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: 38
57
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
lets re-itterate a quite simple challenge - that has been made and ignored countless times in almost every apollo hoax thread :

to the hoax believers - please make a vid of yourself preforming a series of simple manouvers consistent with the EVA activities of the apollo astronauts . the clip must be continuois and last at least 2 min

then using the vid editing software of your choce - resample it at the the % speed of your choice

post the origional and resampled clips to youtube and link them in an ATS post

it is my hope - that if you actually attempt this - and see the utter farce which you end up with - you will realise that your claims are utter bollox

failure to do this simple experiment - which will take 5 minuites of studio work - 10 minuites of post production editing and 10 seconds ATS post shall be taken as admission of failure also


Mythbusters showed how to replicate astronaut movements, in general. They didn't try slowing it down to 66.66% speed, of course, for good reason. They'd be showing us exactly how it WAS all hoaxed, instead of what they wanted to prove, that it wasn't a hoax.


Young's jump was almost perfectly duplicated by Mythbusters, simply by slowing the speed to 66.66%.

The best part is, they weren't even TRYING to duplicate it. Rather, they were trying to show that it COULDN'T be duplicated on Earth, because they were trying to prove it was not a hoax, and not possible to have hoaxed. Totally ironic, that they ended up doing the very thing they didn't want to do!

An utter farce, indeed!




posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The problem is Collins changed his story.


No, you want him to have changed his story, but he did not change it.


And not only that, if he was orbiting the moon, he WOULD have seen stars, on the far side of the moon, which was in total darkness!


he did see them there....


I think Collins had viewed their monitors, which were hidden from our view, placed in a recess of their table..
These monitors were used by the astronauts, to provide 'answers' to any questions from the media.


Now you are getting desperate, making nonsense up to support the stupid moon hoax theory!

Moon hoaxers have repeatedly shown they have a poor grasp of physics, photography and how things work!



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

And you say I don't understand? That's funny.

If you take the whole live footage you can calculate they are in Moon gravity. It's that simple. Every single movement, items falling, dust arcing, everything.

If you speed it up there are errors in the footage. The reason for that is it turns the natural Moon gravity movement into something not consistent with Earth or Moon gravity.

It's that simple. A 20 second clip proves nothing. You've ignored all evidence and claim a whole 20 seconds prove everything. You ignore items falling and dust arcs and say it's irrelevant. It's only irrelevant as it doesn't fit your story.

You can't ignore evidence to fit your own belief. It's called dishonest and you lose all credibility. Something you have lost, imo, in this thread.


By saying a 20 second clip proves nothing, you're ignoring evidence! It's called being a hypocrite, and is utterly dishonest, and you are the one who has lost all credibility.


I'll go over this again - this is MY argument here. The clip I cited is MY evidence, which supports MY argument.

That is not an argument you can change into your twisted version. You cannot weasel in whatever evidence you choose instead of the evidence I've presented for MY argument. You do not get to decide what evidence I can use, or not use. IT IS MY ARGUMENT, SUPPORTED BY MY EVIDENCE.


If you cannot debate my argument, or debate my evidence which supports it, you can go on making up worthless excuses all you like, they aren't worth my time.


It is evidence, like it or not, so deal with it. And stop crying 'foul', it's getting pathetic.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

And you say I don't understand? That's funny.

If you take the whole live footage you can calculate they are in Moon gravity. It's that simple. Every single movement, items falling, dust arcing, everything.

If you speed it up there are errors in the footage. The reason for that is it turns the natural Moon gravity movement into something not consistent with Earth or Moon gravity.

It's that simple. A 20 second clip proves nothing. You've ignored all evidence and claim a whole 20 seconds prove everything. You ignore items falling and dust arcs and say it's irrelevant. It's only irrelevant as it doesn't fit your story.

You can't ignore evidence to fit your own belief. It's called dishonest and you lose all credibility. Something you have lost, imo, in this thread.


By saying a 20 second clip proves nothing, you're ignoring evidence! It's called being a hypocrite, and is utterly dishonest, and you are the one who has lost all credibility.


I'll go over this again - this is MY argument here. The clip I cited is MY evidence, which supports MY argument.

That is not an argument you can change into your twisted version. You cannot weasel in whatever evidence you choose instead of the evidence I've presented for MY argument. You do not get to decide what evidence I can use, or not use. IT IS MY ARGUMENT, SUPPORTED BY MY EVIDENCE.


If you cannot debate my argument, or debate my evidence which supports it, you can go on making up worthless excuses all you like, they aren't worth my time.


It is evidence, like it or not, so deal with it. And stop crying 'foul', it's getting pathetic.


And your argument is flawed as its not looking at everything.

Listen, if you want to say the moon landings were a hoax, fine. But to base it on 20 seconds of video and then ignore any counter evidence is just being ignorant.

I can show you 20 seconds of a bird flying without flapping its wings. Does that mean all birds fly without flapping?

You can't ignore stuff to suit your own ideas. It's made you look ignorant.

People, including myself, have told you about speeds, maths, arcs, gravity and a whole lot of other things. You've said they're not relevant as it's not the clip.

Ok. Your feeble clip shows that they APPEAR to be moving at similar to Earth movement. That's all. It doesn't prove it was a hoax. It proves that if you adjust the speed of a video it seems like they're on Earth (to a degree).



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Here is the Apollo way -

Whenever evidence is presented which supports the hoax, which cannot be refuted...


The fact you cannot refute it will not prevent you from claiming 'victory'.

Simply claim it is not evidence. It is an opinion. Even when it is not based on opinion, keep saying it is, anyway.

Ignore the requests to refute the evidence, and pretend other evidence must be explained, which you have carefully selected to twist and warp the hoax argument. This makes it into your own argument, so you will be able to claim victory!

Utterly delusional, but sadly, that's how desperate it has all become for those who dwell withn the magical Apollo-land.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 05:39 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Ok. I'll refute that 20 second clip really quickly for you.

Take the edited clip (where it's been sped up by x2), now reduce the speed by 50%. That to me proves they were on the Moon as now they are moving within calculated Moon gravity.

That's your clip refuted.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here is the Apollo way -

Whenever evidence is presented which supports the hoax, which cannot be refuted...


There is no evidence claiming to support an alleged hoax that cannot be refuted. It has all been refuted ad nauseam.



The fact you cannot refute it will not prevent you from claiming 'victory'.


There is nothing in the hoax claim that cannot and has not bee refuted.




Simply claim it is not evidence. It is an opinion. Even when it is not based on opinion, keep saying it is, anyway.


You have only ever posted your opinion.



Ignore the requests to refute the evidence, and pretend other evidence must be explained, which you have carefully selected to twist and warp the hoax argument. This makes it into your own argument, so you will be able to claim victory!


Does your irony klaxon not go absolutely crazy when you type such hypocrisy? It must surely deafen you when it goes off so often.

How many times have you ignored such requests? How many times have you taken people's words and twisted and warped them into your hoax fantasy?



Utterly delusional, but sadly, that's how desperate it has all become for those who dwell withn the magical Apollo-land.


Where is the hidden monitor in the Apollo 11 post-flight press conference?



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is not about anyone's opinion, and I've clearly explained that to you, over and over again.

It is whether or not we are able to repeat those movements at normal speed, which proves if it is in normal speed, or not.

An opinion is not relevant to this matter, it won't change the findings...


it is purely opinion, without anything to back up your claim it is mere opinion..
some examples to prove its just your opinion:
you cant even determine if the clip you posted is really at double speed.
you claimed earlier that it was fact that Apollo 11 was at 50% slowdown and all the others were at 66% slowdown but now you arent so sure
if you speed up the footage by 1.2x/1.5x/1.8x will it look like normal earthly speeds?

you have yet to verify ANY of these questions yourself, the ONLY verification of your claim is your own beliefs.



Who are you to decide what footage must be used, in MY OWN ARGUMENT!?!?

Get serious.


its called logic. i want to know why you are nitpicking 20 seconds worth of footage when there is 2.5hrs worth of footage.

if i turn it around is it ok if i find 20 seconds worth of footage that you have already claimed to be unnatural when sped up 2x? according to your methods of proof it should be more than enough.

oh wait..


I've posted my argument, and I cited the evidence to support my argument.

You have only more excuses, in trying to avoid it.


hahaha your evidence is no different to mine.. although the difference between my evidence and yours is that you agreed that it looked unnatural at double speed. so naturally my evidence holds more weight without any further argument effectively destroying your apollo 11 50% speed BS.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Young's jump was almost perfectly duplicated by Mythbusters, simply by slowing the speed to 66.66%.

An utter farce, indeed!


except it wasnt.

also why 66.66% why not 67% 66% 65% 80% 60%??

i reckon 60% would match john youngs jump alot more than 66.66%, it would atleast have similar airtime even though the height reached is different.



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 09:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Mythbusters showed how to replicate astronaut movements, in general. They didn't try slowing it down to 66.66% speed, of course, for good reason. They'd be showing us exactly how it WAS all hoaxed, instead of what they wanted to prove, that it wasn't a hoax.


Young's jump was almost perfectly duplicated by Mythbusters, simply by slowing the speed to 66.66%.

The best part is, they weren't even TRYING to duplicate it. Rather, they were trying to show that it COULDN'T be duplicated on Earth, because they were trying to prove it was not a hoax, and not possible to have hoaxed. Totally ironic, that they ended up doing the very thing they didn't want to do!

An utter farce, indeed!

Mythbuster slowed it down to 67%.

At that speed, and both leaving their feet at the same time, they both reached their apex of their jumps at the same time. However, even though both hit their apex and momentarily stopped at the apex at the exact same time, the Mythbuster landed sooner.

Sure, if you slow it down more, then the mythbuster and John Young hit the ground at the same time -- but then they would not reach the apex at the same time. So no matter what speed you slow it down at, there would be no way to match all parts of the jump.


edit on 1/10/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

so - we can expect your own vids to be posted - within say 7 days ?

PS - i vehemently refute all your prior claims in this thread on vid speed for the reasons others jave outlided

you are talking bollox

now if your vids dont appear by monday 18th jan 2015 - i will take it that you conceed the issue



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Mythbusters erroneous conjectures have been exposed & their blatant ability to omit obvious causalities leave no alternative but to consider them compromised ....

edit on 14-1-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

mr whites inabilty to do basic maths - then attempt to conceal the fact - leaves no alternative but to consider him an idiot



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:33 PM
link   
you're not the first to insinuate he is a NASA confederate .....but the math theory is compelling

NASA losses spacecraft due to Metric Math Mistake


edit on 14-1-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

When you resort to using a proven liar, known fraud and demonstrable moron as evidence of anything, you lose all credibility.



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

it is purely opinion, without anything to back up your claim it is mere opinion..
some examples to prove its just your opinion:
you cant even determine if the clip you posted is really at double speed.
you claimed earlier that it was fact that Apollo 11 was at 50% slowdown and all the others were at 66% slowdown but now you arent so sure
if you speed up the footage by 1.2x/1.5x/1.8x will it look like normal earthly speeds?

you have yet to verify ANY of these questions yourself, the ONLY verification of your claim is your own beliefs.


I've now confirmed my Apollo 11 clip is at 2x speed. I took the original footage, and then I sped it up by 2x, using VirtualDub...it matched up perfectly with the clip. It is at normal speed, as I said.

I've also confirmed the other clip I cited, from Apollo 15, as well. It's faster than normal, at 2x speed, as I also said.


I don't expect you to take my word for it, you can easily confirm it yourself.


The speeds are correct, as you'll soon realize...


It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.



We know the original footage, on all missions, must show all the astronaut movements in real-time, correct?

Sure, because we hear the astronauts speaking, in real-time, as they move about the surface. The audio matches to their movements, at all times, on all missions.


The footage has to show one speed, for all missions. The audio proves it was hoaxed.


You cannot have different speeds.

Normal speed is known to us because this is OUR speed, on Earth. We can duplicate movements at normal speed. If movements are faster than normal speed, we cannot duplicate those movements, at normal speed.

I'm pointing out that normal speed is proven to be normal in repeating it at normal speed, as opposed to movements faster than noromal speed. Repeating it at normal speed is either done, or not done. Opinions are not a bit relevant to this issue.

The Apollo 11 astronaut is moving no faster than normal speed in my clip.

You will just pretend it is faster than normal, despite the reality...



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.


No, it is just your opinion. It is NOT a fact.


The footage has to show one speed, for all missions. The audio proves it was hoaxed.


No, the audio shows it was not hoaxed!


Opinions are not a bit relevant to this issue.


Thank you for confirming your opinions are not relevant to this issue.
edit on 16-1-2016 by hellobruce because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

its called logic. i want to know why you are nitpicking 20 seconds worth of footage when there is 2.5hrs worth of footage.

if i turn it around is it ok if i find 20 seconds worth of footage that you have already claimed to be unnatural when sped up 2x? according to your methods of proof it should be more than enough.



The mind boggles, at times...!


My argument has always been based on specific footage, as I've explained many times.

I am citing specific footage from the Apollo missions.


You cry foul - you say I'm just 'nitpicking''?

You tell me that I cannot use 20 seconds of footage, unless I also can explain all of the footage, too!

Wrong.

My argument is not based on your whim, of some grandiose fantasy-land.


Again - at 2x speed, the Apollo 11 astronaut is moving at normal, Earth speed. No faster than normal, that is.

However, at the same 2x speed, the Apollo 15 astronauts are moving much faster than normal, Earth speed.


You cannot admit the speed is different, which is the saddest thing of all, here..


It is reality. We all know it.







originally posted by: choos
hahaha your evidence is no different to mine.. although the difference between my evidence and yours is that you agreed that it looked unnatural at double speed. so naturally my evidence holds more weight without any further argument effectively destroying your apollo 11 50% speed BS.



The evidence which holds all the weight has been ignored by you from day one, not pretend 'evidence' you spew forth in desperation..
edit on 16-1-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 05:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

No, the audio shows it was not hoaxed!



The audio is in real time, and matches all the footage - that's why you claim the audio shows it was not hoaxed, right?

However, the audio matches all the footage, at DIFFERENT speeds.

You cannot have different speeds. Since you know the audio matches all the footage, in real-time, the change of speed must be an illusion of some sort. 20 seconds of illusion, no big deal!


You don't need to see them talking, but it all matches up to the footage, so that's how the audio shows you it wasn't hoaxed!!


Good one, really!



posted on Jan, 16 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

As we have already said soooooo many times.

20 SECONDS PROVES NOTHING.

You ignore pretty much all of the 2.5+ hours of continuos footage because it's not your evidence. It's all about 20 seconds. Rejecting ALL counter evidence because it's not that 20 second clip.

This is a discussion forum. Not a place you put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA.

THE ONLY reason you won't accept any counter evidence is because it jumps on your theory, spits in it, throws it out the window and gets run over by a truck.

I now will no longer be commenting on this bread as you have shown yourself to lack any understanding of what's been told to you multiple times and it's infuriating.

Good luck trying to convince yourself that a 20 second clip can disprove the Apollo missions.
edit on 161516/1/1616 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join