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: 4
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I think there is more than one lunar ranging equipment up there. The Russians have one called the lunokhod 1. NASA found this machine years after its signal going quiet using range finding lasers and the probes retro reflector. The lunokhod were unmanned probes.




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Where was the fuel for that?


In the service module.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: CB328

I've seen a theory posted that the landing was real but the pictures and transmissions were faked due to what was found. Who knows. I suspect if any of the conspiracies are true we would never know anyway.


I take it you mean Apollo 11, what about the rest of the missions? you already know Bees hive everywhere they can. So I will take you mean to say Apollo 11 occurred almost as planned, and all the rest didn't. That's not going to cut the mustard with the OP here, He/She is disclaiming any Moon landings.
So go with the flow, here we have with Apollo 11, a lunar lander about to land on the surface of the Moon from above, and see nothing incongruous at all from above to say let's GTF out of here, and instead land, makade speech, and plant a flag, amongst other bits and pieces. Does that make any real sense?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

The GTFO argument falls flat pretty fast when we look at the list of space craft sent to the moon AFTER the lunar landings.

"Leave, but you can keep sending probes, impacters and orbiters here to sniff around"

Yeah. Sure.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I think they went to the moon but what I think was fake was the technology they used to get there.I think they used much higher technology than they revealed to the public.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Tardacus

Those Saturn V rockets are a pretty expensive way to fool the public.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: bitsforbytes

Oh, you added lots in your edit. Now there's something to respond to.

Yes, secrets can be kept. Not denying that at all so not sure why we keep going down that route.

But I also find it hard to believe that at no point at all did anybody ever even get a sniff of definitive proof that they were faked.

Ever.



posted on Aug, 2 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

As others pointed out

Some missions were real and some faked

The real question is did this have anything to do with aliens



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328

1. Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...


Some of the back up tapes from Apollo 11 are missing. They don't actually know for certain what happened to them. All the TV footage and telemetry from that mission are available from other sources.



2. NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.space.com...


NASA hasn't lost them, some of the people they lent them to lost them. It isn't NASA's fault people are careless. The vast majority of the returned samples are in storage.



3. Why would they lose moon rocks? Maybe because they're fake?


See above. They didn't and they aren't.



Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...


Debunked over and over and over. There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone from NASA, or the US, gave the former Dutch PM any kind of rock sample, or that they claimed it was from the moon. The petrified wood was put together with a compliments card for an art exhibition.



4. Nasa didn't provide a feed of moon landing video, the news media had to film it from a TV screen! This is very suspicious to me, very controlling.
www.apfn.org...


So they did provide a feed then. The original TV was received in Australia and sent on to the US, where it was re-scanned to fit US TV standards.



5. There are no flaws in the moon pictures. Going through radiation, heat and subzero temperatures yet the film all made it back in pristine condition? There aren't even some blurry pictures that you might expect. Extremely suspicious.


There are many lunar probes that have been to the moon that had film in their cameras - see lunar orbiter pictures. You need to find evidence that the radiation and thermal environment would have been damaging to film and equipment. There is no such evidence - not because it is hidden, but because the equipment was designed to cope and the environment isn't as bad as you think.



6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.


2 hits with an improvised golf club dangerous? Running and jumping potentially lethal? Read up on the suit construction.



7. Astronauts differing accounts of viewing stars from the moon.


Nope, they are all consistent. You can see stars if the conditions are right, if they aren't you can't. See my page of star quotes from the Apollo missions:

onebigmonkey.com...



8. Strange moon pictures. I am not a photographic expert, but it sure looks to me like the background and foreground on many of the pictures are two different pictures spliced together, or made with a backdrop, like Stanley Kubric is famous for using in 2001 a Space Odessey. In this picture you have the foreground, then you have a mountain in the background that looks like it was filmed from 50 or 100 miles away. Maybe it was, filmed from a probe and then that photo used as a backdrop in a studio?


So you can't conceive of any kind of situation where a mid-ground break of slope obscures part of the background? 'Looks like' is not this same as 'is'. The reasons some of those mountains look 50 or a 100 miles away because they are. Given that there are features on those mountains in the distance have features on them that were not photographed before the missions but have now been confirmed by probes from China and India as well as the US, how did they manage that?



9. Disney has a giant moon surface set that the descent could have been filmed with. The capsule descent footage sure looks like a model to me. I can't find a link to this but I saw a video once of the huge moonscape with a camera boom in front of it for filming moon footage.


The simulators they used are nothing like as detailed as the actual mission footage and photographs of landing and ascent. There are rocks and details in those images that are only now being photographed again by modern probes and were not k own about before the missions.



10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed?


Newton's laws of motion.

Your reasons all pretty much boil down to 'It looks funny and I don't understand it', which is not enough to dismiss the mountains of entirely coherent and consistent evidence across many disciplines that support the historical facts.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

"10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed? "

Motion must be considered relative. I do not know the flight trajectory, or procedure... But, I think they could easily have exploited the moon's gravity to assist in slowing them down, and approach the moon with the rockets only firing occasionally, to keep the descent slow. The moon's gravity is weak enough, that it should be easy to take control over the craft, using basic rocket balancing. Also, space provides very little drag by itself, so the space craft could have accelerated much more easily and efficiently, on the return trip, than during take-off. Most of the fuel wasted using the "giant Saturn rocket", was only necessary to overcome the earth's gravity, and the aerodynamic resistance. When taking off from the moon, the weak gravity and negligible resistance, should have allowed them to reach the same speed with a very small rocket, as they had after leaving the earth with the Saturn rocket. Also, the earth's gravity should have assisted them on the return trip, while it opposed them when they fly toward the moon.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Vasa Croe




So...how do you explain the flag and rover and all the stuff still sitting on the moon that have been photographed by amateurs with high power camera equipment over the years?


did you take these pictures? i would love to see them as i am not in a position to see for myself at the moment. and i know of no one willing to invite me to bring my own independent equipment, to set up along side theirs, and compare resulting images.

could someone point me in the right direction?

these questions have valid points, nothing more, nothing less.

for the effort and probably introducing some to the van allen belt and electromagnetic shielding.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: fixitwcw

Have you been there to say that they aren't there? Have you seen how the modern photographs were taken and examined them for yourself? I could show you my holiday videos, but does the fact that you haven't been to the places I have mean I haven't been there either?

I didn't see you type your post, so I have no proof that it was you that did it, or even that the post exists.

There are photographs (and live TV broadcasts and 16mm footage) taken on the lunar surface that contain details not just of Apollo hardware but also rocks and craters.

Those rocks and craters have also been photographed by Chinese and Indian probes. Evidence of human activity has been found by Indian and Japanese probes as well as US ones. That means there is independent verification of a human presence on the moon regardless of whether you have seen it with your own eyes.

Then you can add the tracking of the Apollo craft to the surface, the independent monitoring of voice transmissions, the data transmitted from the lunar surface, the rock samples verified as lunar in origin by scientists all over the world, the time and date specific meteorological fingerprints shown by the Apollo images of Earth. It all adds up a consistent coherent whole, regardless of whether you can see it with your own eyes or not.



posted on Aug, 14 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

did it really come across as me saying that i am sure it's bs, or are you deliberately trying to put words in my mouth?



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 02:22 AM
link   
a reply to: fixitwcw

It read to me like that, but if it wasn't your intention then I'm sorry for any misunderstanding.

My reason for responding in that way was that I have seen that type of argument used many times, and it's a variation of the "well no-one else has replicated the experiment" idea. While you can't analyse a moon landing experimentally, you can analyse the results of the landing.

No, I haven't been to the moon, and it is unlikely that I will ever go. I haven't been to Australia either, and I have only the words of others that it exists and that they have been. This in no way proves that Australia doesn't exist and that we whupped an imaginary country's cricket team in the Ashes.

In the absence of evidence from my own eyes what I do have is a host of data that I can check and see if they are valid. I have checked, they are valid. Geologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists and forensic scientists reconstruct sequences of events without actually witnessing them first hand using the evidence that they have available to them. Atomic physics was all done on the basis of secondary observation and theory until we developed the techniques to look more closely. You don't need direct first hand observation to prove something as long as you have enough other material that supports your ideas.



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:46 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey



i guess it's best for me not to attempt to point out the logical fallacies of having a narrow viewpoint, after having a nightcap..... or two.

even if i could play the "i was being sarcastic" card in the morning.

oh wait.....
edit on 15-8-2015 by fixitwcw because: syntax



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 04:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
And yet decades later, not one of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings has ever come forward to say they were faked.

People are such good secret keepers.




How many people kept the Manhattan project secret?? (that's the atomic bomb project).



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 07:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.


I think you got something there... If someone with the skills to calculate the exact amount of fuel needed and compare it with the fuel tanks in the lander/ Orbiter the riddle will be solved for once and for all time.






posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

Nowhere near as many as you think.

1500 leaks



posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: zatara

originally posted by: CB328
I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.


I think you got something there... If someone with the skills to calculate the exact amount of fuel needed and compare it with the fuel tanks in the lander/ Orbiter the riddle will be solved for once and for all time.





The LM ascent module did not escape lunar gravity, it achieved lunar orbit, which is a different thing altogether.

Also bear in mind that for every unit of mass of fuel you use on take-off, you have one less unit of mass to propel away from the surface - the LM got lighter as it went higher.

Here are the amounts of fuel the ascent module carried. Off you go.

history.nasa.gov...

Or you can try and find fault with these:

www.braeunig.us...

Here are some videos taken during the ascent:








posted on Aug, 15 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I had some hard and dellusional time in past and I in some point thought whole moon doesnt exists that it is just hologram from our point of wiev, now I think i know better and can say they have bases on further on space so i guess its safe to assume it was real deal.

How do you feel about data which implies that apollo 11 astronauts were followed by unknown space entities is IMHO better subject to debate...




top topics



 
57
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join