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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Why can Hubble show stars but Apollo Fottage Doesn't,???????????????


Because hubble is built to take pictures of stars and the apollo fottage wasn't.

I'll explain it slow....
- stars are faint.
- to take pictures of the you need to expose the film for a few seconds.
- if they did this on the bright side of the moon, the subject matter (ie. the moon and the astronauts would have been just a field of white.
- the shutter speed in bright light would need to be in the hundreths of seconds probably like 1/500 speed (1 500th of a second) NOT LONG ENOUGH TO EXPOSE THE LIGHT OF EVEN THE BRIGHTEST OF STARS.




posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
it's like saying apples don't taste like oranges, so they must not have grown on trees.

[edit on 18-7-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:45 AM
link   
You know, there was a time way back in the 50s and 60s when planes and other equipment WASN'T tested for 15 or 20 years before being accepted Siberian. Kelly Johnson designed the U-2, and 18 months later it flew, and within about two years it was flying over the Soviet Union. The LEM was tested here on Earth for a few flights, then taken out to space and flown to ensure it wasn't going to leak, and that it was going to fly the way they thought it would, then it went to the moon.

The reason there was no blast crater on landing was because as they came down, they DECREASED the throttle as they slowed. If they didn't decrease on landing then they wouldn't have stayed on the moon.



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   
I was tracking down some loose threads, related to our discussion here, and was going to show you guys this certain photo...

I asked for some assistance in this forum. One of the moderators was quite helpful! He also moved the 'thread' to Aliens & UFOs.

It's in a thread titles 'Apollo 12 archive photos'...

Check it out! Interesting photo...

Any comments on that or the urls coming up when googling the 'photo number'?



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
This photo?



this is an image used by many as "proof" of UFO's, not the apollo hoax. These two ideas would tend to disagree with eachother. (ie how could there be UFO's if they were not on the moon.) Oh right is was filmed in area 51


both are wrong BTW. it's a light leak on the film, probably during developing.

[edit on 19-7-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Heh, Mad Man ... you have a point.


jra

posted on Jul, 19 2005 @ 02:17 PM
link   
In regards to that Apollo 12 photo. It's what's referred to as a sunstrike. Generally the frames at the begining and at the end of some rolls had them.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
something cool...

google moon mission map



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Woould you let me shoot you with a gun while you're wearing the space suite that the astronuts wore on the moon??


jra

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Woould you let me shoot you with a gun while you're wearing the space suite that the astronuts wore on the moon??


Personally i'd say no. Where are you going with this question?



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
lol also another piece of proof from when we landed is the actual radio transmission from the astronauts. they go on for about 20 min about how thin the layer of dust on the moon is. this is because they had a theory that due to the moon flying around in space for billions of years that it would of grabed a bunch of dust during that time. they where looking for like 3 to 5 feet of the stuff. guess how much they found? about 2 inches. this is actually proof of the young earth theory but can be used to show they actually where surpised because they where actually there.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Woould you let me shoot you with a gun while you're wearing the space suite that the astronuts wore on the moon??


let me guess.
micrometeoroids?
not nearly as dangerous as a bullet.
satallites operate for years, and suffer minimal danmage from these tiny objects. many astronuats have done space walks in orbit and are adiquately protected.



posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Because they are in under the VAN A Belt and the satelites are too, plus NASA has not said space rocks STOPPED hitting the moon so according to thier therory rocks should be hitting every day.


jra

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   
"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Oh and meteorites hit the Earth all the time too. Your point? The odds of getting hit by one are high, here or on the moon.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Do you know what the odds are of a meteorite even coming CLOSE to the astronauts are? Insanely high. You would have to have constant impacts in large numbers to even come close to them.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
I proove my case again and again and AGAIN, Listen kid did you read/hear what I asked and what YOU typed, all you did was Prove even more that NASA faked it, I said why don't they show when they got on the moon,(I think it was Apollo 16) video footage of the astroNUTs who UN-loaded the Moon car and got in and started riding around in it? here if you can't understand WHAT IM SAYING I'LL ASK IT THIS WAY, THE REAL reason they don't have fottage of the astroNUTs who was the first to UNload get in and drive the moon car, is because it's all FAKE FAKE FAKE,they show fottage of the astroNUT driving it around but not when they supposedly unloded it transformed it. The CCCP nad USA were controled by Illuminati and the space programs about going to planets are nothing but masonic Indoctranations, thats why CCCP didn't say anything about the FAKE Moon landingS. www.hourofthetime.com...


I haven't seen any visible evidence of your existence either, so you must be fake, an intelligent chatbot designed by the . honchos of the New World Order to make us doubt the human race's accomplishments! Fake!

As to the "multiple" light sources, I'm assuming it pertains to the picture with the astronaut illuminated on the side were shadows are; it's called surface reflection.

And no stars in any footage from the moon? It's the same on Earth at daytime; light pollution. The sun's light drowns out the weaker light of the other stars.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   
Course "we" did it... The ones who think that we didn't can U2U to me and i swear that i can come up with an explanation to every "problem" that they have...



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Because they are in under the VAN A Belt and the satelites are too, plus NASA has not said space rocks STOPPED hitting the moon so according to thier therory rocks should be hitting every day.


solar radiation no matter how consentrated cannot stop meteors from entering earths atmosphere. ever seen and asteroid shower? or a falling star? that is atseroids falling to earth and being burnt up in our atmosphere not the VA belt.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   
www.futuresunltd.com...

It is long but interesting. Here is an Apollo insider admitting faking the missions for his close friend. What about that?



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Also, I would like to take the opinion of members here about the fourth scenario presented in www.aulis.com... . I would appreciate it if a photographer can give his opinion.

I want to present the other point of view here at www.braeunig.us...

and please I want honestly the idea of members, preferably experts, if they think the debunkers are right on or just exaggerating.

Personally, I find what Jack White says in the above link hard to debunk (I mean that of the composite) . The man may have exaggerated things, but that photo and many others are quite interesting.
thanks



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join