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: 36
57
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape



cognizant individuals are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the essential constituents of potential hypothetical suppositions that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that the astronauts testimonies weren't entirely accurate or undeniably do or do not know what the veraciousness undergone shouldnt probably be in comprehending of the dissimilation process ,if that indeed wasn't absolutely but not necessarily intrinsic too what degree the tentatively speculative conjecture isn't.




posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I believe Moon landing was faked because not of photo facts and other relevant data but because too much time have passed since the event. The more time passes the harder will be to defend for Apollo missions supporters.



posted on Jan, 8 2016 @ 09:54 PM
link   
It will be 50 years since in a few. Who ever says technology is advancing in ever increased pace and will come to a singularity within our life time is forgetting about NASA Moon landing adventure.




edit on 8-1-2016 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: 123143
I was a firm believer in the moon landings until one video planted the seed of doubt in my mind.

An astronaut fell forward and then came upright rather awkwardly. It looked like he'd been tethered to something above him. The movement was completely unnatural unless he was being assisted somehow.

I don't want to doubt our country's greatest achievement, but it is hard to deny what I witnessed in that video.


Thanks for your honesty, it's good to see!


You "don't want to doubt" it, because it would mean "our country's greatest achievement" might be a hoax. Your heroic astronauts would be nothing but phonies, great liars.

You didn't want to have any doubts. Yet now you have doubts, and you seek a way to resolve them....


The Apollo side claims this is an effect of being in 1/6 g, of course...


What they don't point out is nobody would ever move that way, unassisted, to stand upright!!

This astronaut was facing towards the ground, on his knees, at the time....

He then makes an attempt at getting up from the ground, but it's proving to be very difficult.

Suddenly, with no effort, and not a push, hands barely touching the ground, he shoots up from the ground to his feet within a split-second.

That is ridiculous. You doubt it, as you should doubt it, because it is utterly ridiculous, at any level.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 01:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I noticed you skipped over my post, again.

The measurements that have been asked for, repeatedly, would show the amount of time an objects arcs and comes back down. With those measurements we can calculate the gravity.

While it has been done (not by yourself, obviously) it shows that the time and speed for the objects are within moons gravity.

With your x2 speed none sense those arcs and speeds are neither Moon OR Earth gravity. That kind of throws your whole argument out the window (which you have completely failed at anyway).


I'm not talking about objects however. I'm talking about their movements, and how they are not consistent in speed during their 'lunar' missions.

That's the whole issue I'm arguing here, nothing else.


That's because all the objects falling and the dust arcs prove it was moons gravity.

Ignore the objects that put a massive hole in your "logic".

Let's play it your way and ignore everything apart from how the astronauts move in the videos. We'll do that.

Have you watched the full 2.5+ hours of live televised footage and sped it up to x2 speed?

If you have you will see that the x2 speed myth doesn't work as they wont move consistently with Earth gravity.


They claim it is all shown at the actual speed, and that claim is absolutely false. The speed is not consistent, as it must be if it was shown to us at the actual speed. The same speed must exist, within the same environment.

You think Apollo 11 footage is not the same speed throughout, as if that's a great thing for supporting Apollo or something!!

It only makes Apollo look even worse than it did before, in fact.

How can the audio match to different speeds of footage? It cannot, obviously.

But you claim the speed is not consistent, so you have a problem, which cannot be excused in any way...


So, thanks for proving my case!



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections
I believe Moon landing was faked because not of photo facts and other relevant data but because too much time have passed since the event. The more time passes the harder will be to defend for Apollo missions supporters.



It will be the same excuses, that somehow manage to fool many people now, and will probably still be fooling people well into the future.

It is a lack of money. And if they have money, it is never enough money.

And a lack of political, and/or public, will.


There was a plan to 'return' to the moon, and it failed miserably.

Nobody knew how much money was required to achieve the 'return' mission. But it obviously wasn't enough money to do it 'again', so that's why it failed. As if....


Money is their great excuse, and it always will be their great excuse.

It is only a lack of money that prevents me from building my very own 'Time Machine', too!!



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They claim it is all shown at the actual speed, and that claim is absolutely false.


Because it is. You have failed to prove otherwise. I gave you some maths, prove it wrong.



The speed is not consistent, as it must be if it was shown to us at the actual speed.


In your opinion, which you have failed to back up with anything remotely resembling evidence.



The same speed must exist, within the same environment.


It does.



You think Apollo 11 footage is not the same speed throughout, as if that's a great thing for supporting Apollo or something!!


But you said the same speed must exist in the same environment, which means you must think it would prove something.


It only makes Apollo look even worse than it did before, in fact.


In your opinion.




How can the audio match to different speeds of footage? It cannot, obviously.


Precisely, therefore it must all be the same speed. Your earlier claim that footage was at different speeds in the Apollo 11 EVA live TV is beginning to smell a bit, isn't it?



But you claim the speed is not consistent, so you have a problem, which cannot be excused in any way...
So, thanks for proving my case!


Where does he claim that? Where has anyone supporting the Apollo history claimed that the speed is not consistent? Only people who have embedded a false belief that Apollo didn't happen in their minds argue that the live TV footage has been manipulated in any way.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Do please tell us how much money a moon landing mission would cost now.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
They had enough money to 'return' to the moon, in fact.

That's because NASA asked for enough money, and got it.

Soon after, NASA spent all their money, and asked for even more money.

And they got it, once again.

And they spent it all, again, and they asked for more money.

But this time, they didn't get any more money.


The plan was to 'return' to the moon, and would be done by 2018, later changed to 2020...

Do you know what was most important in achieving this goal by 2020?

That is, why were they so confident in it's success?


They assumed to have all the technology to land men on the moon, and Apollo proved it!

This was called 'heritage technology', and this was specifically the technology they asked NASA to use for their 'return' to the moon...as much as possible, NASA were to include the Apollo, 'heritage' technology.

It baffled the project engineers, as nobody could figure out how it worked in any way.

So they asked Apollo engineers to come in and explain it to them, as a last resort.

Nobody knows what the old Apollo engineers said to the new guys, but it wasn't good, since they dropped the old technology in the trash, and looked for new technologies instead.

I mean, they looked for REAL technologies that could land a man on the moon, instead of those old fake ones.


So that's what really happened.

They still have no technology for a manned moon landing, as yet.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Where does he claim that? Where has anyone supporting the Apollo history claimed that the speed is not consistent? Only people who have embedded a false belief that Apollo didn't happen in their minds argue that the live TV footage has been manipulated in any way.


You saw my Apollo 11 clip, and didn't point out anything faster than normal in it, which I repeatedly asked you to.

I said it showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and it can be repeated at normal speed, which proves it is at normal speed. You said it is my opinion, which is absurd, because normal movement is clearly proven by repeating it here.

You came up with your own clip, because you couldn't support your claim with MY clip!

Now, you claim that they are all at the same speed!

Which is fast, in your clip. And it's also the same fast speed in my clip, except you can't show it is. It's not normal speed, it's only my opinion that it is. Repeating it doesn't mean anything, of course. You say what is proven and what is opinion, and that's how it is.


You try to ignore my clip, and find another clip, then you claim both clips are at the same speed.

Your deceitful actions have shown everyone here just what you are, beyond a doubt.

Truth is the last thing you want, you just run and hide from it ...



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
I noticed you skipped over my post, again.

The measurements that have been asked for, repeatedly, would show the amount of time an objects arcs and comes back down. With those measurements we can calculate the gravity.

While it has been done (not by yourself, obviously) it shows that the time and speed for the objects are within moons gravity.

With your x2 speed none sense those arcs and speeds are neither Moon OR Earth gravity. That kind of throws your whole argument out the window (which you have completely failed at anyway).


I'm not talking about objects however. I'm talking about their movements, and how they are not consistent in speed during their 'lunar' missions.

That's the whole issue I'm arguing here, nothing else.


That's because all the objects falling and the dust arcs prove it was moons gravity.

Ignore the objects that put a massive hole in your "logic".

Let's play it your way and ignore everything apart from how the astronauts move in the videos. We'll do that.

Have you watched the full 2.5+ hours of live televised footage and sped it up to x2 speed?

If you have you will see that the x2 speed myth doesn't work as they wont move consistently with Earth gravity.


They claim it is all shown at the actual speed, and that claim is absolutely false. The speed is not consistent, as it must be if it was shown to us at the actual speed. The same speed must exist, within the same environment.

You think Apollo 11 footage is not the same speed throughout, as if that's a great thing for supporting Apollo or something!!

It only makes Apollo look even worse than it did before, in fact.

How can the audio match to different speeds of footage? It cannot, obviously.

But you claim the speed is not consistent, so you have a problem, which cannot be excused in any way...


So, thanks for proving my case!


That's all just your opinion. I was asking for proof.

If you speed up the total of the live TV footage by x2 you will see that they aren't moving at Earth speed. You will also note that the objects falling and the dust arcing also doesn't represent Earth gravity.

Now, if you keep the speed as it is you will notice that they are moving in Moon gravity. Objects and dust also fall at a predictable rate which matches Moon gravity.

So let's recap;

Normal speed=Everything moves, falls and arcs in a predictable Moon gravity that is verifiable with MATH.

X2 speed=Astronauts are only moving at Earth speed sometimes. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Objects fall at a rate which is not consistent with Earth gravity. Dust arcs and falls at a rate not consistent with Earth gravity.

All of those can be checked with relatively easy MATH.

Shows that your OPINION of x2 speed for Apollo 11 is flawed to the point of being obviously WRONG.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Do please tell us how much money a moon landing mission would cost now.


Nobody knows that. A manned moon landing isn't possible today, and the technology required for it doesn't even exist yet.

All the money in the world doesn't make it appear, out of thin air.

So there's your answer.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

If you speed up the total of the live TV footage by x2 you will see that they aren't moving at Earth speed. You will also note that the objects falling and the dust arcing also doesn't represent Earth gravity.

Now, if you keep the speed as it is you will notice that they are moving in Moon gravity. Objects and dust also fall at a predictable rate which matches Moon gravity.

So let's recap;

Normal speed=Everything moves, falls and arcs in a predictable Moon gravity that is verifiable with MATH.

X2 speed=Astronauts are only moving at Earth speed sometimes. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Objects fall at a rate which is not consistent with Earth gravity. Dust arcs and falls at a rate not consistent with Earth gravity.

All of those can be checked with relatively easy MATH.

Shows that your OPINION of x2 speed for Apollo 11 is flawed to the point of being obviously WRONG.


If they aren't moving at normal speed, then we couldn't repeat the movements at normal speed, right?

If so, why can't you point it out in my clip? You can't show it, obviously. You needed to find another clip to try and back your claim....

That's really showing us that the clips are at the same speed, is it now??

Sheesh. Who are you trying to convince with that utterly wacko spin-job?



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 04:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79

If you speed up the total of the live TV footage by x2 you will see that they aren't moving at Earth speed. You will also note that the objects falling and the dust arcing also doesn't represent Earth gravity.

Now, if you keep the speed as it is you will notice that they are moving in Moon gravity. Objects and dust also fall at a predictable rate which matches Moon gravity.

So let's recap;

Normal speed=Everything moves, falls and arcs in a predictable Moon gravity that is verifiable with MATH.

X2 speed=Astronauts are only moving at Earth speed sometimes. Sometimes faster, sometimes slower. Objects fall at a rate which is not consistent with Earth gravity. Dust arcs and falls at a rate not consistent with Earth gravity.

All of those can be checked with relatively easy MATH.

Shows that your OPINION of x2 speed for Apollo 11 is flawed to the point of being obviously WRONG.


If they aren't moving at normal speed, then we couldn't repeat the movements at normal speed, right?

If so, why can't you point it out in my clip? You can't show it, obviously. You needed to find another clip to try and back your claim....

That's really showing us that the clips are at the same speed, is it now??

Sheesh. Who are you trying to convince with that utterly wacko spin-job?


You're basing your whole argument on a single 20 second clip out of 2.5+ hours of live footage.

You've ignored the fact of objects falling, dust arcs and the rest of the footage to prove your theory.

If you could do it with the whole footage you might be onto something, but 20 seconds out of 2.5+ hours only proves that if you speed that 20 seconds up by x2 it seems they might be moving similar to how they would on Earth.

If that's how you want to do it then you're being dishonest to yourself as you're not looking at all the evidence. You're picking a minute amount of video to prove a point, but ignoring everything else.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You saw my Apollo 11 clip, and didn't point out anything faster than normal in it, which I repeatedly asked you to.


Because there wasn't anything in it faster than normal.




I said it showed an astronaut moving at normal speed, and it can be repeated at normal speed, which proves it is at normal speed. You said it is my opinion, which is absurd, because normal movement is clearly proven by repeating it here.


You have this stupid idea that somehow normal speed on the moon is not the same as normal speed anywhere else. I agree it shows an astronaut moving at normal speed. In other words exactly the speed they should be moving on the moon in lunar gravity.



You came up with your own clip, because you couldn't support your claim with MY clip!


Nope, that isn't what happened. I came up with a clip and asked you to do some maths to prove your point. You failed to do that, I did it for you and you ignored it



Now, you claim that they are all at the same speed!


Always have. The same speed you would expect it to be on the moon.



Which is fast, in your clip.


Prove it.


And it's also the same fast speed in my clip, except you can't show it is. It's not normal speed, it's only my opinion that it is. Repeating it doesn't mean anything, of course. You say what is proven and what is opinion, and that's how it is.


Prove it.



You try to ignore my clip, and find another clip, then you claim both clips are at the same speed.


Nope, not happened at all. All the clips are[b/] at the same speed



Your deceitful actions have shown everyone here just what you are, beyond a doubt.

Truth is the last thing you want, you just run and hide from it ...


You're the one misrepresenting what is said, moving goalposts, refusing to address questions put to or providing the standard of proof required to make your point. Your arguments are inconsistent, illogical unfounded and riddled with confirmation bias and hypocrisy.

I have backed up every single argument I have ever made with evidence. You have never made one single iota of effort to disprove any of it other than handwave them away and bluster your opinions.

Proof, not opinion, is all we need from you.
edit on 9-1-2016 by onebigmonkey because: correction



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I enjoy your enthusiasm but you'll quickly come to realize that the one constant trait amongst hoax theologians is they will outright ignore all evidence that doesn't fit their delusions. 99.9% of the historical record doesn't exist to them so they concentrate on the 0.1% of the evidence they can manipulate to support their fantasy.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Here is my standing challenge to everyone who believes that the Apollo films and videos were recorded at normal speed and then slowed down: please make a video of yourself hopping from foot to foot at a rate which, when slowed down, matches the rate of the astronauts. Maintain this pace for three minutes, if you can. Post it on YouTube. This experiment should change your opinion.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: TerryDon79

I enjoy your enthusiasm but you'll quickly come to realize that the one constant trait amongst hoax theologians is they will outright ignore all evidence that doesn't fit their delusions. 99.9% of the historical record doesn't exist to them so they concentrate on the 0.1% of the evidence they can manipulate to support their fantasy.


I've started to notice the pattern.

How can you believe in a conspiracy if you're not looking at it 100%?

It would be like someone showing you a picture of Mona Lisa's nose tip and saying that's it's complete proof that she's a man.



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Interesting story I heard recently on the moon landing conspiracy.


Of course we know the conspiracy, or at least one version of it claims that the moon landing hoax was done at area 51. Area 51 is in Nevada.


There was one James Bond movie, Diamonds are Forever with the great Sean Connery where he was in Las Vegas running away from some evildoers runs into the moon landing site in Las Vegas!


Listen and watch these very interesting videos






edit on 9-1-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2016 by Willtell because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2016 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Notice that there are no stars in any of the photos, even the ones that are supposed to be taken from space on the way to the moon and while orbiting the moon- not just the photos from the surface.

Not to mention that between massive temperature swings and space radiation there's no way camera film could survive let alone take perfect pictures.

There is no longer any doubt that Apollo was completely fake.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join