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: 144
29
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Good catch jra,

Very entertaining video but pure fantasy.

I especially love the shot of Aldrin at T=1:28 showing the moon rising over his left shoulder while he's standing on the moon...very artistic.

Also, must point out that they had no shame in using the same shot of Aldrin twice, once calling him Armstrong with the apron @ T=0:54 and again with the rising moon.

Classic!




posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Where was that British (assuming it was British, based on the narrator's accent) 'documentary' from?

It was a compilation of incredible assertions, unsupported by facts...

Everything about it seemed to reek of an agenda.

A valid documentary would not resort to photo manipulations to support their claims.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It was a compilation of incredible assertions, unsupported by facts...

Everything about it seemed to reek of an agenda.



Indeed! Seems to be one of these "me too" videos.

These days, I can post a digitized sound of my flatulence on YouTube and somebody will find that when played in reverse and translated from Greek it is in fact a Masonic ritual of Reptilian nature.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:51 PM
link   
Ban this"world obsserver" Jerk plz. one post is plenty- we get it. Math is all you need to know about the "Moon Landings" 4,800 minutes in total spent there- 5,200 photos- subtracting all the time where the Naughts were on "video" not taking pictures and all of a sudden these guys would have had to be snapping a perfect photo about every 10 seconds-sometimes moving hundreds of yards or more in between each "photo" it is simply impossible. The thing that bothers me is that these hoaxes are not even good- the knuckleheads always get carried away- if they are going to put one over on us- at least we should get our $ worth- cmon- I demand much better hoaxes from my tax dollars!!!!



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
these guys would have had to be snapping a perfect photo about every 10 seconds-sometimes moving hundreds of yards or more in between each "photo" it is simply impossible.


Now THAT is the most interesting observation I have seen in this thread for some time



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ItsHumanNature
 


I just visited the apollo photo archive and there is an amazing fraction of crappy photos. So your statement that each pic was perfect a-la National Geographic doesn't hold water.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Ban this"world obsserver" Jerk plz. one post is plenty- we get it. Math is all you need to know about the "Moon Landings" 4,800 minutes in total spent there- 5,200 photos- subtracting all the time where the Naughts were on "video" not taking pictures and all of a sudden these guys would have had to be snapping a perfect photo about every 10 seconds-sometimes moving hundreds of yards or more in between each "photo" it is simply impossible. The thing that bothers me is that these hoaxes are not even good- the knuckleheads always get carried away- if they are going to put one over on us- at least we should get our $ worth- cmon- I demand much better hoaxes from my tax dollars!!!!


First...bad math.

If 5200 pics were taken in 4800 minutes then that was 1.08 pictures per minute, not one pic per 10 seconds. More like one pic per 55-56 seconds.

Second...there were two men on the surface for all 80 hrs. So we really had 10,400 man-minutes for photography which gives us one picture very 2 minutes. Since only 12 men have been to the moon I dont think one snaphot every two minutes is that hard to believe.

Third, Im not sure about your number of 5200 pics. I did a check of one flight (14) and they exposed only 443 frames during their EVA time of 9.5 hrs. Thats 9.5 hrs for two men (19 man-hrs).

Lastly, alot of the lunar surface pics were taken from inside the LEM.
Total Surface time for all missions was 270 hrs, 80 of which were EVA.

And as Buddah stated...many of the pictures are crap, mistakes, accidental exposures, unfocused, etc.

Zorgon - Im surprised at how quickly you jumped on this guys wagon.


[edit on 1/24/2008 by darkbluesky]

[edit on 1/24/2008 by darkbluesky]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Originally posted by ngchunter




As for your video... I don't get it, would you be chipper after being locked in a tin can for THREE WEEKS?! I don't care if you had just walked on the moon, I don't know anyone who fancies the idea of being locked up in a tin can or room without the chance to get outside at all for three weeks straight. That's what happened to the astronauts after they got back from the moon, they were put into quarantine for 3 weeks just in case they picked up any undiscovered "alien diseases" on the moon. In fact they passed a law just prior to the missions making it a federal offense to come into contact with the astronauts or their spacecraft once it was in quarantine, generating another false conspiracy theory that there's a law against touching "alien spacecraft."



They were not locked in a tin can for 3 weeks. They went directly from the tin can to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory which was actually quite roomy.

It had to be because there were 12 other men with them. None of these men have ever been publically identified.


Somewhat embarrassed by the silence, Mission Control added somewhat difidently, "We think you are doing a great job out there." Armstrong replied drily "Thanks". He always took the view that others were working just as hard without having so much fun; he may have had in mind the 12 men already sealed inside the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, ready to share with the crew their 21 days' isolation starting from the moment when it was hoped they would lift off from the moon.


From: The Moonlandings; An Eyewitness Account, Reginald Turnhill Foreward by Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Cambridge University Press Copyright Reginald Turnhill 2003 Foreward Copyright Buzz Aldrin 2003 ISBN 0521815959 hardback.

Please correct your future posts ngchunter. Thanks.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Capt. Lear,

"12 other men"? What about the women?

I just saw 'American Idol' last night, and this really nice looking young woman was on...she flies the C-17 in the USAF.

SO, I don't think the 'secret astronaut corps' are all men.........



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by ngchunter


They were not locked in a tin can for 3 weeks. They went directly from the tin can to the Lunar Receiving Laboratory which was actually quite roomy.

It had to be because there were 12 other men with them. None of these men have ever been publically identified.


Somewhat embarrassed by the silence, Mission Control added somewhat difidently, "We think you are doing a great job out there." Armstrong replied drily "Thanks". He always took the view that others were working just as hard without having so much fun; he may have had in mind the 12 men already sealed inside the Lunar Receiving Laboratory, ready to share with the crew their 21 days' isolation starting from the moment when it was hoped they would lift off from the moon.


From: The Moonlandings; An Eyewitness Account, Reginald Turnhill Foreward by Dr. Buzz Aldrin, Cambridge University Press Copyright Reginald Turnhill 2003 Foreward Copyright Buzz Aldrin 2003 ISBN 0521815959 hardback.

Please correct your future posts ngchunter. Thanks.



I know they were transfered to the lunar receiving laboratory (which I alluded to as a gilded prision), forgive me if I don't consider a lab to be much better than a tin can. I work in a lab, I can only imagine being forced to stay in that building, which has significantly more office space than the LRL, for three weeks straight with nothing to do. Prision is prision, whether it be in a mobile home or a laboratory. His fellow prisioners were not exactly his family, he was married and was not allowed to have direct contact with his wife during his stay. The length of their detention is the key point, not where it occurs. For goodness sakes, Neil was forced to spend his birthday locked in the LRL. No wonder he was depressed.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkbluesky

Originally posted by ItsHumanNature
Math is all you need to know about the "Moon Landings" 4,800 minutes in total spent there- 5,200 photos- subtracting all the time where the Naughts were on "video" not taking pictures and all of a sudden these guys would have had to be snapping a perfect photo about every 10 seconds-sometimes moving hundreds of yards or more in between each "photo" it is simply impossible. The thing that bothers me is that these hoaxes are not even good- the knuckleheads always get carried away- if they are going to put one over on us- at least we should get our $ worth- cmon- I demand much better hoaxes from my tax dollars!!!!


First...bad math.

If 5200 pics were taken in 4800 minutes then that was 1.08 pictures per minute, not one pic per 10 seconds. More like one pic per 55-56 seconds.

Second...there were two men on the surface for all 80 hrs. So we really had 10,400 man-minutes for photography which gives us one picture very 2 minutes. Since only 12 men have been to the moon I dont think one snaphot every two minutes is that hard to believe.

Third, Im not sure about your number of 5200 pics. I did a check of one flight (14) and they exposed only 443 frames during their EVA time of 9.5 hrs. Thats 9.5 hrs for two men (19 man-hrs).




[


OK- I just went to the NASA site to check my figures- because I was quoting from memory and wanted to be sure.
First-The actual number of MAN MINUTES spent on EVA on the surface was 4834 according to NASA. Man minutes is the time of each astronaut added seperately- if i counted the time the way you suggest- that time would be approximately HALF of that.
I had said 4800 and that is off by 34 minutes- not several days off as you have stated.
Second- the total number of pictures taken DURING THE EVAs on the surface, from the chest mounted manual setting Hasselblad cameras-not including those taken from within the LM with different cameras was 5,771 not 5,200- check it for yourself- 1,986 eva photos in the last mission alone- a ridiculous number
Now- that total number of man minutes wasnt all spent taking photos- as I had said in my post. Subtracting all of the time from videos and from the flight log where the astros are not taking pictures - and i am being very generous here- leaves approximatley 3,100 minutes for taking pictures. This comes to an average of 1.9 photos every minute taken with a completley manual camera. The first mission has the most absurd photo per minute count at over 4 per minute. I have been an amatuer photographer for over a quarter of a century and am quite familiar with what is required to manually camera settings- let alone the fact that they didnt even have a rudimentary light meter to gauge what those settings should be- and I am certain that I could not do this even here on earth without having the camera bolted to my chest with NO VEIWFINDER and wearing huge pressurised gloves as they supposedly did- to think that these guys pulled it off on the moon is well- lets just say wishful thinking- because you obviously want so very hard to believe we were not lied to.

Third- your numbers for appollo fourteen are completely WRONG- the mission log states the number of man minutes- so your attempt to DOUBLE the amount of time they had is nothing more than bogus.By the way- satistically speaking- apolla 14 had the lowest # of photos per minute at right aorund 1- the rest being much higher- with apollo 11 being the highest at 4 photos per minute.

To recap- yes- I was very slightly off when i recalled those numbers from my head but most of them I recounted were erred on the side of caution. But even then I was closer than you were after you obviously looked it up. Your blatant attempts at falsifying these numbers- as if nobody else can check them(we are ALL on the internet right now RIGHT?)
is pure chicanery. Wake up and smell lies folks...



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:34 AM
link   



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 03:57 PM
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!!


1 thing that i have never heard explained.....the backround shots of the mountains and hill terrian are indentical in official nasa pictures of the different apollo numbered landings. in fact if you overlay them for each mission they match up perfectly



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Here's a possible end to the conspiracy...

www.space.com...


with all due respect to the time and effort you spent on digging this up...i examined the photo and enlarged it to 250% and the skeptic in me cannot detect anything in this photo that would be related to an apollo landing...am i missing something?



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 

Sorry, jimmyx, it is untrue that all official Apollo EVA photographs have the exact same backround features. Sis different landinng sites, different terrain, different angles. Please consider re-checking your 'facts'.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
1 thing that i have never heard explained.....the backround shots of the mountains and hill terrian are indentical in official nasa pictures of the different apollo numbered landings. in fact if you overlay them for each mission they match up perfectly


Well there is one youtube video that shows two missions with the same background and they did an overlap... NASA says they made and error and mixed up the images I am looking for that one now...


In the meantime here is a new analysis of a few photos by Dr. David Groves... very well done



[edit on 26-1-2008 by zorgon]



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
zorgon those people dont deny apollo 11 went to the moon, one even says the tv footage is real. I dont know why you posted it? i thought you were a WNWTTM person?

or is your view the same as theirs- apollo 11 went to the moon but they made fake photos?



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ItsHumanNatureOK- I just went to the NASA site to check my figures- because I was quoting from memory and wanted to be sure.
First-The actual number of MAN MINUTES spent on EVA on the surface was 4834


Not true. You are woefully misinformed or intentionally providing falsehoods.

NASA presents lunar EVA time as the time from LM depressurization to repressurization. Both Astronoauts are outsdide the LM for most of that time.

Here is a summary of all Apollo mission EVAs from NASA

history.nasa.gov...


You'll see that Apollo 11 EVA duration was 2 hrs. 31 minutes

Here are bios for Armstrong and Aldrin.

Armstrong

Total EVA time during Apollo 11: 2 hrs 48 minutes (this counts 10 additional minutes spent discarding excess equipment right before lift off from lunar surface )

Aldrin

Total EVA time 2 hrs.

Total man hrs on spent on lunar surface EVA for Apollo 11 = 4.5 not 2.5.

If I'm in error and you can provide a link to NASA that contradicts this information. I'll be happy to acknowledge that you're right and Im wrong but I dont thank that's the case.



Third- your numbers for appollo fourteen are completely WRONG- the mission log states the number of man minutes- so your attempt to DOUBLE the amount of time they had is nothing more than bogus.


Again, please prove this statement



As I stated before, I don't find it very hard to belive that after travelling 240,000 miles one way, to a place no one from earth has every been before, that these guys were taking as many pictures as humanly possible (one every 2 minutes on average) That leaves plenty of time for picking up rocks, setting up video cameras, and hitting golf balls.



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101i thought you were a WNWTTM person?
or is your view the same as theirs- apollo 11 went to the moon but they made fake photos?

Well yes they went but faked the photos... one reason was simply publicity They needed great shots for Life magazine etc.... to keep the money coming from a fickle public...

The other reason is that we were already their (not NASA) and they couldn't show what was really going on


Its too bad I never saved the transcripts from the time it happened because now things I heard at the time are only found in traces on conspiracy sites Who would have thought we needed to keep a copy for the future?

Oh well... it matters little because all that happens is endless talk "they did... no they didn't" and nothing will ever be proven until an independent makes it to the



posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:58 PM
link   
for the record, i think we did go to the moon.
but, puzzlingly, there are many things that point to the fact we did not.




i think it's possible these two photo's were taken by a probe, from extremly low orbit, shortly before 'it' (eventually) slammed into the side of a mountain.

you can also even see the 'cut' line where the two images(foreground/background) were merged.

Note: the slight variation (in the hills/background images) can be explained as the distance covered by the probe/orbiter between taking the two images.

it is not one image used twice.
it is two images taken a short distance apart.
****************************

this is another example of the same sort of mischief.



************************

...and some wondered why so many probes crashed.
it was so they could take as many photo's as possible of landscapes from an low, almost horizontal angle.


*******************
ps: as i didn't bother to keep the links to these images when i saved them i am going to the doghouse.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 141  142  143    145  146  147 >>

log in

join