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: 17
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
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.


No you don't see a blue sky in space. I didn't say it was a blue sky. I said it was bright sunlight shinning into the window and possibly refracting a bit on the glass. It's also overexposing on the film a bit as well in the shots I provided. I think it's just the effect of bright light and over exposure. That is all.


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.


I just watched the vid again. He is so obviously twisting the pole back and forth. I don't see how one could think other wise. I mean the flag is pointing in one direction and does a complete 180, then goes back again suddenly. That would be one very crazy storm and I wouldn't want to be there if that were happening. No... he is simply twisting the flag pole. Also if there was wind blowing, that would mean they arn't on a movie set. How many movie sets do you know of that have strong winds randomly changing direction?

Also, incase you didn't know. There is a horizontal pole along the top of the flag. That's what keeps it up.


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.


Yes focusing is sooooo fussy
Actually they probably left the focus on infinity (meaning everything ~4feet and beyond is in focus). Except for some closeup shots that would have been closer than 4 feet to the camera. Then one can just estimate the distance. I've done that before and it works fine.

It doesn't take long at all to take a bunch of pics and then continue about your business at all. The first few missions were a bit more basic. They didn't travel too far. In the later ones they had the lunar rover, so that cut down on the amount of time it took to travel from one place to the next. Also the later missions were a lot longer. For example, the last mission, Apollo 17 had 3 EVAs that in total, took 22 hours, 04 minutes. That's a long time. They spent 75 hours in total on the surface.


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


So far I have yet to see an 'anomaly' in any of the photos that can't be easily explained. One just has to understand the subject matter and how things work.




posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
jra -- Actually it's the one just above "UPDATE." The one above the title RADIATION is the film about the astroNOTs on wires. BTW, did you look at that? It's so obvious that they ARE on wires.


jra

posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- Actually it's the one just above "UPDATE." The one above the title RADIATION is the film about the astroNOTs on wires. BTW, did you look at that? It's so obvious that they ARE on wires.


It's obvious that they are in a differnt environment where the gravity is much lower and things work differntly than how we are used to seeing.

I have yet to see a movie made today that can simulate the appearance of low gravity. With the exception of the movie 'Apollo 13' where they built the sets inside the 'vomit comet' and were actually weightless, but one can only become weightless for about a minute at a time in that thing.

The video of the astronauts and how they move does look differnt. Definately not how things work here on Earth with stronger gravity.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
jra -- It doesn't look to you like a slow motion film with the astroNOTs hooked up to wires? I mean there's obviusly something pulling the astroNOT up when he's getting up off his knees. Did you take a look at that? You should watch it again.

It was a hoax, I tell you.

Here's another link with more pics with pasted backgrounds. Pretty good stuff.
www.geocities.com...

And light reflecting off the window of the spaceship isn't going to make the black sky look blue. It just isn't.

There might be explanations for some of this stuff -- but not all of it or even MOST of it.

[edit on 12-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
resistance ,

What you think is pulling up is the ease of gettig back up in 1/5 g

I watched those films in real-time when they first broadcast.

The sad point is they never let them make 18 ft leaps.




[edit on 10/13/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Bode -- With one-sixth gravity sure it would be easier to move. But their footsteps are just normal sized, and they don't move as one would in that low gravity. The films show one of the astroNOTs being pulled up by a wire attached to his beltline. Watch it again. When they jump they don't even jump very high. They should be able to jump higher than 19 inches. That's about how high we can jump here on earth, especially someone who's really fit with good leg muscles could jump that high easily. One thing you could say about the astroNOTs is they were physically fit. And they had wires to help them also.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:13 AM
link   
It was a fun video. I thought it was like that one unedited in the Bart Sibrel video

[edit on 13-10-2005 by Wind]



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:15 AM
link   
That was classic! I'm still laughing rofl.


jra

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 05:27 AM
link   
Perhaps you should read this about the astronauts and jumping. They could jump high. Armstrong did a 5 - 6 foot jump. Armstrong said "I did some fairly high jumps, and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that"

There was too much risk in jumping high. The last thing you want to do is damage your suit.



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Perhaps you should read this about the astronauts and jumping. They could jump high. Armstrong did a 5 - 6 foot jump. Armstrong said "I did some fairly high jumps, and found that there was a tendency to tip over backward on a high jump. One time I came close to falling and decided that was enough of that"



Yeah, and Neil Armstrong also said to Bart Sibrel, Ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies.

Here's another link. Check out the part on this site where it's got a complete expose by Tuttle as to how the whole thing was faked. (Tuttle is the one who helped to stage it, create the "special effects." ) And really you know if you're someplace where there's no atomosphere, you don't move slowly like you're walking in water. You move double-quick because there's no resistance at all, no gravity, no atmosphere to impede you. The NASA people are not only sneaky, they are also not very smart.

One thing that really made me fall off my chair laughing is the picture of the contraption on the moon with all the gold foil and the black cloths draped all over it and the pipes and cardboard taped all together. What a big joke.

www.geocities.com...



[edit on 13-10-2005 by resistance]


jra

posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
And really you know if you're someplace where there's no atomosphere, you don't move slowly like you're walking in water. You move double-quick because there's no resistance at all, no gravity, no atmosphere to impede you. The NASA people are not only sneaky, they are also not very smart.


Well obviously one could move faster, but like I said before. They didn't jump super high and do all those other things because they didn't want to damage there suits. Just because one could move faster doesn't mean they had to. And they didn't look like they were moving slowly in the vids that i've seen. They hop around from place to place fairly quickly.


One thing that really made me fall off my chair laughing is the picture of the contraption on the moon with all the gold foil and the black cloths draped all over it and the pipes and cardboard taped all together. What a big joke.

www.geocities.com...


That website had me laughing. I really love that one page that shows an example of how to take a photo. make it black and white and then black out the sky... using photoshop... yeah they had photoshop back in the 60's
Photomanipulation is easier these days although it still takes some one who knows what they are doing to make it look perfect. Now imagine how much harder it would be to do with knives and glue, literally cutting and pasting things together.

I also love how that site has a comment about the Apollo 17 map and how they are confused about it being in KM insted of miles. (how this helps to prove the landings were faked is beyond me), but pretty much all science industries work in metric. I think NASA is a mix of both. Funny how that simple fact escaped the genius who made this site.

I may have missed something about the gold foil and black cloth? where was that? One of the pages wasn't working (being on geocities and all).

Over all that was a pretty lame website. Filled with errors and stupidity. The giant font size and spelling astronaut as "astroNOT" also really shows the general educational level of the people who they expect to read that site. I'm not 4 years old anymore. I don't need enlarged words and I don't need them spelt out phonetically, so that I can understand them.

[edit on 13-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:46 AM
link   
Okay, JRA -- You asked for it. You need to look at the whole site. I mean take some time and read it and look at the whole thing.

Here's the link to the hokey lunar lander with the gold foil. It's at the bottom of the page. After you look at this, go back and carefully consider the site. Actually look at all of it. THEN come back and tell me it's a lame website. Obviously you haven't read it or looked at it.

As to your charge about photoshop, fact is many of the NASA pics of the lunar landings were made in the '90s. Just look at the site. NASA has a big facility at Langley just to shoot pics for the web.

www.geocities.com...


[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:51 AM
link   
You seriously think that if they wanted to fake the moon landings they would leave so much evidence laying around? They would have made sure it would stand up to scrutiny for a long time to come, and wouldn't have thrown together some slipshod job like you're claiming they did. Not to mention the argument that the Soviet Union and other countries would have screamed about it and blasted it all over the world.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Well, Zaphod, that's exactly how they manage to get away with all the stuff they do. Who would believe our government would do such a thing? The Illuminati laugh their butts off at how easy it is to fool people. These people have one fatal flaw -- their arrogance. They are SO arrogant that they make a lot of mistakes. A LOT.

NASA ADMITS they have simulations. So go look at the site I posted above and have a gander at some of those simulations. Just go look.

One astronaut has even ADMITTED there were staged photos. You want me to get the quote and post it, I will.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Moon doesn't even exist. You heard it here first!



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
Raab -- Ha ha ha. If you think you're laughing now, wait until you look at the site.

www.geocities.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   
In fact most things you heard about the world/universe we live in = hoax. We are just being kept behind a curtain of lies. It's fed from the top down, everyone beleaves in it, no one questions a thing... Think BIG.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by Raabjorn]

[edit on 15-10-2005 by Raabjorn]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
That's right, becasue your all infact within the Matrix - and I'm going to keep you there! Hahahaha.

You probably wouldn't move very fast on the moon because the suits were cumbersome and due to the reduced gravity you have less weight which means less friction to propel yourself along. You know how slow and awkward it is for people to move in zero G, well it's similar in reduced G too.

I guess a crude example that would demonstrate it adequately would be to try and run on ice in comparison to running on tarmac.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Did anyone get a chance to look at the Apollo moon lander pic? The one with all the gold foil and the black cloth draped around?

www.geocities.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Unfortunately the site has gone down, but when I got a chance earlier to look I thought that most of the pictures were to do with the training.
I noticed the guy said they all came from NASA, so it struck me as odd that they would publically publish photos 'proving' it was a hoax.
The one with the missing leg on the astronaut was curious, but I wondered why they would cut and paste an astronaut in anyway, why not actually take a photo of him standing next to the rover? Unless it was a fake photo by someone trying to prove it was all a hoax.

It could be a case of NASA 'spicing' up some of the photo's and inevitably shooting themselves in the foot doing so, by providing people with indiscrepancies to point the finger at.
It is not uncommon practice in all walks of life to do it, I work with photos every day and I often 'spice' them up or do a little editing to 'improve' them. But the general picture is the same and the event or object is still not a hoax.
It might sound simple but it could even be the case that they 'didn't get a good one' when the film was developed of a scene they wanted so they hash it together. It's not right some might say, and I guess it isn't, but it happens every day and people don't usually batter an eyelid because the implications are not so severe.

Some of the 'errors' that I've seen people point out are open to interpretation anyway and if true seem a little too obivous, when you think how careful they are when producing a Hollywood movie in not allowing anything in that shouldn't be, you would led to believe they were a lot more inept when 'producing' the Moon landing.
And the implications if it was found to be false, politically and especially during the cold war, would have been so severe it would have been catastrophic. While us Westerners might be 'blind sheep' that don't want to believe it to be untrue, I'm sure the USSR, China, Korea, etc would all have been more than happy to point out these flaws. You can also bet that the USSR at least would have been independantly monitoring the proceedings with their array of telescopes and receiving equipment and would have cried out if they had suspected that it was not occuring.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by AgentSmith]




top topics



 
29
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join