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: 23
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Well we got to do this "one ignoramus at a time".




That's half true cause only a ignoramus would let there opinions waver due to your facts. I can accept that everyone has the rigth to there own views and opinions, sum how you think its your mission to change this ?. Being RUDE is just plan sad and childish.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by helium3]




posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by helium3

Originally posted by Halfofone
Well we got to do this "one ignoramus at a time".




That's half true cause only a ignoramus would let there opinions waver due to your facts. I can accept that everyone has the rigth to there own views and opinions, sum how you think its your mission to change this ?. Being RUDE is just plan sad and childish.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by helium3]


There is a subtle difference between having an opinion and being just plain ignorant.
No one has a right to perpetrate lies to help fulfill their little fantasies either I'm afraid, if something is proven one way or another then that's it. I'm sick of people thinking they have a licence to change physics under the guise of 'having an opinon' or 'freedom of speech'. There's nothing wrong with not understanding something but flaunting around trying to change written history without knowing what one is talking about seems rather irresponsible, don't you think?
It's because of that ignorant, dumb attitude that the Government have an incentive and justification to strip people of their freedoms in the first place, no one has a right to abuse it and it doesn't do any of us any favours.

As I've said before if there are valid points to be made then make them, but repeating the same uneducated tired old crap day in day out is not going to achieve anything.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Well that statement was a refrence to Off_the_street's signature, it was a joke (notice the winking face), I'm sorry I didn't mean to offend, but you have not shown me anything that justifies your opinion except that Bart Sibel had it in his video.



only a ignoramus would let there opinions waver due to your facts

That is a new one, I should put that in my sig.

Only an ignoramus would let thier opinions waver due to the opinions esposed by someone else. Facts are facts and only an ignoramus would refute them without any sort of argument. So make your argument or don't, but you cannot prove anything by skirting the issue with things like; your patriotism is blinding you ect.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
so just because you are some kind of wonderful you dont get a opinion ? MATE no one has the rigth to perpetrate that BS. No ones trying to change physics laws here and this is not a day time. AgentSmith theres no need to be a stand-up kind of guy
unless you wanna be ?

MOD EDIT: Offensive stuff.


[edit on 10/26/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Enough with the harrasment of each other. Capice?



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Capiche...


Lets get back to some calm debate.

helium3 what are the points that Sibrel, or anyone else has made that has convinced you that the Moon landings were a hoax. I'm not asking for proof, I'm asking you to give me your reasoning ,what's your logic? What doesn't make sense?

Please do not think I'm talking down or anything, I'm assuming that you have reasoning ability, but I used to belive the hoax, but I looked at all the info that disagreed with my opinion (because I'm trying to deny ignorance myself) and I started to realize that many Hoax arguments didn't make sense after carefull examination.

I'm willing to belive that it is a hoax, but I cannot get past the flimsyness (imo) of the arguments. Have you looked at any of the debunking info?

www.clavius.org...
www.badastronomy.com...

have you looked through the NASA info?
www.hq.nasa.gov...

An open mind goes both ways.



posted on Oct, 26 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Helium says:


...only a ignoramus would let there opinions waver due to your facts.


That's not quite true. There is a name for people who change their opinions due to other peoples' facts, but it's not "ignoramus".

It's "scientist".

Because that is what science -- real science, the kind that has given us our technological civilization -- is about. It's people accepting one thing based on the best information they have; then, finding out that the information upon which they built their beliefs was wrong or incomplete, they come to terms and develop a new belief set (sometimes called a "hypothesis") which explains things better better in light of the newly-found facts.

This hypothesis, of course, is not the be-all end-all sum of knowledge and belief. As more and more facts emerge, these hypotheses (and thus, our understanding of the Universe) evolve as well.

Certainly you have the right not to change your opinions based on these pesky "facts". You may -- or may not -- have a need to believe that people never went to the moon, and whatever emotions drive your needs, you are certainly entitled to them.

But most people here understand the difference between what is and what you'd like them to be. My assumption is that your beliefs are driven by evidence; I think all everyone here is asking is that you present the evidence for your belief, and defend it against any questions anyone has.

Certainly I am willing to do the same, as are, I'm sure, my colleagues halfofone and Agent Smith.

[edit on 26-10-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Oct, 27 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone

Please do not think I'm talking down or anything, I'm assuming that you have reasoning ability, but I used to belive the hoax, but I looked at all the info that disagreed with my opinion (because I'm trying to deny ignorance myself) and I started to realize that many Hoax arguments didn't make sense after carefull examination.


Wow, as you've come "out of the closet" it has inspired me somewhat. I too briefly thought there might be something to the hoax theory! Ah, I feel liberated.

This is my story: I read an article in the fantastically entertaining, and usually very balanced, Fortean Times written by a hoax believer, it was quite long and included all sorts of evidence that just made me go "hmm, this is quite convincing, how can this be...." I didn't actually completley go for it, as common sense and my natural skeptiscm were screaming at me "ah come on, there would have to be 10,000s of thousands of people involved and what about the Russians?"

However for a month it troubled me somewhat. Until the next edition of Fortean Times came out. They ran a letters special on the subject in which 10s of contributors, mainly scientists and photography experts, utterly demolished every single plank of the hoax believers argument. There was also quite a bit of complaint that a "believer" had had free reign to write one of the major articles in the magazine. Aside from anything else this simply isn't the Fortean approach. They did admit they were wrong in not having a rebutal article in the same edition (they did later commission one). I must say I had a quiet moment of embarassment to myself and made sure that anyone I'd spoken to about it knew it had been proved to be BS.

And the moral of the story is? Don't cling to your beliefs when all the evidence is to the contrary. The government might be out to get you, and may have perpetrated all sorts of tricks on the public, however this is not one of them.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Something else I should have said, though it is not just to you specifically Res, is that just because you or anyone else doesn't understand something does not mean it can't be or hasn't been done.
It is quite insulting for the people that have spent their lives studying and working hard, that some people think that they know everything when they obviously do not have a particularly high standard of education and have no experience in the subject at hand - and yet are suddenly self proclaimed experts to the level they actually believe they can debunk the subject in question.

That's what makes me especially annoyed with you, when you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge in basic physics (which is fine), yet appear to believe that you have the experience and knowledge to conclusively say wherever or not we went to the Moon (which is not fine) and use petty and insulting names (AstroNOTs) for, until proven otherwise, some of the greatest men in history.


[edit on 19-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



Agent -- My knowledge of physics is admittedly weak. Why do I still argue points from a physics point of view? Well, I have other reasons to believe there was no moon landing-- reasons besides physics. The physics are just extra reasons I might offer from what I've read and heard, maybe not completely understanding. And since I am so suspicious of NASA I question anything they say, even by my own puny understanding of science or physics. That's why I stuck my neck out on the temperature thing, which I guess I was wrong about, or at least I was wrong that heat would keep accumulating past the point of the heat source.

But from a scientific point of view also, if I'm told that outer space is black, then when I see film footage of astronots that are supposed to be in deep space but looking out the spacecraft window you see blue sky, I say something is definitely wrong. When somebody tells me it's just light reflecting off the window that makes it "appear" as though it's blue sky outside but it's really not, just the light reflecting off the window, I say -- hmmm. Why isn't there any glare? Why isn't the reflected light white instead of blue if it's just light reflected off the window? Why does the window just look like a window that you are looking out into blue sky? So this is an answer that we are given by NASA to explain this anomaly, but whether one chooses to accept this as a plausible explanation is a matter of choice. To me, I say NOT. That is no light reflection. That is earth's atmosphere. Nobody is in deep space at all. They are lying.

Why don't the astronots act like heros? Why did they all resign from NASA right after they supposedly returned from the moon? Why won't Neal Armstron give any interviews? Why were the three of them acting so guilty, so squirmy, at their one and only press conference? Why did they say they didn't "remember" seeing any stars? Huh? Was the whole thing so boring and insignificant that they can't remember something that significant? They got to get a view of the sky that nobody else has ever seen and they "don't remember?"

Bart Sibrel's entire video A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon can be seen free here: www.divxcrawler.com...

It takes about 45 minutes to download the thing.

Agent Smith, this is a conspiracy site, so why are you so surprised and upset when people believe in conspiracies? Why do you cast aspersions on their motives and insult them for their opinions?

Why do so many of the moderators on ATS bully people, insult them, and run people off the board they don't agree with?

The explainations that have been given by you for the lack of disturbance underneath that contraption they call a moon lander is bogus IMO. Why? Because even a hair dryer will blow away dust. I don't care if it's 3,000 feet or 10,000 feet, a rocket engine is going to blow a lot of dust and there will be signs of a disturbance. I can't tell you what the physics formula for all that is, but common sense would tell you it doesn't matter if it's 3,000 feet or 10,000 feet worth of power they need to land. The spaceships were not antigravity machines.

And if one assumes the film of the astronots is just regular footage played in slow motion, Sibrel demonstrates that when the film of the astronots is speeded up to regular speed the astro-actors just look like they would on the earth.

Mostly everyone on this site acts civilized and fair. That's why I'm posting here. It seems the only safe place to post on ATS.

Can anybody explain to me what the "ignore" button is for?



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   
The explanation for 'blue sky' has been given, you don't have to accept it if you don't understand I guess, but wouldn't it be better to be sure?
Do some experiments with a camera yourself with different light levels/sources/etc and see. I've seen pretty odd things out of the hundreds of photos I've taken over time so I don't need to do a specific experiment to know it is very plausible.
I imagine the glass would be pretty thick too and the light will probably refract and reflect within the window itself to make some weird effects, similar to when you're in a plane becasue they have pretty thick windows - you know what I mean?

If you run a video backwards you might look like you were walking backwards, if you run a video in slow motion you might look like you were on the moon - so what?
When I was back in school me and some mates made a music video, in one scene I filmed them jumping backwards off of a ledge and walking away backwards, when we ran the tape in reverse and edited it they looked like they were walking up and jumping a height of about 2 metres.
So it isn't evidence that they wre on earth because of what it looked like when played at 2x speed and to go by my rules it doesn't mean they were on the Moon - but that's the best you can argue for.

It proves nothing and is hardly evidence of anything in any way whatsoever. I get annoyed because all I see is flimsy evidence that is incredibly easy to knock over as it is worthless and yet people still find it hard to let go of the conspiracy.
It's such a crying shame that you however so easily let go of the reality of the lunar missions on the word of some... intellectually challenged people.

They do attend events and press conferences, in fact when I was having dinner with Dr Aldrin on Saturday night he struck me has being a very, very honest man and someone of exceedingly high stature. I observed that he thinks about everything he says first, he does seem to have a delay when answering anything. So maybe when I asked him if he wanted a bread roll and he paused - there's a conspiracy there too?
His wife is a lovely lady too, she has some excellent morals and a very admirable desire for genuine peace in the world.

I found both his lecture and Charlie Dukes to be highly interesting, infact I recorded them so I'll be putting them up as podcasts shortly, both of them talked about the Fox show and it was the first thing someone asked Buzz about.

But all I can really say is that after spending a few hours talking to and listening to him, I can safely say that I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they went to the Moon (though I had little doubt, if any, beforehand anyway). Obviously that is nothing to anyone else but it means everything to me and that's what counts (to me of course).

So it may mean nothing to you and I pity you for it, as it was one of Man's greatest and most positive achievments. But I can still safely say that they always have been and still are some of my greatest heroes.





[edit on 31-10-2005 by AgentSmith]


jra

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
I found both his lecture and Charlie Dukes to be highly interesting, infact I recorded them so I'll be putting them up as podcasts shortly, both of them talked about the Fox show and it was the first thing someone asked Buzz about.


That's awesome. I'm really looking forward to hearing those podcasts and it's also great that you got to meet them in person too. (no fair!
)


Originally posted by resistance
Why don't the astronots act like heros?


How does one "act" like a hero? And why should they "act" as such? I do think they are hero's but I don't get what you mean about how they should "act".


Why did they all resign from NASA right after they supposedly returned from the moon?


Umm maybe because they all didn't retire "right after" they came back. Perhaps you should actually research insted of accepting some uninformed persons opinion blindly.

Apollo 11 crew:


Neil A. Armstrong, civilian
Spaceflights: Command pilot, Gemini 8 (1966). Commander, Apollo 11 (1969).

Was an aviator in the Navy and was chosen with the second group of astronauts in 1962. Made seven flights in the X-15 program, reaching an altitude of 207,500 feet. Was backup command pilot for Gemini 5, command pilot for Gemini 8, backup command pilot for Gemini 11, backup commander for Apollo 8, and commander for Apollo 11 (first man to walk on the Moon). Was Deputy Associate Administrator for Aeronautics at NASA from July 1970 until August 1971, when he resigned to become Professor of Aeronautical Engineering at the University of Cincinnati. Served on the National Commission on Space from 1985 to 1986 and on the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident in 1986.




Michael Collins, Lt. Col., USAF.
Spaceflights: Pilot, Gemini 10 (1966). Command module pilot, Apollo 11 (1969).

Chosen in the third group of astronauts in 1963. Served as backup pilot for Gemini 7, pilot for Gemini 10, and command module pilot for Apollo 11. Had been assigned to Apollo 8 but was removed to undergo surgery. Resigned from NASA in January 1970 and was appointed Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. Became Director of the National Air and Space Museum at the Smithsonian Institution in April 1971 and was promoted to Under Secretary of the Smithsonian in April 1978. Retired from the Air Force with the rank of Major General. Became Vice President, Field Operations, Vought Corporation, Arlington, Virginia, in February 1980. Currently heads Michael Collins Associates, a Washington, D.C. consulting firm. Has written numerous articles and two books, Carrying the Fire and Liftoff, as well as a children's book, Flying to the Moon and Other Strange Places.




Buzz Aldrin, Col., USAF
Spaceflights: Pilot, Gemini 12 (1966). Lunar module pilot, Apollo 11 (1969).

Chosen with the third group of astronauts in 1963. Was backup pilot for Gemini 9, pilot on Gemini 12, backup command module pilot for Apollo 8, and lunar module pilot for Apollo 11 (second man to walk on the Moon). Resigned from NASA in July 1971 to become Commandant of the Aerospace Research Pilot's School at Edwards AFB, California. Retired from the Air Force in 1972 and became a consultant for the Comprehensive Care Corporation, Newport Beach, California. Currently resides in southern California and lectures and consults on space sciences with Starcraft Enterprises. Has authored two books, Return to Earth and Men From Earth.


Looks like none of those guys resigned "right after" they came back.

Now lets skip to the Apollo 17 crew.



Eugene Andrew Cernan, Commander USN

Gene was selected as a member of the third group of astronauts in October 1963. He and Gemini 6 veteran Thomas Stafford were assigned to the Gemini 9 backup crew but became the prime crew when Elliot See and Charles Bassett were killed in an aircraft accident in February 1966. Gemini 9 was launched on June 3, 1966. During their three-day flight, Stafford and Cernan performed three separate rendezvous with an unmanned Agena target vehicle. Gene also performed NASA's second spacewalk, spending two hours outside the spacecraft. As he discusses in his Apollo 17 commentary, the difficulties he experienced demonstrated the need for handholds, footholds, and a high-capacity spacesuit cooling system. After Gemini 9, Cernan served as backup pilot for Gemini 12; and, then, he and Stafford were joined by Gemini 3 and 10 veteran John Young as the backup crew for Apollo 7. In the normal course of crew rotation, they became the prime crew of Apollo 10, with Cernan assigned as Lunar Module Pilot (LMP). Apollo 10 was the final rehearsal for the historic first landing and was flown to check out all spacecraft systems and procedures in lunar orbit. Stafford and Cernan flew the lunar module Snoopy on virtually the same trajectory that Armstrong and Aldrin took two months later. They flew down to 47,000 feet before discarding the LM Descent Stage and flying back out to a rendezvous with Young. Following Apollo 10, Cernan was assigned to the Apollo 14 backup crew as Commander, with Ron Evans as Command Module Pilot and Joe Engle as Lunar Module Pilot. By the time Apollo 14 was flown, Cernan had become the first and only Apollo astronaut to have trained as both LMP and Commander. Following Apollo 17, Cernan helped in the planning for Apollo-Soyuz and acted for the program manager as the senior U.S. representative in discussions with the U.S.S.R. He retired from NASA and the Navy, with the rank of Captain, on July 1, 1976, and has kept very busy ever since as a consultant in the energy and aerospace businesses and as a television commentator.




Ronald Ellwin Evans, Commander USN

Ron was selected as a member of the fourth group of pilot-astronauts in April 1966. At the time of his selection, he was flying combat operations in the South China Sea - from the aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga - having previously served as a combat flight instructor. He served on the support crew for Apollo 7 and as the Apollo 11 LM Launch CapCom before his assignment to the Apollo 14 backup crew and, then, Apollo 17. After his lunar flight, Ron served as backup Command Module Pilot for the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz joint flight and then transferred to the Shuttle program prior to his retirement from NASA in 1977. He worked as Executive Vice-President of Western America Energy Corporation in Scottsdale, Arizona until 1978, then as Manager, Space Systems Marketing for Sperry Flight Systems, Phoenix, Arizona, and later as a marketing consultant. He died of a heart attack in Scottsdale, Arizona, April 7, 1990.




Dr. Harrison Hagen (Jack) Schmitt, Ph.D. civilian

He received a Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard University in 1964. Before joining NASA as a member of the first group of scientist-astronauts in June 1965, he worked at the U.S. Geological Survey's Astrogeology Center at Flagstaff, developing geological field techniques that would be used by the Apollo crews. Following his selection, Schmitt played a key role in training Apollo crews to be geologic observers when they were in lunar orbit and competent geologic field workers when they were on the lunar surface. After each of the landing missions, he participated in the examination and evaluation of the returned lunar samples and helped the crews with the scientific aspects of their mission reports.

Because Schmitt was the only geologist in the astronaut corps and, as well, had spent considerable time becoming proficient in the CSM and LM systems, it came as no surprise when, in March 1970, he became the first of the scientist-astronauts to receive a crew assignment. He joined Richard Gordon (Commander) and Vance Brand (Command Module Pilot) on the backup crew for Apollo 15 and was clearly in line to fly as Lunar Module Pilot on Apollo 18. After the cancellation of Apollo 18 in September 1970, many people expected that he would be assigned to fly on Apollo 17, the last lunar mission. That assignment was announced in August 1971. After the completion of Apollo 17, Schmitt played an active role in documenting the Apollo geologic results and also took on the task of organizing NASA's Energy Program Office. In August 1975, Schmitt resigned from NASA to seek election as a United States Senator representing New Mexico. He served one term and, notably, was the ranking Republican member of the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee. He was defeated in a re-election bid in 1982 and, since then, has kept very busy as a consultant in business, geology, space, and public policy.


None of these guys resigned right after either. Now if you want to check each and every one of them, go ahead. Here's a good site www.hq.nasa.gov...


Why were the three of them acting so guilty, so squirmy, at their one and only press conference?


Well it's been shown that they've done lots of interviews, some have writen several books. I haven't seen the press conference, but my guess is that you're not good at reading peoples expressions.

Here's a pic of them right after they got back, talking to Nixon. They sure look happy here. Perhaps they were just nervous at there press conferance. I know I can't stand being up infront of a crowd.


Why did they say they didn't "remember" seeing any stars? Huh? Was the whole thing so boring and insignificant that they can't remember something that significant? They got to get a view of the sky that nobody else has ever seen and they "don't remember?"


Who said this and when? I believe some of the astronauts said they were able to see some stars. But it was day time on the moon. With the sun shinning brightly, it's hard to see the stars. Now if it was night time on the moon, i'm sure they would have had an amazingly clear view of the stars.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   
As I think it was Charlie said, which you will hear when I sort the podcasts out, the Sun was shining the whole time - hence the inability to see stars.

And believe me, no matter how memorable something is in your life it's damn hard to remember the next day let alone 30 years or more later.
It was only a couple nights ago but the whole thing was like a surreal dream, I find it hard to remember details but I know I was there. It was the most amazing thing that has ever happened in my life, and I've done a few pretty good things (to me). You don't remember things well a day or two after and especially not 30 years or so later!

Press conferences and such are incredibly nerve racking, it doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. I was speaking to Amanda Wyss who is mainly known for Nightmare on Elm Street, but has been in many other TV shows and movies, and she was nervous meeting Buzz! I was watching when she met him in the Bar later that night and the night before she'd been saying to me how she was looking forward to meeting him and she looked pretty nervous at the time - and she's on TV and making movies all the time! So that argument is BS, because if you had ever been in even remotely similar situations yourself you'd know that everything is relative and just because you are confident in one thing that over people arn't - it does not mean you are confident in other situations. This may be hard for some people to grasp but I can assure you that it will all become clear one day - and if it doesn't then I'm really, really sorry about that


And I would expect them to be touchy about the subject, I am and I'm not involved, it must be absolute crap to one day be a hero and the next kids don't believe in you. These guys laid their lives on the line all for human achievement (and to go to the Moon!), I think it was Charlie who said he effectively got paid at the time for going to the moon about $13.
I hope that when it's proven they were there with newer photographs that people feel really guilty, because it is incredibly sad that these guys were around just long enough to see so many people loose faith in our most positive achievement.
I made sure the last thing I said to Dr Aldrin that night was that I and many other people do appreciate and believe in everything he and his colleagues have done, and he smiled and looked sincerely happy because even though they tried not to show it you could tell it saddened them that so many people, especially young people, have lost faith not in just them - but humanity as a whole and everything that we have accomplished.
There's enough crap and lies in the world without mercilessly destroying the truly positive things that we have achieved.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Agent Smith, this is a conspiracy site, so why are you so surprised and upset when people believe in conspiracies? Why do you cast aspersions on their motives and insult them for their opinions?


1) I am not suprised that people believe in conspiracies - I do myself - I am just surprised at how easily people will believe in things which have such dire consequences with such ease and lack of intelligent evidence.

2) Just because somone doesn't follow the official line does not mean they have positive motivations - the same as the official line is not always the truth or for general well-being - quite often it dwells from a sub-conscious acknowledgment of self-failure and the desire to raise one's self esteem by criticising or belittling others - in this case on a grand scale.

3) Most if not all the 'arguments' are - to be frank - just plain retarded and a sad reflection on the poor quality of education in today's society.


EDIT:

Oh and the more astute of you will notice that I suffer greatly from No. 2 - though you will also notice that I also make attempts to elevate myself by accomplishing things and educating myself - as well as the belittling of others.... Which I only try and do when I'm pretty sure I'm right... Sorry I can't help it I'm a bit of a failure in some ways and I need to make up for it too - I'm only human


[edit on 31-10-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Agent said:

Do some experiments with a camera yourself with different light levels/sources/etc and see. I've seen pretty odd things out of the hundreds of photos I've taken over time so I don't need to do a specific experiment to know it is very plausible.
I imagine the glass would be pretty thick too and the light will probably refract and reflect within the window itself to make some weird effects, similar to when you're in a plane becasue they have pretty thick windows - you know what I mean?


I'm not referring to photos. I'm referring to the video clips that Bart Sibrel put up on his website www.moonmovie.com. You can see through the window that outside it's blue sky and they are supposed to be in deep space.
As to the walking, isn't it coincidental that if you speed the film up to regular speed that they just look like people kind of jogging on earth in space suits?

JRA -- How do heros act? Relaxed and confident, basking in the adoration of the world. They were not basking at the news conference (Astronauts Gone Wild). They were squirming. They were checking with each other to come up with answers to questions. When they were asked about the stars in the video A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, they were caught up short and had to kind of try to "read" each other and to say they forgot is just not believable. How would a hero act? A hero would be out front telling the world, "Oh yes we did go to the moon. Yeah, I know some people have said we didn't, written books, said all kinds of things. Well, you can rest assured that we most certainly did go to the moon. I was there. I remember it. Sure I'll put my hand on the Bible and swear. If it will help people to believe that America did this thing." Buzz Aldrin is the only one who dares show his face in public on anything to do with Apollo. Anything the astronots do say in public or write in public has nothing to do with their supposed heroic adventures on the moon. Neal Armstrong's last public appearance was to emotionally tell young people that they must lift the layers to find the truth in space travel.

Had they wanted to get lots of pictures of the stars while on the moon they could have done so. They would at least have been able to see them themselves. But the stars could have been verified so easily by any backyard astronomer. This is why the stars are kind of swept under the rug. That's why stars, what stars?

Agent, BTW, how much did Buzz talk about his moon adventures at the dinner? And also I'm curious what that medal is he's wearing. Looks like a pentagram.

But congratulations. What a scoop to have sat with the Aldrins during dinner and for getting all those pics and for your interview. I truly congratulate you on capturing this newsworthy event.

JRA -- None of the examples you showed of the astronots' careers show them staying with NASA after the supposed moon landings. They were all out and on to something else within a few months.

Common sense tells me there were no Apollo moon landings. I don't believe it. I'm not trying to build myself up. This is not the only thing I know and believe which is in contradiction to the rest of society. My belief in God and the Bible are another example where my truth-telling is received less than gratefully. I also don't believe the universities and the museums and the Discovery Channel and the high school textbooks or National Geographic or all these other prestigious people are correct in believing in evolution either. I don't refute their claims so I can project myself as being more important than they are. It's because I just happen to love the truth. The truth WILL set you free.

Scripture says that what man highly esteems God considers to be an abomination. Well, I agree with God on that score.

I also believe our government lied about the JFK assassination, 9/11, and the Oklahoma bombings. I think FDR knew Pearl Harbor was going to be bombed by the Japanese and just sat back and let it happen because he wanted us to go to war. I think our government is controlled by the Illuminati, the secret government. You can read about these things all through ATS. That's why this is a conspiracy site, so people like me supposedly can have a place to discuss things they believe to be conspiracies.

Well, the moon hoax is one of the biggest conspiracies ever foisted on mankind.



[edit on 31-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Well if you've seen the entire video you will notice that the blue light in the windows is there all the time. You are probably thinking EXACTICALY!!! because the were in low earth orbit the entire time....

However, if you know anything about orbiting earth, you would know that you are orbiting at about 45 min on the day side and 45 min on the night side. Therefore sometimes you would see black and sometimes earth, but this is not the case.

I found an interesting picture.




to me this looks like (and is) light scatter caused by contaminants on the window (gasket outgassing, LES exhaust residue, dust, and in condensed breath moisture) and the reason it is blue is the same reason that the sky is blue, because the blue light is most suseptable to scattering.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   


Had they wanted to get lots of pictures of the stars while on the moon they could have done so. They would at least have been able to see them themselves. But the stars could have been verified so easily by any backyard astronomer. This is why the stars are kind of swept under the rug. That's why stars, what stars?



Where are the stars here..



or here



or here




It's called light pollution, Go out right now stand under a street lamp look up and tell me how many stars you see..... NONE, because they are being drowned out by the light. This has been adressed. please find something new.

And your opinion of how they are acting is not good enough I'm sorry but You'll need to do better than that....

I guess it's a sports conspiracy! everyone knows that stars are seen on earth, they must not be playing on earth!!!!!


[edit on 31-10-2005 by Halfofone]


jra

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Halfofone: I posted that exact picture here somewhere in this thread. I don't know if resistance looked at it, but thanks for posting it again



Originally posted by resistance
JRA -- How do heros act? Relaxed and confident, basking in the adoration of the world.


Yeah, I'm sure all hero's act like that...



Had they wanted to get lots of pictures of the stars while on the moon they could have done so.


IT WAS DAY TIME ON THE MOON! I don't know how much clearer I can say that. On a good clear night on Earth with little light polution, it could take a good 10 to 30 seconds to expose starlight onto film. My estimate if the average shutter speed used on the Apollo photos would have been about 1/500 of a second and faster. There is no way one could get stars to expose on film that quickly even if it was totaly dark with no light polution. There is no way they could have gotten photos of the stars while on the moon.


They would at least have been able to see them themselves.


And if you read what I said. Some were able to make them out. But generally they couldn't due to the Sun being too bright.


JRA -- None of the examples you showed of the astronots' careers show them staying with NASA after the supposed moon landings. They were all out and on to something else within a few months.


A few months? No offense but where did you learn to tell time? Sure some of them resigned before others, but most seem to have stuck around for a year or two after at least. And so what if they resigned a little while later? With the Apollo 11 crew, they were all getting into there 40's by 1970. They had lived very dangerous lives, testing these vehicles and doing the things they did. After all that, I know i'd want to retire and spend the later half of my life with my family and friends.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, great examples with the football photos Halfofone.

EDIT 2: Another thing, that "pentagram" looking medal as you put it is the, Presidential Medal of Freedom, it's one of the two highest civilian awards in the United States.

[edit on 31-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Buzz Aldrin is the only one who dares show his face in public on anything to do with Apollo. Anything the astronots do say in public or write in public has nothing to do with their supposed heroic adventures on the moon.


That's really weird! Because I could have sworn that's Charlie Duke in the picture with me too, and I could have sworn Dick Gordon was around too! Oh well I guess you know best..........


Funny too how they seemed to talk pretty much only about their adventures on the Moon the entire time!

I wonder where you get you're information from? Just because you say it doesn't make it true mate, sorry.

And I still can't understand how you fail to grasp the concept of BRIGHT SUN = NO SEE STARS - do you understand? Do you want me to repeat it for you again - BRIGHT SUN = NO SEE STARS... got it?
I'm sure you can grasp this - shouldn't your 'common sense' prevail?
Go outside when it's pitch black and stand under you're floodlight if you have one - can you see the stars? No - of course you can't.
Then try standing in the pitch black and taking some fast exposure shots of the night sky, even without any glare or sunlight you still won't get any stars.
And how well do you think you'd see stars not only in bright sunlight, but looking through the glare/radiation shield of the visor - designed to block out sunlight yet let through the dim light of stars somehow is it?
The stupid thing is half these arguments can be argued away using basic scientific principles without even going into any real technical detail.

It's OK, the first time I saw it I was captured by the imaginative way in which the show had been produced, it took me at least a minute or two to work out it was rubbish - which was a minute or two too long for my liking.

We all actually had a good chuckle at the 'no stars' argument because it has to be one of the most retarded statements that Fox made in their TV 'show'. As I said before it's things like that which are exceptionally sad because they are a sad reflection of the poor quality of education that people seem to recieve these days.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Resistance, it's hard to believe you are still beating the same dead horse. Give up!, all the facts are against you. Believing something before you have facts to support that belief is called faith. Believing something after you have facts proving that belief is wrong is called something else.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 07:52 AM
link   


What It Feels Like To Walk On The Moon

The surface of the moon was like fine talcum powder.


It was very loose at the top. As you begin to get deeper, 1.3 centimetres or so, it becomes much more compact, almost as if it's cemented together, though it isn't. It just seems that way because there are no air molecules between the molecules of dust.


When you put your foot down in the powder, the boot-print preserved itself exquisitely.


When I would take a step, a little semicircle of dust would spray out before me. It was odd, because the dust didn't behave at all the way it behaves here on Earth. On Earth, you're sometimes dealing with puffy dust, sometimes with sand.


On the moon, what you're dealing with is this powdery dust travelling through no air at all, so the dust is kicked up, and then it all falls at the same time in a perfect semicircle.


I'm trying the best I can to put it into words, but being on the moon is just different - different from anything you've ever seen. To use the word alien would mislead people. Surreal is probably as good a word as I have.


When I looked out the window of the lunar lander as we touched down, the sun was out, the sky was velvety black, the engine was shut down, and everything was silent. That was surreal.


When you're on the moon, there's very little audio around you, only the sounds of your suit - the hum of pumps circulating fluid.


But you don't hear any amplified breathing inside your mask; that's a Hollywood contrivance. The name of the game on the moon is stay cool and don't exert too much so you're never out of breath.


If you remember the television images we sent back, you know that I was attempting to demonstrate different walking motions, going back and forth in front of the camera. I tried what you might call a kangaroo hop, and then I demonstrated how you needed a few steps to change direction because of the inertia that you have up there. I found that the best way to move around at a fairly good clip was not by using a jogging motion - one foot, then the other - but rather by moving more the way a horse gallops: one-two, one-two, two steps in rapid succession, followed by a lope, followed by two more rapid steps.


. . . As we touched down, the sun was out, the sky was velvety black, the engine was shut down, and everything was silent. That was surreal.




And then there's the picture where I'm standing next to the flag. If you notice, I'm leaning forward a good bit because of the centre of gravity of the backpack I'm wearing. On the moon, it's sometimes hard to tell when you might be on the verge of losing your balance. As you lean a little bit to one side or the other, you come in danger of falling. But it's easy to right yourself by pushing down on the surface with your feet. The lunar surface is so easy, so natural, so readily adapted to by any human being. The low gravity makes it very convenient to get around. It's really a very nice environment.


Then: July 1969, Aldrin poses for a photo on the moon


While we were on the moon, there wasn't time to savour the moment. It seemed as though what we were doing was so significant that to pause for a moment and reflect metaphysically, was really contrary to our mission.


We weren't trained to smell the roses. We weren't hired to utter philosophical truisms on the spur of the moment. We had a job to do.


I do remember that one realisation wafted through my mind when I was up there. I noted that here were two guys farther away from anything than two guys had ever been before. That's what I thought about. And yet, at the same time, I was very conscious that everything was being closely scrutinised 402,336 kilometres away.


Everything and anything we did would be recorded, remembered, studied for ages. It felt a little like being the young kid in the third or fourth grade who is all of a sudden asked to go up on stage in front of the whole school and recite the Gettysburg Address. And as he tries to remember the words, he's got gun-barrel vision. He's not seeing what's going on around him; he's focused on that particular task, conscious only of his performance. It was like that, but even more so. The eyes of the world were on us, and if we made a mistake, we would regret it for quite a while.


I guess, if I look back on things, there was one little moment of levity, a bit of unusual extemporaneousness. When the countdown came to lift off from the moon, when it got to twenty seconds, Houston said, "Tranquility Base, you're cleared for lift-off." And I said in response: "Roger, we're number one on the runway." Now, comedy is the absurd put into a natural position. There was no runway up there. And there certainly wasn't anyone else waiting in line to lift off. I was conscious of that, of being first.



An article by Buzz Aldrin... kinda sounds like he is talking about his adventures on the moon to me...


[edit on 1-11-2005 by Halfofone]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join