It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:00 AM

Originally posted by resistance
As to the swearing on the Bible thing, from the short exerpts Sibrel put up, those astroNOTs looked pretty darned guilty to me, and did not behave in any way as people who had been to the moon. That much was painfully obvious. And if Mitchell did, well so what? It just means he's willing to lie some more. And I agree -- it's silly. If this wasn't such a fraud, the question would be ludicrous and insulting. The press conference showed me what guilty scoundrels they are.

Well it is ludicrous and insulting, could that not be a possible reason for there rather insulted actions that you are inturpriting as guilt? I don't know about you but if someone asked me to swear on the bible that I was and always have been a canadian citizen for example, I'd probably tell them to get lost, and if they did it while I was trying to enjoy dinner or got in my face and demanded it I probably would have done exaclicaly what Buzz did. It's funny Bart tried to sue him and LOST, WHY? because the judge found that Bart was the one harrasing Mr. Aldrin. Thouse few short clips are taken out of context. As for the press confrence, you are inturpriting guilt from neverousness, I'd like to see you at a press confrence in front of the world!

How come you never see any of these guys on Letterman or Johnny Carson (before when he had his show) or any interviews on the Science channel or the Discovery channel? If these guys really did go to the moon there would be books and books and books out about their "adventures on the moon."

something tells me that you haven't been looking, or paying attention.

Buzz aldrin;

Neil Armstrong
Interview (2003)
Article on upcoming Autobio

Dick Grodon
Writen and video Interviews click on multimedia.

Alan Shepard

Edgar Mitchell
Disc. board

Need I continue???

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:43 PM
Halfo -- thanks for the great links.

First I clicked on Aldrin. First thing I noticed? The interviews weren't until a few years ago. How come? The supposed moon landings took place 40 years ago. How come only NOW he's starting to talk? And he's not talking actually because we're only talking about printed interviews (with probably sympathetic and possibly coconspiratorial writer-journalists).

Second: I clicked on Aldrin's book, the one he wrote himself, just published, and here's what it said: May 25, 2005: Buzz releases his first children’s book REACHING FOR THE MOON, illustrated by award-winning artist, Wendell Minor and kicks off his book tour in New York City at Books of Wonder. Take a journey with Buzz as he shares his childhood stories and lifelong dream of space travel.

All this is is a kid's book about Aldrin's pipedreams when he was a kid of roaring around in space in a spaceship. This is not an account of what actually happened, and not evena description of how he supposedly felt while he was doing all the amazing things we've been led to believe that he did.


I will continue on and look at all the links. But this is the first link I clicked on. Perhaps the others will be more supportive of your faith in the astroNOTs?

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 07:54 PM
Halfo -- According to the link you put up, Neil Armstrong's ONE AND ONLY INTERVIEW turns out to be as described from the article as: " The first man to set foot on the moon says people shouldn't jump to conclusions about what caused the space shuttle Columbia to break apart .Neil Armstrong, the 72-year-old resident of Indian Hill who became one of America's most famous heroes in 1969, gave a rare interview with the Enquirer after Saturday's crash."

And his "authorized biography" will be all about his life up to the supposed moon missions, and was reluctantly given after a lot of wheedling and wheeling and dealing to get him to comply.

With all the uproar going on about the moon landings being a big fake (thanks to the good old Internet) -- these guys are under a LOT of pressure to get out front and tell some more lies -- of which they are obviously reluctant to do.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:15 PM
Halfo -- The Richard Gordon link was extremely fascinating. Thanks for putting it up for us here.

First -- Gordon was never claimed to have stepped foot on the moon. Supposedly he was the third astroNOT, the one in the command ship. So the whole writeup is about what the other two astroNOTs supposedlyl did. Since Gordon wasn't there, did he write this? Or is it just that he's willing to have his name associated with the writeup on what the other two supposedly did? In any case, it's not an astroNOT talking about what he actually did and experienced while supposedly walking on the moon. And I have no doubt in my mind WHATSOEVER that if anyone actually DID walk on the moon they would be crowing about it all over the planet.

So to me this also is just more proof that the whole moon landing thing is a GIANT HOAX.

Further, Gordon is played up on this link as being a dynamic speaker who has spoken all over the place. Then they give this list of prestigious groups he's spoken at: * Penwal Industries
* Mayflower Transit
* Universal Autograph Collectors Club
* Slanted Fedora Entertainment
* Planet Promotions
* Tarrant County College
* Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
* Virginia Air and Space Center
* Museum of Flight
* Young Presidents Organization (JPL)

These hardly seem prestigious. Why hasn't he been on David Letterman? Why hasn't he been on the Discovery Channel? Where are the videotapes of these great "talks?"

Uh-uh. This is not anybody talking about what it was like to walk on the moon, or even what it was like to orbit the moon.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 08:52 PM
Okay, Halfo. I looked at the Shepherd link, and Shepherd appears happy and confident in the pics, exudes that "hero" ebulliency from the pics.

Fact is, Shepherd was the first man to orbit the earth in a spaceship. So he's got some reason to act like a hero.

The print interview (with no credits given for who was doing the interviewing or who wrote up the interview) however was mostly all about him and his motives for liking space, growing up, his first man into space accomplishment. This is the only thing he said regarding his supposed moonwalk that was on videotape (other than some remarks about the earth looking fragile and a lecture about preserving the earth's ecology-- but you could chalk that up to looking out the window of the spaceship on his first mission):

"We had a couple of cliff-hangers on Apollo XIV. In the first place, we tried to dock with the lunar module, and that didn't work, so it could have been the end of the deal, but we finally got that organized. And then, the actual landing on the surface. We were supposed to get an update from the radar, we couldn't go below 13,000 feet, and that came in only at the last minute. So there were a lot of little nervous things that kept you awake all the way down until you landed"

I notice that he doesn't even say "there were a couple little nervous things that kept ME awake all the way down until I landed." Instead it's "there were a lot of little nervous things that kept YOU awake all the way down until YOU landed."

So this doesn't cut it for me either. There's no way that real people who had actually walked on the moon would not be out talking about it. I mean TALKING about it.

posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 09:30 PM
Halfo -- Edgar Mitchell is a bonafide kook. He quickly abandoned NASA and set up a mind control foundation and has devoted the rest of his life to studying the mind and to finding aliens he claims are out there. I think he's deliberately lying about a lot of things, and I have no doubt Mitchell is big-time Illuminati as well as being a kook. He talks about programming the mind in the link below. I did a little surfing on the guy and he's been involved with Stanford Research Institute and mind-control experimentation related to the CIA and GWB Sr.

We do know that each and every one of the astroNOTs are, at minimum, 33 degree freemasons (meaning they are devil worshippers).

Read this link:

I repeat -- these are not nice people, and they LIE.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 12:31 PM
Ok Res,
You asked for it I gave you... I'm trying to get you to do some critical thinking, and don't just belive Bart Sibrel or FOX tv, I mean Rupert Murdoch is part of the illuminati too, so why would he promote the truth
I guess you can spin it any way you want... I'm not going to bother rebutting everything you said because most of it is your interpritation of things. You seem to think that I am not a beliver in conspiracy. You are wrong. First of all 33rd degree mason does not nessesaraly mean devil worshiper, but I see your point.
A Freemason's 33rd Degree Initiation
is an artical with much insite into what you reffer to.
This part pertains to our argument

The first day was devoted to registration, briefings and interviews. We were called into one of the offices, one at a time, and interviewed by three members of the Supreme Council.

When my turn came I was ushered into the office and seated. The very first question I was asked was, "Of what religion are you?" Not long before this I would have answered with something like, "I believe the Ancient Mysteries, the 'Old Religion,' and I believe in reincarnation." However, without thinking at all about how to answer, I found myself saying, "I am a Christian."

Then, to my sup rise and theirs, I asked them, "Are you men born again?" The man in charge quickly stopped me by saying, "We're not here to talk about that - we are here to ask you questions."

After they sent me back out I sat down and thought about it. When the next man came out, I asked him, "Did they ask you if you are a Christian?" He said, "Yes, they did."

"What did you tell them?" I asked, and he replied, "I told them 'Hell no, and I never intend to be!'"

Then he said a strange thing to me, "They said I'm going higher," and he left through a different door, looking pleased.

If you really want to know what I think, I think that man has been even further than the moon, The landings are not a HOAX they are a cover story for something much greater. A diversion for the world like a magicians slight of had trick. There is alien technology that exists and is being used that would challange our entire perseption of the world and physical law. The real conspiracy is too big for you or I to even begin to understand. Both the landings AND the hoax are giant smoke screens built to set us against each other just like left wing and right wing, it's not divide and conquer, it's divide and maintain, they already have control. If trying to get you to think outside of the predifined box.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 01:47 PM
Halfo -- I don't believe Fox TV. I used to watch it all the time, a real news junkie. Finally I got disgusted, turned the TV off and haven't turned it back on since. I can't stand O'Reilly, et al. They're just going after a market for money is all.

The whole thing is NWO is where it's all pointing -- and the moon landing hoax is to get us to believe that it's POSSIBLE that aliens can travel through space and come for a visit. The conspirators are going to present a fake UFO landing, and as Reagan said, this will unite the world. Then we'll be microchipped (the 10 percent that are still alive that they havent' killed off) and mind controlled in every single detail from the top down, just like a pyramid, like the pyramid on the dollar bill -- with the all-seeing eye of Horus. One man will run everybody like a big computer.

Everything they do is LIES, LIES, LIES.

And the Bible says, Outside of Heaven's doors are all liars, and whoever loveth and maketh a LIE.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:03 PM
Yeah I've heard it all, and I can belive that there are some that want to chip us, there going around saying how good the chip is and it can only increase. I for one will before I take one. I'm not a christian but I belive that revalations is a very disturbing and probably the only way that this world can end.
I do not think that there is only a single entity trying to take over, there has to be multiple factions at war, As Alex Jones would say, fighting for the CEO job of slavery INC, or else it would have come down allready. I however think that it would have been easyer to just go to the moon than to fake it, there has to be technology beyond what we have been allowed to see, considering the speed at which our advancement has accellerated.
Like I said earlyer there is much more urgant issues going today, we should not become sidetracked by something that happend 40+ years ago.

posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 09:07 PM
Halfo -- Revelation says that anyone that takes the mark (the chip) will go to Helll. If you're not a Christian, maybe it's time you became one? You're going to go to Hell with or without the chip if you don't get right with God. That means Jesus. So do it.

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 02:25 AM
Ever stop to think that BOTH sides of the story may be true?
Maybe we did land on the moon, but at the same time faked some landings. Why would they do something like that? Who knows, but its still a possibility that both sides are right, and worth looking into.

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 09:01 AM
Here are some links that take the Moon Landings Supposed "Hoax Debunkers" points one by one and proves they don't know what they are talking about:

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 10:55 AM

There are many explanations such as this site above. However, some explanations are bizarre. BUT I find the explanation above convincing. can you point out flaws in it?

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 01:06 PM
the backgrounds do not match are are comelety differant. Even tho a person does a rather deceptive job of stitching them together. The shadows are not even the same

Check the patterns on the so called "mt" in the background, there is nothing similar between the two, nor i the ground

[edit on 10/9/2005 by Jehosephat]

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 01:17 PM
the mountains are the same. This is a site for defending the moon landings. What it is saying here is that when you normalize the scale, you can compare the photos. The first photo to the left has a horizontal ridge line that has eaten up the bottom of the mountain . when you rotate the pic 6degrees, and overlay it on the second mountain, it will match it almost exactly, with the first, closer mountain having bigger details as expected.


posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Jehosephat
the backgrounds do not match are are comelety differant. Even tho a person does a rather deceptive job of stitching them together. The shadows are not even the same

Check the patterns on the so called "mt" in the background, there is nothing similar between the two, nor i the ground

[edit on 10/9/2005 by Jehosephat]

I think you missed the point. There was no attempt at being deceptive with putting the photos together. The question on the clavius site was...

"If the LM is smaller on the right because the photographer is farther away, how can a genuine mountain behind it appear larger, since it too must be farther away?"

So all he does is show why it appears bigger from being further away. Obviously the ground doesn't match and you can see two LM in the matched up pics. He's just showing how the scalling works. It also shows that the mountain in the background is very large and very distant because it doesn't change much at all.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by jra]

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:33 AM

Originally posted by Master Wu
Ever stop to think that BOTH sides of the story may be true?
Maybe we did land on the moon, but at the same time faked some landings. Why would they do something like that? Who knows, but its still a possibility that both sides are right, and worth looking into.

I don't believe they ever went to the moon. I don't know if I believe they can even see anything worth seeing out of the Hubbel telescope. I think pretty much the whole NASA deal is a sham and a scam.

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:35 AM

Originally posted by Jehosephat
the backgrounds do not match are are comelety differant. Even tho a person does a rather deceptive job of stitching them together. The shadows are not even the same

Check the patterns on the so called "mt" in the background, there is nothing similar between the two, nor i the ground

[edit on 10/9/2005 by Jehosephat]

They do match. You have to look for the lit up mound. You can see it in each and every pic. I've seen other photos that have the same background and they're supposedly different missions entirely. These pics I put up are of the same mission but the points or stations are set up large distances apart.

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:45 AM
I think we went to the moon but something unknown happened.

Maybe they found someone was already there (the moon IS the perfect satellite - always facing towards earth) and were told not to mess with the moon (in some way shape or form) and had to find some way to 'appease the public' considering that they couldn't tell the public, yet had to find some way to say 'ok we been there done that, whats next'.

I bet the truth is something similar to those lines (as whacky as it sounds), and therefore involves both answers to be true.

We went to the moon and some of it was faked.


posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 10:24 AM

Originally posted by resistance
I don't know if I believe they can even see anything worth seeing out of the Hubbel telescope. I think pretty much the whole NASA deal is a sham and a scam.

What does Hubble have anything to do with this?

Why do you people keep insisting that "They should be able to take pictures of the landers with Hubble! Because they don't, it is clearly a fraud! WAAAAAH"

... Hubble is FAR-SIGHTED. What that means... is that it can look at things far away. It is not designed to look at things closeby. Moon, relavitely speaking, is pretty damn close.

So if all of NASA is a sham and a scam, then I guess a large number of the major universities, corporations, and international entities are shams, too? You forget... most of the satellites up there are not 'owned and operated' by NASA. NASA was just paid to put them into orbit.

You do believe the satellites are up there, right?

I still haven't heard an even half decent argument for why you think we didnt goto the moon. You rattled on about "it would get toooo hoooooot" for a nice bit, but here's one that shoots down that entire debacle: Is it cooler at night than during the day? Hmmmmm?

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in