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.

 

I wish I could find some definitive proof that the MOON LANDING IS REAL?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: truthtalk44

Do you really believe that the world is flat, or are you just trolling?

ETA:Just checked your profile.


edit on 20-3-2017 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
The Moon Landing was indeed faked.

Faked means it's a staged event. Doesn't mean they couldn't have possibly gone to the Moon to do it.

It's what they did on the Moon that was staged, and is a fake layer of tinfoil surrounding a real event. There was significantly more military precedence than "We need to stand on the moon first". It was a mission with more practical top secret goals.

It's similar to convincing people there are Aliens unknown among us and to focus on the left hand while you miss the right, like possibly an amazing weapon of mass destruction capable aircraft built by humans. One properly equipped UFO would be able to engage entire nations. Obviously they don't want foreign powers to consider this prematurely, so they talk about Aliens.

A lot of the same can be said about the Moon. The "One Step For Man" and getting out of the ship is the extent of the Moon landing they want people to know about. Reviewing the videos endless, especially the beginning parts, that's exactly what they wanted to done. Then there are real fake videos that were made in case the mission failed, to propagate victory, that were released despite victory, causing massive confusion again.

The point is the real question isn't "Is the Moon landing real"? Even if it was, the question remains "What are they not telling us by focusing on this part of the story? What did they actually do on the Moon?"
edit on 20-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MacK80

Nice story. Now, do you have anything to back up this urban legend?

(...and I mean anything new, other than all of the other alleged evidence we've already heard.)


edit on 20/3/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 01:18 AM
link   
~sigh~

Here we go again...

No-one has ever met aliens on the moon

The moon landings happened, and everything about them has been documented in meticulous, thorough, and entirely consistent detail backed up by a bucketload of supporting evidence.

There are people out there who make a nice living making up stories about the landings - maybe they wrote a book claiming they didn't happen, maybe they get advertising revenue from their youtube videos, maybe UFO conferences pay them to speak. They have an agenda, and that agenda is not 'disclosure', or 'truthseeking', it's sucking money out of your pocket.

It is the responsibility of genuine researchers to put some effort in to see how much of these stories can be relied upon, to do their own research, to find things out for themselves. I know I've done that by getting hold of contemporary material, trawling through NASA archives, meeting Apollo astronauts and looking at the data. I am more than satisfied that the historical record is genuine and accurate.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: lavatrance

There is so much to explore out there in space. Going to the moon should not have been too hard in the late 1960's. I sincerely hope the U.S. isn't planning on going back there. Time to go onward and outward!



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 02:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MacK80


The point is the real question isn't "Is the Moon landing real"? Even if it was, the question remains "What are they not telling us by focusing on this part of the story? What did they actually do on the Moon?"


"We may never know the truth." --The motto of the Kremlin's disinformation campaign.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: lavatrance

I've never been keen on the idea that we did NOT go to the moon but then in an article on Gumshose News someone asked how did the two astronaughts and the moon buggy all fit into that little landing thing?

To make matters worse someone also asked why was no dust kicked up by the take off rockets on the landing module it lifted off the moon surface again?

Worse still was the question, if the lift off of the landing module was filmed, that means the camera must have been outside the landing module and on the ground. If this was the case then when and how did they retrive the camera? Do the pictures and the dates all match up?

To make matters worse, the author of the article stated that some of the rock samples that were later anyalsed and displayed on earth showed signs of radioactiviy but some didin't? Later on, in the same way Mercedaes was not allowed to examine the car Lady Diana died in, no one was allowed to test all the rocks that came back from the moon for radioactivity.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: lavatrance

I've never been keen on the idea that we did NOT go to the moon but then in an article on Gumshose News someone asked how did the two astronaughts and the moon buggy all fit into that little landing thing?


The rover was attached to the outside of tke LM.



To make matters worse someone also asked why was no dust kicked up by the take off rockets on the landing module it lifted off the moon surface again?


1) The ascent engine thrust was directed mostly against the body of the descent stage.
2) Whoever asked the question has obviously never watched the TV footage - there is very obviously dust raised by the take-off.



Worse still was the question, if the lift off of the landing module was filmed, that means the camera must have been outside the landing module and on the ground. If this was the case then when and how did they retrive the camera? Do the pictures and the dates all match up?


It was filmed live on TV, controlled remotely from Earth.



To make matters worse, the author of the article stated that some of the rock samples that were later anyalsed and displayed on earth showed signs of radioactiviy but some didin't? Later on, in the same way Mercedaes was not allowed to examine the car Lady Diana died in, no one was allowed to test all the rocks that came back from the moon for radioactivity.



I have a dozen volumes of research in conference proceedings saying otherwise.

Seriously, this is exactly the point I made above: people put absolutely no effort into verifying anything for themselves and just swallow unquestioningly anything they read.
edit on 21/3/2017 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: tyop



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Azureblue


I've never been keen on the idea that we did NOT go to the moon but then in an article on Gumshose News someone asked how did the two astronaughts and the moon buggy all fit into that little landing thing?


The "moon buggy" folded up and was stowed in the descent stage:



You can watch them deploy it:




To make matters worse someone also asked why was no dust kicked up by the take off rockets on the landing module it lifted off the moon surface again?


There is some dust kicked up, but it is less noticible than the debris from the landing stage:




Worse still was the question, if the lift off of the landing module was filmed, that means the camera must have been outside the landing module and on the ground. If this was the case then when and how did they retrive the camera?


It was a television camera. Why would they need to retrieve it?


Do the pictures and the dates all match up?


Absolutely:

www.hq.nasa.gov...


To make matters worse, the author of the article stated that some of the rock samples that were later anyalsed and displayed on earth showed signs of radioactiviy but some didin't?


Perhaps because some samples are radioactive and others are not?


Later on, in the same way Mercedaes was not allowed to examine the car Lady Diana died in, no one was allowed to test all the rocks that came back from the moon for radioactivity.


The lunar samples have been (and continue to be) examined by professionals all over the world, including Russia.



If the Soviets thought they were genuine, you can rest assured that they were.



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 04:03 AM
link   
These kinds of threads make me question people's intelligence. LOL

So the moon landing is a hoax, yet every country is on it, including Russia and China, who would proudly make this "hoax" public in order to embarrass America.

This kind of like the earth is flat theory, it does not require much brain power. LOL

I bet these kinds of people wonder how Jurassic Park managed to get the dinosaurs to cooperate with filming or how James Cameron managed to survive the Titanic sinking in order to make the movie. LOL


edit on 21-3-2017 by Mictain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2017 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: MacK80

Nice story. Now, do you have anything to back up this urban legend?

(...and I mean anything new, other than all of the other alleged evidence we've already heard.)





True or not; that's the more prevalent conspiracy to me. Who seriously doubts we can get to the moon? Flat Earthers, and people courageous enough to associate with them? Those people are on the verge of denying mathematics itself.

Edit: There is like 3 versions of the same basic story though. They found an Alien/Nazi/Ancient Human base on the moon. Right? Easy popculture references? Sure! More confabulation? Maybe! I remain skeptical of how easy it would have been to not document/separately document parts of the mission for different purpose than officially reported.
edit on 21-3-2017 by MacK80 because: (no reason given)







 
12
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in

join