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: 48
29
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
I always love the shadow arguement. If there are multiple light sources shouldn't there be multiple shadows? Why aren't there multiple shadows? I have asked this question before and asked the moonspiracist to clarify but it never comes to any avail. Can anbody answer the question?




posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I can!! The reason you don't see the effect is because....

*drum roll*

They actually went!!



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Okay, Starstruck Ones.

I will not put up any of your quotes here since that seems to be breaking the rules.

But you guys flatter yourself if you think you have nailed down all the arguments here. You have come up with answers, but nobody has to buy the answers. And there is no rule that says anybody has to stick around and discuss one point in depth if they want to move on to something else.

There are many questions that you have NOT answered at all, or at least you've not answered with any kind of half-way believable reason Here's a sample:

1. Agent's assertion that the astronauts can't position themselves to look up to see the stars. They could not put their hand on the lunar module to balance themself and tip back a bit? They could not lean on each other? A rock? Anything?

2. Agent's assertion that looking at the heavens or the stars is irrelevant, not important, that the astronauts were not on vacation. Ha. I guess if somebody was in the desert drilling for oil you could accuse them of wasting time if they were to be looking around at the stars, and after all THEY would not be on vacation. But you would think that it would be the astronauts JOB to look at the heavens, since they were sent to explore them. True, the mission was to land on the moon, but to describe the moon is to describe the moon's sky. Instead of the political speech of Neal Armstrong, "One small step for mankind, one giant step for man," it would have been much more enligtening to us earthbound ones to hear him describe what it was like to BE ON THE MOON. SOME kind of description. Like, it's so quiet, it's so bright, or it's so whatever. And yes, what do those darned stars look like? These are the kinds of things people want to know about, not all that political junk with the flag and the pompous statements about "one giant step for mankind."

3. The moon lander. Okay, we are told that the Saturn rocket took off from Planet Eart and carried the nodule up into space. The module left the Saturn and went on its way to the moon. Once it got to the moon it dropped off the moon lander, supposedly, when it was 60 miles over the moon. The moon lander proceeded to "land" on the moon. Pictures of this "moon lander" show a rickety thing that looks like some kid made it in their back yard. It's got, what, four spider legs with flat feet at the end of them. The lander "body" never touches the surface of the moon, just those spider legs. The bottom of the lander is all covered in gold foil and the legs are wrapped in the same gold foil and so are the flat feet or "moon pads" at the end of the spider legs. We saw pictures of one of the moon pads that the foil had come off showing the tape underneath that was used to keep the gold foil on the moon pads. We are told that this contraption landed on the moon on these spider legs, almost like the thing was some kind of an antigravity machine, and the thrust that came out of the moon lander was not enough to even disturb the moon dust. When this thing landed, we are told that stairs popped out and the two astronauts clambered out. Meantime, the module is still circling the moon. All this time the astronauts are wearing catheters and poop bags. They get out of this contraption, remove their moon buggy, and start going around digging rocks (after they insert a flag into the sand, er, I mean, moon dust, and have hundreds of pictures taken of themselves standing in front of the flag.) When they were all done with their rock collecting and picture taking of themselves in front of the flag, they finally climbed back up the stairs into their "lander" and this thing is now able to lift off from the moon (where did this thing store all this fuel that allowed it to land and then take off) and meet the nodule with perfect tiiming 60 miles above the moon.

4. There was not enough time to take all the pictures. You guys just said, yes there was. Well, no there wasn't. I put up a link where someone calculated it out and it is flat out impossible. Just you going into blind denial is not any kind of proof at all. Or answering this proof with one of your own "proofs" -- i.e. of course we went or the Russians would have said we didn't. In other words, you guys have used this tactic more than once to escape from evidence that was too devastating to refute.

5. The space suits. Nobody explained how the astronauts were able to get around on the moon for up to 12 hours without any lifeline to the "lander." Why is it that the shuttle spacemen need a lifeline (with oxygen, water, cooling, pressure, etcetera) but the astronauts did not? Nobody has explained this. The fact is that the lifelines used by the shuttle spacemen were more than tethers.

6. The backgrounds on the pictures have not been explained satisfactorily. You need to let Wind put her case out clearly. She is trying to nail this down but because she's up against so many of you and because I think Wind is perhaps a foreign student and is not proficient with English is having a hard time.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by resistance]

MOD EDIT: Consider this your slap on the wrist. Please refrain from taking personal jabs at both members and staff. Also, you seem to have difficulty spelling astronaut. I took care of that for you in this post.


[edit on 12/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Okay, Starstruck Ones.

I will not put up any of your quotes here since that seems to be breaking the rules.


No, just quoting everything and everything when you're talking about one little bit in the quote is irritating and breaks up the flow of the thread. Have you actually read the links in the u2us moderators have sent you? Because that may help your understanding.




1. Agent's assertion that the astronauts can't position themselves to look up to see the stars. They could not put their hand on the lunar module to balance themself and tip back a bit? They could not lean on each other? A rock? Anything?


And they would do this why? So they could risk falling over, crack their suit, and die? Yeah, that's a great idea!




3. Pictures of this "moon lander" show a rickety thing that looks like some kid made it in their back yard. It's got, what, four spider legs with flat feet at the end of them. The lander "body" never touches the surface of the moon, just those spider legs... We are told that this contraption landed on the moon on these spider legs, almost like the thing was some kind of an antigravity machine, and the thrust that came out of the moon lander was not enough to even disturb the moon dust... All this time the astronauts are wearing catheters and poop bags. They get out of this contraption... they finally climbed back up the stairs into their "lander" and this thing is now able to lift off from the moon (where did this thing store all this fuel that allowed it to land and then take off) and meet the nodule with perfect tiiming 60 miles above the moon.


The body could never touch the surface because then there would be no where for the thrust from the rocket motor to go when they lifted off the Moon again. Light a firecracker in your open hand. What happens when it goes off? It pops and you have your hand. Try lighting a firecracker and closing your fist and see what happens.

It wasn't an antigravity machine, just a precisely controlled landing. The fuel for the landing and take off was stored in (you guessed it) internal fuel tanks! Imagine it could be just that very simple.


And how did they get it to perfect timing? Well, the people in charge are rocket scientists...



4. There was not enough time to take all the pictures. You guys just said, yes there was. Well, no there wasn't. I put up a link where someone calculated it out and it is flat out impossible.


Sadly, I missed that link and I can't find it in the thread. Would you mind putting it up again? I'd like to go through and review the math and the person who came up with that ideas credentials.


jra

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
3. Pictures of this "moon lander" show a rickety thing that looks like some kid made it in their back yard.


Well thats your opinion, but just because you think it's rickety, doesn't make it so. How many times do I have to show you diagrams and photos of its solid metal structure?


We are told that this contraption landed on the moon on these spider legs, almost like the thing was some kind of an antigravity machine, and the thrust that came out of the moon lander was not enough to even disturb the moon dust.


WRONG so unbelievably wrong. Maybe you should try watching the actual moon footage and not what that moron Bart Sibrel (or what ever his name is) likes to show his blind followers.

Go here: www.apolloarchive.com... Now click on "Apollo Multimedia" and scroll down to Apollo 14. Click on the last video of that list. Titled "lunar module ascent filmed from LM window" and see for your self. There are at least a couple more in there somewhere. Find them and watch them if you dare. You may be shocked.


All this time the astroNOTs are wearing catheters and poop bags.


What is your obsession with the astronauts and there "poop bags"? Why do you keep mentioning it? Do you have a point you'd like to make about it? Or are you obsessed with poop?


When they were all done with their rock collecting and picture taking of themselves in front of the flag, they finally climbed back up the stairs into their "lander" and this thing is now able to lift off from the moon (where did this thing store all this fuel that allowed it to land and then take off) and meet the nodule with perfect tiiming 60 miles above the moon.


Have you tried looking at a diagram? That would be the easiest way to find out where the fuel was stored. As for the perfect timing. Well yes of course they met the module in perfect timing. It's called planning ahead. It's all clock work. They know where the obriting module is at all times, so they know when the LM should take off so that it can meet the module iat the right time.


4. There was not enough time to take all the pictures. You guys just said, yes there was. Well, no there wasn't. I put up a link where someone calculated it out and it is flat out impossible. Just you going into blind denial is not any kind of proof at all.


Umm... I said a lot more then that. Now let me go find it again... ok found it on page 16


Originally posted by jra
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. And professional photographers go through rolls of film like nothing.


Now I guess you didn't read that eh? And that was the second time I had posted that info too. I hope you read it this time.


5. The space suits. Nobody explained how the astroNOTs were able to get around on the moon for up to 12 hours without any lifeline to the "lander."


But between each EVA they would return to the LM for a while. Recharge there PLSS, sleep and empty there "poop bags" if they needed to.


Why is it that the shuttle spacemen need a lifeline (with oxygen, water, cooling, pressure, etcetera) but the astroNOTs did not? Nobody has explained this. The fact is that the lifelines used by the shuttle spacemen were more than tethers.


Please show me then, because all I can ever find is that they were only tethers and that modern astronauts have PLSS's too, thus no need for a life line.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:35 PM
link   
Commander -- Here's your link to the timeline argument:

www.aulis.com...

As to the quote I inserted two posts previous, it was not a long quote, and I was forced to put it in because it was back a ways in the thread so nobody would have known what I was talking about. Oh, well.

jra -- You said

Titled "lunar module ascent filmed from LM window" and see for your self.
My point was that this thing was supposed to have landed on the moon on its spider legs (descended as opposed to ascended) and supposedly it skidded across the moon because they came in on an angle. www.redzero.demon.co.uk... (a debunking the moon-hoaxers site) You believe that? On those spider legs? Would you want to land on the moon on spider legs? And supposedly NASA pulled this off six times.

Not only that, but the United States has yet to land an unmanned satellite on the moon and bring it back safely. Yet we are supposed to believe they landed men on the moon in that contraption, on spider legs, and they never got bent or broken or the contraption never tipped over one time.

They couldn't do it with a lightweight unmanned satellite, but they could do it with a lunar lander big enough to carry two men and a rover and all their other junk to the moon, and as it appears in the many pics supposedly taken from the moon.

They did it oh so easily back then, but today we can't even send an unmanned satellite to the moon and bring it back. It either misses or crashes or whatever. I know supposedly the Russians have soft-landed a satellite twice and brought it back to earth, but I have my doubts about that also.


As to the pics: jra said:


quote: Originally posted by jra
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. And professional photographers go through rolls of film like nothing.



Well, jra, This is a time and motion study. So 1.4 pics per minute is a lot of pictures. You gotta admit it. Even if that's all you did was take pics. And if one person took all the shots as you say that's 3 shots a minute. They wouldn't both be taking pics at the same time either because one was always shooting the other, so you don't end up getting twice as many pics.

It's not like that's all they had to do there was take pictures, and in fact that was not their main mission. The link goes into great detail about all the work they had to do on the moon.

Professional photographers who have nothing to do but take pictures and aren't wearing bulky pressurized gloves and operating a camera that must be manually focused can indeed take many, many shots of the same thing so they can get the "right" picture. The astroNOTs were guessing if they were even getting a shot at all. And in the moon pics you have two men bundled up in spacesuits and you can't even tell who they are. It doesn't matter if the expression is just right or the color scheme is "artiste" or whatever. They are just trying to record the event. A photographer can shoot up a roll of film in a hurry if he's taking a shot of a model who's turning and moving one, two, three. So these moon pics are not lots and lots of pics of basically the same scene. They are moving around and taken from different angles and one astroNOT taking shots of the other. That takes time to get around. Were they shooting while they were digging rocks? When you were unloading and setting up the rover? When they were doing their many duties and scientific experiments?

And you need to reread that link because you jumped to the wrong conclusions. Taking everything into consideration as a time and motion study, these are the true figures as given on the link:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds


[edit on 10-12-2005 by resistance]

MOD EDIT: Removing potential drama.

[edit on 12/10/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]


jra

posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
My point was that this thing was supposed to have landed on the moon on its spider legs (descended as opposed to ascended) and supposedly it skidded across the moon because they came in on an angle. You believe that? On those spider legs? Would you want to land on the moon on spider legs? And supposedly NASA pulled this off six times.


What the hell are you talking about? It did not skid across the surface when it landed. Go to that same site I told you to go to before (i would post a direct link to the vid, but I can't seem to). Now go to Apollo 16 and watch the video clip titled. "lunar landing filmed from LM window". You will see it came stright down, and slowly. No skidding.


Not only that, but the United States has yet to land an unmanned satellite on the moon and bring it back safely. Yet we are supposed to believe they landed men on the moon in that contraption, on spider legs, and they never got bent or broken or the contraption never tipped over one time.

They couldn't do it with a lightweight unmanned satellite, but they could do it with a lunar lander big enough to carry two men and a rover and all their other junk to the moon, and as it appears in the many pics supposedly taken from the moon.


Who says they couldn't do it with an unmanned probe? They sent several unmanned probes to the moon before the Apollo missions, but they wern't designed to return. That doesn't mean that NASA couldn't design a probe to return, but they didn't need them too. The probes were called "Surveyor". They sent 7 of them. Number 2 crashed on the moon and number 4 lost radio contact, but the rest made it. Apollo 12 landed within walking distance of Surveyor 3. They have photos of it.

And about the photos. I still think it's possible for them to have taken all the pics after seeing the math. There are lots of duplicate shots as well.


Were they also shooting when they were in the rover?


Yes.


Were they shooting while they were digging rocks?


Yes, generally one would photograph the other collecting the samples.


When you were unloading and setting up the rover?


No, I wasn't there. I wish I was though. But if you ment. Were they taking pics while unloading and setting up the rover, then no. They did not take photos of that, but there is video footage of it.

You should also note that with Apollo 11. They were on the surface for 21.6 hours. Only the EVA lasted 02 hours, 31 minutes. They did take a bunch of photos before and after the EVA while they sat inside the LM.


Originally posted by Off_The_Street
you guys shouldn't be wasting your time with trolls.


I tried, but I can't help it.

Edit:

I just looked through the Apollo 11 shots. In magazine R, there are about 107 shots from within the LM. Magazine Q is all from within the LM, that's 107 shots. Magazine S is everything else. Minus 2 shots from within the LM while on the surface. So in total 216 shots were taken while sitting in the LM and 123 were taken on the EVA. Want to do that math again?

[edit on 10-12-2005 by jra]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   

And you need to reread that link because you jumped to the wrong conclusions. Taking everything into consideration as a time and motion study, these are the true figures as given on the link:

Apollo 11........one photo every 15 seconds
Apollo 12........one photo every 27 seconds
Apollo 14........one photo every 62 seconds
Apollo 15........one photo every 44 seconds
Apollo 16........one photo every 29 seconds
Apollo 17........one photo every 26 seconds



They had high speed cameras that had high speed film and they took alot of shots at once and broke them into single shots later.


jra

posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Well I looked through Jack White's numbers again. It looks like he did only count the EVA photos. I hadn't thought of that till recently, so i'll give him that much. I still don't like his math though.


Let's arbitrarily calculate a MINIMUM time for these tasks and subtract from available photo time:

Apollo 11....subtract 2 hours (120 minutes), leaving 031 minutes for taking photos

...

So do the math:

Apollo 11.......121 photos in 031 minutes............3.90 photos per minute


Why does he do that? What's the reason for only using the 31minutes for calculating the ppm (photos per minute)? Since the photos were taken through out the entire EVA, wouldn't it make sence to use the full time? 121 photos in 151 minutes = 1.25 ppm, so that's 1 photo every 75 seconds.

Since there were two astronauts, they could both be taking photos. If we devide the amount of photos in half. That's 60.5 photos per astronaut. So then we have a photo ever 2.5 minutes by each astronaut, or one photo every 149 seconds.

Basicly I think Mr. White just wanted larger numbers to make it look more impossible.



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I am not sure wether I believe we landed or we didn't, anything is possible, adn I didn't read through all of the posts (there were a lot) but I found this website when I was looking for the show that played on fox a couple of years ago about the whole hoax thing, and it seemed to give a reasonable explanation of all the things the show pointed out to be wrong like the waving flag in zero gravity and such... www.badastronomy.com... .... makes things a little more confusin for me. Have fun!!



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   
In response to earlier posts by Agent Smith and others, of course probably NOTHING here is PROOF that they didn't go to the moon (else this thread would not exist), but there are some serious anomalies - one of which is, as I said, is Armstrong's 1994 speech.

Just imagine this (which is how I look at it and isn't proof). You are Neil Armstrong, you have walked on the moon and you are asked to give a speech about this MOST historic of events. What do you say?

Now I thought (maybe I am wrong) that these Astronauts were kind of nonchulant and had a level of modesty and therefore, though they might start with something like:

"We went on a pioneering mission"

they would then perhaps pay tribute to the people who made it happen

"We had a fantastic team of people behind us - brilliant minds and inpsirational work made the trip possible. What we accomplished surprised even us."

There are 10,000 or more variations on this type of angle. So what does Armstrong say (while looking at his fellow Astronauts and President Clinton). "Breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers" What layers? What truths? Why are they protective? What are they protecting? Who is responsible for this protection?

These are extremely curious words (not proof). Add this to the footage of them faking a shot of the earth - as shown in "A Funny Thing Happened".
That's not proof either - but it looks highly suspicious.

Of course if Armstrong announced "I never walked on the moon" that really wouldn't be proof either - he is quite old, and could have developed some kind of dementia - so it wouldn't be proof would it?

So, I judge the balance of evidence now that at least the first mission never went - I think I know the reason for this (but it is speculation). 10 years ago I would have laughed at such a view - now I have changed my mind, based on other evidence I have been looking for the last 2 and half years.

Why did NASA pull the plug on James Oberg's book which was meant to debunk the "we didn't go" naysayers? Again not proof, but highly curious.

Perhaps the "game" is to keep as many people guessing as possible...


[edit on 16-12-2005 by izopen]

[edit on 16-12-2005 by izopen]

[edit on 16-12-2005 by izopen]

[edit on 16-12-2005 by izopen]

[edit on 16-12-2005 by izopen]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I want to add to your comment on the video that when the video of Buzz faking the shots , or "training " on the shots, Buzz said: well, why don't you show it to NASA chief, we were passengers. Now this is really suspicious. Consider that he was getting trained. He would say: Oh Sibrel, are you stupid? Yes we were getting trained. Go and see this video on a NASA site. This video is not covered up. Just put yourself in his shoes.
But no, Buzz just said: well, we were just passengers,...go and show it to NASA chief ...and stuff.. as if running away from his responsibility.


Another thing that is suspicious is how could a NASA standby astronaut? Dr Brian O'Leary say :"If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
I want to add to your comment on the video that when the video of Buzz faking the shots , or "training " on the shots, Buzz said: well, why don't you show it to NASA chief, we were passengers. Now this is really suspicious. Consider that he was getting trained. He would say: Oh Sibrel, are you stupid? Yes we were getting trained. Go and see this video on a NASA site. This video is not covered up. Just put yourself in his shoes.
But no, Buzz just said: well, we were just passengers,...go and show it to NASA chief ...and stuff.. as if running away from his responsibility.


Having met and spent a great deal of time with Buzz, it sounds like his sort of sense of humour to me


Oh you should ask your pal Sibrel for the rest of the video clip, he cut it down in his video because you can see the Earth disappear behind the window which it couldn't if it was stuck on obviously. I guess he thought letting anyone see the entire clip wouldn't help him put his message across so he edited it accordingly.



Another thing that is suspicious is how could a NASA standby astronaut? Dr Brian O'Leary say :"If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."


That's not suspicious - that's called real life and politics - wrong yes but not unusual at all or unexpected.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by izopen
In response to earlier posts by Agent Smith and others, of course probably NOTHING here is PROOF that they didn't go to the moon (else this thread would not exist), but there are some serious anomalies - one of which is, as I said, is Armstrong's 1994 speech.

.............etc etc etc



I really wish you would at least quote a little more:


"Today we have with us a group of students, among America's best. To you we say we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of the truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief..."


Editing it down to a few words in a vain attempt to give it the possibility of implying that it was all a lie is really pathetic. If anything it seems to imply that our capabilities are more advanced than the public are allowed to know. When you look at the larger quote above with everything in context, please explain exactly how it implies we didn't go in any way? It doesn't and it fits in well with the likely chance that we have been further and have greater capabilities than we are allowed to know. I would imagine that military space technology is pretty advanced and this would have to be hushed for at least 2 reasons:

1) It's the nature of the military to keep things secret for as long as possible (and rightly so too)

2) I believe it is against international law to use space for weapons deployment, so this would have the potential to cause problems don't you think?

Quoting one line from it though and not bothering with the rest because it doesn't fit in with what one wants it to mean is wrong anyway and if you are truly 'looking for the truth' and not 'having a chip on one's shoulder with authority' then it's a tactic best left alone.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   


Having met and spent a great deal of time with Buzz, it sounds like his sort of sense of humour to me


Really? I don't believe he was joking. He then threatened to sue them if they showed it in public, which indicates his serious tone.


Oh you should ask your pal Sibrel for the rest of the video clip, he cut it down in his video because you can see the Earth disappear behind the window which it couldn't if it was stuck on obviously. I guess he thought letting anyone see the entire clip wouldn't help him put his message across so he edited it accordingly.


If this was true, nasa apollogists wouldn't have said they were training. I have read this comment on a famous pro-apollo site.


That's not suspicious - that's called real life and politics - wrong yes but not unusual at all or unexpected.


Wrong, it is very unusual and unexpected. What is the politics you are referring to? This is a NASA astronaut whose politics should be hiding NASA faults as much as possible, but we see him wistleblowing and going wild.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

What Mr. Sibrel supplies is footage of the astronauts practicing for an upcoming telecast. Because television was added at the last minute, they hadn't had time to practice much with the equipment. So they were experimenting with different camera positions and exposure settings. Someone on the ground recorded it. Mr. Sibrel notes several observations which he can't explain in terms of his expectations, therefore he concludes the astronauts "must" have been faking it. That's it. That's his "smoking gun."


www.clavius.org...


So the site ADMITS THEY WERE TRAINING ON USING THE EQUIPMENT. Why didn't Buzz say this but acted so suspiciously?

For more about the issue www.aulis.com...

If I were Buzz, having been really filming Earth and taking pics and orders from NASA, why didn't he just say: Oh, stupid Bart, this unedited film was for us being trained on filming earth but it is not for public display, ...,

but no. Buzz syas "we were just passengers" as a clear way to relief himself from accountability and throw it on NASA. Why ddin't he say: it is on SpaceCraft Films, you didn't discover that much Bart.

By the way, I don't understand how the film can be "not for public display" and put on SpaceCraft Films site if people want to watch it?
Maybe they just followed this tactic after Sibrel got the video to prove they have nothing to hide. I don't know. If it was there from the beginning, then, as I said before, why didn't Buzz say this?

By the way agentsmith, you said you met Buzz. Can you ask him why at stages of his life he got alcoholic, at one time crying when asked about the moon landings, and reached a point of putting his pistol to his head? I would be very pleased to know why he did this.



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
By the way agentsmith, you said you met Buzz. Can you ask him why at stages of his life he got alcoholic, at one time crying when asked about the moon landings, and reached a point of putting his pistol to his head? I would be very pleased to know why he did this.


No I can't ask him because

1) I don't have a time machine - notice how I spoke about an event in the past.

2) It would not be the decent thing to do (some of us have morals unlike others)

I can speculate why he might do this, it could be from sheer frustration of their being some many dummkopfs on the planet or it could be *drum roll* for personal reasons which are frankly none of our business.

I'm not even going to bother talking about the video yet again - those of us with extend memories that are greater than a goldfish's get pretty tired of going round in circles talking about the same things. I have a short attention span at the best of times but this is frankly rather boring...

In the words of Bart Simpson (ironically) "What shall we do with the information - put it on the Internet?"

"No - we need to tell people who's opinons matter".

(Note that I spend a lot of time on the internet
)

[edit on 17-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   
resorting to assaults and scorn doesn't help!

refer me to where you spoke about the video, if and only if you said something new.

As for asking Buzz about personal things, you can do that by asking him politely, like if it doesn't bother you to speak about the isuue.... what was behind you doing so and so. I intended by no means being rude with him. Only if he wishes to speak about that, because it was odd that at he would cry when someone asked him about the moon and how it was like to walk on the moon.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Agent Smith,

I can see your line of reasoning and it is a sound one, in certain respects. I don't consider focusing on key words as "pathetic" and I don't use such language to describe other people's posts as it is emotive and does not focus on evidence. As you have posted the extra words, they are there for people to consider and make their own minds up - so that is good.

Yes, I am sure Armstrong COULD have been referring to something like you suggest. But this, in those circumstances, would have been strange. It was a meeting at the Whitehouse about the Moon Landing anniversary. Why should he want to bring the idea secret military technology into the game? All he had to do was talk about the moon landing. Is he then, trying to tell us something? I think the additional words you added do not really change the thrust of what he said - you are perfectly entitled to think so, but I will always disagree with you - and I will never call you pathetic for that either - I could be wrong - and you could be wrong too.

This was a speech at the Whitehouse - I would imagine Armstrong chose all his words carefully - maybe I am wrong - I don't know him personally.

I have also seen the Fake-distant earth shot and it is highly peculiar. As I mentioned there are many curious aspects to other evidence that a number of people have presented. Taken as a whole, I am now fairly certain Armstrong never walked on the moon (as I said, it's still possible later missions went, but I now doubt that considerably).



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 02:24 AM
link   
ok

ive just sat down and looked over this entire 48 page thread, and i must say, the total lack of disreguard by some people is amazing.

here we have physical evidence that yes we went to the moon, and im not just talking theroys, im talking physical, scientific evidence.

it is a insult that some people choose to totally ignore it.



some background info about myself

yes im young and still have much to learn, but already i have acomplished alot

i have 2 degress,

bachelor or electrical engeering and a
Masters of physics, my major was astrophysics - one of my major papers was on cosmic radiation

both from the best (or at least one of the most highly qualified) university's here in australia

im part of astronomy clubs and well as various scientific agencies.

in anycase most of the (in fact all) of the various arguments put forward by the "hoax believers" have been proven (not just by the hundereds of links but i myself have done various experiments) that they are totally false.

i mean geez, these are BASIC physical concepts here, now im not saying everyone has to be a genius at physics, but at least listen to those that do know what they are talking about, and listen to creditable sources.

to agent, halflo and the others who know the truth, well done...and well done on your paientence.

to resistance, you my friend i would have to say is the most ignorant, stubborn, forgetfull, insulting people i know......im sorry mods if this looks like a personal attack but after reading the last 48pages i feel rather insulted, insulted because resistance is obviouslly reasonbly intelligent to come up with such crap time and time again, yet wont listen when clear evidence is provided.

ohh and with your "astroNOT" claim.......thats the most rediculous thing ive ever heard.......even you yourself cannot claim that a american man has never been in space? therefore they are all astronauts, the saturn 5 launch was real, they were in space, they are astronauts.


also (now finally on topic)

one thing that hasnt been mentioned, the tv picture that was beamed back that fateful day in 1969, came through 3 stations. They were CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope, the Honeysuckle Creek tracking station outside Canberra, and NASA's Goldstone station in California. The signals were relayed to Mission Control at Houston. During the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality images. When they switched to the Parkes pictures, they were of such superior quality, that NASA remained with the Parkes TV pictures for the remainder of the 21/2-hour telecast.


guess how far the signal was triangulated to be away?

it took 1.1seconds for the signal to reach earth, travelling @ the speed of light (300,000km/second, well that figure is close enough for this purpose) giving aproxx distance of 225,700miles which conincidently is the distance from the earth to the moon.

(also did you know that the australain public saw the broadcast 6.3seconds before the rest of the world?)

this proves one thing at least beyond a shadow of a doubt (no pun intentended) that the astronauts were indeed at the moon...its dosent prove they landed on it (the rest of the evidence does).....but its getting rather far fetched that the whole thing was prerecorded, then sent on the mission, then sent back when the time was right. (if that was the case then why choose a time when their own tracking stations couldnt see it?)
my main point with this is....seeing as man made it to the moon, that right there stops 75% of the arguments.

if anyone has any questions ill be happy to answer them





[edit on 22-12-2005 by s13viper]

[edit on 22-12-2005 by s13viper]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join