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: 16
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
I've seen other photos that have the same background and they're supposedly different missions entirely.


Please provide these photos, or links to them. Please indicate the source of these photos if you can.

Here are some nice archives for you to look in

images.jsc.nasa.gov...

www.apolloarchive.com...




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
clearly the moon landing was fake, there is enuff evidence to supourt this ZPE starpilot!

[edit on 9/28/05 by confirmtheunconfirmed]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   
The US astronauts landed on the Moon. Several times. Period.

I watched my Father, engineers, and astronauts work on details of the design, launches, and landings. We would fake all those details, time and effort? I don't think so.

Basically, if it's hi-tech it's akin to magic. (A trick to fool us)

My opinion: The average college graduate doesn't even know the Earth revolves around the Sun, let's don't confuse them by adding in the Moon.
If we want to go back to the Moon, and on to Mars, just do it.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Star Pilot -- The engineers and people working at NASA don't know the big picture. They all just do their jobs. When the moon landing was supposedly taking place they were all watching TV just like the rest of us. The astroNOTs ran the controls and there were only a few of them actually in on the hoax. All the astroNOTs are freemasons, 33 degree devil worshippers. NASA is agency of the Illuminati. But then so are most of the other government agencies also, if not all of them.

These people are very good at legerdemain and magic, optical illusions and trickery. It's their way of life. It goes with the territory. You get your way by fooling people, tricking them, creating scenarios. Then after they create the big problem they step in with the "solution" -- more control over our lives.

That's their ultimate goal -- a NWO with total control like the pyramid they have on the dollar bill -- one person at the top pulling the strings on everyone else, as in an all-seeing eye.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Star Pilot -- The engineers and people working at NASA don't know the big picture. They all just do their jobs. When the moon landing was supposedly taking place they were all watching TV just like the rest of us.


Wow, the depth of ignorance contained in those three sentences is enough to swallow Mount Olympus.

Why don't you get a clue as to how things work in the real world before you post such drivel again. You are living in a comic book fantasy defined by the four walls of your parent's basement.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by resistance
I've seen other photos that have the same background and they're supposedly different missions entirely.


Please provide these photos, or links to them. Please indicate the source of these photos if you can.

Here are some nice archives for you to look in

images.jsc.nasa.gov...

www.apolloarchive.com...



I'm still waiting for your proof.



jra

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by resistance
I've seen other photos that have the same background and they're supposedly different missions entirely.


Please provide these photos, or links to them. Please indicate the source of these photos if you can.

Here are some nice archives for you to look in

images.jsc.nasa.gov...

www.apolloarchive.com...



I'm still waiting for your proof.



As am I. I've been requesting those photos for a while now too.

Photos with similar backgrounds from the same mission will obviously happen. It also doesn't matter too much if they travel a few km here or there, if the mountain is large and distant. It won't change much at all. I can get similar results here. Traveling from one end of town to the other, taking pics of the same mountain and little of it will change.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
Here's more good links with more pics.

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

www.aulis.com...

And here's a clincher. Read this one and then come back and tell me we went to the moon!
www.aulis.com...



[edit on 10-10-2005 by resistance]


jra

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Here's another link with more pics.

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...


Well I watched the videos in the "The Hills Are Alive" section. Well with the second video, they start off by lying right away when they say, "This film shows two different Apollo missions". Wrong! On the video itself in the top left at one point it says, "Apollo 17 EVA 2" then says "Apollo 17 EVA 1". How are these differnt missions or am I missing something.

I can only assume the same about the first vid. But they don't even mention what Apollo mission it was. Great documentation
, so now I'm going to have to look through thousands of photos to confirm there statement.

EDIT: In regards to one of the link about the amount of photos taken. Firstly the guys numbers are way off. They took a lot more photos then that. For example he wrote that he counted 121 for Apollo 11. The real number is 1407 (339 on the surface). And I don't think it seems unreasonable to have taken that many photos. The whole trip took 08 days, 03 hours, 18 minutes. They spent 2h 31min on the EVA itself, more then enough time to take 339 photos between the two of them in my opinion. They spent a total of 21.6 on the surface and 59.5 in orbit of the Moon. More then enough time.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
jra -- I assume different missions means different extra vehicular expeditions -- same landing, different expeditions.

The first link has only one example of two different Apollo landings.

The second link is better. If you explore the whole site from the second link you'll see lots and lots of pics that are obviously faked, including where they have the same pic with different backgrounds. I mean the NASA people just had a ball coming up with these pics. They figure we are really stupid, laughing in their sleeves at us, making little puns while they faked out the world.

I'm not a scientist and I'm not an expert on the moon hoax actually. I just have common sense and I've read and looked into the subject. I can't remember everything I read specifically or where I read it. But these links are good ones, especially the second one.

What did you think about the film in the first link that showed the blue sky?
That should tell you all you need to know.

This link has every kind of pic you can imagine, as well as listing what's wrong with them so you can find what you want, e.g. same background, different mission.

www.aulis.com...


[edit on 10-10-2005 by resistance]


jra

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- I assume different missions means different extra vehicular expeditions -- same landing, different expeditions.


Well I take differnt missions to mean Apollo 11 as one mission and Apollo 12 as another. Either way. Photos that have the same background from the same landing is not odd at all. Like I have explained many times with my example.


What did you think about the film in the first link that showed the blue sky?
That should tell you all you need to know.


I saw intense sunlight shinning through the window. Here are some photos of the same thing. Much better then that almost microscopic video.

www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


This link has every kind of pic you can imagine, as well as listing what's wrong with them so you can find what you want, e.g. same background, different mission.

www.aulis.com...


Oh yeah this is great www.aulis.com...


1. The conclusion has to be that either the LM was repositioned or the backdrops were moved around, or both.


OR the Astronaut moved to a differnt spot. Gee who would have thought of that? Obviously the guy who made this site didn't


In this one here It's quite obvious that the top pic was taken further ahead than the bottom one. Not to mention that the ground is totaly differnt.

That site throws common sense and logic out the window. It's pretty crappy site, sorry.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:54 PM
link   
jra -- You gotta be kidding. I don't believe you looked at the sites honestly. Do you work for NASA or something?


jra

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- You gotta be kidding. I don't believe you looked at the sites honestly. Do you work for NASA or something?


I did look at them and all I read was a bunch of misinformed opinions and silly conclusions. And no I don't work for NASA


EDIT: And i'm still looking through the sites. But i'm not seeing anything close to proving the landings were fake at all.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:00 PM
link   
jra -- Did you read Jack White's Time Management computation? One pic taken every 50 seconds on the moon while the astroNOTs were performing all their other multitude of impossible tasks?

www.aulis.com...

And the pics are a mess. There's too, too many things wrong with the pics. That's what happens when you try to fake stuff -- you can't think of everything. Now we have hundreds of fake pics and people have lots of time to compare them and find all the many things wrong that prove they're staged pics and the whole thing was a big fake.

Common sense would tell you it's a fake anyway. The moon is 250,000 miles away and we can't even get somebody up there 200 miles without the tiles falling off and the ship blowing up. We can't even get a decent pic of the moon from the Hubbel.

Why are we just now trying to figure out the radiation on the moon, the dangerous radiation that must be overcome in order to put a man there and bring him back alive. How come NOW we're studying this phenomena?

Common sense. Then when you look at all those pics with their hollywood backgrounds, the same props used because they were too cheap to make new ones, the fire burning off the ship when there's no atmosphere, no oxygen to burn anything -- on and on. And how are you supposed to see blue sky through the window when you're in deep space? If the sky is blue it means they're in earth orbit.

Common sense. You really think that moon buggy was for real? Just look at it!

The footprints, the flags pointing all different angles, things left in like coke bottles, things left out. The fact that there's all this moon dust but none of it got blown away by the landing of the spacecraft. The lighting, the shadows, on and on and on and on and on.

And NASA even admitted that some of the pics "may have been duplicated" as they say, made in a studio, to duplicate some poor shots taken on the moon. Ha. They even admit it and you still don't believe any of the shots are staged. You really think we went to the moon not just once but several times, but now we can't get there until MAYBE 2018?

Maybe you ought to spring for one of these videos these people have for sale, or buy one of their books. I've never bought one because I don't need to. But if you need more complete proof, maybe you should do that. It's better than to continue on being duped.



[edit on 10-10-2005 by resistance]


jra

posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   


On Apollo 15, they had five 70MM cameras, with 19 magazines of film; 1518 images on black & white film, 1018 on color film, and 105 on ultraviolet film. With five differnt cameras. One would assume they could take one off and attach another. Both photos were taken on the same magazine (Magazine TT). You can tell because of the numbers of the photo names. I'd assume the camera was attached to Irwin's chest originally, but in order to get a pic of himself on the same film magazine, he would have had to take the camera off.




Like I said on the previous part. They had five cameras with colour, black & white and ultraviolet film. The two photos are taken from slightly differnt positions, thus things not lining up. I'm not sure how much time passed between the colour and B&W photos, but I don't think it would be hard for one to stand in a simmilar position. One would also assume that Scott had removed his camera for whatever reason. Like I said, they had 5 cameras. It's very likely they took them off from time to time.



Editor's Note: The same mountain backdrops appear in various photos, irrespective of the foreground. Moreover, backdrops are moved around as is customary in theatrical stage work. And the LM cannot be in two different places. Finally, the flags are pointing in different directions in the two images. See also: www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm


Again, these pics are just taken from differnt places around the landing site. Why is this so hard for whoever wrote these coments to understand? Large hills/mountains in the distance will not change much, if one doesn't move too far. If these were just backdrops on a set. The backgrounds would change a lot in position and scale depending on how close or far one moved from them. But the fact that they bairly change when moving around shows that they are quite far away. Thus not in some little movie set somewhere.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:28 PM
link   
jra -- Your point about the missing camera on Scott is a logical explanation. . What about the sneaker print mixed in with the bootprints? What about the flames coming out of the module? What about the whole thing is just a big fat fake? It's so obvious. Did you read the time management calculations about how much time it would have taken just to take all those pics? Even if the astroNOTs had nohting else to do but take pictures, it would still be impossible to take all those pics.

The lighting, the shadows, the props, the backgrounds, the whole thing is hokey, fakey, and didn't happen.

What's your logical explanation for the amount of pics taken by these busy astroNOTs with their pressurized gloves and their chest-mounted Haselblad cameras? How were they able to do that with all the other things they had to do?

And if you don't agree with the take on Scott's missing camera, are you equally skeptical about all the other anomalies in the rest of the pics? The sneaker print mixed in with the moonboot prints? How about that one?


jra

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- Did you read Jack White's Time Management computation? One pic taken every 50 seconds on the moon while the astroNOTs were performing all their other multitude of impossible tasks?


Yes, didn't you see my reply to that? Firstly his numbers were too low. Secondly, with two astronauts both taking photos, it wouldn't take long to go through a bunch of film. Mr. White also seems to make lots of assumptions.

Apollo 11 had 339 photos from the surface. The EVA lasted about 120min. I don't know which astronaut took more photos, but lets say they each took half that amount. So that makes it 169.5 per person. 169.5 shots in 120mins would be 1.4 photos per minute. Obviously the astronauts wouldn't have taken photos at a constant rate of 1.4 per minute. I'm sure they would pause for a moment, take a bunch of shots and then continue doing there assignments. Or one did most of the work while the other took most of the shots.

Doing photography myself. I know I can end up going through a lot of film quickly if there are a lot of interesting things to photograph. Professional photographers go through rolls of film like nothing too.


And the pics are a mess. There's too, too many things wrong with the pics. That's what happens when you try to fake stuff -- you can't think of everything. Now we have hundreds of fake pics and people have lots of time to compare them and find all the many things wrong that prove they're staged pics and the whole thing was a big fake.


Well that's your opinion. I on the other hand see nothing wrong with the pics at all.


Common sense would tell you it's a fake anyway. The moon is 250,000 miles away and we can't even get somebody up there 200 miles without the tiles falling off and the ship blowing up. We can't even get a decent pic of the moon from the Hubbel.


We can't get some one above 200 miles, because we only have the shuttle now and it's an orbiter and nothing more (meaning it was design to orbit Earth). And the tiles don't fall off. It's the foam that falls off the fuel tank, damaging the tiles. The reason the foam fall off is because the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) wanted NASA to stop using foam with CFC's (Chlorofluorocarbons) in it. The new foam isn't as good and it falls off durring launch. So blame the EPA for that.

And it's been explain already why the Hubble can't take pics of the moon. I don't know why you're bringing that up again.


Why are we just now trying to figure out the radiation on the moon, the dangerous radiation that must be overcome in order to put a man there and bring him back alive. How come NOW we're studying this phenomena?


I don't know this for sure. But I don't think the radiation on the moon is a constant thing. I believe NASA wants to find out what the conditions would be like for a long term stay. Like when the Sun is really active with solar flares. The Apollo missions happened in times of low solar activity.


Common sense. Then when you look at all those pics with their hollywood backgrounds, the same props used because they were too cheap to make new ones, the fire burning off the ship when there's no atmosphere, no oxygen to burn anything -- on and on. And how are you supposed to see blue sky through the window when you're in deep space? If the sky is blue it means they're in earth orbit.


Well i've explained my opinion on the background more times then I can count. What fire? Got a link for that one? I can't find it on that site. I already showed pics of the "blue sky". Just bright sunlight over exposing on the film and refracting a bit on the glass to it looks like. It does not mean they are in orbit.


Common sense. You really think that moon buggy was for real? Just look at it!


What's wrong with it? Please explain.


The footprints, the flags pointing all different angles, things left in like coke bottles, things left out. The fact that there's all this moon dust but none of it got blown away by the landing of the spacecraft. The lighting, the shadows, on and on and on and on and on.


Coke bottles? what? Please show me, I didn't see that anywhere.

The rocket nozzle on the decent module was throttleable from 45.04 kN to 4.56 kN. They arn't going to have the rocket thrust going full blast when they land. Just like a Jet, they lower the throttle to slow there speed. Some dust was blown and in some of the pics you can tell. But it wasn't a lot because not a lot of force was coming out of the rocket by the time they touched down.

I see nothing wrong with the lighting and shadows. The shadows are all bent because of the uneven surface.


And NASA even admitted that some of the pics "may have been duplicated" as they say, made in a studio, to duplicate some poor shots taken on the moon. Ha. They even admit it and you still don't believe any of the shots are staged. You really think we went to the moon not just once but several times, but now we can't get there until MAYBE 2018?


Could I see the official source where NASA admits to this?


What about the sneaker print mixed in with the bootprints? What about the flames coming out of the module? What about the whole thing is just a big fat fake? It's so obvious. Did you read the time management calculations about how much time it would have taken just to take all those pics? Even if the astroNOTs had nohting else to do but take pictures, it would still be impossible to take all those pics.


I don't think I saw the sneaker print. Got a link for that one? I don't find this site organized to find certain things easily (plus it doesn't seem to be working for me right now anyway).

Again, didn't see anything about flames. Send the direct link if you got it.

Like at said at the begining of this post. I don't think it would be hard at all to take hundreds of photos in a few hours. Especially when split between two people. I don't think it's a 'big fat fake'. The only thing that's obvious is the lack of understanding by the people who made that site. I'm sorry, but that's how I feel about it.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
jra -- First, you DON'T see a blue sky when you're in deep space. That's just a fact. Once you are out of earth's orbit, the sky is BLACK. You need an ATMOSPHERE to have a blue sky.

There's a film of the module taking off from the moon with fire coming out the back. Since there's no atmosphere there can't be any fire on the moon. Go to the part on this that's just before the section on RADIATION. Click on the flapping flag film, the astroNOTs on wires part and the part where the module left the moon with flames coming out. www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

And the film about the flapping flag-- I know we've heard all kinds of "logical and rational" explanations from NASA, but you have to see this to believe it.

As to the number of pics, these aren't just a lot of pics taken of the same thing, lots of duplicates. These are pics taken at different places showing different things, and require time to get there. If they just stood there and clicked away at the same thing then you could possibly get away with your faith in their ability to take all those pics and dig for rocks, set up their stations, do all the other things they supposedly did. But the Hasselblad requires focusing and lots of fussy stuff to shoot a pic.

There may be a few logical explanations (or rationalizations) for some of the anomalies, but take them all together and they point to one thing. [SIZE=6]HOAX




[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

There's a film of the module taking off from the moon with fire coming out the back. Since there's no atmosphere there can't be any fire on the moon.



Maybe if you actually took a science class in High School, this wouldn't seem so strange to you.



You need three things to support combustion heat, fuel, oxygen (or an oxidizer, actually).

Rocket fuel has two parts, the fuel and the oxidizer.

Thus a rocket engine can produce a flame in outer space.

For example it would be perfectly possible to use an oxyacetylene welding torch in space, you would have a flame and everything.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
But the Hasselblad requires focusing and lots of fussy stuff to shoot a pic.


You don't know much about how cameras and lenses work, do you?

Stop it down and it will be in focus.

www.clavius.org...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join