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: 13
29
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan

UFO's and moon bases. Thats the only thing that seems plausible. See I have come round and accepted that we did go to the moon but alot of the pictures were doctored, millions of them doctored.


What makes you think that millions of the pictures have been doctored? Do you have any evidence of this?


Yeah, there's evidence. They used the same backdrop in some of their pics that were supposed to represent different moon expeditions. That's how arrogant they are. It's obvious also that there was all kind of stage lighting set up (since it was all done in the Disney studios). How is it obvious? Because if there was one source of light, the sun, all the shadows would be pointing the same directions. Instead, the shadows are going every which way, and sometimes you can see the astroNOT standing in a pitchblack shadow all lit up. Stuff like that. As well as the footage, a whole reel of footage that Bart Slibel found of their "shoots" -- showing all kinds of stuff that once you've seen it you won't doubt any more that it was all a hoax.




posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by one_small_step
Anyone game to ask Buzz if they really went?


You talking about when he punched Bart Slibel in the face when he asked him to swear on the Bible that he'd gone to the moon? It's all on Bart Slibel's video Astronauts Gone Wild.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 05:46 AM
link   
[edit on 29-9-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
Dear resistance


Excuse me? Are we allowed to post links here? I've got Bart Slibel's link to his site. You GOTTA read it. I mean read the whole entire thing, every page. He's got videos to watch, excerpts from his videos and his movie What Ever Happened on the Way to the Moon. The only part of the site I wasn't crazy about is the introduction. The material was great, but the girl talks so fast you can hardly understand her. But the rest is priceless. Check out clues, FACs, and you just gotta click on the sample of Astronauts Gone Wild. It is priceless, just priceless. You may not even need to order his videos if you read his entire website because there's plenty of stuff right there to convince anyone willing to be convinced.

www.moonmovie.com

or 216.26.168.193... will take you right to the video excerpts.

Let me know what you think?


[edit on 29-9-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
interesting thread, i for one do believe they went ot the moon however ...

there's one certain item hoaxers bring up that does make me wonder,i hope some of you can debunk this.


With temperatures on the moon varying between -280° in the shade and +280° in the sun, those few people with the ability to wonder are wondering how how the Ectachrome [sic] film and Hasselblad cameras managed to bring back such clear pictures.

According to Kodak scientists, at -280° the film would crack and breack when the camera tried to advance it a frame. And, at +280° the film emulsion would melt. Curious.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by XyZeR
interesting thread, i for one do believe they went ot the moon however ...

there's one certain item hoaxers bring up that does make me wonder,i hope some of you can debunk this.


With temperatures on the moon varying between -280° in the shade and +280° in the sun, those few people with the ability to wonder are wondering how how the Ectachrome [sic] film and Hasselblad cameras managed to bring back such clear pictures.

According to Kodak scientists, at -280° the film would crack and breack when the camera tried to advance it a frame. And, at +280° the film emulsion would melt. Curious.











Yeah, that is something to consider, isn't it? Another thing to consider is that there's so many pics that the astroNOTS would have had to shoot continuously (in their high-tech gloves of course, snicker) to take all those pictures. That leaves no time for all their other stuff -- playing golf, driving around in the moon buggy and collecting moon rocks. Plus, they had to set up all their equipment, ready themselves for their launch back up to the mother ship 60 miles above, all that neat stuff they supposedly did. So where did they find the time to take all those pictures? Somebody has calculated, based on all the pics NASA has, they'd have had to shoot almost one picture a minute. With pressurized gloves, a Haselblad camera, in 250 degree heat in a vacuum?

Yeah, the heat would have melted the film. Probably the camera too. A vacuum does not allow any dissipation of heat. People seem to think the moon was just all nice and cool and comfortable and the spacesuits were necessary for oxygen. But the astroNOTS would have been doing all that physical activity for hours at a time in 250 degrees with nowhere for that heat to dissipate but into their bodies. NASA is now so desperate to explain this away they are claiming there was icewater on the moon they used for cooling. Sure. And I suppose they knew this before they left? Kinda risky, woulnd't you say to assume such a thing? What if the astroNOTs got there and there WASN'T any ice? (which I don't believe there is any ice on the moon and I also don't believe there ever were any astroNOTS on the moon either.

You gotta check out the website www.moonmovie.com


[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
there are many answers on the forum. We would be happy if you debated with the people there. We will follow you up as they claim to be the masters at debunking.
bye

[edit on 29-9-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by A Random Person
We went to the moon.
You name most of the standard faked landing *proofs* I will gladly debunk them.

Ok:
1)Did the Lunar Surface CAmera have a veiwfinder?
And if not then how did they know where to aim/shoot?

2)What of the supposedly "divergent" shadows shown in some moon photos(as opposed to "parallel" shadows)?

3)How was the film used by the astronausts on the moon protected from radiation?

4)Since the Moon has no atmosphere, it' s temperatures range from about
-200F/129C at Night/ inShadow to about +200F/93C day/in light. So How did the film withstand the tempature extremes on the Lunar surface?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by I_AM_that_I_AM
1)Did the Lunar Surface CAmera have a veiwfinder?
And if not then how did they know where to aim/shoot?

A)Practice, you think they just went up there and winged it?

The Apollo astronauts underwent intensive training in preparation for their Moon explorations. Over the several years prior to the Moon missions, scientific and photographic training was provided. Astronauts were encouraged to take training cameras on trips to become more familiar with the camera operation and to enhance their photographic technique. Tutorials were provided to the crews on the equipment, its operation, as well as on the scientific purposes. The crews visited geologic sites in Nevada, Arizona, and Hawaii, frequently simulating their lunar traverse, completely outfitted with sample bags, checklists, simulated backpacks, lunar rock hammer, core-sampling equipment, and typically using Hasselblad EL cameras similar to those they would use on the Moon. As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results.
from NASA site. history.nasa.gov...
B)Small aperture will create a large depth of field, (which is the amount of area in focus)
C) f-stop charts according to distance, ie. at about 10 feet you need such and such settings as far as f-stops and aperture.



2)What of the supposedly "divergent" shadows shown in some moon photos(as opposed to "parallel" shadows)?

Thouse are created by the small hills and valleys, the surface of the moon is not flat.




"Divergent shadows" would be created by multiple light sources, if that is the case then there would be multiple shadows not "divergent" ones.



3)How was the film used by the astronausts on the moon protected from radiation?

4)Since the Moon has no atmosphere, it' s temperatures range from about
-200F/129C at Night/ inShadow to about +200F/93C day/in light. So How did the film withstand the tempature extremes on the Lunar surface?


The same way they get pictures from lunar or earth orbit, would you espouse that EVERY picture taken from space is a fake?
Kodiak was contracted to create a film and camera that would resist -200c and +500c temps.
Also on the moon there is no air, so convection heat (heating the air which heats an object, like an oven) is non-existent, and the camera cases would have protected the film from radiation heat just like the space-suits would have protected the astronauts.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
there are many answers on the forum. We would be happy if you debated with the people there. We will follow you up as they claim to be the masters at debunking.
bye


Excuse me, but I'm on THIS forum, a conspiracy forum. We're talking about a conspiracy here -- BIG CONSPIRACY. And it's against the rules to send people away to post on another bulletin board.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by sanctum]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone


2)What of the supposedly "divergent" shadows shown in some moon photos(as opposed to "parallel" shadows)?

Thouse are created by the small hills and valleys, the surface of the moon is not flat.




Actually, nobody's disputing there are hills and valleys and things that cast shadows. The question here is about shadows that aren't running in the same direction, since supposedly there is only one light source -- the sun. So when you have shadows that are pointing all over in all directions, that tells you there's MORE THAN ONE LIGHT SOURCE-- like they have at Disney studios when they make make believe movies?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   


3)How was the film used by the astronausts on the moon protected from radiation?

4)Since the Moon has no atmosphere, it' s temperatures range from about
-200F/129C at Night/ inShadow to about +200F/93C day/in light. So How did the film withstand the tempature extremes on the Lunar surface?


The same way they get pictures from lunar or earth orbit, would you espouse that EVERY picture taken from space is a fake?
Kodiak was contracted to create a film and camera that would resist -200c and +500c temps.
Also on the moon there is no air, so convection heat (heating the air which heats an object, like an oven) is non-existent, and the camera cases would have protected the film from radiation heat just like the space-suits would have protected the astronauts.



My understanding is they used Haselblad cameras. And did they keep running back in the spaceship every half hour to change the film? (that's how many pictures they took) There may not be any air to heat the camera, but there's also likewise no air to COOL it. A vacuum means that the heat from the sun, 250 degrees, will land on whatever it lands on and just keep on absorbing that heat. There is no way to dissipate the heat.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
"So when you have shadows that are pointing all over in all directions, that tells you there's MORE THAN ONE LIGHT SOURCE-- like they have at Disney studios when they make make believe movies?"

show me pics of shadows going in more that 2 directions. or 2 directions greater than 45 degrees.

Also as I said, If there are multiple light sources WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE SHADOWS!!!!!!



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
there are many answers on the forum. We would be happy if you debated with the people there. We will follow you up as they claim to be the masters at debunking.
bye


Wind, i suggest you read the Terms And Conditions Of Use and take particular note of the following clause.


9.) You will not advertise or promote other discussion boards, chat systems, online communities or other websites on ATS within posts, avatars or signatures without prior written permission from AboveTopSecret.com LLP. Your will not choose a username that is the same as website domain, subdomain, or URL for which you are associated. You will not use ATS to bash other boards or engage in so-called "board wars".



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:42 AM
link   
Bart Sibrel is a con artist.


Sibrel's claims are dismissed by the scientific community and none of his allegations are deemed credible by those with expertise in the field.

Most astronauts have refused to grant him interviews and Sibrel has used ambush tactics to try and get footage of them commenting on the film.

Sibrel was arrested for trespassing on Neil Armstrong's property. In 2002, he lured Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin to a Beverly Hills hotel with the ruse that he was to interview Aldrin for a Japanese children's show on space. Sibrel insisted that Aldrin place his hand on a Bible and swear that he walked on the moon. The interview became contentious and at the end, Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw. Sibrel's reaction was "Did you get that on camera?" Sibrel used the tape to try to convince the police that Sibrel rather than Aldrin was the victim of an assault. No charges were brought by the District Attorney. Aldrin's lawyer, Robert O'Brien, claims Sibrel has been stalking many former Apollo astronauts, including Neil Armstrong, Alan Bean, and Al Worden. Lois Aldrin, referring to an earlier encounter, added, "He said things I can't repeat. He was not a nice man, and it really upset Buzz a lot."

Jim McDade, in the Birmingham News, characterized the film as "full of falsehoods, innuendo, strident accusations, half-truths, flawed logic and premature conclusions", avers that the "only thing new and weird revealed in Sibrel's A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon is his bizarre personal interpretation that the video views of earth were shot through a small hole (template) to give the impression that Apollo 11 was not in low earth orbit", and adds "Bart has misinterpreted things that are immediately obvious to anyone who has extensively read Apollo history and documentation or anyone who has ever been inside an Apollo Command Module or accurate mockup."
from wikipedia

As the the heat dissipation you have to understand heat transfer and more specificaly radiated heat transfer.

Radiation is a means of heat transfer. Radiative heat transfer is the only form of heat transfer that can occur in the absence of any form of medium and as such is the only means of heat transfer through a (An electrical home appliance that cleans by suction) vacuum. Thermal radiation is a direct result of the movements of atoms and molecules in a material. Since these atoms and molecules are composed of charged particles ( (A stable particle with positive charge equal to the negative charge of an electron) protons and (An elementary particle with negative charge) electrons), their movements result in the emission of (Radiation consisting of waves of energy associated with electric and magnetic fields resulting from the acceleration of an electric charge) electromagnetic radiation, which carries energy away from the surface. At the same time, the surface is constantly bombarded by radiation from the surroundings, resulting in the transfer of energy to the surface. Since the amount of emitted radiation increases with increasing temperature, a net transfer of energy from higher temperatures to lower temperatures results.


in your logic the objects being heated by the sun would collect increaceing amounts of radiated heat energy with no way to dissipate it. therefore all the rocks on the moon and anything that is effected by the suns radiaded heat would reach higher and higher temeraturs, the earth would be a molten ball of magma, as would all innersolar system planets, since they all exist in the vacuume of space.

In reality, all objects can dissipate heat through radiation. You would not have a build-up of heat energy, because the hotter the object would get the more exited the atoms would get and the more radiation energy it would expell.

next.

[edit on 29-9-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Not there come on, how did the film get back uneased?? take a roll of exposed film the next time you get an xray, and see what happens??



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by fouraceshigh
Not there come on, how did the film get back uneased?? take a roll of exposed film the next time you get an xray, and see what happens??


Radiation shealding,
How did we get the pictures back from the un-manned lunar orbiter's?
O right thouse we're faked too.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Hi. I am sorry if I breached the laws of the forum. All I intended to do was introducing something to enlighten all of us more. I didn't intend to promote other forum just to give them fame... I just didn't pay attention to the rules...

Resistance,
if you want to really criticise the moon landings, then, according to me, you have to emphasize on the most obvious. The most obvious is the bogus distancesclaimed by NASA, where a mountain that is barely 3 steps away is declared as 3 KMs away...
bye



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Halfofone -- If radiation was the way things were cooled on the moon, isn't that a bit dangerous? Sounds like a microwave or something. I'll admit I'm not much on physics -- but I'm going to have to think about what you've said here. It's not my understanding that things "cool" by radiaton. Rather, the moon goes through phases and seems to me the surface must heat up to a huge degree. I know I have slate in my back yard and when the sun shines on them they get hot as a pistol.

Seems to me that a surface with no atmosphere with 250 degrees beating on it for 14 days straight -- not a very nice place to be playing golf -- especially with that funny looking spacesuit the astroNOTS were wearing in the '60s.

Halfofane, you said: "in your logic the objects being heated by the sun would collect increaceing amounts of radiated heat energy with no way to dissipate it. therefore all the rocks on the moon and anything that is effected by the suns radiaded heat would reach higher and higher temeraturs, the earth would be a molten ball of magma, as would all innersolar system planets, since they all exist in the vacuume of space."


But, Halofane, the earth has an ATMOSPHERE. The moon doesn't. The moon is a vacuum. You know how good a vacuum works as insulation? So the heat from the sun, 250 degrees, hits the moon, and as the moon goes through its phases it faces the sun for two weeks -- meaning any one part of the moon will be in the sun for 14 days. The earth turns away from the sun once each 24 hours. The moon's day lasts 28 days, so half of it is always in the sun.

If you put a rock in a glass, sucked out all the air so it was a perfect vacuum and shone a light equal to 250 degrees on the rock for two weeks, what would it do?

Halofel said: "In reality, all objects can dissipate heat through radiation. You would not have a build-up of heat energy, because the hotter the object would get the more exited the atoms would get and the more radiation energy it would expell."

I'll bet it would get really, really hot. As to the radioactive part, that I don't know.



[edit on 29-9-2005 by resistance]



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
resistance
en.wikipedia.org...

read the above for some related info about radiant heat transfer and barriers to it.

Think of it this way,
The sun exists in a vacuum right?
So how is it that we feel that heat, if things cannot dissipate heat in a vacuum?
The sun does not heat air, then the air heats the earth (mostly because ther is no air), and the sun does not directly touch the earth. So the heat must get here through radiant heat transfer.
If the sun can do it, then it stands to reason that other objects can, and it has been scientificly proven that they can.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join