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: 57
57
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is consistent with the argument that we didn't go to the moon, which makes it supporting evidence. It is not evidence in itself, it confirms the case, as a whole.

Now, to your point that Apollo missions were kept short because of aluminum making radiation worse in deep space....

They DID NOT KNOW that aluminum was a poor shield in deep space, at the time of Apollo.

We only found that out recently, long after Apollo (supposedly) flew in deep space, in aluminum craft, without any problems.



you dun goofed boy.. again..

so the Apollo Engineers who had no idea about how dangerous or even if it is dangerous when using aluminum they still decided to fake it because they knew that aluminum couldnt protect their astronauts at all but they didnt know??

more contradictions..
edit on 10-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
I notice again that turbonium, along with many NASA-haters, made a reference to NASA spending tax-payer's money, and there is a commonly held belief that NASA's alleged fakery is just to milk the US public. A comment in a book I'm reading about that expense prompts this reply. The comment was that NASA's budget went to academia and research (amongst other things).

So. let's look at that budget of (say) $25bn over 10 years.

Even the densest of deniers can't pretend that there wasn't a Saturn V rocket, or a command module, or even a lunar module, launched from Florida - the evidence for the existence of them is undeniable. Each one of those machines, whether you think it went to the moon or not, had to be built. They were built from components made by US companies. Those US companies employed people that needed paying. Even when some of that money was converted into profit for companies, it was paid out to shareholders.

All those employees and shareholders will have spent that money. In spending it they will have paid tax. The money paid out by the government therefore pretty much ended up back with the government. Apollo was no different in essence to any kind of public works program suc as building roads or hospitals. It was an economic stimulus that paid off with other dividends.

Anyone who denies the moon landings thinking that it was just a money-making scam really hasn't thought it through.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The propagandists have yet to discover the smoking-gun that validates the validity of apollo, let alone how human beings processed the three-dimensional phenomenon known as the van allen belts, your fiscal illiteracy makes me shudder, and I wouldn't flaunt your ignorance by telling anyone apollo paraphernalia is worth anything.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
The propagandists


Defending truth is propaganda? Whatever.



have yet to discover the smoking-gun that validates the validity of apollo,


Wrong, as usual. Weather satellite data, verification of features photographed by Apollo and of human activity on the lunar surface by probes from many nations blow you out of the water, you just refuse to acknowledge it.




Ylet alone how human beings processed the three-dimensional phenomenon known as the van allen belts,


Wrong, as usual. The trajectories and radiation doses are well recorded, you just refuse to acknowledge it.


your fiscal illiteracy makes me shudder,


Prove me wrong. Prove nothing was built and launched. Are you saying no-one got paid to work at Boeing? Grumman? MIT? JPL? No-one got paid to make suits, to supply components, to build equipment, rockets, experimental equipment? You think everyone did it for nothing and the money just disappeared? Good grief even if your ludicrous hoax BS were true someone still had to pay for the set and camera crews and launch the rockets. You think the men in black work for free?


and I wouldn't flaunt your ignorance by telling anyone apollo paraphernalia is worth anything.


Relevant to what exactly? Apollo 'paraphernalia'?

If you have nothing to add to threads, please avoid them.
edit on 11/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:29 AM
link   
No other object has been misidentified as originating from the moon more often than a rock.

Even the former leader of the Rijksmuseum thought he had a moon rock, but it's been proven he only had a piece of petrified wood.

You probably thought it could be nothing other than a moon rock also, but I assure you, it was petrified wood.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
No other object has been misidentified as originating from the moon more often than a rock.

Even the former leader of the Rijksmuseum thought he had a moon rock, but it's been proven he only had a piece of petrified wood.

You probably thought it could be nothing other than a moon rock also, but I assure you, it was petrified wood.


Seriously? You're not even getting the lie straight! Please research your bogus claims so they are at least consistent with the Moon Hoax Theory "narrative."



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Strawman argument and a misldading diversion from my reply to you.

No rocks from the moon have ever been identified as being anything other than from the moon. I have 8 volumes of lunar conference proceedings full of scientific data about them. What have you done to check the data?

The museum rock was an art stunt.

No geologist ever stated it was a moon rock, no astronaut or anyone to do with NASA had anything to do with it. There is actually no evidence that the rock was given by anyone from the US at all.

I have the original art exhibition book in which it features. I've checked photos and timelines and news reports.

What have you done to check out the story?
edit on 11/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:27 AM
link   

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
lunar photography by probes from many nations blow you out of the water


No it doesn't... Apollo has long since been compromised, you just refuse to acknowledge it.


This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites and their descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release photography. That is, imagery would show close to what current systems can achieve.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 06:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation


a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
lunar photography by probes from many nations blow you out of the water


No it doesn't... Apollo has long since been compromised, you just refuse to acknowledge it.


This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites and their descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release photography. That is, imagery would show close to what current systems can achieve.


Could you be any more dishonest?

You quote is dishonestly edited from here:

www.thespacereview.com...

Here's the actual quote:




This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites—the KH-11 and its descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release KH-8 photography. That is, KH-8 imagery would show what the NRO’s current systems can achieve.


It has nothing to do with lunar probes, or Apollo. If you want to claim that somehow those probes in the 1960s are anything to do with Apollo then maybe you want to outline exactly how.

Early spy satellites had very high resolution but only covered a tiny footprint on each mission, as I demonstrated here:

onebigmonkey.com...



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 07:10 AM
link   

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

It has nothing to do with lunar probes, or Apollo


Wrong again,




NASA discussed the future of the Lunar Mapping and Survey System program with officials. Ordering a comprehensive review of basing the landing decision on the imagery returned by Lunar Orbiter.

Earth orbit testing would have been particularly problematic because it would have attracted a great deal of attention.

Intelligence community officials were uncomfortable with any public acknowledgement even of the existence of satellite reconnaissance, and would have been completely opposed to revealing any information on Apollo satellite cameras.

The article also raises an interesting question about the Lunar Orbiter program. Specifically, was the contract competition rigged? Several companies competed to build the spacecraft, each of them proposing a spacecraft/camera combination.

What happened to that hardware remains classified.



Lunar Mapping Coverstory

yet you somehow brazenly declare they couldn't possibly had better resolution than Lunar Orbiter ..
edit on 11-4-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

And once again you dishonestly build a strawman argument that proves nothing at all.

The quote you produce there is not in the article you link to, and nowhere have I said that they didn't have better resolution than Lunar Orbiter. The use of declassified military camera equipment in Apollo is well known. The page of my own I linked to was to demonstrate to people exactly how impossible it would have been to create weather maps using Corona satellite imagery.

The best imagery of the lunar surface, if you bother to check, was taken by Apollo - their Panoramic Camera produced images of far higher quality than anything else, and they certainly weren't keen on the Russians knowing how good that was. So unfortunately for you, your argument has blown up in your face, because the best images of the moon were taken by Apollo astronauts in orbit around the moon.

The article you quoted from actually confirms that, but you neglected to mention the bit where it talks about Apollo's mapping program:

www.thespacereview.com...

Furthermore, AAP was a post-moon landing mission looking down at Earth, not at the moon. Check your facts, an when you check them and quote them, provide proper sources, don't miss out the bits that make you look dishonest and don't misrepresent people's arguments.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 09:39 AM
link   

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
nowhere have I said that they didn't have better resolution than Lunar Orbiter


At the risk of calling you a liar, you've made numerous claims that apollo photography couldn't had been faked because the Lunar Orbiter wasn't detailed enough to show what was shown in apollo photography, Now you finally admit it's conceivable that more detailed photography existed that the general public wasn't privy too.
Well, looks like another propagandists fallacy has been blown out of the water.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

I wouldn't call me a liar, and I also wouldn't misrepresent what I've said in your strawman arguments.

What I have repeatedly said is that, prior to Apollo, they did not have images of high enough resolution of the moon to show the details revealed in Apollo images that can now be found in Chinese, Indian, Japanese and US probes. That is absolutely true.

The only images of higher resolution taken of the moon were taken by Apollo astronauts using the Panoramic Camera. The Panoramic Cameras were of high enough resolution to photograph changes around the lunar modules during the missions:

onebigmonkey.com...

I have certainly not admitted that it is conceivable that more detailed photography of the moon existed prior to the Apollo missions, because it is not true. Feel free to prove me wrong. The cameras discussed in your articles (which all refer to Apollo as being genuine and having actually happened, which you dishonestly omitted) were not used on any lunar probes, and if you had any understanding of how they worked you'd have figured that out.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Undoubtedly the propagandists are still reeling from their recent overreach,
...So moving on one small step,, I think we're starting too lose sight of the real issue here, which is, why Middendorf gave Drees a hunk of petrified wood. And I think it comes down to a choice between whether Middendorf was just a fossil enthusiast or he was under direction of some sort of nefarious operation.

BCCI AND FGB AND NBG TAKEOVERS
Head of the Transition Team
The Bcci-Cia Connection: Just How Far Did It Go?
Nixon appoints Middendorf to The Hague


edit on 11-4-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   


Maybe you're not old enough to have experience with film, but just about every roll has some messed up pictures in it. If nothing else because the film usually doesn't fit exactly into a discrete number of pictures, so you get pictures cut in half or two thirds.


What a load. I wonder how many people will read and believe this. I have shot many, many rolls of film over a period of decades and my cameras (good quality equipment) didn't create half frame pictures. Processors might screw up the negatives or prints occasionally.



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: DJW001

Undoubtedly the propagandists are still reeling from their recent overreach,


What you mean is that you were caught out in your deceptive postings andhave no reply to the responses you've had.

I'll say it again so you can be clear about it:

There are no photographs of the moon that show the same level of detail featured in Apollo images taken before Apollo landed.

The best spy cameras at the time of Apollo had a about a 2-3 foot resolution, much less than the Apollo surface images and the modern LRO. Lunar Orbiter's cameras (which actually were declassified spy cameras but had about a 5 foot resolution) did not have enough detail to show the features Apollo photographed.

Moving on:


...So moving on one small step,, I think we're starting too lose sight of the real issue here, which is, why Middendorf gave Drees a hunk of petrified wood. And I think it comes down to a choice between whether Middendorf was just a fossil enthusiast or he was under direction of some sort of nefarious operation.


There is no issue here.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Middendorf gave Drees any piece of petrified wood.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone from the goodwill tours gave Drees anything, as he wasn't present during the few short hours the Apollo 11 crew were in Amsterdam.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that it was a lunar rock, and given that no lunar rocks had been released from quarantine by the time of the tour it is impossible for it be one.

The fossilised wood was an art exhibition piece. Everything else is hoaxer BS.
edit on 11/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2016 @ 01:39 PM
link   
And here's the actual Reagan speech, not Misbegotten's fake:




posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

There is no issue here.


thats what all the propagandists say when their going down in flames...



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

No, it's what people who are tired of you posting faked photos and videos, dishonestly editing quotes, posting information without sourcing it, deliberately misinterpreting people's arguments and not acknowledging when you've been proved wrong say.

Just so people don't forget the point in all your diversionary tactics:

There is no evidence whatsoever that Middendorf gave Drees any piece of petrified wood.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone from the goodwill tours gave Drees anything, as he wasn't present during the few short hours the Apollo 11 crew were in Amsterdam.

There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that it was a lunar rock, and given that no lunar rocks had been released from quarantine by the time of the tour it is impossible for it be one.

The fossilised wood was an art exhibition piece. Everything else is hoaxer BS.

No photographs exist prior to Apollo that show the details in Apollo imagery, details subsequently confirmed by probes from many nations - not just the US.
edit on 12/4/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

is there a reason why you always post heavily edited videos

you know apart from the obvious trolling??

or is that what the hoax believing crowd has come to? making up videos to prove themselves?

ETA: is your aim to fill threads with obvious trolling so much so that it turns into a spewing mess so that it gets closed down by the mods?
edit on 12-4-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join