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: 58
57
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Come to? The hoax crowd has been lying and missquoting since the 70's




posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   


"There is no evidence whatsoever that anyone ever claimed that it was a Moonrock



That is part of the larger question, not withstanding the elephant in the Rijksmuseum , better known as a hunk of petrified wood labeled "Moonrock" and why it happen to take so long before the first indications of such was achieved.

The consensus opinion is that it was a combination of the general softing of resolve on the part of NASA officials from the incredible pounding they were taking from the propaganda pedlars that were pinning all their hopes that NASA could finally provide the smoking-gun that validated the validity of apollo.

The result was the propagandists were blinded by the impression that the individuals involved were just by pure happenstance.



Mars One scammer Arno Wielders was the first one to identify the "Moonrock" as petrified wood

The concept for the Mars One Monkey Business began with discussions between the two founders, Arno Wielders and Bas Lansdorp


edit on 13-4-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

This doesn't seem to be too confusing to me.
Mars one is a resonance of the Apollo mission in the arts and science fiction.
Its a perfect example of Nietzsche - Eternal return.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

As usual your word salad is devoid of facts. The exhibit was not labelled as moonrise and was not given as moonrise.

It was identified as such only in the exhibition handbook.

The current activities of the person who claims to have spotted it first are nothing to do with anything.

The assertion that anyone from NASA ever donated thus rock to Dress or claimed it was lunar in origin is a lie.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 09:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformationthe propaganda pedlars that were pinning all their hopes that NASA could finally provide the smoking-gun that validated the validity of apollo.



your usage of the "smoking gun" metaphor is so cringe worthy..

if i didnt know you better then everytime i read you write propagandists followed by not providing the smoking gun, the only thing i think of is that you are calling hoax believers propagandists..

and in that respect i agree with the statement hoax believers have not in the last 40+ years provided the smoking gun.
they havent even provided a gun to consider as evidence of a crime, the closest they have got is a tank drawn on paper thats been put through a paper shredder then made to look like an airplane.



posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 11:31 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

I also find the idea that somehow I am desperate for NASA to come up with evidence to prove me right laughable.

As far as I am concerned I already have that evidence, I don't need anything else - The scientific and photographic evidence, as well as the people involved in collecting it, do a perfectly satisfactory job of documenting the historical fact of Apollo. It's up to the reality deniers out there to prove that their cynical sneering offers anything of substance other than as a smokescreen for their lack of education. They have been unable to offer anything vaguely resembling a rational and intelligent argument in the entirety of this 'discussion' and have no evidence of their own to support their bogus claims.


(and FTR - my post above says 'moonrise' - my phone's autocorrect preferred that to 'moonrock').



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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..


They didn't know aluminum made it worse than before in deep space, that's the whole point.

Why do you deny this, while knowing the truth? It's sad you'd choose to live in denial...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain

originally posted by: turbonium1

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


Yes they did. The concept of Bremsstrahlung or "Breaking radiation" has been known about since the 19th century. The idea that metals create this secondary breaking radiation known as "Bremsstrahlung" from particle radiation (such as cosmic rays) was something that had previously been demonstrated in laboratories a long time prior to the space age.

And the Aluminum was NOT added as a radiation shield. The aluminum on Apollo was simply the structure of the craft. There was no material added to Apollo for the express purpose of radiation shielding. Most of the radiation protection came from the fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the Command Module, and was put there for insulating purposes -- not for radiation shielding.



I've cited documents on this, which prove it wasn't known in the Apollo-era.

Look for yourself, and you'll know the truth....

It is an absolute fact...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
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.


Middendorf confirmed the story, for one thing.

Your case has nothing at all, or even one plausible explanation for it...



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So Bremsstrahlung was discovered in 1890, but no one bothered to tell NASA, or any of the engineers designing space craft about it.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They didn't know aluminum made it worse than before in deep space, that's the whole point.

Why do you deny this, while knowing the truth? It's sad you'd choose to live in denial...


im not denying im entertaining your "theory"

one of the main reasons as to why you believe they had to have faked the moon landings was because they knew GCR's were too dangerous to use aluminium..

and here you are saying that they didnt know about the dangers therefore they did not need to fake the missions at all..

do you see the contradictions in your own "theory" at all?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Middendorf confirmed the story, for one thing.



Nope. He did not. Read his words as quoted in the media, see if you can find anything where he confirms he gave Drees a rock during the goodwill tour, or at all, or if anyone from NASA gave him a rock, ever, or if anyone from the US a a whole (never mind Middedorf or NASA) claimed that the fossilised tree was a rock.

There is no evidence to support this ridiculous claim - it wasn't even labelled as a moon rock in the exhibition, it isn't mentioned on the card, and Drees wasn't even present during the Apollo 11 visit. The only place it is claimed to be a moon rock is in the exhibition handbook, a copy of which I own. The only people who claim it is a moon rock are artists known for producing provocative art stunts.

It's a non-story, and if it's the best you have you may as well give up.



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Rand Corporation confirms greencheese moonrock operation feasible ...




posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

As you once again don't bother providing a source, I'll point out that this article is from 1962.

One pound of moon rock is much much less than the samples brought back by Apollo, and much more than the Soviets managed in their sample return mission.

Your spam proves what, exactly?



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 11:19 AM
link   


proves what, exactly

its more evidence debunking the propagandists moonrock fallacy




see if you can find anything where he confirms he gave Drees a rock during the goodwill tour, or at all


certain individuals down at Nasa can't even take a dump without them classifying it, so nobody is holding their breath waiting for him to confirm or deny anything,,,, then again maybe they are.


IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Sun Apr 17 2016 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
Rand Corporation confirms greencheese moonrock operation feasible ...

So are you saying they sent 840 "Greencheese" missions to the moon? I think someone (many someones) would have noticed.

Actually to be fair, it would be fewer than 840 missions, considering some of the moon rocks weigh 4 or 5 pounds each. However, that fact alone begs the question: "Could these Greencheese probes collect a 4 or 5 pound rock and carry it back to Earth?"

Besides that, could the proposed Greencheese probes hammer off smaller rocks from large boulders, As some of the rocks returned by Apollo were broken off of large boulders.

edit on 4/17/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2016 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation




certain individuals down at Nasa can't even take a dump without them classifying it, so nobody is holding their breath waiting for him to confirm or deny anything,,,, then again maybe they are.


Learn how to read classified documents?
R1D1 -> R3D2



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1
Middendorf confirmed the story, for one thing.



Nope. He did not. Read his words as quoted in the media, see if you can find anything where he confirms he gave Drees a rock during the goodwill tour, or at all, or if anyone from NASA gave him a rock, ever, or if anyone from the US a a whole (never mind Middedorf or NASA) claimed that the fossilised tree was a rock.

There is no evidence to support this ridiculous claim - it wasn't even labelled as a moon rock in the exhibition, it isn't mentioned on the card, and Drees wasn't even present during the Apollo 11 visit. The only place it is claimed to be a moon rock is in the exhibition handbook, a copy of which I own. The only people who claim it is a moon rock are artists known for producing provocative art stunts.

It's a non-story, and if it's the best you have you may as well give up.



Middendorf said Drees was 'quite taken with that little stone', iirc.

And Middendorf noted that he wasn't aware of it 'not being real, or anything'....

So what do you suppose he is talking about, then? ...

It doesn't make sense to say that Drees liked a little piece of stone, and say he didn't know anything about it being real or not, if he's not talking about the 'moon rock', here!!


A label is not needed, since it was, indeed, presented as a genuine 'moon rock', at the time... The label matches it, even so ...


You don't think it's meant to be a genuine rock, because they never gave genuine moon rocks out to anyone, at the time... so what??

It was given in a private ceremony, not in public.

So why is a little piece of stone mentioned by Middendorf, in the first place?

However, he says he doesn't know anything about that little stone as 'not being real'..

So, he must have believed it WAS real, since he knows nothing of it 'not being real'!!


This cannot be explained any other way, that's why you don't even try to...



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




So why is a little piece of stone mentioned by Middendorf, in the first place?

Because someone specifically asked him about it.
Long, long after the fact.

edit on 4/23/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

They didn't know aluminum made it worse than before in deep space, that's the whole point.

Why do you deny this, while knowing the truth? It's sad you'd choose to live in denial...


im not denying im entertaining your "theory"

one of the main reasons as to why you believe they had to have faked the moon landings was because they knew GCR's were too dangerous to use aluminium..

and here you are saying that they didnt know about the dangers therefore they did not need to fake the missions at all..

do you see the contradictions in your own "theory" at all?


You are simply confused about my argument, that's the whole problem here...

Nobody knew aluminum was a poor shield in deep space during the Apollo-era. They believed aluminum would protect them, just like it had within LEO.

They had many reasons for faking it, back then, but aluminum was not considered yet, as it is today.


No contradiction.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join