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: 9
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CB328

How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days and still being used by scientists today ?

Those were faked by Kubrick too, or didn't you know that?





posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Funcaldunkal
I am not sure what to believe when it comes to the Moon landing. It definitely seems suspect, but I don't know. What I do find irritating, is that so many people refuse the possibility of it having been faked. They act like it's totally impossible for such a thing to have been faked and become infuriated by the idea, which to me screams emotional bias.

Funny, the astronauts themselves show absolutely no emotions, after being on the moon.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   




How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days and still being used by scientists today ?



Yet another propagandist fallacy ...



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Not true, no matter how many times you say it:




posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Not a fallacy, they are really there, exactly where the astronauts put them, exactly where they were photographed and filmed putting them.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 07:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

More nonsense form you.

Jarrah can bleat on about ground based telescopes providing proof all he likes, he either knows full well and is being dishonest, or is too ignorant of the subject to understand that there is no terrestrial telescope (nor is there ever likely to be) capable of resolving to that level of detail.

LRO photographs clearly show tracks and trails left by the astronauts, the same tracks and trails visible in the ascent footage and photographs publicly available long before the LRO. You can even see them in images taken by Indian satellites. Chinese, Indian and Japanese probes also confirm the surface details shown in Apollo images.

You can keep your knee-jerk denialism going as long as you like, you'll always be wrong.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 10:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
Not to mention the other nations like Russia who were watching every minute of the landings would have been the first ones to scream fake.


No one really sees the white elephant in the room that going to the moon was a big slap in Russia's face as if they would keep our big secret SHHHhhhhhh.



edit on 27-9-2015 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Of course, to claim these images are proof of the landing sites is utterly ridiculous. They are completely unidentifiable, and even if they WERE at the 'right spots', they could be ANYTHING.


The Japaneses are 100% convinced with their SELENE terrain camera and 3D projected. They were able to recreate the lunar terrain in the photographs to within 10m with the same angles and advantage point of where the pictures were taken. What this means is the lunar lander was there on the moon and not on some Hollywood set.

Here is NASA's picture below



Here is the Japanese SELENE terrain camera picture.



There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon.

China and India have also confirmed the landings with their orbiters, and it is not too hard to see the tracks made in all decent pictures, though as you say, close ups of the equipment is not there other than visual marks, maybe with China's 1.3m, but they do not typically release their stuff.



So when I ask why NASA has never taken high-resolution, close-up detailed images of the LM, the flag, and so on?..

They say 'Why should they bother? Just because you hoaxers think they should?'

I say, 'No, because they NEED to have such images, to prove they are, indeed, landing sites'


How should they do that? Should they spend tens of billions of a limited budget to put the best orbiter to date around the moon just to satisfy your skepticism? Maybe they would rather send a orbiter to another planet instead with that money.



posted on Sep, 27 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

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.

Not to mention the other nations like Russia who were watching every minute of the landings would have been the first ones to scream fake.


Bzzzt! Sorry. Wrong. Russia was busy faking their own spaceflights. Vested interest on their part to keep quiet if they actually knew anything. Not so say the landings were faked, just that your comment is invalid.

HTH



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
"There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon."

No way ? What about a previous unmanned missions to the moon ?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Ok, all you need is to provide evidence of these missions. Blueprints, plans, memos, testimony from those involved, witnesses to the rocket launch, observations from amateur astronomers, interception of radio transmissions from HAMS really anything that can prove they even existed, let alone happened.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Xtrozero
"There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon."

No way ? What about a previous unmanned missions to the moon ?


There are no pre-Apollo images that show the level of detail available in Apollo images. Those details are matched in LRO, Chandrayaan and Chang'e-2 images.

None at all.

Unless of course you can provide some.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
May I direct you to a tool known as google, it's great, full of information including photos. Just search "moon landing photos from earth".

You can literally SEE the tire tracks, parts from the lunar module, etc.

Photoshop
Fake



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: CB328

There ARE recent pictures of the various landing sites from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, though.
Photoshop.
Again



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: NowWhat

Again: prove it.

Not just prove they photoshopped in tracks and hardware, but every little rock and crater that matches up exactly with Apollo images.

Did India Photoshop it into their images too? Because they didn't find the trails left by Apollo 14 and 16, I did in their raw Terrain Camera images. Did they photoshop the rocks in Hadley Rille to match Apollo's live TV broadcasts?

Did China photoshop little rocks into their views of Taurus Littrow?

Show us your proof that they photoshopped them, any of them. Any proof at all will do.
edit on 28-9-2015 by onebigmonkey because: correction and clarification



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Maybe it's just not that difficult to travel to the Moon, and back...six times.

Never mind.

Piece of cake, they went three times in six months !

Apollo 10 May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969

How could people buy into this ?
Maybe to many science fiction movies in the 50s and 60s ?
edit on 28-9-2015 by Ove38 because: Text fix



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Maybe it's just not that difficult to travel to the Moon, and back...six times.

Never mind.

Piece of cake, they went three times in six months !

Apollo 10 May 18, 1969
Apollo 11 July 16, 1969
Apollo 12 November 14, 1969

How would people buy into this ?
Maybe to any science fiction movies in the 50s and 60s ?


Because it happened in full view of everyone and the facts are verifiable?

Why would anyone buy into the lie that they never went?

Lack of education?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
But why do you think they would have faked it?

(Please exclude some kind of international/Russian competition as a reason because there is an untransparent global government that has been in power for longer than the late 1960s.)


Every great empire has its myths.



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: game over man
It's a great conspiracy and it's fun to see people still go for it...However it's been debunked by NASA as they took satellite images of the flag, landing site, and the footprints. People should debunk those photos now if they want to still claim the moon landing was fake.

Unmanned landing sites, yes !

But flag ? footprints ? where ?



posted on Sep, 28 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, I am referring to the Apollo 15 'soil disturbance', which is seen from lunar orbit, but not seen in any Apollo 15 surface images.

An actual, physical disturbance of soil can be seen from lunar orbit, at the exact location (supposedly) around the LM, from lunar orbit. So, this disturbance should also be identified from the lunar surface, but it is not. In fact, this disturbance would not only be visible from the surface, it would be even more defined from close up.

This is the specific problem which you need to address..

Could it be fake surface images ?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join