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: 52
29
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   

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


What is there to "crack up" about?


You have to have some doubts?


Not in the slightest. I've studied the missions a lot over the past few years. And i'm continuing to learn more all the time. If anything my beliefs become more solid all the time through study and research.


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!


Of course the Government has covered-up/falsified things, but what does that have to do with the Apollo program? How would the Government cover-up a program that consisted of 400,000 scientists and engineers all working on it through various contracted companies? The Apollo program was an open project. It needed to be since all the companies had to communicate with one another. How and what was covered-up exactly? Surely you don't think 400,000 people can keep a secret for over 30 years.


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


Go for it.




posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I've read this thread in its ENTIRETY.

>What is there to "crack up" about?
Are you sure this is the direction you want to go in?


It's been flogged to death big guy! You obviously are NOT looking at the same pictures as I am...

You don't think we are really going to get into it again? I've listed a few things, maybe a few pages back
. It was all brilliantly REFUTED!


>Not in the slightest. I've studied the missions a lot over the past few years. And i'm continuing to learn more all the time. If anything my beliefs become more solid all the time through study and research.

People see what they want to see. People believe what they want to believe.

Pick a subject. Any subject. There are people who are simply NOT going (or are simply UNABLE
) to break things down in the statements/arguments they make to advance the own point of view.

Really? Absolutely!

Let's look at your next statement...

>Of course the Government has covered-up/falsified things, but what does that have to do with the Apollo program? How would the Government cover-up a program that consisted of 400,000 scientists and engineers all working on it through various contracted companies? The Apollo program was an open project. It needed to be since all the companies had to communicate with one another. How and what was covered-up exactly? Surely you don't think 400,000 people can keep a secret for over 30 years.

Are you saying your position is that we sent ALL 400,000 of those people went to the moon?


No?

So are you saying that everyone of those 400,000 people knows EVERYTHING that happened in the Apollo program?

No?

Are you saying everyone of those 400,000 had the run of the entire program, massive endeavor that it was and if there was ANYTHING that would reveal that the key 'moon sequences' where actually shot on a sound stage that due to advancing movie making technology we simply find quite LAUGHABLE...

Everyone of these 400,000 stalwarts would know about?

I'm really a moron JRA
, explain it to me.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I think those who believe in a "Moon Conspiracy" are just saying, "Well they didn't land while I was looking, so it can't be possible."

I say to this "Get over it ! Get over yourself. Your just not that important that all of history must happen before YOUR eyes. Why weren't you born earlier? Where is your responsibility?".



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   
What they are probably saying is something more along the lines of...

You did a really CRAXXY job faking it, like SO many other official TRUE LIES... So come clean!

Or the Godzilla rampaging thru Tokyo looks MORE realistic... So come clean!

How could you POSSIBLY (As a sidenote, my personal favorite has always been) have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects... So come clean!

Obviously we are all morons.


At least that what they guys who support NASAs entire account and NASA never ever said anything false about the entire Apollo program are implying...

On further review, they said it...



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
This one might have been posted before, but why not post it again:

science.nasa.gov...

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


Well we'll soon know one way ort de other!


jra

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
People see what they want to see. People believe what they want to believe.


They surely do, I couldn't agree more... and then there are the people who actually learn and educate themselves on a subject before they make a decision.


That must have been one huge sound stage to have KM's of ground to work in and have it covering 360degrees around the camera.

How come no movie to date can get that level of realism in the special effects now? How come the USSR never faked there own moon landing? Since the Apollo space program was an open project, surely there spies would have been able to infiltrate the program easily and they would have found out about them faking it. Soviet spies had infiltrated top secret programs before, why not Apollo? Especially since it wasn't a top secret program. Also, it's not like the USSR sucked at making films either. Here's one with pretty damn good special effects for 1954 www.astronautix.com... Looks a lot better then the average 50's sci-fi movies from the US.

So basicly what I think you're saying is only a few knew about the whole thing? And these few people managed to fool 400,000 of the best and the brightest minds of the time? Not to mention all the other engineers and scientists around the world who also don't question it, not even today. But you some how arn't fooled? I find that really hard to swallow, especially from what you asked in your next post...


How could you POSSIBLY have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects


That's so elementary it's not even funny. I already answered this on page 5 of this thread (and half a dozen times after that I'm sure). Are you sure you read this whole thread? I don't think so. What next... are you going to ask why no stars show up on the photos?


So yeah, if you could explain to me how 400,000 of the brightest people were completely fooled and unaware of the hoax, then please do so. I'd really like to know.


I'm really a moron JRA


It's never too late to get an education.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
How could you POSSIBLY (As a sidenote, my personal favorite has always been) have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects... So come clean!


O_o I thought you said you read the entire thread? Seeing as that alone was done to death I kind of get the impression you haven't.

Rather than come on making mocking statements, you could contribute by coming up with some arguments. Ones that haven't already been done to death earlier in this thread obviously, should be interesting because I think we've covered everything from the simplistic theories like the crosshairs, stars etc up to and including more advanced theories like the exact radiation levels on the Moon.

If you feel you have something to add other than 'it looks silly', then please continue, otherwise what's the point?
Seems like you enjoy provoking a reaction by attempting to ridicule rather than discussing the issues..


[edit on 15-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
golem = Friend!

I've looked at exactly the same evidence as all of you... In fact, ad naseum. But we will talk more about that later...

But first let's talk about these accusations some of you seem SO intent on making...

It just seems a little strange that several of the NASA defenders which seem to behave as such bullies are somehow frequently trying to portray people some as myself in such a contemptuous manner, not to mention... ah let's just show your quotes...

>making mocking statements
>attempting to ridicule
>get an education

That's OK though.


And I can understand why some of you guys would prefer to use this type of tactic of ganging up on the various passersbys in this thread, instead of engaging in a real discussion where the relative merits of what is actually being discussed are TRULY evaluated instead of delivering what looks to many honest observers (that would be folks such as myself
) as ad hominem parroting...

What am I talking about?

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Seriously, guys. I can understand why you guys REALLY don't want to talk about the facts OR the evidence.

That is entirely your choice.

But let's look at the nature of the discussion I advance taking about JRA's assertion that the Moon Landings HAD to be true, because HOW could you possibly fool 400,000 'of the best and the brightest minds of the time'?

My line of questioning was never answered.

I'm a really nice guy... So I will reformat the question.


JRA, exactly how many of those 400,000 people were truly in a position to know that if the Moon Landing had to be faked, for something presumably like a last minute tech glitch, and the 'moon walk' sequences were shot on a sound stage?

What is the exact number whose responsibilities were such that they would have to be in on the conspiracy because they would know and blow the whistle?

Next question...

I asked the question:

'How could you POSSIBLY (As a sidenote, my personal favorite has always been) have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects?'

The only response was...

>Seeing as that alone was done to death I kind of get the impression you haven't.

Is it just me... Or does that look curiously like a non-answer?

With regards to the comments about the sound stage requirements...

I've got to be honest with you. The quality is SO poor. The lighting so bad. I'm sure it's just me (
)... But even a causal viewing always seems to appear as if the LEM is situated in a slight despression the boys in suits moon walking slightly uphill, so you never have a clear horizon to horizon perspective...

Or any recording along the lines of that human tendency to scamper up to the closest rise to get a really good look at the lay of the land.

The very best place to hide a conspiracy is right out in the open... The whole while telling the television viewers there are three reasons why... (while holding up two fingers).

(I like to have fun! Come on in... the water is fine!)



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   
If people can't be bothered to read the thread, why should we bother to answer questions yet again.
You've written a large post with nothing in it that hasn't already been covered. With regards to comments like 'the lighting looks wrong' there is little anyone can say as that is opinion.
I can't speak for everyone else but I am interested in discussing things which can be brought to a conclusion using facts and science, that's pretty much all we can do with something like this.
If you just 'feel' it's fake then that's fine, but don't expect those of us that have spent a lot of time studying this scientifically to just go 'oh to hell with it, all the evidence says they went but this guy thinks it didn't look right so we were wrong.'
And, as I said, don't think we are going to run around explaining things which have been discussed on numerous occasions already just because you don't want to read the whole thread, it's real tempting to post the answer but why should I? We had to do research, so you can do the same.. Though it's easier for you as you only have to go over our work

You obivously have not bothered to read as not only are oyu bringing up the rather crude arguement of the crosshairs (yesteryear's argument), but you comment that we don't want to face the facts and technical aspects. If you had read the entire thread you would see this is about as far from the truth as you can get.
I also like your comments regarding the pictures, I take it you haven't viewed the thousands of raw images available, which so few are aware of?
They to, are mentioned numerous times in this thread with links.

Trying to taunt people into giving you the answers to save you the hassle of looking or just to provoke a reaction is not the way to go my friend.

EDIT:

Hell, as I'm in a good mood and to show there's no hard feelings - just this once for you here is a little linky to your crosshair argument:

www.clavius.org...

And here are the mission piccies:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

If you really want to learn about anything else, I seriously suggest reading the thread. If your just interested in provoking reactions, then I have nothing else to say.

[edit on 15-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Nah... Not at all.

What they are probably saying is something more along the lines of...

You did a really CRAXXY job faking it, like SO many other official TRUE LIES... So come clean!

Or the Godzilla rampaging thru Tokyo looks MORE realistic... So come clean!

How could you POSSIBLY (As a sidenote, my personal favorite has always been) have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects... So come clean!

Obviously we are all morons.

At least that what they guys who support NASAs entire account and NASA never ever said anything false about the entire Apollo program are implying


Well this does not sound like a invite to a friendly chat.

Do you doubt there are landers on Mars?

Probably not because they happened while you watched.

Do you doubt the mission to Jupiter?

No because it happened while you watched.

Do you doubt Mongolia, Mt. Everest, Russia exists?

You've possibly never been there. Millions of people could be lying to you.

Do you doubt the US has nuclear weapons?

You've never seen a nuke up close. Hundreds of thousands of people could be lying to you.

If you doubt the modern age, why stop at the Moon missions?

Do believe in cars, refrigerators, electricity?

Yes you do, because your using a computer to write your doubts to this thread.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Your position is crystal clear.

Without getting into any specifics, and without any disrepect to you and the other stalwarts in this thread...

And your position is basically 'why should we bother to answer questions'...

Why is this thread even open?

Not trying to exacerbate your mood... Hey... We have all been there!

You have the authority! Close the thread! and close the subject for now and for all time!

Not only do I support you, but I absolutely promise you wont hear a peep from me...

(No matter how incorrigible or irreverent I might appear
)

Take care big guy!



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

And your position is basically 'why should we bother to answer questions'...


I think that's a little cold and a little low...

Agent Smith has painstakenly answered numerous questions in a forthright manner and you've brought nothing new to the discussion.

Agent Smith is right. You should read the thread and get back to him with some valid contradictions.


jra

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Seriously, guys. I can understand why you guys REALLY don't want to talk about the facts OR the evidence.


hahahahahahaha not wanting to talk about the facts? where have you been for the last 52 pages? Oh yeah that's right, you don't really read the replies. I'm all for talking about facts and do so all the time.


JRA, exactly how many of those 400,000 people were truly in a position to know that if the Moon Landing had to be faked, for something presumably like a last minute tech glitch, and the 'moon walk' sequences were shot on a sound stage?


Well there are at least a few hundred in the control room i'm sure. A lot of the engineers that helped build all the equipment were there too. They would have noticed something if it was being faked. Unless you think all those people were in on it.


Next question...

I asked the question:

'How could you POSSIBLY (As a sidenote, my personal favorite has always been) have the crosshairs BEHIND the objects?'

The only response was...

>Seeing as that alone was done to death I kind of get the impression you haven't.

Is it just me... Or does that look curiously like a non-answer?


The only response? So you ignored my reply saying the answer was on page 5? I'm not making that up. It really is on page 5. Go look! It really has been answered to death.


With regards to the comments about the sound stage requirements...

I've got to be honest with you. The quality is SO poor. The lighting so bad. I'm sure it's just me (
)... But even a causal viewing always seems to appear as if the LEM is situated in a slight despression the boys in suits moon walking slightly uphill, so you never have a clear horizon to horizon perspective...


What kind of quality are you expecting from primative 60's video camera technology? I don't think you've watched many videos of the landings.


Or any recording along the lines of that human tendency to scamper up to the closest rise to get a really good look at the lay of the land.


They were on a mission and had goals to meet, they couldn't just scamper around. Although in some of the missions they did go up on some of the hills and had some good views, but I guess you would know that if you ever looked at any of the photos.

It's funny how you ignore a lot of what we say. If you still believe 400,000 engineer and scientists can be fooled, then please explain how. Even if 100 people knew, that's a fairly large amount, what do you think would stop them from speaking out? Threaten to kill them and there families? Is that where all of NASA's budget goes? To maintain it's army of ninja assassins to prevent any leaks getting out? Amazing security for such an open project such as Apollo. It's too bad they didn't use that secret army for such things like the Manhattan Project which was very secret at the time and also much smaller then the Apollo program. Those pesky Russian spies found out about it and stole all sorts of info.


[edit on 15-4-2006 by jra]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
WAKE UP PEOPLE......


Don't be so stupid as to accually believe that we landed on the moon, it was faked, PROOF---the amount of constant raidiation outside the earth's electromagnetic feild is enough to kill any human. I HAVE SEEN THE SPACE CAPSUL that supposedly went to the moon.the out side skin on it is very thin. when i looked inside all i saw was insulation on the wall. NO SHIELDING of any kind!!!!!!!!SO----unless the sun all of the sudden stoped making radiation,....THERE'S NO WAY WE SENT ANYONE TO THE MOON!!!!!!GO TO mission control and look at the capsul's on display and tell me what you think......i really don't want to hear any nerdy crap about how they took the shielding out before it was on display. GROW UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Wrong...
Just because there wasn't several feet of lead and you don't understand how the shielding works does not mean it doesn't exist.
Do you know exactly how the Human mind works? I doubt it as no-one does fully yet, so does that mean it doesn't exist? Of course not...

To save you the hassle, here are some useful links relevant to what you are saying:

www.clavius.org...

The Soviets even sent a crew of living creatures which returned from the Moon alive and well before we even went:


Zond 5 was launched from a Tyazheliy Sputnik (68-076B) in earth parking orbit to make scientific studies during a lunar flyby and to return to Earth. En route to the Moon the main stellar attitude control optical surface became contaminated and was rendered unusable. Backup sensors were used to guide the spacecraft. On September 18, 1968, the spacecraft flew around the Moon. The closest distance was 1,950 km. High quality photographs of the Earth were taken at a distance of 90,000 km. A biological payload of turtles, wine flies, meal worms, plants, seeds, bacteria, and other living matter was included in the flight. Additionally, according to the Russian Academy of Sciences, in the pilot's seat was a 175 cm tall, 70 kg mannequin containing radiation detectors. Returning to Earth another attitude control sensor failed, making the planned guided entry impossible and forcing the spacecraft controllers to use a direct ballistic entry. On September 21, 1968, the reentry capsule entered the Earth's atmosphere, braked aerodynamically, and deployed parachutes at 7 km. The capsule splashed down in the backup area in the Indian Ocean at 32.63 degrees S, 65.55 degrees E and was successfully recovered, safely returning the biological payload. It was announced that the turtles (steppe tortoises) had lost about 10% of their body weight but remained active and showed no loss of appetite. The spacecraft was planned as a precursor to crewed lunar spacecraft. It represented the first successful Soviet circumlunar Earth-return mission.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


It's worth noting that any radiation present would have less to penetrate before reaching vital organs in these small creatures, s if they survived it's not much of a feat for a human to do so.

You'll see that a lot of research was carried out by both the Americans and the Russians into the radiation levels so they could prepare themselves adequately. The only main concern was that a solar flare would have killed them, of course they can predict them to a certain degree and they flew the missions during periods of low solar activity. There was always a risk but there is with anything worth having or doing in life.

You can find information on the actual levels in space here:

www.hps.org...

As you can see over short periods of time, as in the Apollo missions, it is no where near threatening.
Some people now argue that NASA saying they have to overcome the radiation problems with the Mars mission as proof that the levels are high, what they fail to consider is that the Mars missions will take many months/years and the Apollo missions spanned a few days.

It's a crude way of working it out and probably inaccurate (a better way is here) but it'll give you a rough idea:

Specifically looking at the Van-Allen belts (bearing in mind the Apollo craft passed through the thinnest portion and the journey through only lasted roughly an hour I believe):


An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.
en.wikipedia.org...


So you could work out that in a day it would be 2500/365= 6.84 (approx)
And in 1 hour 6.84 / 24 = 0.29 (approx)

1 hour = approx 0.29 REM

Here is a table of radiation dose effects on the Human body:



Dose-rem Effects
5-20 Possible late effects; possible chromosomal damage.
20-100 Temporary reduction in white blood cells.
100-200 Mild radiation sickness within a few hours: vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue; reduction in resistance to infection.
200-300 Serious radiation sickness effects as in 100-200 rem and hemorrhage; exposure is a Lethal Dose to 10-35% of the population after 30 days (LD 10-35/30).
300-400 Serious radiation sickness; also marrow and intestine destruction; LD 50-70/30.
400-1000 Acute illness, early death; LD 60-95/30.
1000-5000 Acute illness, early death in days; LD 100/10.
www.atomicarchive.com...


So as you can see in actual fact the levels are no where near anything of a concern.

Dr Van-Allen himself has stated that:


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Of course he could be in on the conspiracy, along with all the qualified people that prove it did and could have happened.. But then that's where you cross the thin line between Denying Ignorance and Desperately trying to prove a conspiracy.

As I've said before, if it's a choice between believing qualified, experienced people (and bearing in mind I actually do have a good understanding myself - meaning I don't solely rely on anyone's opinon) or believing a team of self-proclaimed scientists and DVD selling Journo's... I'll stick with the people that know what they are talking about.
Don't worry, going by the same standard if I want to know how to swindle trusting people out of their money then I won't bother asking the scientists....

Anyway, this was all covered extensively before - read the thread


[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 07:45 AM
link   
we didnt land there
www.aulis.com...



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   
What an excellent site, this was my favourite bit:



Luckily I bothered to check the archives for the explanation:

Here is AS11-40-5847:


www.lpi.usra.edu...

And here is AS11-37-5458:


www.lpi.usra.edu...

I'm sure it was an honest 'truthseeker' mistake, I expect the cat knocked the keyboard and the image flipped all by itself..


I can't even be bothered to comment on the perspective issue..

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:25 AM
link   
So there was one mistake, what about the rest, it isnt all mistakes.


And yes the enjineers could be fooled. Almost the entire planet was fooled or at least stuck on wether the alien autopsy video was real, but it wasnt.



[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:27 AM
link   
maddale

Do yourself a favor and rereead this thread. All your questions will be answered. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I think you're confusing a 'mistake' with 'deception'.
That image is correctly orientated from all official sources, I picked that as an example because it was on the page you linked to. The other issue on that page can be explained with angles and perspective, but why bother? They are obviously in the business of deceiving people, it's just sad that so many people fall for it.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join