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: 53
29
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
If they are just decieving people how can so many different people all find the same problems with pictures that show it isnt real, do not ask for links i have none but from tv and internet i am sure it wont be that hard to find the same picture in many different places.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]




posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by maddale
If they are just decieving people how can so many different people all find the same problems with pictures that show it isnt real, do not ask for links i have none but from tv and internet i am sure it wont be that hard to find the same picture in many different places.


Because a few morons came up with the idea, then others took it and elaborated. What we have now is just the same misinformation floating around the media from different sources. They all went and took from each other, basically.

[sarcasm]
It's a really, good, credible way to do research too.

[/sarcasm]

And really, like I suggested, read through this entire thread. You'll see all of the "proof we didn't go to the Moon" gets proven wrong. It may take awhile, but you won't be embarrasing yourself by thinking we didn't go to the Moon anymore.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Here's another 'mistake' from that site Maddale:


Sequence of pictures of Aldrin descending the ladder in total darkness during Apollo 11.
David Groves PhD and David Percy have analysed the ‘hotspot’ on the heel on Aldrin’s right boot and found that a directional light was used,
it was apparently placed just to the right of the camera position.

www.aulis.com...


And the actual picture (resized - click link for original):



www.hq.nasa.gov...

There is a vague reflection on his heel, but nothing like in their image. It could easily be caused by ambient light.

A couple of questions for you Maddale:

1) How many 'mistakes' do there need to be before it becomes deception?
2) How many 'mistakes' would you allow NASA to make before it discredit's all their work?

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
1. not quite sure what you mean

2. i think NASA has done some amazing work but i still dont believe we landed on the moon or at most the footage we saw was not the real footage.

Lets just agree we will never all agree because although you probaly didnt i could have just said you or wherever you got the photo from was flipped so it was the right way round.
We will never all agree until we have been there.

what did you mean by the first question?

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Yeah, and I guess they turned down the lighting on the NASA sites too, and took away the reflection..
OK third time lucky.. Maybe not..


In Apollo 16 during the 'jump salute', the PLSS backpack, which contained the life support systems, has a different fabric orientation of the triangular top flap in the still picture when compared with the TV coverage of the same event which does not show this triangular top flap.

www.aulis.com...


Luckily you can get a copy of the video in question here.

As you can see when you watch it you can just make out the flap, here is a still where you can see it:



The best bit is that it visibly flaps up and down on his first landing, you can't miss it..

Not sure how delibrately choosing a frame where you can barely see it is a 'mistake'...


What I mean by the first question is, how many more examples of blatant false manipulation and editing to you need before you realise your site full of 'evidence' is nothing more a waste of bandwidth?
I'd invoice the people for all the bandwidth you used when viewing the site if I were you, you've been robbed.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:16 AM
link   
i do not agree with thier version of that pic anyway as you can still JUST see it in their second picture



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:23 AM
link   
The point is, I've looked into 3 of their arguments and so far I've found:

Example 1 - Image reversed and this fact used as main argument

Example 2 - Image edited to give false lighting impressions and emphasise what would be an appropiate reflection - used as main arguement.

Example 3 - Our of a video in which you can see the offending object nearly the whole time, they choose the frame you can bearly see it.

If NASA did something like this you'd never believe a word they said again!

If you find it so easy to accept an opinion that NASA faked the Moon shot (based on fraudlant 'evidence' such as this) then why do you have difficulty accepting that this 'Truthfinding' site serves nothing other than to spread lies, even when shown that they have blatantly lied through their teeth to spread their 'truth'?


Lets just agree we will never all agree because although you probaly didnt i could have just said you or wherever you got the photo from was flipped so it was the right way round.


Not really, both the Lunar & Planetary Institute archive and NASA archives show the images as I showed you and I linked to them directly. So that rules me out of the question.
So the only alternative you're suggesting is that NASA published them 'the wrong way round' and the website you linked too helpfully corrected them to expose the deception?



[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
while there are sites thT EMPHASISE the small things like in the last one there are many that don't and you can still see it, ones where you see the origional pic and then enhanced it.

This may be a bad site but i have no other links as i have not been on the moon landing topic for a long time.

As i said before whilst you can always say they altered that pic i can say the same for most of them.

And nothing to do with this site but when the craft takes of again from the moon it looks as if it has just been pulled up by a string.

faking the moon landing would not be hard, there is a fake somewhere on here that is supposed to be the landing with a lighting accident and that lokks pretty real

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Not really, I'm linking you to images at source (that's NASA). The same source they would have to get theirs from.

There is also a difference between emphasising something and creating something that wasn't there.

It looks like it was pulled up by string? Can you see string? No..
So what's the basis for that argument? How does something 'look like it was pulled up by string?

You may not have been involved in this topic for long, but some of us have. Why not read the thread and learn? All these topics have been covered extensively, read


Faking the Moon landing would be a lot harder than just kncking togetehr some film footage.

You would have to fool the Russians and everyone else in the world, not only into thinking it was happening but also fool their tracking stations which tracked the spacecraft and intercepted the transmissions. They could also tell where the transmissions came from so transmitting from orbit would be useless.
You would have to fool the countless people involved at NASA.
You would have collect a huge amount of rocks from the Moon, samples have been brought back by probes, but not in such great quantities. Lunar rocks can not be mistaken for anything else, you can even get a sample from NASA if you are an educational institute. A school in Wales here in the UK got some recently.
They put reflectors on the Moon, these are still used today for experiments by bouncing a laser off them.. etc.. etc..

Just because something could be faked doesn't mean it is, and in this case it would be far more complicated than taking a few snapshots and some video...

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   
i have seen the video of the craft taking of from the moon and it looks as if it as being pulled by a string, you cannot se a string but you cant in films either

it looks this way because of the speed it sudenly goes up with and allmost no blast can be seen to lift it.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Go back and reread this thread (or at least the first few of pages). All your questions will be answered and if you keep an open mind you'll understand that we really did go to the Moon.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Then you don't understand the principles of rocket flight in a low gravity environment like on the Moon... Which is fine, but just because you don't understand it does not mean they used string..


Seriously, as Keen said, if you're interested then read the thread.. If your not, why bother posting?



[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium
We have satellites orbiting Earth that can take a photo of a pimple on Madonna's butt, yet we still can't get an Apollo landing site pic other than that Clementine photo with that stupid dot that could be anything?

[edit on 9-6-2005 by turbonium]



explain that please, and yes he is exagerating but google earth can show you how detailed the ics can be


i am reading the thread and just see every body being shot down by people who believe it, if this thread had been started the other way round it would be the same for you, but now they just get closed and directed to a place where no one will listen to them because they all believe we did it.

[edit on 19-4-2006 by maddale]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Because there is nothing in orbit around the Moon capable of that resolution. There will be in 2008 I think it is (again... mentioned in this thread), but as I'm sure you can appreciate putting high resolution imaging satellites in Lunar orbit is not as much of a priority as putting them in orbit around the Earth.
This may come as a shock but NASA doesn't really look at the few people that entertain these Apollo hoax theories as much more than a mild irritant, lets face it - if that's the path you've chosen you'd only say any images were fake too.

But really, it has all been covered, I'm starting to think you arn't actually interested. If you spent as much time reading this thread as asking your questions you'd find they are all answered in explicit detail with even more additional information. I know it seems tedious and boring to have to trawl through all 53 pages, but if you can't be bothered then you obviously arn't interested so stop asking these repetative, basic questions.

Read the thread, then ask questions..


Does it occur to you that we might actually have gone?

You probably ask yourself if we believe they might not have, I used to for a brief time - luckily I'm pretty well educated generally and when I started conducting my own research instead of swallowing someone else's version it became blatantly clear that the only people lying in this case were the people saying it was a hoax. Well OK, not all are lying because they tend to copy each other..

Yes it's irritating when something you believe so strongly in turns out to be wrong... It's irritating and confusing when the people who beckon to you with tempting delights of non-conformity and government conspiracy turn out to liars, idiots and frauds... But it happens....

You are pefectly entitled to believe that we didn't go, but the facts speak otherwise. Don't be surprised when arguements to say we didn't are shot down, it's to be expected.. The site you showed me was one of the better examples believe it or not...

[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   
i am interested but as i already said all i see is non believers get shot down because they are outnumbered.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Some of us have spent a great deal of time and research on this matter and it can be found, lost in the middle of this thread.. Sadly a huge number of people come on without bothering to read the previous 50 odd pages and stick their childish comment on the end or a link to a crappy site thinking that after 50 pages these (rather simple) arguments haven't been touched.

Then when it's pointed out to them repeatedly that all they have to do is read the entire thread, they either ignore you and keep asking the same questions or disappear because they arn't interested enough anyway to bother. Even as it stands at 53 pages it's really not a lot considering the complexity of the issue and it wouldn't be so much if PEOPLE READ INSTEAD OF ASKING THE SAME QUESTIONS.

I'm sure if you gave up a significant portion of your free time to conduct research and document it for people to learn from, but they couldn't even be bothered to read it you'd be tetchy too.

It's wouldn't be so bad, but NO-ONE has come up with anything that has not been discussed TO DEATH and DEBUNKED in this thread!

All you have to do is READ!


[edit on 19-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   
ok i have read some more and i am now 60/40, that we did land there.

to make it 95/5 can you tell me bacause i must have missed it why the shadows go in different directions when the only light was supposed to be from the sun.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:54 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   
thnks for tht now im 95% sure we landed there


jra

posted on Apr, 20 2006 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So what's that last 5% that's troubling you? Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join