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: 96
57
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Didn't this getting proven a falsehood to you quite a few pages ago?

Next you'll try the 4 second clip thing to prove a whole video wrong.




posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The probes are not relevant to this issue, same as everything else that matches up is not relevant...

Where it does NOT match up is the only thing relevant, as I said..


so you admit that the probes all do have this disturbed lunar regolith effect.


That is the problem, here...

Noticing that it did not match up, when it must match, to be genuine..

They had to explain why everything was a match, except one thing which did not match...

Some type of unique phenomenon is behind it, they assume...

It is an unknown phenomenon, but we assume it exists, anyway..


the problem with your argument is that it DOES match up but only because you ignore what you see you claim it doesnt exist.

again, why would they try to explain something that doesnt exist?? they began explaining this from the lunar surface images from when they landed on the moon, not from the LRO.

so why the hell would they be attempting to explain something from surface images of which you claim doesnt exist?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   
To believe it is easier to land humans on the moon, and safely return them to Earth, than it is to fake it, reveals how Apollo is taken as a religion, held on faith, unshaken by all doubters, who ignore the scientific evidence that 'proves' Apollo is genuine..

That we saw a movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", released in 1968, means nothing to you, the Apollo-ites!!

Your argument is that the special effects were very good, for that time, but that it has flaws which reveal it is not genuinely in space..

Apollo-ites claim that proves we could not fake Apollo missions, because "2001" couldn't fake 0 g..

Sure, of course!!

Good one.


Why would you believe they could not simulate 0 g, at the time?

Because they used the best special effects available at the time, yet it failed to work, as we know..right?


What, specifically, gave it away, that it wasn't in 0 g?

One scene with 0 g briefly shows the effect in a mirror, iirc...

This is how we know it was not in 0 g, obviously.


And you think they had to show it, in a mirror, because they didn't have the technology to edit it out??

That is your argument, in essence.

Nonsense.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Got any actual evidence? I mean it. You've been blabbing on and on and it's all been your opinion with nothing to back any of it up.

So, show us some real evidence. Not a few seconds out of a 2 hour video, not an opinion, not your misinterpretation of physics, lack of understanding radiation and totally disregarding anything that proves you wrong.

Some real hard evidence.

Or are just just going to keep moaning about "apollo-ites"?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Apollo-ites? What, is that supposed to be insulting, or something?

Hate to break it to ya, but it's not.

I've happily been an apollo-ite since I watched it on a grainy black and white TV. Proudly so, in fact.

Now, have you anything to prove your baseless accusations? Proof that no one landed on the moon. Anything? At all?

Because after 96 pages...you should have been able to find the time to post it. ...and you've posted a lot here, yet nothing from any of you. Not one shred of evidence that hasn't been disproven here, and elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
To believe it is easier to land humans on the moon, and safely return them to Earth, than it is to fake it, reveals how Apollo is taken as a religion, held on faith, unshaken by all doubters, who ignore the scientific evidence that 'proves' Apollo is genuine..


wrong.

to believe that it is easier to fake the moon landings than it is to actually land man on the moon and hide the fact for 40+ years, proves that people who believe in the hoax have no understanding of physics..

just because it works in your head does not necessarily make it work in real life. especially with your level of understanding of physics.

faking lunar gravity and a vacuum for lengthy periods is impossible to do on earth.


That we saw a movie "2001: A Space Odyssey", released in 1968, means nothing to you, the Apollo-ites!!


and what exactly does it supposed to mean??
that stanley kubrick couldnt fake low gravity and zero gravity accurately??


Your argument is that the special effects were very good, for that time, but that it has flaws which reveal it is not genuinely in space..

Apollo-ites claim that proves we could not fake Apollo missions, because "2001" couldn't fake 0 g..

Sure, of course!!

Good one.

Why would you believe they could not simulate 0 g, at the time?


you are such a waste of time..

what does faking 0g have to do with faking the Apollo missions??

basically you argument has devolved into "they can fake 0g, therefore they can fake the Apollo missions" really difficult to argue such blatant nonsense. im pretty sure you would be the one to argue that elephants can fly because you have seen bees fly.


Because they used the best special effects available at the time, yet it failed to work, as we know..right?


how do you know they had the technology to fake it?? show us this magical equipment.. or is your belief on this basically your religion like you claimed above?
edit on 17-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

And why is it then whenever you've been previously asked to provide evidence of this absurd claim you outright refuse? Why is it when shown that video sped up by the factors you yourself suggest looks incredibly unnatural with fast, twitchy movements, you flat out ignore the fact that you've been proven wrong and wait a year before bringing up the same nonsense again?


The proof is beyond the slightest doubt...

Apollo 11 astronauts move at normal, Earth speed, when the original footage is 2x faster.

The only unnatural movements are due to wires attached to them, an effect to show less gravity. That's it.


But when the later missions are 2x faster than original footage, the astronauts move much too fast than normal, Earth speed.

And that is what you're talking about here.

I've shown all of this to you, before.

And saying it is a matter of opinion, sorry...the movements are either repeatable at normal speed, on Earth, or they are too fast to be repeated at normal speed, on Earth.

Why do you think nobody has ever proved me wrong, now?

Go ahead, if you doubt me, though...



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You have been proven wrong. Every time, I might add. Even with this x50% x66% nonesense you tried months ago got proven wrong.

But here you are again, ignoring the evidence of going to the moon while presenting no evidence that man didn't. All you're doing is using your opinion and thinking it's fact.

Facts need evidence to back them up, not opinions.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The probes are not relevant to this issue, same as everything else that matches up is not relevant...


Says who? When did you get to decide what is and is not relevant? The only reason you are dismissing them is because you have no answer to them, just like you have no answer to all the questions I have put to you and which you have dodged and ignored.


Where it does NOT match up is the only thing relevant, as I said..


Except your problem is that there is not one thing that does not match up. Everything that should be there is there - you have yet to show the tiniest evidence to back up your claim that things don't match, and you still haven't produced those photos you claimed you had that showed the same level of detail taken before Apollo. Did you make that up hoping no-one would call you out on it? I'm calling you out on it - again.


The whole intent of a hoax is trying to make everything look absolutely real, when it is not...

Matching up to everything is crucial, because anything not matching could expose the hoax, if it's noticed...


And how did they match everything if they didn't know what was there? I am telling you (not claiming, not suggesting, telling) that the pre-Apollo photographs did not have the level of detail in Apollo images. Prove me wrong.


That is the problem, here...

Noticing that it did not match up, when it must match, to be genuine..

They had to explain why everything was a match, except one thing which did not match...


Meaningless word salad gibberish. Make your mind up - does it match or not?



Some type of unique phenomenon is behind it, they assume...

It is an unknown phenomenon, but we assume it exists, anyway..


More word salad. Are you moving back to the change in surface reflectance now? The phenomenon you claimed didn't exist and had never been found anywhere else but when I proved that wrong you decided people were just making stuff up to explain something that wasn't there? That phenomenon?

Your uneducated opinion, confirmation bias and prejudice does not amount to a hill of beans.

Provide.

Your.

Evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
We have faked 0g for years, long before Apollo ever came along.

The problem was not faking 0g.

But faking 1/6 g...was a big problem..

As NASA found out, for themselves..

There was nothing known about how we would move around in the lunar gravity, but we should be able to jump much higher.

Wires allow their bigger jumps, of course.

However, wires alone are not very convincing. We have seen this on Earth, when jumping with wires. Not a 'strange, alien' effect, as they want

Slowing their movements gives that effect, so they used it..

Nobody asked why they would move so much slower than normal in 1/6 gravity.

There is no reason they would, but it looks fine and dandy....



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

All that would be believable if you could prove it. You know? With actual evidence?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
We have faked 0g for years, long before Apollo ever came along.

The problem was not faking 0g.


Nice use of a loaded term. We can simulate 0g for very short periods of time.



But faking 1/6 g...was a big problem..

As NASA found out, for themselves..

There was nothing known about how we would move around in the lunar gravity, but we should be able to jump much higher.


Oh dear your lack of knowledge reveals itself again. Lunar gravity can be replicated for short periods using the same sort of parabolic flight path as the ones for 0g.

How high would you like them to jump, carrying a heavy backpack and a suit? I'm willing to bet you can't get more than 6 inches off the ground from a standing start. Apollo astronauts got much higher.



Wires allow their bigger jumps, of course.


There are no wires. Please find footage or photographs showing them. Please explain how wires were able to move people around, crossing paths, driving in a rover, all on live TV, all without ever getting them crossed or tangled. Please show where the wires were attached. Please don;t reproduce training harnesses, because all you'll do is show just how impossible it would have been to have concealed those.



However, wires alone are not very convincing. We have seen this on Earth, when jumping with wires. Not a 'strange, alien' effect, as they want


Which shows why they were not used in the lunar footage.




Slowing their movements gives that effect, so they used it..


Lunar footage is not in slow motion. Explain how they could have slowed it down for hours at a time on live TV without losing the audio sync.




Nobody asked why they would move so much slower than normal in 1/6 gravity.


because they don't.




There is no reason they would, but it looks fine and dandy....



It does look exactly as it should, because it is filmed on the moon. Only the deluded and the blind claim it is slowed down.

You appear to avoided answering the questions in my previous post

Again.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Where did you prove this phenomenon exists?

The paper does not claim this phenomenon exists.

The paper refers to a theoretical scenario which would account for this.

There is nothing to support this theory, it is only taken as 'proof' by you, of the Apollo flock..

Why don't you describe this magical lunar soil, then?

What did they discover in lunar soil that exhibits this unique, never known to exist before, but conveniently discovered it, at the moment it explains the problem away??

Your argument is based on the properties of lunar soil.

'Unique' means you have nothing but excuses.
'



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Yeah, well. You got nothin and your mama wears army boots.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:12 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Still not providing any evidence and just giving your opinion?



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Wow!!! Now I know why I'm stupid. I keep checking in on this thread. WHY!!!!! Like OneBigmonkeyToo said,

"Lunar footage is not in slow motion. Explain how they could have slowed it down for hours at a time on live TV without losing the audio sync."

My kind regards,

Bally



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:16 AM
link   
They didn't sync the audio.

Show me footage of an astronaut talking on the moon, to prove your claim.

Nothing else can prove it, so have fun trying...



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

The did have the audio synced.

Show evidence they didn't. It's your claim it's all fake.



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The paper refers to a theoretical scenario which would account for this.


account for what??

according to you such things does not exist, it simply does not exist in surface imagery.. so in your reality they should have nothing to write about because no one knows of its existence..

but you are saying that these papers are accounting for it, which is you admitting that this phenomenon exists.. weird..



posted on Sep, 17 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
So, apparently the capsule was going about 2100 miles per hour when they got to the moon (3800 feet per second).

history.nasa.gov...

How can you slow the lander down from two thousand miles an hour with no atmosphere so that you don't crash and then get it back up to 2100 mph after take off for docking?


Read this.

And this.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 93  94  95    97  98  99 >>

log in

join