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: 88
57
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

And a shiny new question for you to avoid: How did amateur astronomers in the UK capture images of Apollo 8 on its way to the moon?



A tiny image of a vessel traveling to the Moon doesn't mean humans were inside.




posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

Not even when those same people were observed entering the rocket, and when those same people made live TV broadcasts showing Earth that were published in the next day''s newspapers - images showing Earth and it''s weather systems exactly matching what should be there and before any weather satellite images would have been available?

The excuse starts to stretch a little thin when all the other things are added in there.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox

A tiny image of a vessel traveling to the Moon doesn't mean humans were inside.


if you ignore everything else and just look at the picture only, probably, but have you considered everything else that happened on that day?

if i see my parents car parking outside the front of my house, if i consider this and only this, it doesnt mean my parents are coming.
but if they had told me they were coming on this day and i see the car parking on this day, the chances of my parents visiting becomes much more likely.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 11:42 AM
link   
It's called "disinformation".



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

right - i is going to make the assumption that [ based on your above statement ] that you accept the veracity of the entire " hardware side " of the apollo program - and proceed from there

with the question - why do you doubt that the apollo missions were maned ?

i know i jas made several assumptions - but i guess your position isnt just philisophical mastrubation - as you miss-use " proof " so egregiously



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's called "disinformation".

It seems to me that the idea of the hoax is the "disinformation".

Considering that virtually all hoax claims cane be debunked with a little critical thought and knowledge about science and/or technology -- and the knowledge how things work in general, while the official claims from the Apollo record seem to be able to be backed up by science, nature, technology, and critical thought, I'd say it's more likely that the people who originally started pushing the hoax agenda were the ones spreading disinformation. Maybe some of them were only spouting misinformation rather than disinfomation because some were arguing from a position of ignorance, but the specific hoax claims are still able to be shown as being invalid.


edit on 2016-8-4 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
It's called "disinformation".


And that's called pointless.

All you seem to be offering here is "I don't believe it, you should believe me instead" with nothing else on the table. I'll take the actual information I've worked out for myself over your total lack of it any day.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 02:51 PM
link   
You folks are hilarious. I constrained my comments to actual-factual statements, but some are going off the rails ascribing all sorts of bunker/debunker opinions upon me.


As far as I can tell, I'm withholding my opinion, mostly because it's not relevant, and I don't feel like *making* it relevant.

We all saw the same analysis, it was compelling....but it missed one big thing, the fact it's just a picture of a tin can. Same goes for radar tracking by the USSR, it's just a "blip".



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

so - tell us what you REALLY THINK - be fooking exact



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

A picture of a tin can heading to the moon in with people in it who took photographs of the view back to Earth, a view entirely consistent with where they were in the sky. People with limited understanding of this subject, and usually they are ones who wish to deny the truth of it, are rather fond of taking tiny fragments in isolation and treating it as the entirety of it. That is not the case.

You called it disinformation. Maybe you should clarify that statement, because it could be interpreted as you accusing me of acting dishonestly.
edit on 4/8/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
What is NASA's line of thinking?

We've invested thousands of research hours into figuring out how to get to the moon.
We've built a massive rocket.
We've filled it with enough fuel to get to the moon.
I guess the next step is to call Kubrick.

When going to the moon is the simpler and cheaper alternative it probably doesn't say much for the theory.

The "we got there but faked the footage because of all the moon people" whilst still crazy seems more plausible.



posted on Aug, 4 2016 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

The second one would only work if the video wasn't broadcast live from the moon. The "we faked it because there were aliens" part only works if they would have said "we're not doing video, you can just see the film after we land" and then they have time to fake it.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Box of Rain
a reply to: turbonium1
Apollo used NOTHING specifically as radiation shielding -- although the insulation they used had a secondary benefit of reducing some of the exposure. They used nothing specifically as radiation shielding because they knew from data collected by earlier unmanned probes that (except for solar flares) the radiation dosage would be relatively low and relatively little health risk for the lengths of time that the Apollo missions would take.

There was some increased long-term health risk from the radiation, but compared to other allowable risk levels of the mission as a whole, the increase long-term health effects were deemed to be within acceptable limits. After Apollo, future manned missions that would be of a longer duration would require better protection from cosmic radiation.



You don't grasp the problem, so I'll explain it to you, once again...

If Apollo didn't need specific radiation shielding for deep space manned missions, because they were short stays, as you suggest....

It would not be ignored, or merely a footnote, in their papers...

It would be the foundation of all further studies, in reality..

You say the Apollo missions were known to be safe from radiation in deep space, because they were short stays...

You don't have any proof, of course, that they said that, but you say it anyway, as if it's a fact or something!


Think about it, now..

Future manned missions in deep space would likely be short, as well as long, correct?

So, when they mention no future manned craft will be built for deep space missions, with aluminum shielding, it should exclude short missions, right?

You assume it is excluded, as if it's a fact, that is not said, but meant that way, and if not, they should say it is NOT meant that way!! You see, as exclusion is not mentioned as an exclusion, while you must mention that it is NOT an exclusion, or it is an exclusion!!


Now, you have short missions being safe, we will have short missions in future, like Apollo did, but it's not worth mentioning how Apollo was safe, because we all 'know' it is safe, so what's the problem?!?

How do we know it is safe? Since the paper is studying long missions, not short missions, it excludes short missions, you see?

They never say short missions are/were safe, YOU say it, and then you keep pushing it as THEIR claim. No go, bud.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
It may or may not be, man set foot on the moon, under hyper controlled circumstance.
I'd rather not speculate on this.

But here is my assessed calculation.

At a point in time, when the moon is directly above 0 latitude, and 0 longitude,
this is only around 9,500 miles in distance.

The moon is only 86.4 miles in diameter (almost 272 miles in circumference).

Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




When going to the moon is the simpler and cheaper alternative it probably doesn't say much for the theory.


No, it doesn't, does it?



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

He didn't say that Apollo didn't need shielding or that none was required.

What is being stated in simple terms for you us that the construction material acted as a shield, not that it was specifically used for that purpose. No-one said there was no radiation risk in short missions, it's just that you don't grasp the idea of cumulative dose and relative risk.

Any figures you can provide to support your specious arm waving would help your cause immensely, but somehow those numbers never arrive.

When would an astronaut die?



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Dots and blobs in exactly the same place as the Apollo landers, in the same configuratioj as seen in the TV, 16mm and photographic images. They also show rocks and craters in the same locations. So what those lunar probe images do is corroborate the Apollo evidence.


Do tell us how they would have altered and what benefit there would be.

Do the photographs taken by NASA, Chinese, Japanese and Indian probes contain details of teh Apollo missions and rocks and craters that corroborate the Apollo images, yes or no?



You really think it helps your case??

Let's see, now...

Man lands on the moon, over 40 years ago.

The country that landed men on the moon takes images of little blobs and specks. This shows landing on the moon is much easier than it is to take a decent image of it, for sure!

And now, a few other countries have proven how hard it is to get decent images of landing sites, too!

The best we can do, or anyone else can do, is not better proof...

Just the opposite, in fact.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Apollo-ites bleat on about how Apollo is proven scientifically, in every facet, in every measurement, etc.

Ignore all the measurements, get no valid images, that is how science 'proves' Apollo..!

As a fantasy-land.



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: FlyingFox

so - tell us what you REALLY THINK - be fooking exact



Sure, thanks for asking. Nothing specific I've seen makes me doubt the manned landing and EVA on the Moon. It is doable, with the controlled descent and landing being the "trick".

Now, the personalities involved are strange, I read Nixon's Apollo completely.

However, the greyest area is the "alternate endings" planning. That is, a back-up crew doing the full mission while the "real" astronauts remain behind. If there is a disaster / tragedy, all it takes is a little studio editing of the canned footage, and out pop the "real" astronauts with a parlor trick, and boom...there's your successful mission. This area of investigation and theory is the most interesting, imo.

I respect the work on the imaging of the Apollo 8 referenced earlier. The backtracking of the stars and weather images in itself is convincing, interphase radiation and materials science is not convincing, it's a distraction.

All I was talking about is that the image of the can doesn't mean humans inside, and passing the baton...



posted on Aug, 5 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Apollo-ites bleat on about how Apollo is proven scientifically, in every facet, in every measurement, etc.

Ignore all the measurements, get no valid images, that is how science 'proves' Apollo..!

As a fantasy-land.



this is trippy as.. its not the weekend!!!

anyway.. I figured you would use fantasy-land again sooner or later.
should I bring back about how your "reality" is about pure aluminium being the only material used for the Apollo missions?

I mean, you probably think Apollo was using one spherical single layer of thin pure aluminium and nothing else, not even water/air/fuel.. just pure aluminium..

but Apollo really did use pure aluminium, because you said/say so, and you arent living in fantasy land at all are you?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join