It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 49
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:06 AM

Originally posted by s13viper

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

australain pubic?

bad mental image

[edit on 22-12-2005 by HowardRoark]

posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:45 AM
lol im still human, make the odd typo

posted on Jan, 7 2006 @ 01:02 PM
Calling all conspirists!

Read this about the optical illutions on the Moon:

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:29 PM
Can anybody tell me why we cant see stars in the NASA Moon Land pics? In the moon (less atmosphere) we should see more than here and I cant see nothing.

posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 11:35 PM
No you shouldn't. The light reflected from the moon is too bright to see the stars unless you get at just the right angle to see them.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

[edit on 1/23/2006 by Zaphod58]


posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by lnxsys
Can anybody tell me why we cant see stars in the NASA Moon Land pics? In the moon (less atmosphere) we should see more than here and I cant see nothing.

If you are in an area on the Moon that is currently at night, then yes, you'd see a lot more for sure. But all the Apollo missions happened durring the day on the Moon. Harder for the camera to pick-up the star light.


posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 12:34 AM
Holy crap 49 pages.


I can see my house from here.

posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 04:10 PM
How about someone here from ats trains to be an astronaut, goes to the moon the next tim we go and give us a report on all the caims about footprints in the dust stars in the pics and all that??

posted on Feb, 6 2006 @ 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Uber Fr0g
How about someone here from ats trains to be an astronaut, goes to the moon the next tim we go and give us a report on all the caims about footprints in the dust stars in the pics and all that??

No problem.....

How To Become An Astronaut...


posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:00 PM
There is no way the United States landed on the moon in 1969. NASA has done some incredible things but landing on the moon is not one of them. The evidence is so easy to see. Radiation would of destroyed the lander. Cross hair photos? Astronauts clearly visible in the shadows? Live video all the way from the moon? are you kidding? I can't wait to see the Japanese make a fool out of NASA when they discover there is no American flag. Why have we not went back to the moon since 69?

[edit on 18-2-2006 by hiattCIA]

[edit on 18-2-2006 by hiattCIA]

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:08 PM
Answer honestly now... Did you even bother to read the entirety of this thread?

posted on Feb, 18 2006 @ 07:21 PM
If you read the thread all your questions will be answered.

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:48 AM
Kid doesn't bother reading the 49 pages and thinks he's some sort of expert? Did it occur to you that in all the replies we just may have covered those topics? Been there, done that and we've got into far more advanced discussion since - let us know when you've researched everything (see you in about a month) and then we can talk

posted on Feb, 19 2006 @ 04:50 AM

Originally posted by hiattCIA
Why have we not went back to the moon since 69?

A perfect example of your level of understanding - we've been 6 times.

Man it makes me wonder why people bother discussing something they obviously have no interest in.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 01:46 PM
Oh, yeah! Of course, we landed on the moon!
On this one!

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 02:08 PM
You of course realise that is a well known and admitted Internet hoax that is even discussed somewhere in this thread (I can't be bothered to look the same way you can't).

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 04:09 PM
I have doubt we have been to the moon

Hell, I presume we are on the moon now scoping out structures built by someone, sometime, somehow.

Who knows what goes on up there.

All we know is what we are told.

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 09:28 PM
I couldn't find any info related to this video being a hoax.
If anyone can point me to the thread and/or posting, I'd appreciate.
In the meantime, those who haven't seen "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" can watch it here.

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:58 AM
It has all been discussed at great length in this thread. Perhaps you should read it rather than arrogantly assume that we would not have in the dozens of pages that constitute this thread. This thread is far too large and already has many repititions in it where people can't be bothered to read it first, you obviously arn't interested really, otherwise you would have.


Once again I've kindly done the work for those that can't be bothered.
There is info on the clip here:

But the original site that had it has long since gone (it's such old hat).

Luckily you can use the way back machine to look back:

Here is where they admit the 'authentic' smoking gun footage was faked:" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
The clip is FAKED

It is not an out-take leaked from a NASA top secret reel.

It was done in a studio, for fun, and to entertain webheads like us.

Yes, the clip is fake. It was shot in a studio in London in spring 2002. It was based on an

idea by director Adam Stewart, who was a space exploration nut. He had read the conspiracy

theory sites and decided he wanted to make a spoof based on the idea that the Apollo 11

moonlanding was faked.

Adam Stewart died on 28th August 2002. He is greatly missed. Please read this tribute to him

If you listen hard, at the end of the clip, as 'Neil' climbs back up the ladder, you hear

him say, 'Sorry Mr Gorsky'. Most of you will probably get this reference. If you don't, go

to to find out what it's about.

So now you know. But remember this: Just because our clip is a spoof doesn't mean they DID

land on the moon. The truth is out there, man." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

And the original page from the same site promoting it:

If you're at this page because you've just seen an amazing piece of footage showing the Apollo 11 moonlanding to have been shot in a studio, then read on. If you haven't seen the clip, click the link below, and prepare to be amazed.

At 4:17 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on July 20, 1969 Neil Armstrong was seen on television by millions of people around the world apparently walking on the surface of the moon, and making one giant leap into the pages of history. BUT DID HE? Conspiracy theories abound on the Internet.

The piece of footage you just saw answers the question - but raises a lot of others. We don't know the answers to all these questions - but here is what we do know:

1) Is it real?
Yes. This footage was clearly shot in a studio, and is clearly meant to represent the Apollo 11 moon landing. The attention to detail is staggering. The intention is clearly to fool viewers into believing that it is genuine.[..............]" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">

Sorry to piss on your parade.

[edit on 24-2-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 05:59 AM
Im sorry but i couldnt be bothered reading all 4 pages so heres some answers to a few questions i saw (sorry if theyve already been answered), nasa wont use hubble to tak epictures of the moon because hubble is TOO good and powerful, the pictures would just be a blur and you couldnt see anything, im guessin theyve already tried that. just to put my feeling down here, i truly beleive man did not set foot on the moon in '69. i think its possible that we may have set foot on it and mars too later on with the help from our friends from above, but i doubt that happened either. NASA never faked a mars landing because there was no space race between america and russia to land on mars, nasa was scared because russia put the first rocket in space, they sent up the first manned crew and if russia landed on the moon first they would have shown up the USA by beating them in everything, so the USA faked it (no offence to all u americans). as for the dust from the ship, the rockets on the moon lander weere so powerful that they should have blown holes in the moons surface. but not a simple particle was moved. ive heard something about the lack of atmosphere on the moon stopping the dust from blowing around but ill have to practise that next time im in a place with no atmosphere. i think one of the most convincing arguments against it is the fact that my mp3 player has more technology in it then the craft that went to the moon. literally. imagine this, ay the earth was a foot wide, the size of your shoe, go on put ur show on ur desk, no imagine the moon was 35 foot away, thats quite far, no consider the fact that since landing on the moon aaaaall those years ago, man has only been half an inch from your shoe(the earth).

top topics

<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in