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: 112
29
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by Badge01
I think if you took a picture of a car with tracks in the mud, you could find a location from which to take a picture so that it looks for all the world like it got there leaving no tire tracks.

It might not be easy and might take uneven ground to hide some of the track.

But since this could happen, I believe that 'absence of obvious tire tracks in a few photos' is not evidence of anything. Even if none of the parked rover photos showed any tracks leading up - though very curious - it's not solid evidence of anything since it could happen by chance due to the photograph angles or something.

I also have to agree that even a total bungler is unlikely to make that kind of error.


I can't seem to find any mud on the moon, and it is solid evidence, the pictures are clear.
This is crap, you are not debunking anything, all are you saying is angles or something.
Something?

[edit on 18-10-2007 by pepsi78]


since you're so into tracks, how do explain the bootprints around the mirrors armstrong placed on the moon ? We can prove the mirrors are there, do the bootprints prove armstrong was there ?




posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   


since you're so into tracks, how do explain the bootprints around the mirrors armstrong placed on the moon ? We can prove the mirrors are there, do the bootprints prove armstrong was there ?

Not really, the russians put mirrors on the moon with out seting foot.
You don't need to send a man on the moon to put mirrors on the moon.
The mirrors may be there, this does not prove anything.



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78




since you're so into tracks, how do explain the bootprints around the mirrors armstrong placed on the moon ? We can prove the mirrors are there, do the bootprints prove armstrong was there ?

Not really, the russians put mirrors on the moon with out seting foot.
You don't need to send a man on the moon to put mirrors on the moon.
The mirrors may be there, this does not prove anything.


It is proof. The mirrors armstrong planted in tranquility bay are pinged by the McDonald Observatory. There are pictures of the mirrors on the moon with armstrongs bootprints next to them. Therefore, Armstrong was on the moon

It's actually very simple

OK, next example of tangible, physical, credible evidence

the moon rocks. They have been independently examined all over the world. There has never been a published report in a peer reviewed scientific journal disputing they are not from the moon. The Apollo rocks are identical in composition to the ruskie rocks.
Other soil samples collected by unmanned probes have been a much much smaller scale than the moon rocks brought back by the apollo missions, so there goes your unmanned theory right there. In fact, Apollo brought back 1,000 times more rock the the ruskies unmanned missions



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   


It is proof. The mirrors armstrong planted in tranquility bay are pinged by the McDonald Observatory.

As I said before, it does not take a man to be on the moon to put mirrors
on the lunar surface.




There are pictures of the mirrors on the moon with armstrongs bootprints next to them. Therefore, Armstrong was on the moon


I can take a picture in the studio with some mirrors next to me and say that I was there.
By the way, show me the picture.





It's actually very simple

OK, next example of tangible, physical, credible evidence

the moon rocks. They have been independently examined all over the world.



Probes can colect moon roks.



There has never been a published report in a peer reviewed scientific journal disputing they are not from the moon. The Apollo rocks are identical in composition to the ruskie rocks.

You are refering to rusians when you say ruskies rocks? because if you are then it's more than clear that a probe did the jobe, since rusians never set foot on the moon.



Other soil samples collected by unmanned probes have been a much much smaller scale than the moon rocks brought back by the apollo

There you go, probes.



missions, so there goes your unmanned theory right there. In fact, Apollo brought back 1,000 times more rock the the ruskies unmanned missions

Are they one meeter in diameter?
What is the difference betwen them?
Show me the moon rocks, I want to see how big they are.


I'm sorry I just don't buy the moon landings, with so much controversial information, and with so many dead people I do belivie something gives.
I put some questions and I see they can't be answered, in stead you counter me with other things.
All I got was yeahh bla bla bla ..angle something ..or childish things as: well can you answer my questions because you put one picture up and I put one up..
It's clear when you people run in a dead end it's hard for you to accept defeat.


and PS It's easy for the probe to collect biger moon roks since they dont weight that much on the moon because graviti is 1/6 so a 10 kilo moon rock would weight very little, no problem taking off with a 360kg cargo also , since it would weight about 60 kilos on the moon, when taking off.




[edit on 18-10-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Show me the moon rocks, I want to see how big they are.




I can't do the quote battle thing, so I'm just going to make this very simple. There are 2 indisputable, tangible, sets of credible, physical evidence the 6 apollo missions went to the moon.

Both sets of evidence have been independently examined internationally, even by rival nations that would love very much to expose a fraud

Neither set of evidence has been challenged by a peer review scientific journal.

1) The moon rocks.
2) The mirrors

Its proof we brought something back, and left something behind

It's proof man walked on the moon during the apollo missions


If you would like to learn more, I'll probably get in trouble for this, I have no idea how to do the external scource thingy;


Moon rocks
The Apollo Program collected a total of 382 kilograms of Moon rocks during the Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 missions. Analyses by scientists worldwide all agree that these rocks came from the Moon—no published accounts in peer-reviewed scientific journals are known that dispute this claim.[citation needed] The Apollo samples are easily distinguishable from both meteorites and terrestrial rocks[69] in that they show a complete lack of hydrous alteration products, they show evidence for having been subjected to impact events on an airless body, and they have unique geochemical characteristics. Furthermore, most are significantly older than the oldest rocks found on Earth (by up to 700,000,000 years). Most importantly, though, they share the same characteristics as the Soviet lunar samples that were obtained at a later date.[70].
en.wikipedia.org...


Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
No wheel tracks, poor antenna, moon rocks.

You are NASA buffoons agents that want to distract my readers from my

important argumentations, talking about insignificant details.


Originally posted by bigbrain

Ha, Ha, Ha,

Then, you are starting to go to the moon and you say: "OK, it's all right", BUT YOU HAVE NEVER TESTED THIS OLD CROCK



ON THE GROUND OF OUR PLANET and YOU WILL PILOT IT IN AN ENVIRONMENT THAT YOU DON'T KNOW.

The very least you had to do it was to test this strange piece of metal on the earth before testing it on the moon.

Nobody, except a raving mad, would go to the moon without testing the aircraft he will use for landing.

Ha, Ha, Ha,

What is this?



A spatial chicken on the spit?

At NASA there are a lot of jockers.







posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78




since you're so into tracks, how do explain the bootprints around the mirrors armstrong placed on the moon ? We can prove the mirrors are there, do the bootprints prove armstrong was there ?

Not really, the russians put mirrors on the moon with out seting foot.
You don't need to send a man on the moon to put mirrors on the moon.
The mirrors may be there, this does not prove anything.


When the unmanned rover landed on the moon, a small 4 booted vehicle popped out of the rover and drove itself around the moon to make the prints, then set up the mirrors, then set up a flag, etc.... Those darn boot buggies are so useful.......



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend
No wheel tracks, poor antenna, moon rocks.

You are NASA buffoons agents that want to distract my readers from my

important argumentations, talking about insignificant details.



First, you don't have "readers".
Second, sorry he seems to be distracting you with facts


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 20-10-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yes my bad. I didn't correctly convey what I was thinking regarding the rover tires. What I meant to say was that the scene without tire marks may be comparable to what a Gator would show with the big, balloon type tires. I didn't mean to say that the rover tires were inflatable as I honestly don't know what type of tire it was. So to finish my point, if you are familiar with Gator vehicles with the offroad/ aka Turf Tires, you know that they can travel along dirt or grass without making any or minimal marks because of displacement. You could walk in the same area's and leave noticeable footprints. I don't know if this is the case here but it may be.

You asked for my opinion....There ya go
Sorry for the confusion with my earlier post.



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Space is dangerous



Arguably NASA’s most famous close shave occurred during the Apollo 13 [wiki] mission. After astronauts evacuated their damaged Command Module (CM) and crowded into the Lunar Module (LM), they noticed that carbon dioxide levels were dangerously high due to a failing air filter. Air filtration units in the LM had round openings, but the filter canisters salvaged from the CM were square.

Thankfully, Mission Control radioed a MacGyver solution: By rigging together plastic bags, cardboard, and duct tape, astronauts connected a square canister to the round hole, narrowly avoiding death by asphyxiation.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I can't wait to see the posts fly over this
)



posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


What "Cold War"? Obviously, you think that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Soviets and US government (real government) have always been working together...

"Moon Landing" charade is not such a big conspiracy, if you compare it, for instance, with WW II - when tens of millions of people died...When you put it into this perspective, "Moon Landing" is a minor lie...






[edit on 19-10-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!


You raise some Good Points MickeyDee.
I also Beleive that they Landed on the Moon with apollo 11 in '69. Although I also beleive that was a cover mission for something else.

Also - According to NASA, Hubbles Resolution wont Allow it to see the Moon Landing sites in any detail, as it was designed to see distant objects, rather than objects which are relativley next door. If you ask me - That explanation Sounds fishy, as hubble has taken some brilliant images of the moon so far.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yes my bad. I didn't correctly convey what I was thinking regarding the rover tires. What I meant to say was that the scene without tire marks may be comparable to what a Gator would show with the big, balloon type tires. I didn't mean to say that the rover tires were inflatable as I honestly don't know what type of tire it was. So to finish my point, if you are familiar with Gator vehicles with the offroad/ aka Turf Tires, you know that they can travel along dirt or grass without making any or minimal marks because of displacement. You could walk in the same area's and leave noticeable footprints. I don't know if this is the case here but it may be.

You asked for my opinion....There ya go
Sorry for the confusion with my earlier post.

Then they would not leave tracks at all in other cases, the ground where the foot prints are seen has the right conditions for tracks because there are clear footprints all around the rover, this does not explain it lad.
In other places your tracks are present and very visible and clear, but yet in some situation where the footprints are clear there are no tracks.
Unless you would argue with me that they changed the weals
I don;t buy it

[edit on 20-10-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
reply to post by jfj123
 


What "Cold War"? Obviously, you think that it is IMPOSSIBLE that Soviets and US government (real government) have always been working together...

"Moon Landing" charade is not such a big conspiracy, if you compare it, for instance, with WW II - when tens of millions of people died...When you put it into this perspective, "Moon Landing" is a minor lie...

[edit on 19-10-2007 by swimmer]


Remember the Cuban Missile Crisis which almost lead to WW 3? That cold war. Or is that a conspiracy too? Once you start down that conspiracy slope, almost everything in history would need to be a conspiracy. I'm sure you can prove these were conspiracies too



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:03 AM
link   
lack of tracks - the real reason explained .

i doubt that the conspiracists will accept the fact , but please bear in mind that on occassion the LRV was man handled a fact that conspiracists attempt to ignore

as the mass of the LRV was only 210 kg - it was easier to simply pick up one end and point it in the deesired direction

presto no tracks

sometimes the the answer really is that simple



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
lack of tracks - the real reason explained .

i doubt that the conspiracists will accept the fact , but please bear in mind that on occassion the LRV was man handled a fact that conspiracists attempt to ignore

as the mass of the LRV was only 210 kg - it was easier to simply pick up one end and point it in the deesired direction

presto no tracks

sometimes the the answer really is that simple


You didint look at the pictures did you? there are no tracks around it ,there are no track in front of it, there are no tracks under it, so what if they changed the direction of it, it would still need to have tracks some where near it, how did it get there?
My opinion is just that they pulled it up by strings to get it up on the elevated moon set that was suspended so only the horison would be visible when they took the shoots


[edit on 20-10-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
lack of tracks - the real reason explained .

i doubt that the conspiracists will accept the fact , but please bear in mind that on occassion the LRV was man handled a fact that conspiracists attempt to ignore

as the mass of the LRV was only 210 kg - it was easier to simply pick up one end and point it in the deesired direction

presto no tracks

sometimes the the answer really is that simple


Really? Excellent info

I never heard that before.
Where did you get the info?
I believe you because it makes sense but I was curious as to your source. Could you post the link?

Again thanks for clearing that up. Good job !!



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
lack of tracks - the real reason explained .

i doubt that the conspiracists will accept the fact , but please bear in mind that on occassion the LRV was man handled a fact that conspiracists attempt to ignore

as the mass of the LRV was only 210 kg - it was easier to simply pick up one end and point it in the deesired direction

presto no tracks

sometimes the the answer really is that simple


I wonder if there is any reports of the rover getting stuck and they needed to lift and move it over even a short distance??? Have you read or heard anything about that?
Again, just to be clear, I do believe what you are saying.
Thanks.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   
This brings me to another point, it reminded me of previos discusion here,
The lunar rover had inflatable tires
in this case they would of blowed up
..exploded, the pressure was too much, since there is no air on the moon there was no way to inflate the tiers, this is just another example and shows things just keep coming up


[edit on 20-10-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 07:53 AM
link   
I personally believe that the American's did land on the moon, but I was just wondering if there is any photographic proof. NASA has a reputation of airbrusing photos and therefore doesn't have much credibility. Various satellites have since mapped the moon many times over, yet I still haven't seen any photographic evidence of man on the moon. Where's the landers base, where's the buggies, where's the tracks from the moon buggies, where's the footprints.
Anyone got any satellite pictures that show evidence of man on the moon?

science.nasa.gov...

Apparently NASA is sending a probe to the moon next year that will make it a priority to photograph some of the Apollo landing sites. NASA hopes this will no doubt shut the conspiracy theorists up, once and for all. Unfortunately I very much doubt that it will, because the problem is that NASA doesn't really have much of a reputation when it comes to being honest and truthful. What's needed is a third party to take pictires of the Apollo moon landing sites. Then and only then will the debate be put to rest.


I'm surprised some private company hasn't put it's own buggy on the moon. It would make a great theme park attraction, if visitors could simply wear a pair of 3D virtual goggles and control the moon buggy and drive it anywhere they wanted. That would be super cool. Somehow I think Nasa might disagree.
"Look mommy there's an alien", where?, This is Houston control, we've lost the picture. There appears to be a communication problem.




[edit on 20-10-2007 by kindred]




top topics



 
29
<< 109  110  111    113  114  115 >>

log in

join