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: 51
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:05 PM
I believe we have been to the Moon but not in a tin can in'69

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 11:26 PM
With all due respect, I'd like to nominate the above post as the most useless thread of the year. c'mon, if you are going to post something like that, at least post some backgroung info in why you feel that way.


Sorry, I don't usually rant, if that is a rant, but c'mon, even I have standards!!!

[edit on 19-3-2006 by sensfan]


posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 03:26 AM
Well i've gotten up to the start of clip two and yep. Bart Sibrel is a moron. The whole thing about similar backgrounds durring differnt EVA's and that being a sign as it being fake is so ridiculously stupid, it's not even funny.

Just out of curiosity, have you gone through this thread at all nomadrush? From listening to part of your interview so far I take it you believe Sibrel and his views. Have you read much of the counter arguments that defend the moon landing?

posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:15 AM
Your a better man than me jra, I couldn't even stomach listening to the first one. I can't believe anyone that has apparantly done so much research actually believes what they are saying, and if he does then he doesn't have the IQ to even begin contemplating the whole thing.
I don't blame casual observes for believing him as not everyone is an enthusiast with a good understanding, that's what annoys me off the most - he blatantly makes money out of people's ignorance.


posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 04:58 PM
Well I was bored this afternoon and progressed to part 3 of the interview. Right away Sibrel makes a moron of himself, claiming that the LM is 'very dilapidated' and that you could 'poke your finger through it'. My God, has this guy even done 5 minutes of research?! You can't poke your finger through the LM

Then he goes on rambling about how his wal-mart watch has more computing power then the LM, and wonders how it could have possibly managed to take off from the moon and rendezvous with the CM in lunar orbit, without powerful computers. What i'd like to know is, why would they need powerful computers. The LM launched at a certain time when they knew the CM would be overhead. It's all clockwork. Also, another thing to point out is that helicopters nor any other aircraft of that time, had used computers to help with flying. Even the Harrier (an aircraft that could take off vertically) had no computer assistance what so ever. Not until the Harrier II that came out around the 1980's.

Sibrel continues to ramble off about things he doesn't understand in the last part of this clip. It simply amazes me that he claims to have researched this. Anyway I just felt the need to rant about a few points that were brought up in part 3 of that interview. Now to listen to part 4...

posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 05:08 PM
Buzz actually performed a docking procedure on one mission from his tables and paper calculations when the computer failed. Geez the number crunching required wasn't that consuming, it's not like a simulation where the most complicated part is the simulated environment to operate in.

When my father was an officer in the Navy, he used to work out the ships position using a sextant and his tables. No computers at all, similar devices are used in the Apollo ships and there are manuals for them on the NASA site.

The guy really is a joke, I still can't listen to it.

EDIT: Spelling

[edit on 23-3-2006 by AgentSmith]


posted on Mar, 23 2006 @ 06:53 PM
Good info there Agent Smith. Some people seem to forget how things were done back in the day before the use of computers. Not that I remember those days myself, (being born in 1980), but I am aware of it at least. And many amazing things were done without computers.

Anyway I started listening to part 4.

Wow... ok, so now Sibrel is claiming that the dust on the surface of the moon was undisturbed by the thrust from the LM's 10,000lbf rocket. And he wonders why there isn't a huge crator under it. He even says, "A leaf blower has about a pound or two of pressure and it can push boulders". Either he has one kickass leafblower or his definition of 'boulder' is different than mine.

Well firstly the dust was disturbed. There are videos and photos that show this. Although he claims to have looked and analyzed photos, but he obviously didn't look for more then 5 minutes. He also claims that in the second moon mission (I assume he means Apollo 12) that they placed the LM behind a bit of a ridge so that you couldn't see under the engine, and so that one couldn't notice that the dust was undisturbed. well... [High-res 1.2mb]

That's just one of many photos showing the ground under the rocket and the dust looks disturbed to me, especially on the right side. Sibrel forgets to take in account that the LM rocket was throttleable. Meaning they could adjust the amount of thrust coming out of the rocket. I highly doubt it was going full blast by the time they touched down. Even if the LM's rocket was going full blast, it wouldn't make a crator on the surface. The harrier puts out 19,000lb of force and doesn't damage it's landing surfaces. Even the F-35 with it's 40,000lb of thrust does nothing to it's landing surface.

A lot of the things he brings up have been beaten to death in this thread many times, so no need to go over all of it again. I just thought i'd cover this one point.

posted on Apr, 2 2006 @ 03:19 AM
just wanted to say that the craters we were assuming to be the same craters (discussed before in this thread), are not the same. I could see that after looking at close up, High res. images. Their appearance from far away looked exactly the same to me at one point. regards

posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 02:55 AM
This one might have been posted before, but why not post it again:

The Lunar Recon orbiter camera will clear up alot of this mystery and send those disbelieving Yahoos a'packin'.


posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:37 AM

Originally posted by bodebliss
The Lunar Recon orbiter camera will clear up alot of this mystery and send those disbelieving Yahoos a'packin'.

Wishful thinking, but i'm sure any hoax believer will simply say that the images were photoshoped or something equally silly.

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 02:40 AM
51 pages of argumentating and after all that, did you find a consensus?

If not, I just have one thing to say... OH MY GOD!!

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Vitchilo
51 pages of argumentating and after all that, did you find a consensus?

Well, do you still see people trying to spew the hoax crap, anymore?

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Dallas
Perhaps when China get's there they can confirm the landing happened.

Yeah, like we can trust the Chinese to tell the truth!

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:43 AM
Any of you seen this oneDark side of the Moon

...I don't know what to make of it...although having watched Barts movie I immediately thought of Kubrick (obviously)

Thought's anyone - If it hasn't already been posted here.

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:17 AM
It was an acknowedged joke, they spill the beans at the end.. Basically they are all having a laugh at the expense of hoax believers and at the same time showing how things can be manufactured and twisted to portray anything the film maker wants to.

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:34 PM
Thanks Smith. I just re-viewed the ending....missed that before along with other bits.

Interesting tho' - The segment about spending several times more Military resources on capturing the 'fugitive film crew' than the Iraq invasion

That Rumsfeld gives me the creeepz too.

Could this be dis-mis-information thingamy-wotsit ?

Kubrick was my hero - he woz waxed IMHO


posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:23 PM
That "Dark side of the Moon" thing is hilarious. Some really funny moments in there. Some of the jokes are kind of subtle. I can see those fooling the HB's and thinking they're actually serious.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by jra]

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 03:44 PM
I don't understand how anyone can argue against our moon landing, when there are newly discovered recordings of radio exchange between Houston and Apollo, which prove it beyond doubt - at this link

Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

Ref: Link (removed)

[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 04:01 PM
the controversy that surround the moon is quite extraordinary. maybe at some point the astronauts themselves will reveal some of the information that we are all waiting for.
also very interestinting that the pentagon themselves had to get up there more recently to mosaically photograph the entire lunar surface. hmmmmmm

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 04:03 PM
You guys still arguing that we landed on the moon?

How can you look at any of the 'footage' of the moon walks and not JUST crack up?

Come on guys... confess!

You have to have some doubts?

While you guys are lambasting me
, can someone explain to me how tapes of censored dialogue could possibly be 'proof' of the authenticity of the moon landings?

Socrates would be SO proud!

To listen to some of the points of view expressed by guys that can only be most kindly described as true believers... it's like the government has NEVER covered-up or falsifield anything!

Do I really need to list these cover-ups... and then entirely for giggles, juxtapose the timeline when the moon landings occurred?

It's always good to check in with you guys... And it's it's always good to have you guys talk at me.

Keep the faith...

top topics

<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in