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.

 

The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF.

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Buzz Aldrin went "old school" on his ass.


I have to say that I laughed till I cried when I watched that whole video. I wasn't aware that had ever happened. I had to do some research to find more information about that incident: BBC Article

They don't call these folks the Greatest Generation for nothing.

-dex




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

This is an excellent example of what I call the PROOF syndrome.
Once the word has been capitalised its a hint that you're not going to find any.
The word Is "proof". If you have none, it won't magically appear if you capitalise it. Otherwise, I'd be posting stuff like FREE HARLEY, MILLIONS IN THE BANK and stuff like that.
Lazy marketing.
But I have no proof of that.
Cheers.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




1) Executive Orders authorizing various phases of the deception.


If you aim to perpetrate such a hoax...surely you're not going about it by the book ? It would be like thief leaving breadcrumbs to his hideout. To even suggest such nonsense is requirement for proof of hoax is ludicrous.



2) Memoranda from government officials and private contractors describing aspects of the hoax.


...and you surely dont write no memoranda describing your plans of massive hoax aimed at the world population. Ridiculous man. Just no good.



3) Blueprints for the special sound stages used to fake the film and videos.


Yeah...I saw those on e-bay...but couldnt afford it. It comes with a free coffee mug though.




4) Technical drawings of the rigging used to simulate reduced/zero gravity.

5) Detailed accounting records showing how the project was paid for.


Why would any of this be available...if the hoax was supposedly carried out it secret...and never admitted ? I dont get you man. Your reasoning is rather lacking.

The rest of the points are equally ridiculous in my view.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Maybe the title of the thread was a bit misleading. But when I saw who the author was it was clear to me that it wasn't going to be that kind of discussion.

While I have a little bit of reasonable doubt about a few conspiracies, the Moon Landing Hoax is not one of them.

Having said that, I believe it is a valid topic of discussion. There are a lot of people who either believe this nonsense, or are interested in finding out more about this unbelievable assertion. A recent example of this is a recently published research paper that looked at the expected amount of time before a conspiracy is revealed, based on the number of participants. One of the conspiracies that it addressed was the Moon Landing Hoax. It would take less than 4 years. This is the ATS thread where it was discussed.

ATS is one of the best sources on the Internet for dispelling rumors and addressing conspiracies in a logical and well documented manner. The OP is a good example of how to address this particular conspiracy. Ask a series of questions that must all be answered in a logical and well referenced manner in order for the theory to gain any respectability.

-dex



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   
They faked being half way to the moon and because of this I find the video and photographic evidence of such an event to be dubious at best.

I also under no circumstance can be led to believe that at that point and time in history would the United States have been willing to risk complete and utter failure with the entire world watching.
edit on 1-2-2016 by Helious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Biigs
I dont think i'll ever be able to get off the fence on this one.

They would have needed to test the equipment out on a mock moon to make sure whatever they put up there would work, so theres an excuse for a lot of things in this respect.

But also, why would they lie about it to their own people and indeed the world? Just to test the waters for future "feats of science" to lie about?


That's honest enough, in fact they did have a mock moon, (a very large model) to provide information for the lander, (I think)
It was kicked into touch after Apollo 11 as I understand it..Mmm cost a fortune too!
That we know that, is honest too though.
Still and all, who or what was the robot that took all the Apollo 11 35mm colour pictures of the Earth way out in space that show the Earth exactly as it was at the time...just like that?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Looks like the apollo lovers trying everything to keep their fakery alive.

We haven´t been there DJW0001, deal with it.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: DJW001

Thread Title:
"The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF"

First 18 words:
"Don't let the title fool you, this thread does not offer proof that the Moon landings were faked"

Thank you for setting the perfect example of why NEVER to trust a title here...
...and also, why that is so doggone regrettable.

Have a nice day


...


It happens, but some seem to be more privileged than others don't you know. The heading is false, and the priority requires it to be moved to the hoax section, while the internal content has no part to play..I know this.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: redoubt
a reply to: DJW001

Thread Title:
"The Moon Landings Were Faked: PROOF"

First 18 words:
"Don't let the title fool you, this thread does not offer proof that the Moon landings were faked"

Thank you for setting the perfect example of why NEVER to trust a title here...
...and also, why that is so doggone regrettable.

Have a nice day


...


It happens, but some seem to be more privileged than others don't you know. The heading is false, and the priority requires it to be moved to the hoax section, while the internal content has no part to play..I know this.


Nice try, but I took advantage of a journalistic trick. The topic is proof of the Moon Hoax... what it needs to be.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: webstra
Looks like the apollo lovers trying everything to keep their fakery alive.

We haven´t been there DJW0001, deal with it.


Okay, prove it. Unlike some people, I have made it explicitly clear what I would consider to be proof. What would you consider to be proof it did happen.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
They faked being half way to the moon and because of this I find the video and photographic evidence of such an event to be dubious at best.

I also under no circumstance can be led to believe that at that point and time in history would the United States have been willing to risk complete and utter failure with the entire world watching.


Okay, prove it. I've made it clear what would constitute PROOF.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You mean not one person thought to hang on to evidence to use for blackmail purposes if necessary? Clearly, you have led a sheltered life.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Big fat raspberries.

We went. There are recent pictures from other autonomous missions of the landers and the footprints of our astronauts. We also have a whole bunch of rocks.

Go. Away.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: tinymind

watch this short video and explain it! www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Restricted

I too have a bunch of rocks and a picture of a footprint on a beach, ill guess that i can safely claim it to be from the moon or mars, do you want to buy the eiffel tower i got it on sale atm.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 06:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Curious69
a reply to: Restricted

I too have a bunch of rocks and a picture of a footprint on a beach, ill guess that i can safely claim it to be from the moon or mars, do you want to buy the eiffel tower i got it on sale atm.


No, but I would like to run your samples through a mass spectrometer.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: webstra
Looks like the apollo lovers trying everything to keep their fakery alive.

We haven´t been there DJW0001, deal with it.


Okay, prove it. Unlike some people, I have made it explicitly clear what I would consider to be proof. What would you consider to be proof it did happen.


I like to have a rocket which bring me to the 6 apollo coordonates on the moon. Of course with multiple ultra HD connections to earth. After that i like to be returned to the earth safely.

But that is only happening in apollo fairytales....from almost 50 years ago.

After that whe only reached something like 250 miles LEO.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

So you know all known combinations of rock samples found on earth? no possible rock formation on earth could hold the same
minerals as on the moon, and how would you know if a rock was from the moon without collecting it there yourself.
Trust you say? well thats what it takes, the problem between the belivers/non belivers ARE trust so your solution accomplishes
nothing.
I still got that tower if interrested!



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I BELIEVE they did go to the moon, I also believe there was indeed a back up studio in case something went drastically wrong were a fake moon landing was filmed in real time, from the evidence such as reticle engravings passing behind air brushed and cut and paste prop's I also believe that vast amounts of cencorship were carried out on the still images from the apollo missions but the odd ARTIFACT did slip through as the AIR BRUSH MONKEY's had limited time to control the image content.

For me there is probably a studio at Area 51 and there was definitely some dirty work during the early stages but I am certain they did indeed go to the moon, just suspicious as to what exactly was disclosed to the public and there real reason for choosing the site's they did.

There are of course the infamous cases of argument such as how did they get the LAM to land safely in the moon's odd gravity which is off centre from the moon's core when they could not even do so safely on earth with the test bed prototypes just a few week's prior the actual rocket lift off.

There is also Guss Grissom, one of the US most heroic astronaut's whom had stated his own skepticism about whether they would reach the moon (though he had stated the effort and risk were worth it) and whom along with his team mates was killed, cooked alive, in the unmerciful apollo 1 capsule fire of 1967 which some strongly suspect was actually foul play though the official story is probably correct, it was an electrical fire in a dangerous and highly oxyginated environment, even there space suits were flammable.

However I do believe many of the images are genuine, the reflector pannels put up by the apollo astronauts have been returning usable data for the lunar laser ranging experiment for many decades now.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now I had a copy of new scientists some time ago, now long lost, in which evidence of the image manipulation including prop's with set numbers, image reticles behind objects on the image's and of course the ubiquitous shadow problem's indicating multiple light sources on some of the shot's was documented, if you search the net or even ATS those images are here somewhere.

But here are some light trivia site's.
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...
www.ufosightingsdaily.com...

And are they still doing it today, you can bet they are.
exopolitics.org...

Why would they do this, an entrenched policy to prevent culture shock, national security to ensure if there is any technology left form this ancient (probably earth based or originated and former human) civilization then they get first dib's on it, to keep within a deal with an alien power whom may be still here watching us and be responsible for destroying our previous civilization?.

And as for the Van Allen belt arguement, it fall's flat on it's face for me as the proponent's of it as a barrier refuse to take into account the relative density of the particles in the belt and the limited time of exposure to them which mean's it is possible (if risky) to pass through the belt unharmed.

edit on 1-2-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join