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.

 

Landing on the Moon: World's Greatest Propaganda Victory

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2005 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I saw that show too Syrinx.

The moon rocks were sent to more than 30 countries, and were analyzed and found to be created in lower gravity than earth, they were over 3 billion years old, compared to the oldest earth rocks which are around 130 million because of the nature of our planet (dynamic).

They explained the flag, the stars, the van allen belt, the shadows, the lift off crater. They even redid the moonwalk that people say was shown at half speed, but they couldn't duplicate the lightness of steps. It was a very good show. Conspiracy Moon Landing I think on National Geographic.

Anyone that claims it was faked needs to see this show.
Besides, as the saying goes, one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. This wasn't just an American achievement, it was one that the whole world benefitted from.




posted on May, 2 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrDead
This wasn't just an American achievement, it was one that the whole world benefitted from.


I agree with everything you said but this last statement. It was an achievement and victory for the USA in the war of propaganda between them and Russia. The USA would likely not have been anywhere near space nor pumped so much money into the race if they weren't so scared of the Russians getting there first.

Although it was an event the whole of mankind was in awe of, it certainly wasn't for the benefit of mankind in its motives.



posted on May, 2 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
You're right Nada, the political motives of it were pretty self serving. But science is a global thing. I believe the scientists and engineers and technicians and astronomers and anyone else involved in this weren't doing it because they could one up the Russians. I'd like to believe they were doing it because it had never been done, and to prove it could be done. I'll admit that landing on the moon didn't solve anything, and let the americans grab their crotch and spit at Ivan, but it did bring the world together for at least a little while and kind of open up a doorway of future exploration.

You know, at least thats what I'd like to think



posted on May, 3 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by new_falcon_XXI
And no, it's my first time and my first name here - and I'm not a girl, sorry.


[edit on 2-5-2005 by new_falcon_XXI]


That wasn't what I meant, your posts reminded me of SiberianTiger's.




posted on May, 3 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
It staggers me how much some of you just pass straight over peoples posts and facts towards debunking your claims of a hoax. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you were totally taking the piss.

I've still seen not ONE reason that has been provided that points towards the americans not having gone to the moon.

Good conspiracies at least have some element of truth, rather than none. or at least if you actually search for anwsers



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
give us the data on the pass/fail rate of our rocket program at the time of Sputnik.


Can anyone answer this?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
give us the data on the pass/fail rate of our rocket program at the time of Sputnik.
Can anyone answer this?


Google.
Follow up: What does the US's rocket success rate in the late 50's and early 60's have to do with an event that occured in the late 60's and early 70's? So are you know critizing and becomming skeptic over wether the US ever launched satellites into space in the first place? Lame arguement if true.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
give us the data on the pass/fail rate of our rocket program at the time of Sputnik.
Can anyone answer this?


Google.
Follow up: What does the US's rocket success rate in the late 50's and early 60's have to do with an event that occured in the late 60's and early 70's? So are you know critizing and becomming skeptic over wether the US ever launched satellites into space in the first place? Lame arguement if true.


Go take a pill Frosty!


Noumenon actually brought that up and I thought it was an excellent angle to pursue. I figured if there was anyone out there who was knowledgeable about those stats and willing to discuss it, that would be interesting to know about. It is very relevant, btw.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by UnMature
Alright look. To all the moon landing skepticists go to your local astronomy club and while looking at the stars ask the guy with the biggest telescope if he wouldn't mind focusing in on the Sea of Tranquility (easy to find by anyone with basic astronemy knowledge). You will, with a powerful enough telescope be able to see, faintly, the lunar lander that is still there.


' nuff said....

I think all "Moon Landing Hoax" beliefs are a result of people just wanting to rebel for the sake of anarchy. If you investigate all the factors of the moon landing -- technology, people, time-period, media etc. -- I think you will find it very illogical to claim the landing is a hoax. The goverment is run by corrupt capitalists, yes. But we really did land on the moon. Think about this: Think about how many people would have to be involved in the Moon Hoax. The goverment can't keep Area 51 under wraps but they've managed to ensure the hoax endured? Not likely. These alleged participants are still alive.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
The main reason everyone believes it is b/c you saw footage you THINK is real.

You believe it because the government and media told you it happened.

That's the bottom line. Unless we were actually there and in the know, we're going on pure faith. Kinda like believing in Jesus.

By the way, I never said "It NEVER happened!" I've simply said, 'what if it really didn't?' For the sake of discussion. I don't know why people havta get so bent outta shape for a mere suggestion...



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kalibur

Originally posted by UnMature
Alright look. To all the moon landing skepticists go to your local astronomy club and while looking at the stars ask the guy with the biggest telescope if he wouldn't mind focusing in on the Sea of Tranquility (easy to find by anyone with basic astronemy knowledge). You will, with a powerful enough telescope be able to see, faintly, the lunar lander that is still there.


' nuff said....



The equipment on the moon is even too small for the Hubble to see.
Somewhere around 15 times too small.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The main reason everyone believes it is b/c you saw footage you THINK is real.

You believe it because the government and media told you it happened.

That's the bottom line. Unless we were actually there and in the know, we're going on pure faith. Kinda like believing in Jesus.

By the way, I never said "It NEVER happened!" I've simply said, 'what if it really didn't?' For the sake of discussion. I don't know why people havta get so bent outta shape for a mere suggestion...


"At this point, I've come to believe that we did not actually land on the moon. I believe that our Hollywood technology at the time was light years ahead of our enemies'. I think NASA and someone in Hollywood (Stanley Kubric) got together and put together the world's most effective psych-warfare plan ever dreamed of: The Moon Landing."


hey kid, did you ever respond to the 800 lbs of moon rocks and the mirrors that apollo 11 left up there ? Clearly you think sputnik is more imprtant than actual tangible evidence.

and no one has gone up since we did because we only went to be first, and there is no prize for 2nd. Actually, that proves we went. Wouldn't the russians have "rushed" up there if they thought we faked it ?



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

"At this point, I've come to believe that we did not actually land on the moon. I believe that our Hollywood technology at the time was light years ahead of our enemies'. I think NASA and someone in Hollywood (Stanley Kubric) got together and put together the world's most effective psych-warfare plan ever dreamed of: The Moon Landing."


hey kid, did you ever respond to the 800 lbs of moon rocks and the mirrors that apollo 11 left up there ? Clearly you think sputnik is more imprtant than actual tangible evidence.


I didn't say without a doubt "IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.." I just wanted to discuss all the possibilities. And I knew someone would quote me on that, btw. So kudos.
You win the prize for being the bright one.


Sorry, I'm not being an a$$ to you, I'm finally off work and enjoying some Budweiser.

Sputnik was very important.. back then. My point was thus, it would be helpful to understand (at the point we "landed on the moon"), to know what the pass/fail rate was on all the attempts.

I've been waiting to see if anyone had some kind of knowledge of that.

Some have accused me of not being a scientist.. blah blah blah. That's quite the sharp insight.
I am not, in fact, a scientist - other than the political type found on a degree - so I like to wait and see if those members interested in this thread who actually are experts in that field to respond. One doesn't have to be a scientist or astrophysicist to know who to trust.


and no one has gone up since we did because we only went to be first, and there is no prize for 2nd. Actually, that proves we went. Wouldn't the russians have "rushed" up there if they thought we faked it ?


This point does not hold up for me. There is beyond much to learn. It would stand to reason that everyone would want to check it out - certainly there would be much to gain in many areas. No? If they can, they will, irregardless of what place they came in.

Have you ever looked into psychological operations? It's well worth the time.


[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 06:37 PM
link   
A good source of historical space launch information is at Mark Wade's Encyclopedia Astronautica:

www.astronautix.com...

The Russians were able to cover up early failures rather easily; most of East Florida could see the American boo-boos.

I seem to remember the Corona failing the first 13 launches.

As to the general topic I can only ask: If a tree falls in the forest and the government and MSM tells you so, is it possible that it happened that way?



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
WE did make the moon. It was, im my humble opinion, the most wasteful and boastful human endeavor ever undertaken. The equivalent of two little boys seeing who could piss higher up the wall. There was then, and is now
far more important acheivements of modern humanity being passed over in favor of kudos rather than genuine betterment of human society. Boys and their toys!!



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

"At this point, I've come to believe that we did not actually land on the moon. I believe that our Hollywood technology at the time was light years ahead of our enemies'. I think NASA and someone in Hollywood (Stanley Kubric) got together and put together the world's most effective psych-warfare plan ever dreamed of: The Moon Landing."


hey kid, did you ever respond to the 800 lbs of moon rocks and the mirrors that apollo 11 left up there ? Clearly you think sputnik is more imprtant than actual tangible evidence.


I didn't say without a doubt "IT DIDN"T HAPPEN.." I just wanted to discuss all the possibilities. And I knew someone would quote me on that, btw. So kudos.
You win the prize for being the bright one.



[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]


There's no discussion. It either did 100% happen, or 100% didn't happen. No "What If?". It's 'yes' or 'no'. That's it. End of discussion. May as well say "What if the Americans never won the Revolution? What if the Romans never existed? What if George Washington never existed? What if Alexander the Great never existed? What if the ancient Egyptians never existed? What if, what if, what if, what if."

Now you're trying to re-vive the dead horse slightly by saying "What about the pass / fail ratio of launched rockets".
It doesn't matter what the pass/fail ratio was or is. As long as 1 rocket made it up from the launch pad, that's all that's needed! It could be 100 failures for 1 success. It still doesn't mean there's 0% chance for success. Or that 1 rocket didn't make it off the launch pad into space.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:29 AM
link   
You guys keep talking about the mirrors and moon rock, think logically for a second if NASA did fake the moon landing they knew damn well sooner or later someone would find out, the problem most of you have is, what you don't get is when someone commits a crime THEY DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANY EVIDENCE, obviously if they faked the moon landing, they knew they couldn't get away with it...

My theory is that they sent robots (Some sort of robots) to leave fake evidence behind.

I think you guys should check out these two articles by Eric Hufschmid:

members.aol.com...

members.aol.com...



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   
lots of nice questions on those links but no real info proveing one way or the other.

all that bs about the technology available, while interesting to compare today's standards to yesterday's likewise proves nothing other than i imagine that there was a lot more wastage then today. i have used manual machineing tools. it is surpriseing at how well an UNSKILLED worker can do with them. heck even the class moron was able to do a decent job with them. and while i know that i have no clue as to use a slide rule. those that did use them were amazing. keep in mind that airplanes, autos, and even the first nukes were manufactured/designed useing these same tools. and just to let you know dc-3's that were desighned dureing ww2 i believe are still trusted and flying to THIS DAY. not bad for this "crap" equipment is it?.

[edit on 11-5-2005 by drogo]



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by OpenSecret2012
There's no discussion. It either did 100% happen, or 100% didn't happen. No "What If?". It's 'yes' or 'no'. That's it. End of discussion. May as well say "What if the Americans never won the Revolution? What if the Romans never existed? What if George Washington never existed? What if Alexander the Great never existed? What if the ancient Egyptians never existed? What if, what if, what if, what if."


You don't know that George Washington, the president lived or if he was a figment of someone's imagination. You trust he actually lived and breathed b/c you've been told about him all your life.

And of course I'm NOT saying George Washington is a fiction, just that neither you nor I saw him. We're taking alot of people's word onnit.


Thanks to all for the links.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
ok, I'll try one last time.

1) how did we get the mirrors on the moon ? Please note, if you are going to say we sent robots up there, can we actually assume that would be easier than sending men ? Please note, prof Van Allen himself has said the van allen belt would only do harm to a human if they spent a month in the belt. The apollo 11 crew spent 1 hour in the belt.

2) where did the 800 lbs of moon rocks come from ? Scientists in over 30 countries have examined them, and the inescapable conclusion is they were not from this earth, or made on this earth.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join