 'contemporary and/or visual information' you are referring to here, and how it supports your case, as well.

If you mean the images of weather patterns, this is not proof of being on the moon, obviously. The images are all from NASA, to begin with. So NASA's satellites confirm what NASA claims, now!?

NASA wanted it to look like a genuine manned moon landing was achieved. Stating it was 'live' footage from the moon, in a caption below the scene, was deliberately done to help convince us it was a genuine landing. They said it is a live event, and we're seeing it on TV, in 'real time', as it happens.

Even you know NASA admitted that the Apollo 11 footage was first shown to the media, on large screens, and the media filmed it from NASA's screens, and then, the media added a caption, which stated at the bottom of the screen 'Live from the moon'. Adding a caption shows it cannot be 'live', in that alone. Not that anybody considered this at the time, of course! Saying it is 'live' means it IS 'live', since they said so, on our TV screens!


Now, you still need to address the Apollo 11 clip I've shown you, because that's the problem here...
edit on 25-12-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Because you made the original claim that the footage was shown live on TV, with no evidence to support that claim. It is that simple.

Claiming over and over that it was shown live on TV does not make it so. It is a mindless mantra, with no proof of any kind.
Please, then, explain how amateurs were able to pick up the same broadcast, at the same time, with the signal originating from the direction of the moon.

Even you know NASA admitted that the Apollo 11 footage was first shown to the media, on large screens, and the media filmed it from NASA's screens, and then, the media added a caption, which stated at the bottom of the screen 'Live from the moon'.
Got a source for that?

Adding a caption shows it cannot be 'live', in that alone.
Is this a serious statement? I mean, really...Is anyone actually that dumb?

Now, you still need to address the Apollo 11 clip I've shown you, because that's the problem here...
The problem here, if there is any, is the remarkably foolish claims that you keep parroting even after being proven wrong.
edit on 12/25/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

let me get this straight, how it looks to you is considered irrefutable proof but how it looks to anyone else doesnt matter?
because up until this point you have not posted any proof you have only posted videos and given your opinion.


Nonsense.

Human movements are proven to be at normal speed, and proven to be no faster than normal speed, by simply repeating those same movements, at normal speed, at a normal pace.

That is what proves my claim. It is not based on my opinion, it is an established fact.

Your opinion doesn't mean anything, because you cannot support it with any evidence. That is why you ignored it, and attempted to push it aside, after you found a completely different clip, blatantly trying to move the goalposts...

I have shown you the clip of the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed. You have insisted that his movements are faster than normal, while never supporting your claim, in any way, by any sort of comparison to any normal movement.

That is the clip I have used to support my case. I've shown you the astronaut is walking at normal speed, no faster than the astronauts who were walking on Earth, as shown in the other clip.

My claim has evidence to support it, which are those specific clips, and you can't avoid it.


originally posted by: choos
also im guessing that proving the clip i linked to was at double speed which is in direct contradiction to your claim that it wasnt, add in the fact that you have already agreed that it looked wrong at double speed can be completely ignored now?? like it never happened?


I have doubts this clip is really set to 2x speed. But I'll continue to assume it is, just for argument's sake.

You cannot resolve the clip I've shown you, which IS certainly at normal speed. It still means the speed changes. It would mean the speed changes within the same mission, as well as in the later missions.

To speculate on why they changed the speed in the same mission is not relevant. The speed cannot change, unless they hoaxed it.


originally posted by: choos
p.s. have you decided on your random slowdown % yet for Apollo 11?


It's not relevant, as I've explained.



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

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance
Please, then, explain how amateurs were able to pick up the same broadcast, at the same time, with the signal originating from the direction of the moon.


I've heard this claim many times before. It's worthless.

There is no proof of any kind to support this claim.

People have claimed to see aliens, or demons, etc.... it isn't proven true, just because they claim it is true, as we all know...



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 05:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Nonsense.

Human movements are proven to be at normal speed, and proven to be no faster than normal speed, by simply repeating those same movements, at normal speed, at a normal pace.

That is what proves my claim. It is not based on my opinion, it is an established fact.


if it was established fact you would have some numbers to back it up.
but so far i have only seen videos you have posted with your accompanying opinion.


Your opinion doesn't mean anything, because you cannot support it with any evidence. That is why you ignored it, and attempted to push it aside, after you found a completely different clip, blatantly trying to move the goalposts...


speaking of that clip. it still proves your theory wrong simply because you admit it looks too fast.
saying its a different clip means nothing given that it is from the same source..

oh btw what makes you believe your video is really 2x speed?


I have shown you the clip of the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed. You have insisted that his movements are faster than normal, while never supporting your claim, in any way, by any sort of comparison to any normal movement.


i dont really need to, all i need to do is link the same video as you did and claim that its faster than normal. just like you.


That is the clip I have used to support my case. I've shown you the astronaut is walking at normal speed, no faster than the astronauts who were walking on Earth, as shown in the other clip.

My claim has evidence to support it, which are those specific clips, and you can't avoid it.


the astronaut isnt even "walking" in your clip.



I have doubts this clip is really set to 2x speed. But I'll continue to assume it is, just for argument's sake.


but no doubt the one you linked to is at double speed??
is evidence only suitable if it seemingly supports you?


You cannot resolve the clip I've shown you, which IS certainly at normal speed. It still means the speed changes. It would mean the speed changes within the same mission, as well as in the later missions.


you havent proven anything apart from give your opinion.. i can easily show you that the clip you posted is at 2x speed and the one i linked to at 2x speed..

and yet you are dead set that your video is at 2x speed whereas the other is not?

and not to mention, you believe they are "walking" at normal speed.

at the end of the day its still your opinion until you can back it up with hard numbers.


To speculate on why they changed the speed in the same mission is not relevant. The speed cannot change, unless they hoaxed it.


you havent even been able to prove it was changed.. so i guess the speed doesnt change mid mission.




It's not relevant, as I've explained.


oh it is very relevant.. it lets everybody reading know that the slowdown % are complete fabrications on your behalf..



posted on Dec, 25 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
NASA wanted it to look like a genuine manned moon landing was achieved. Stating it was 'live' footage from the moon, in a caption below the scene, was deliberately done to help convince us it was a genuine landing. They said it is a live event, and we're seeing it on TV, in 'real time', as it happens.

I'm very confused bout your logic for this. Are you saying that putting a caption reading "live" during a live event (let's say a local news reporter doing a story live from some place, such as the scene of a traffic accident) makes it less likely that it is live, just because they are telling me it's live?

Should I only believe that reporter is live if I'm not told that the news reporter in the field is live? Why does the news telling me the reporter is live make it less likely that they actually are live?




Even you know NASA admitted that the Apollo 11 footage was first shown to the media, on large screens, and the media filmed it from NASA's screens, and then, the media added a caption, which stated at the bottom of the screen 'Live from the moon'. Adding a caption shows it cannot be 'live', in that alone. Not that anybody considered this at the time, of course! Saying it is 'live' means it IS 'live', since they said so, on our TV screens!

Again, I don't follow. Why does adding the caption prove it cannot be "live".? Is technologically impossible to add a caption stating "live" to a live broadcast? If so, then why is it impossible? When I watch football live on TV, how do they display the score and time on the screen?


edit on 12/25/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 12:52 AM
link   





posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
if it was established fact you would have some numbers to back it up.
but so far i have only seen videos you have posted with your accompanying opinion.


I suppose you need "numbers" to back up the claim of the sky being blue, otherwise, it is only an opinion?

No. It is simply the observation of our sky which is needed to prove it is blue in color.

It is not a matter of opinion, correct?




originally posted by: choos
speaking of that clip. it still proves your theory wrong simply because you admit it looks too fast.
saying its a different clip means nothing given that it is from the same source..


You can have two different speeds in the same mission, and it means nothing, because the same source is used?

Are you serious?



originally posted by: choos
but no doubt the one you linked to is at double speed??
is evidence only suitable if it seemingly supports you?


You are quite the hypocrite, since you've consistently ignored my clip because it doesn't support you.


originally posted by: choos
at the end of the day its still your opinion until you can back it up with hard numbers.


No, it is proven by repeating those movements on Earth, at normal speed. It is not a matter of opinion. Numbers are not required, because repeating those movements proves it is normal speed.

Just like we know the sky is blue, without numbers - it is not a matter of opinion.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:15 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

But have you conducted any tests yourself? Have you gone through the whole live video footage with you x2 speed?

The only thing you've done is used 1 clip. 1 clip you didn't find and speed up yourself.

To have everyone believe you you would need to have the whole Apollo 11 live feed video all at x2 speed with no anomalies.

Until you can provide that your argument is not substantial enough to be called proof.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Just like we know the sky is blue, without numbers - it is not a matter of opinion.




Except when the sky is red, or black, or grey or white. Except when we want to demonstrate empirically that what I perceive as blue is the same as what you perceive to be blue. Except where there are different shades of blue and we want a precise definition of specifically which shade of blue is under discussion.

You are claiming that black is white and expecting everyone to take your word for it.

Numbers. Where are yours?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


I suppose you need "numbers" to back up the claim of the sky being blue, otherwise, it is only an opinion?

No. It is simply the observation of our sky which is needed to prove it is blue in color.

It is not a matter of opinion, correct?

Are you honestly that disconnected from reality? You honestly don't think we have the technology to determine the colour of something? Just take an interferometer, measure the wavelength of blue sky and there you go, numbers.

But if we want to stick with your analogy of the sky being blue is a matter of opinion; around 7 billion people can look up and say the sky is blue, you're the only one who seems to be able to say the apollo 11 footage was sped up 2x, notice the difference?



posted on Dec, 27 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I suppose you need "numbers" to back up the claim of the sky being blue, otherwise, it is only an opinion?

No. It is simply the observation of our sky which is needed to prove it is blue in color.

It is not a matter of opinion, correct?


the difference between this and your theory is that you cant prove it. where as scientists CAN prove the sky is blue they can go into detail why it can appear blue.
if we were to liken your method to proving the sky is blue it would be along the lines of pointing at the sky (probably when its overcast) and saying "this blue, me smart you wrong"

p.s. if determining the sky colour as blue is merely opinion, why do you think that scientists KNOW that blue has a different wavelength to red? why do scientists KNOW that the atmosphere scatters more light to appear in the blue wavelength? if your example was true it would be merely scientists pointing to the sky and saying "sky, blue" and when someone asks why they will answer "me smart, you learn, sky, blue, no why."



You can have two different speeds in the same mission, and it means nothing, because the same source is used?

Are you serious?


two different speeds?? you havent even been able to establish if the video you linked to is at double speed or if the video i linked to is at double speed.

again you are just using the method of "what me say right, you, wrong!"



You are quite the hypocrite, since you've consistently ignored my clip because it doesn't support you.


you have it wrong, i havent ignored your video, i have only debunked your "argument" i shouldnt say i debunked it, i should say you debunked yourself.

your clip doesnt even support you like you say it does.. you believe that a few seconds worth of footage from a 2.5hr long EVA is sufficient to prove your theory.. yet you havent even been able to establish if its really at double speed, but you can obviously tell the video i linked to (posted by the same person) is not..



No, it is proven by repeating those movements on Earth, at normal speed. It is not a matter of opinion. Numbers are not required, because repeating those movements proves it is normal speed.

Just like we know the sky is blue, without numbers - it is not a matter of opinion.



proven?? how?? by posting a video with your accompanying opinion?

i know you value your opinion like it always comes out as fact, but that will only work for yourself.
you want to convince everyone you need to move beyond your arrogance, your opinions wont convince anyone.
edit on 27-12-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

It's half that distance.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 04:39 AM
link   
I am pretty sure that the reason why we have not "gone back" is the same reason why we never went - radation. I heard from one documentary how people from the Chernobol clean up team went to the same company that made the NASA space suits, and that company told the cleaning team that their gear cannot protect them from radation. What more proof does one need? Sigh.
edit on 31-12-2015 by DebtSlave because: spelling




top topics



 
57
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join