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.

 

NASA Post Thousands Of Images Online To Prove Moon Landings Were Real

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

It doesn't need to be proof for you. It is enough proof for me, there's an old saying that "one mans truth, is another mans lie" and it's something I stick with. Because we dont believe the same thing doesn't mean you are right and I'm wrong it means that we differ on something, I will defend your right to disagree with me and I hope you'd do the same no matter how foolish you might think I'm being.

I do not believe the official story or at least that we went when we did and walked on the Moon because I believe there is enough evidence across not just the internet but also a ton of books and documentaries that brought me to that conclusion. The proof that governments will do what they need to do is clear across the world in every country, and again we might differ but if someone tells me a lie and I know they're lying, anything else they say is put into doubt and unless they can convince me otherwise (which NASA hasn't) then it wont change it. (Unless they're under 10 years old. Kids lie, but do so for silly reasons. Adults lie to protect themselves.)




posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

I dont think I put the first time was a complete failure (unless I remembering wrong, which wouldn't shock me) I was talking about their attempts to build rockets were failures, the US had enough problems with their rocket building and it was only after they brought in Germans/Nazi Rocket designers that they started to get better at it. Again I dont think I said the first landing was a failure.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

How I usually do it (in their new interface, I think the previous was better):

1 - Click the "search photos" link at the top left;
2 - Scroll to the bottom of the page and, on the "Search using NASA Photo IDs" text area write the ID of the photo(s) you are looking for, for example, AS11-40-5903;
3 - Click the "Run Query" button;
4 - Click on the photo you want to see;
5 - On the new page scroll down (if needed) until you see the "ALL DOWNLOAD OPTIONS" tab. Click it;
6 - Choose the size or format (as I said before, some photos are in TIFF format) and download it;
7 - Enjoy.


PS: this is their version of photo AS11-40-5903. As you can see, it's bigger, uncropped and looks more like a scanned photo than a digital photo, like the photos from the other sites.

Edited to add that, if you use only "AS11-40" as the photo ID you will get all the photos available that have an ID starting like that. In the same way, if you use only "AS11" you will get all ther Apollo 11 photos.

Unfortunately, they miss some photos that exist on other sites.
edit on 7/2/2016 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85

Wouldn't actually going to the Moon be a much more convincing demonstration of technical superiority?

One af the many mistakes that hoax believers make is that they assume that the odds of performing an actual manned moon-landing would be likely to fail, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.

This makes no sense. Flying to the Moon is an engineering problem with known (or knowable) equipment requirements. You need large, multi-stage rockets, a guidance system that can navigate there & back, a vehicle that can land and take off, and life support systems to keep your crew alive. You can also send unmanned probes to measure the environment between here & there to help define your craft. All of these can be built & tested in a methodical, step-by-step process.

Everything is in the open. Nobody has to be looking over their shoulder or dealing with attacks of conscience . If they fail, the root causes can be found & fixed and they can try again. No honor is lost because everyone knows it is damn difficult. Even if the government decides it's not worth the cost to continue and pulls the plug, everyone knows it was a good try and at least we learned a lot in the effort.

On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time. America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years. Don't forget that the secret has to be kept for all time: No matter when it's found out, it will still be a world-wide public-relations storm that would make Iraqi WMDs look like an absent-minded goof. It doesn't matter how old you are, you can still be put on trial.

For those who think we faked-it to show-up the Soviets, do you really think that an administration that couldn't cover-up a 3rd-rate hotel burglary could keep this secret from the KGB? Do you think that America's mortal enemy would not use this as the ultimate proof before the entire world of capitalism's perfidity and corruption?

Don't forget that, as far as we knew, the Soviets were also going to land on the Moon, whether we made it or not. They didn't cancel their program until 1976. If we faked it and they did it for real, then who has the technological upper hand?

Any way you look at it, faking it would be more risky and less likely to succeed - with more dire cost to the nation in the event of failure - than actually digging-in, doing the work and going for real.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85




I think the first time was a complete failure, the second they went and orbited the moon and on the third they landed and walked about and from then on it happened almost as they say.


Except for the fact that other countries were monitoring the moon landings such as our competition in the space race Russia.

www.scientificamerican.com...

Even Ham radio operators heard the Apollo 11 landing transmissions as they happened.


In July of 1969 a ham radio operator and amateur radio-astronomer by the name of Larry Baysinger, W4EJA, accomplished an amazing feat. He independently detected radio transmissions from the Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface.


www.arrl.org...

So unless these people in which one is the son of Nikita Kruschev were paid to lie it really happened when it did...it wasn't faked, lied about, or done on another Apollo mission.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery




One af the many mistakes that hoax believers make is that they assume that the odds of performing an actual manned moon-landing would be likely to fail, but that executing a hoax would somehow be automatically successful.



I believe Neil Degrasse Tyson said it best.

It would be cheaper to go to the moon than it would be to fake it.



I love the moon hoaxing crowd...they make make smile.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
That's what NASA and the U.S. government want you to think.



You forgot the Masons. Remember, we run the show.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: CaptainBeno

You know people will just say "fake" or "Nasa always lies"

But very cool pictures anyway. Thanks for this!



No, they'll say a (2-D) picture is rarely 'proof' of an event.

To me, though I don't have an opinion of the probability of a hoax, it looks like 'NASA blinked'.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 11:59 AM
link   
I read that NASA had staged scenes so they can use these in case the vidio transmissions failed.
The photo shows a rock that would actually be closer to the Sun than the astronaut if the light source was from the Sun. Also, note that the ground around the rock is less lit. This would indicate that this photo is a staged one. The shadows of the two should be similar. Perhaps the astronaut is close to a light colored wall and is getting a lot of reflected light as suggested in an earlier post. This photo proves nothing other than it was not taken on the Lunar surface.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: tsurfer2000h

This is going to end up as one of those, whatever you put up I'll put up something to dispute it. To the ham radio, people can be fooled, radio signals can be bounced back and forth and the same goes for ham radios. Hell (and this is just an idea off the top of my head) maybe all the footage was coming from the orbit of the moon and the stuff with them on it was already filmed and being sent back (it probably wasn't that). Like I said it'll only go back and forth so we'll have to call it a tie and let us both believe what we wish.

I dont believe it happened the way they said it did and you say it did go as they said.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 12:45 PM
link   


Wouldn't actually going to the Moon be a much more convincing demonstration of technical superiority?


It would but NASA just admitted that they're still trying to figure out how to get people through the Van Allen belts alive, so I wouldn't hold your breath.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dwoodward85
a reply to: Hecate666

I agree with you that they never went the first time and I actually think they didn't get to walk on the moon until the third..


Who took all the 35mm pictures of the Earth then? in deep space, and on the Moon...please don't say Robbie the Robot.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: doug9694

UH-huh, you read that? Really? I read they went.

Photo shows a rock nearer to the sun does it? By what, a few feet? What difference is that going to make do you think?



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Nope, they absolutely did not just admit that.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85

It'll only go back and forth if you ignore the evidence that is provided for you and always fall back on "I don't believe..."

The ham radio people were pointing an antenna at the moon, and did not hear the Houston side of the conversation, just the parts coming from the moon. They also heard it slightly before the TV because they weren't relying on a signal being routed from Australia, who also had dishes pointed at the moon.

People can indeed be fooled, and if you think we didn't go then you have been.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CaptainBeno

but the problem is photos can be faked so easily. There's no evidence ever provided about the "things that matter". The most obvious question being simply "why haven't they gone back???" With todays tech going there should be a cake walk if they actually could make it. So obviously they're hiding something.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Looking at photograph AS08-17-2710 and magnifying in on this, the anomaly seems to have strange lines (almost roads) emanating from it. I can understand the white complex as an aberration but the road like lines don't make a lot of sense in terms of a spoilt photograph. Picture



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Dwoodward85

I agreed with you, sorry it wasn't clear.


Most history taken from the scarps of documents are presented as fact but while close history, hundred maybe two hundred years ago further back I think most historians are going with "educated" work rather than actual fact.


History is written by the victors.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: templar knight
Looking at photograph AS08-17-2710 and magnifying in on this, the anomaly seems to have strange lines (almost roads) emanating from it. I can understand the white complex as an aberration but the road like lines don't make a lot of sense in terms of a spoilt photograph. Picture


Imo, thats an over contrasted photo from orbit, top of a lem and foot prints leading back and forth from it.



posted on Feb, 7 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

No, they admitted they're trying to get electronics and people through a DIFFERENT part of the Van Allen Belts where there's more radiation.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join