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: 104
29
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 06:47 PM
link   

You said idiotic mistakes. This image is a single photo.


Nope, I'm correct. The photo you posted was altered. The other photo was not. I find it childish that you keep insisting people are idiots. Please act like an adult when corresponding or please find another outlet for your opinions.

Instead of trying to talk down to everyone and playing "lets find the mistakes", why don't you simply explain your point of view like an adult and in clear english. I am simply not interested in playing , "WHERE'S WALDO".




posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 04:02 AM
link   
The lunar missions are totaly faked and staged up.
Just seeing the lunar lander in an area made to look like the moon on scales with wiers atached to it makes it clear.




This one is iluminated to make it look like on the moon.


This speaks for it's self, the lem is hanging above a lunar modle while up to the top of the picture we can all see where it really is.
apolloreality.bravehost.com...


Making the iviorment.



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


^
^^
Pepsi...

By the way, you're photos were "hotlinked" and did not work for me. However, I went directly to the website these photos came from and looked around.

You do realize (I hope) that these photos are showing a TRAINING and TEST area -- it is not surprising that they created a moon-like place to test equipment and train astronauts. I would have been shocked if a test facility such as this did NOT exist.

Furthermore, the LEM in these photos does not even look like the LEM that went to the moon -- it is similar, but not the same. If this was really the place that they suppossedly "filmed the fake moon landings", then don't you think they would have gotten the spacecraft right? Plus the "moon-like" surface in these photos looks nothing like what we saw on TV and NASA's photos during the Apollo Missions. If they did actually faked the Moon landings (and I think we really DID go to the Moon), then they certainly did not do it at this facility.

[edit on 9/26/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 26 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
www.hq.nasa.gov...

VERY STRANGE:

In front there is a grey sand.

A little further on there is a stream of white lava, the famous Moonlava.

There is a clean line that separate grey sand from Moonlava.

Then that is not a mountain but a volcano.

HEY, ARE THERE VOLCANOES ON THE MOON?



But that volcano doesn't show shades, tones, nuances, gradations of a real one.

That volcano is painted on a panel. It looks flat.

Do flat volcanoes exist?








posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


That's all you have? The mountain slopes don't have enough tonal variation, thus they must have been painted onto the photo? This is the huge error that you've been riddling us about for three days now?

Since there is no erosion on the moon, I'm not surprised that mountain slopes are sometimes flat and devoid of cracks and crevices.

...And I'm not a geologist, but I always thought that lunar lava was darker (hence the darker mare or "seas" on the moon.) However, if the lighter material really is lava, what makes you think it had to come from the mountain in that photo (Mount Hadley). The lava could have come from anywhere. But as I said, I'm not convinced that is actually lava at the base of the mountain.

I'm not even convinced that the lighter-looking material actually is lighter -- it could be the fact that it is in the distance, so the photo is just making it appear lighter.

Here's a photo of the Apollo 15 landing site. That's mount Hadley on the left, with an impact crater (that impact crater can be seen in your photo behind the rover.) That long rift is the Hadley Rille, which was possibly caused be the collapse of a sub-surface lava tube. The specific LM landing site in in the center of the picture, on the "near" side of the Hadley Rille. In this photo, I don't see any lighter material between the landing site and Mount Hadley, except for the actual slope of the Mountain. (the slopes, by the way, have a flat look -- no "shades, tones, nuances, gradations", as you say, but it is still a real mountain.)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

EDIT TO ADD:
Here's another photo taken a little closer to Mt. Hadley, focusing on the Mountain. It was taken 2 days before the one you posted, hence the difference in the shadows. Does this one look better?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


one phrase DOF , please look it up



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Why paint a surface like the moon and hang the lem over it, training with artistic side in it now?
Why spend the time to hang the lem over a fake moon platform is something I don't get, and I should mention that the platfor is suspended on some scales and then the lem suspended over the platform it's self, this has nothing to do with training.

Blowing up a large radius area to make craters also has nothing to do with training, it's simply a scam, isn't it clear to you by now?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 03:08 PM
link   



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Your interpretation of the photo is completely absurd. I don't know what else to say other then that.

Also, just curious but when the Apollo rockets launched, if they didn't go to the moon, where do you think they went? I have asked you this question 3 times now but never have gotten an answer but I would appreciate an answer from you this time skepticfriend.

thanks.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


I'll try to respond point-by-point:

1. Flat Volcano - I already dicussed this in an earlier post. It's not a volcano, it's a mountain -- and so what if there is very little tonal variations to the grey color. That proves nothing.

2. Cartoon - It is useless to respond to editorial comments. Please present facts.

3. Dirtyness - I don't understand. Are you expecting to see more dirt or less dirt?

4. Plaster Thickness - Again, I don't understand the problem...Do you think there is something wrong with the thickness of the soil? Be more specific.

5. House of Tramps - Editorial Comment.

6. No Shadows - Well, finally a specific comment. That mountain is running at about a 45 degree angle away from our viewpoint. The part of the mountain on the right is closer to us than the part of the mountain on the left, so the sun is actually shining directly on that end of the Mountain.
Here's a photo of the Mountain. The landing site is in the middle of this pic, on the "near" side of that rift. You can see the mountain angles away -- and you could see that the mountain barely has any shadow on the side facing the landing site. There is a small shadow, but the photo you colored on with your crayon is taken 2 days after this photo was taken...2 days on the moon makes a big difference when it comes to the position of the sun.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

7. Sorry, but I can't read the next comment (the one right above the rover)...it says "sweepings" or "sweethings" or somethink like that.

8. The Most Incedible Buffoon - Another editorial cooment to which I'm not going to brother to respond.


[edit on 9/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


pepsi --

1. First of all, why would they need to hang the LEM at all if they were actually faking a Moon landing? The full LEM (with legs) was never filmed while actually landing on the moon. It was filmed approaching the Moon, and the top half (the ascent stage) of it was filmed leaving the Moon. But NASA fakers would have no need to film the LEM landing on the moon.

2. This was a training facility. It wasn't a secret that it existed. The public and media knew all about this training facility. Even Walter Cronkite was suited up back in the late 1960's to see how the cables help the astronauts feel what 1/6 gravity feels like. That was the point of this facility. Cables supported the astronauts so they could get used to walking in 1/6 gravity.

The LEM trainer was also rigged up to operate as if it were in 1/6 gravity. They painted-on lunar surafce may have been there to simulate the hazards of landing on the moon...Maybe the astronauts were training on how to miss big craters. (by the way, some of the astronauts did not think very highly of this training facility. They didn't think the simulation was very effective, but it was a valiant attemp by the engineers to simulate 1/6 gravity.)

Why not paint it like the Moon if the Moon is the purpose of the training? Would it be more accuarte to build actaul craters for training? Sure -- and in fact they did this at another facility.

3. AND MOST OBVIOUS OF ALL...as I said before, the cratered ground and the LEM they used look NOTHING LIKE the photos and video from the moon. IF they actually faked the moon landings, they definitely did not do it at this facility, using this LEM. Do you have a response to that?


EDIT TO ADD:
...and, by the way, NASA still uses this facility today. They are test "dropping" the new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle there, simulating the landing process. The Orion is the capsule that will take us back to the Moon before 2020. It won't return to Earth by "splashing down" but by landing on airbags.

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 9/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   


pepsi --

1. First of all, why would they need to hang the LEM at all if they were actually faking a Moon landing? The full LEM (with legs) was never filmed while actually landing on the moon. It was filmed approaching the Moon, and the top half (the ascent stage) of it was filmed leaving the Moon. But NASA fakers would have no need to film the LEM landing on the moon.


I will have to answer.

A you did not answer my question, why is the lem hanged on a platfor suspended it's self on scales.

B Who are you to say it was not taking off (by wiers) it's a still picture.

C It was suspended over a platfor suspended it's self in the air , so they had to get it there some how to film it siting on the platform, so they got it there by wiers.

D
And who filmed the astronaut landing on the moon taking the first step since it was the first step for human kind on the moon, who was outside filming it? ,and I contradict you, the lunar lander was filmed while descending and landing.
Here it is.
www.youtube.com...
But who filmed the lunar lander landing on the moon is more of a puzle
?



They painted-on lunar surafce may have been there to simulate the hazards of landing on the moon...

this is by far the most high intelectual response I was expecting.
What hazards? painted craters? with a flat surface of a few sqare meeters.



Maybe the astronauts were training on how to miss big craters. (by the way, some of the astronauts did not think very highly of this training facility. They didn't think the simulation was very effective, but it was a valiant attemp by the engineers to simulate 1/6 gravity.)

You can simulate 1/6 gravity with out painting out a moon surface.



Why not paint it like the Moon if the Moon is the purpose of the training?

A Because that place is no where big enough, you take a few steps and you fall down on earth(from the moon)

B The craters are flat just painted there, it's just a flat surface that has nothing to do with training, even the ground is flat.

C This is the most understandable thing to understand, they suspended the moon platform in the air so the landscape won't be seen in the background, so only the sky at night would be seen, it's just like on the moon isn't it, other reason for why they would build the moon platform suspended on scales?





3. AND MOST OBVIOUS OF ALL...as I said before, the cratered ground and the LEM they used look NOTHING LIKE the photos and video from the moon. IF they actually faked the moon landings, they definitely did not do it at this facility, using this LEM. Do you have a response to that?

Very possible they used diferent lems to test the look, and at night it does look like the moon.



[edit on 27-9-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The video of the landing looks very fake because it is very fake...BUT NASA never used that footage and try to pass it off as an actual landing on the moon...What you showed is a 5-second movie of a model of the LEM making a simulated moon landing. I don't know if NASA ever showed this obvious SIMULATION but if they did, they NEVER TRIED TO PASS IT OFF AS THE ACTUAL LANDING.

The LEM in this movie is missing the gold foil that surrounds the bottom of the lander. And it would be impossible to film the landing anyway, because there was no camera sitting at the landing site waiting for the LM to land.

No, this is simply a movie simulation made by someone who wanted to show what the lunar landing would look like. NASA does this all the time. Remember the animation of the rovers landing on Mars, with the big cocoon of airbags bouncing along the surface. That was only an animation to give people an idea of what the landing looks like...and so was this moon movie.


B Who are you to say it was not taking off (by wiers) it's a still picture.


If this still picture was showing the LM taking off, then whoever set up this "Hoax" (as you call it) up should be fired. Only the top half of the LM takes of during the ascent phase. The legs stay behind on the moon. Here is a real video of a moon take-off, filmed by a camera left behind by those same astronauts, and remote-controlled from Earth.
www.youtube.com...


C It was suspended over a platfor suspended it's self in the air , so they had to get it there some how to film it siting on the platform, so they got it there by wiers.


The system of wires and hydraulics were created to simulate 1/6 gravity for training purposes. If they wanted to put the LM on a platform, why not simply use a common construction crane?


this is by far the most high intelectual response I was expecting.
What hazards? painted craters? with a flat surface of a few sqare meeters.

Would it have been more realistic to creat actual craters? Yes -- but they chose not to do it at this facility because that wasn't the point of the training being done there. They decided to go the cheap route an simply paint the hazrds. Was it the best idea? No -- of course not, but it obviously has nothing to do with the hoax because we saw actual craters (with depth) during Apollo. No amount of bad lighting would convince anyone that those painted craters were the ones shown in the real Apollo photos and movies.

...And you still haven't responded to the fact that the LM in those photos was not the same design as the LM shown during the Apollo missions, Therefore that LM was not used to film a "hoax".



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
oops- double post
sorry


[edit on 9/28/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Then maybe you can tell me why susped the moon surface on a platform, because it makes no sence to me,, you can't fall off the moon by going to the edge of the moon because the moon is round, it has nothin to do with gravity because it's only about 30 meeters tall, you can't train on it because the space is too small, further it poses a risk to the astronauts, and it's flat and painted over.
Do you want me to beilive you? when a platfor suspended on a construction scale is supose to serve what?

So acording to you, they susspended a platfor above at about 30 meeters hight , they painted it and decorated it so the astronauts can train
30 meeters above on a platfor that has a few sqare meeters, painted like the moon with absolutly a flat surface


God I love your answers, you say but they did make craters afrer that, and you get away by not answering the question, when in fact I'm asking about that platform you go and say, but they did build craters later, what kind of an answer is that? it's not even on the same subject.
I was asking you why build a platform above at about 30 meeters high with a surface that is small in size and whith flat craters, I don't care if they went later and used some dinamite, I'm talking about the platform, not what they did later.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by pepsi78]

[edit on 28-9-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
...

So acording to you, they susspended a platfor above at about 30 meeters hight , they painted it and decorated it so the astronauts can train
30 meeters above on a platfor that has a few sqare meeters, painted like the moon with absolutly a flat surface


...



Hey, Pepsi 78, Soylent Green Is People is a humorist.




Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...
Here's a photo of the Mountain. The landing site is in the middle of this pic, on the "near" side of that rift. You can see the mountain angles away -- and you could see that the mountain barely has any shadow on the side facing the landing site. There is a small shadow, but the photo you colored on with your crayon is taken 2 days after this photo was taken...2 days on the moon makes a big difference when it comes to the position of the sun.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
...
Here's a photo of the Apollo 15 landing site. That's mount Hadley on the left, with an impact crater (that impact crater can be seen in your photo behind the rover.) That long rift is the Hadley Rille, which was possibly caused be the collapse of a sub-surface lava tube. The specific LM landing site in in the center of the picture, on the "near" side of the Hadley Rille. In this photo, I don't see any lighter material between the landing site and Mount Hadley, except for the actual slope of the Mountain. (the slopes, by the way, have a flat look -- no "shades, tones, nuances, gradations", as you say, but it is still a real mountain.)




In this photo I see only plaster, NO GREY SAND, no mountain.




Originally posted by jfj123
...

Also, just curious but when the Apollo rockets launched, if they didn't go to the moon, where do you think they went? I have asked you this question 3 times now but never have gotten an answer but I would appreciate an answer from you this time skepticfriend.

thanks.


In the middle of Pacific Ocean.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   


Also, just curious but when the Apollo rockets launched, if they didn't go to the moon, where do you think they went? I have asked you this question 3 times now but never have gotten an answer but I would appreciate an answer from you this time skepticfriend.

It's simple, it went in to orbit and they just orbited the earth then returned.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   


Originally posted by jfj123
...

Also, just curious but when the Apollo rockets launched, if they didn't go to the moon, where do you think they went? I have asked you this question 3 times now but never have gotten an answer but I would appreciate an answer from you this time skepticfriend.

thanks.


In the middle of Pacific Ocean.


Interesting... What makes you think that the rockets all dumped into the ocean? Do you happen to have any photos showing the complete rockets coming down into the ocean? or floating in the ocean?



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 06:43 PM
link   

It's simple, it went in to orbit and they just orbited the earth then returned.


Interesting...
So you are saying, we had the technology to get into space and orbit the earth then come back down to earth.
Is it that really far of a stretch to, instead of orbiting earth, goto and orbit the moon and instead of landing on earth, land on the moon?



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:55 AM
link   



Interesting...
So you are saying, we had the technology to get into space and orbit the earth then come back down to earth.
Is it that really far of a stretch to, instead of orbiting earth, goto and orbit the moon and instead of landing on earth, land on the moon?

The apolo mission had problems, they could not keep the lem going, it simply crashed here on earth and buzz ejected before it did.


I have been over this, today they do not know how to get a man on the moon using old apoplo tehnology, today they worry about gamma radiation on the moon and how it would penetrate the walls of the ship and how the astonauts would be in danger, go see for your self, it's all on nasa's web site, and they played golf on the moon, this is a joke.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 101  102  103    105  106  107 >>

log in

join