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: 52
57
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've never known anyone who wanted NASA to just orbit Earth over and over again, for decades, after (supposedly) landing men on the moon.

It wasn't by choice, that's for sure.



Because they don't do anything apart from orbit the Earth and play games, right?

Nothing of any significance has ever been done by just orbiting the Earth.




posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I think Nazi errr i mean, Nasa has got everyone fooled. They're really good at it aren't they? Like WoW Man, amazing! 30 yrs or so technologically advanced... Who the hell knows.

I'm just glad i don't believe any of this SH'T is actually real or i'd probably have had a hernia by now.

Can you say Subliminal Suggestion? hah I knew you could! 'not talking to anyone in pacific.'

/rant off



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

What you're really saying is "I don't care what evidence you show me. I will make up some excuse so I can ignore it and my story will stay the same."

No wonder no one takes you seriously. You flip from one argument to another when you run out of ideas.

You've yet to show any proof that what you say is in any way true. We're all still waiting.


I'm still waiting for any proof it ever happened, first of all!

The films/images prove it was hoaxed, not genuine.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

What you're really saying is "I don't care what evidence you show me. I will make up some excuse so I can ignore it and my story will stay the same."

No wonder no one takes you seriously. You flip from one argument to another when you run out of ideas.

You've yet to show any proof that what you say is in any way true. We're all still waiting.


I'm still waiting for any proof it ever happened, first of all!

The films/images prove it was hoaxed, not genuine.


So photographic and video proof isn't good enough? Instead of saying its not proof how about you show why it's not proof?

Also, what would you constitute as proof/evidence? I mean, you've been shown photos, video, reports and data. Or are you really saying it doesn't matter what we show you you're just going to say it's not proof?



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Show me proof they considered it to be valid data, anywhere in their reports, since you keep on claiming it is valid, genuine data....


so you think they just made up the raw data and estimated the raw data to obtain equivalent dosage then using those estimates based on made up raw data they came up with the idea that aluminium is a bad shield??

thats like me guessing your height to be 130cm, then estimating that you are a extra large shirt size and saying that you are an overweight little person..


They don't say it, since you'd have posted it long ago.

It's in the report, so it must be valid, genuine data - let's move along, folks!....


Your argument is, if data was put in their reports, it is genuine data, period.


its based on genuine raw data that has been collected over a long period of time.


They explain why it is not valid data, you ignore this fact, and insist on spouting this nonsense.

Pretending what you want, despite all reality...


learn to read articles properly.. they explain that their estimates which is equivalent dosage may be inaccurate.. NOT THE RAW DATA..

and you still havent shown me what the difference between apollo aluminium and the magic shielding they had in 2007 of which they happened to lose again in ~2009 when they cancelled constellation.



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It wasn't tested on Earth, where anyone could actually confirm that it could fly, which is odd, considering NASA is now testing developmental lunar landers on Earth, which don't work nearly as well as the LM did over 40 years ago, and
As for data, they are still gathering it today. Why would that be required if they knew it was safe 40 years ago?



The Russian Lunakhod and Luna landers, the Chinese Chang'e 2 Lander and the American Surveyor landers weren't tested as an entire system on Earth, either. However, all of those (including the LM) had their components and engines tested on Earth.

Are you saying that NOBODY (Russia, China, etc) ever landed a craft on the Moon, simply because none of them test-landed their entire moon-ready craft on Earth first? You do realize that test-landing an entire Lunar lander on Earth is really quite pointless, considering the 6X difference in gravity, plus other atmospheric concerns (such as how much reaction control they will need).

They can test the main engines and reaction control thrusters on Earth to see if they work properly and measure their thrust. They can also test all of the navigation equipment and gyroscopes on Earth to make sue they work properly. They can test the structure on Earth to see if it holds up to the theoretical design stresses it might encounter on the mission...

...However, putting it all together and seeing how it works in 6X operational gravity would be pointless, especially since they would not design it to work in 6X operational gravity, probably even considering safety margins.

That's why the LM (as an entire system) was tested in space and near the Lunar surface instead of on Earth.

edit on 3/19/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Prove they were faked.

I've given you proof they were real, prove me wrong.

Go look at the standard of special effects in the Apollo era then tell me the footage of Apollo isn't real.

You're deluded if you think the film technology of the time was up to producing the imagery we have from Apollo.
edit on 19/3/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

To paraphrase turbonium1's argument: "Have you ever seen a boat tested by driving it down a road? If boats work as they claim why have they never tested them on a highway? QED boats are fake. "



posted on Mar, 20 2016 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: captainpudding

An even more apt paraphrasing is "That boat wasn't tested in the water before it was put in the water, therefore it should sink. If it doesn't sink, it isn't a boat. Photos of it floating are not proof of it floating.".

Science deniers like [SNIP] can never get their heads round the idea that sooner or later the only way you can test landing on the moon is actually to land on the moon.

  • Go after the ball not the player.
    edit on 24/3/16 by argentus because: removed member name.



  • posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 05:20 AM
    link   
    I think everyone has to look at the bigger picture. Which is simply this? Why do people who are awake somehow think everyone else naturally would be and should be??? They think that because they perhaps flew a few feet out of bounds on the free range chicken farm that the rest of the chickens should realize there's a fence and that they to should fly over that fense. It's not gonna happen. And most people are not gonna wake up. And even if they do wake up to understand some very basics, they still don't know very much about anything. They still can't come up with all the answers. All it means is they got over the fense and now they're living a few feet outside the area that the free range isn't allowed to leave. So ya try convince them, and ya might be worth trying. But Most people are way too reliant and locked into the system to ever think or act outside the box. They're perfectly fine being a free range hen and believeing everything the farmer tell them to.



    posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 08:25 AM
    link   
    a reply to: lavatrance

    I can think outside the box perfectly well, thank you.

    I can think outside the box to fully consider the evidence presented over the years by hoax believers, such as:

    "We should see stars in the pictures", and
    "The shadows in the pictures are not parallel", and
    "They couldn't survive the radiation",
    "The cameras couldn't work in the extreme environment",
    "why was there no huge blast crater under the LM",
    "How in the world could that spindly LM even fly!",
    "The backgrounds (or foregrounds) in these moon images don't match", and
    "The shadowed areas in the pictures should be 100% black"


    I have opened my mind to consider every one of these claims of a hoax, and others. I have NEVER just brushed one of these aside and said "These are all FALSE because I KNOW we went to the Moon, dammit!"

    In fact, when each of these claims came out way back, many of them gave me pause to wonder something like "yeah -- how DID their cameras work in that environment" or "Yeah -- why WASN'T there a huge blast crater under the LM from landing". I was curious about these questions and others, so I did some research and got my answers, which ended up being consistent with the idea that we actually DID go to the Moon.

    So my mind is wide open; I considered and researched some of the claims posed by hoax believers. I never brushed aside a claim by saying "I know the claim is false simply because I know we went to the Moon!", and I don't know of any Skeptics on this board who do just brush away evidence without actually considering that evidence and first putting it through critical thought tests and comparing it to established knowledge.

    In fact , I would say that [SNIP] is the one who seems to be guilty of the closed mind by seemingly approaching this question of the Moon landings from the position of "I know we didn't go to the Moon, so nothing you can tell me will convince me otherwise".

    He has been shown a lot of evidence that the amount of radiation that the astronauts would have been exposed to in the relatively short duration of the Apollo missions was less than acceptable limits (increased exposure, yes -- but still acceptable). It has been shown to [SNIP] that the LM components were fully tested on earth, and the entire LM was test flown three times in space and near the Moon...
    ...however, [SNIP] still seems to refuse to believe (or even acknowledge) the evidence that he has been shown that the radiation exposure was very survivable and that the LM did was indeed tested.

    Refusing to acknowledge the evidence is the opposite of open-minded.

    edit on 3/22/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


  • Go after the ball not the player.
    edit on 24/3/16 by argentus because: removed member name.



  • posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:43 AM
    link   
    a reply to: lavatrance

    Try thinking outside of the box properly and you might realise that there is no box, and the only fence some people think they are jumping over by 'waking up' is an imaginary one they built to convince themselves they are apart from everyone else, and somehow this makes them better than them.

    Now try thinking, and see if you can come up with a reason why there is no evidence that has ever stood up to scrutiny that we didn't land on the moon.
    edit on 22/3/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 09:44 AM
    link   
    a reply to: lavatrance

    Then why is it that 99% of the people who claim to be "awake" are some of the most ignorant, naive and easily manipulated people you'll ever encounter?



    posted on Mar, 22 2016 @ 10:02 PM
    link   



    posted on Mar, 24 2016 @ 04:10 PM
    link   

    originally posted by: turbonium1
    I've never known anyone who wanted NASA to just orbit Earth over and over again, for decades, after (supposedly) landing men on the moon.

    It wasn't by choice, that's for sure.



    You're right about that Turbo. It wasn't by choice. JFK did not give NASA a choice - he gave them orders to conduct (and win) a space race against the Russians by the end of the decade. But who really came up with that idea? Wasn't it Richard Nixon, who as Vice President, openly suggested that goal was '66-'68 for manned circumlunar and a manned landing by the early Seventies?


    Within the "Apollo-NASA-Moon" framework is a formidable matrix of conspiracies bound together by an alignment of out- dated Cold War motives; unquestioned by mainstream or official history; and held in place by the tireless crusade from stalwart defenders of NASA's reputation.

    Here's why I believe the Moon landings "may" have been faked:

    For 43+ years there has been a supreme lack of effort in combined human space exploration beyond low earth orbit. This situation has resulted in a plethora of "secret" space conspiracy theories. The NASA claims of what they accomplished during Richard Nixon's first term in office is another conspiracy theory. The reasons behind Richard Nixon cancelling Saturn/Apollo to replace it with a low earth orbit space shuttles is yet another conspiracy theory. The mishandling of material evidence from Apollo (from moon rocks, telemetry tapes, imagery, cameras, etc) is another conspiracy.

    Furthermore, are the curious attempts by NASA administrators to establish "Keep-Out Zones" over "Apollo Heritage Sites"... in coordination with other efforts, like ASU, the systematic scanning and photoshopping of all Apollo imagery.

    For reference: MOON: First Keep Out Zones now National Parks for Apollo Sites?
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    For reference: NASA is removing the reseau marks from Apollo images
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    For reference: The Russians never duplicated Apollo 8
    www.abovetopsecret.com...

    The official position of the Apollo "We Did It" Defender crowd is to exercise the strictest control over the Apollo-NASA-Moon narrative history... so when a critical and alternative interpretation of historical facts is brought to the discussion board there shows up an organized opposition, already in place, on alert, ready and willing to "direct traffic", inserting themselves as the "space experts" of any given forum, clinging together as comrades with only one mission in mind - to so utterly degrade the conversation/discussion/topic that the conversation/discussion/topic dies or is killed by a sympathetic moderator.

    Central to the Apollo Defender belief system is the common rally cry of "We Did It" emphasis on the all-inclusive "we" - a red flag to the psychology of Apollo Defenderism - the narcissistic trait of including themselves into a mythical space journey and sharing in the accomplishments thereof, e.g., "We landed on the moon!" and "We beat the Russians to the moon!".

    Nope. They didn't go.



    posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:46 AM
    link   
    a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

    Dear God have you forgotten everything?

    YOu do know NASA existed before Kennedy was president? Before that Nixon speech? I am reading this very good book at the moment
    www.amazon.co.uk...

    and he discusses his presence at launches and the competition with the Soviets long before JFK's presidency. I am now into the Gemini program and so far he hasn't mentioned Nixon once.

    You have already been told, many times, that there are no 'Keep Out' zones. NASA has neither the authority nor the capability of enforcing any such thing. What they have done is request that other landings respect the integrity of the landing sites so as not to ruin any scientific work that may be possible. Any other interpretation of it is your personal bias.

    The ASU, not NASA, is involved in a program of digitally processing the NASA Apollo archive, and in the process some images are having reseau marks removed. Scans of the originals are all still available, as are the originals, and there are countless books, journals and magazine articles containing those originals. NASA still hosts many sites with the originals. Find us any photograph you like where anything of any significance has ever been removed from an Apollo image.

    The Russians did indeed never emulate Apollo 8. This is not for the want of trying, but unfortunately their heavy lift rocket kept exploding.

    There is no 'official position' of people who disagree with you. This seems to imply an organised campaign and questions the motives, not the evidence, presented by people who disagree with you. Check the ATS T&C's to see who that is viewed.

    The only position is defending the truth, not trying to spread fantasy.

    Please try and come up with something that doesn't involve regurgitating nonsense that has been dealt with many times before.
    edit on 25/3/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: extra point.



    posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 05:12 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

    You're right about that Turbo. It wasn't by choice. JFK did not give NASA a choice - he gave them orders to conduct (and win) a space race against the Russians by the end of the decade. But who really came up with that idea? Wasn't it Richard Nixon, who as Vice President, openly suggested that goal was '66-'68 for manned circumlunar and a manned landing by the early Seventies?


    you and turbonium1, are not in agreement.

    turbonium1 is saying we (yes WE) stayed in LEO due to technological reasons. although all sources point to manufacturing technology being the lacking part.
    you are saying they (yes THEY) stayed in LEO due to JFK's orders, regardless of technology. mostly because richard nixon wanted to watch a good movie, so most likely richard nixon ordered the then president, JFK, to force NASA to LEO forever and ever.



    posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:05 AM
    link   
    The plans to get to the moon were laid out before Kennedy's election in a July 1960 conference:

    books.google.co.uk... &sig=LJLz1PSeoZUhYGynmgNj_XqVlh4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN3rmy49vLAhUJXRQKHbnnBwEQ6AEIMzAE#v=onepage&q=NASA%20industry%20program%20plans%20Conference%2 0July%2028-29%201960&f=false

    which is also long before that Nixon article.

    Projects Mercury, Gemini and Apollo are all laid out in there. All Kennedy did was supply a deadline and guarantee the funding. Nixon did nothing but ride on the coat tails of his predecessors. He had nothing to do with Apollo's conception or success, just its premature demise.

    I have another book, written in 1968, on Soviet Space Research that concludes that the Soviet efforts were entirely consistent with manned lunar ambitions.



    posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 07:23 AM
    link   

    originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
    ...Furthermore, are the curious attempts by NASA administrators to establish "Keep-Out Zones" over "Apollo Heritage Sites"...

    The recommended exclusion zones for Apollos 12 through 16 allow a person/rover to get within a few feet of some of the equipment, and even right next to some of the footprints or rover tracks. The Zones for Apollo 11 and 17 are wider, but that's because of their historical significance of being the first and last Apollo Program mission.

    I could (theoretically) walk along the footprint of one of the Apollo 16 astronauts (for some of those footprints), or climb on the "Split Boulder" where Apollo 17's Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt spent a lot of time doing geology work. Apollo 16 and 17 in particular traveled miles from the LM landing site, so many of the astronauts' work was done well outside the exclusion zones. Considering this, the exclusion zones are not preventing me from seeing hard evidence up-close that people were walking around their. I would even be allowed to compare a picture of (for example) the Apollo 17 "split boulder" to see how well it and the footprints match the historical pictures.

    Those exclusion zones are not preventing me from confirming that the Apollo missions sent people to the Moon. I can't, however, walk all around and disturb the area right outside the LM for Apollo 11, because it is being treated like a museum, which only makes sense.


    edit on 3/25/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



    posted on Mar, 25 2016 @ 01:15 PM
    link   
    a reply to: turbonium1




    I'm still waiting for any proof it ever happened, first of all!

    The films/images prove it was hoaxed, not genuine.

    Using your logic nothing man made has left earth orbit.
    After all the only proof you see are pictures.

    Too many people feel there has to be progress is any area.
    How many decades did the telephone go without any real progress?
    How many decades did the automobile go without any real progress?
    Light bulbs
    Roofing materials
    Pencils
    There has to be a need for progress before it will happen.




    top topics



     
    57
    << 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

    log in

    join