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: 60
29
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Part of the whole problem with this is people just enjoy talking about conspiracies too much to believe anything anymore. Like come on people, whenever someone says something or has a theory everyone wants proof and pictures, etc. Nasa lands on the moon, provides video footage as well as pictures and then people decide that everything must have been staged. Like seriously what do people need to see to prove something actually happened.




posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.
So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!


The whole conspiracy was made up they did go to the moon the conspiracy was created to cover up the bigger picture about UFO's/Aliens. Just my two cents.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I originally joined ATS just for this one thread subject...

It's kind of disappointing for a forum that is supposed to be 'the forum' that there never was any real discussion, sense of reality or embodiment of a body of knowledge towards reaching a real conclusion as to why it was necessary to even fake the 'Moon landings' especially to the laughable degree it was...

The real discussion should have followed on the heels of that base concept.

If you follow the line of reasoning that human technology experienced an explosive growth following the acquisition of alien technology at 'Roswell' (a case that is fairly well established
)...

Of course we wouldn't have used the insanely primitive technology of 'rockets' to accomplish space travel to the moon.

Unfortunately, you can't get a straight answer, a reality framework or anything approaching an intelligent conversation at any level within the confines of ATS.

New England crabs.



Edn

posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I knew from the moment i heard the moon conspiracy that it was a complete lead of bull. I laughed my head off when they said they didn't go to the moon because there were no stars in the photographs, i mean come on 2 minutes of research by a 3 year old will conclude that stars are to dim to be picked up by a camera with a short exposure. A camera needs to have an exposure of 15-30 seconds and it has to track the stars if you want to see them.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I wonder how nasa transmited from the moon live tv feed, I will get in to it later, right now I'm doing my homework
, I'm almost done, it shows up nasa could not do it.
I'll be back folks



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   
That's come up at least a dozen times in this thread already. Does your homework include going back and reading it, even the parts where this was addressed where you were involved in the conversation?



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
That's come up at least a dozen times in this thread already. Does your homework include going back and reading it, even the parts where this was addressed where you were involved in the conversation?

right, it's a page or 2 back, nothing has been debunked, I just need to get all the caracteristics in place, so I can prove my point better.
Those rover antenas look hoples to me.
I'll be covering all the aspects of transmisions, I dont want to ruin it now, so it will take time till I get all the things in place.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
That's it! You're right! Those tiny antennas would NEVER transmit something strong enough for a 16 meter antenna, or even dozens of antennas to receive here on Earth.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's it! You're right! Those tiny antennas would NEVER transmit something strong enough for a 16 meter antenna, or even dozens of antennas to receive here on Earth.

that is if the signal makes it back on earth detectable

but again, I dont want to ruin this, i'll wait until I get all the things in place.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Okay, well instead of saying what you're going to do, why don't you just do it?


jra

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I wonder how nasa transmited from the moon live tv feed, I will get in to it later, right now I'm doing my homework
, I'm almost done, it shows up nasa could not do it.


Really? Why am I not supprised you came to that conclusion. I seem to recall that back in the early days of television, that tv signals were broadcast out into space. This was 60 years ago. I'm no expert on the specific subject of signal transmission, but from what I understand, the people on the moon didn't need to send a powerful signal. The dishes on Earth were powerful enough to pick up the fainter signals coming from the Moon.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   


Really? Why am I not supprised you came to that conclusion. I seem to recall that back in the early days of television, that tv signals were broadcast out into space.

Yea it's a matter of how you put it, it's backwards, not earth to space, but space to earth, broadcasting in to space is easy, broadcasting from space to earth is not.



This was 60 years ago. I'm no expert on the specific subject of signal transmission, but from what I understand, the people on the moon didn't need to send a powerful signal.

In order for this to work they needed something to transmit from the moon to earth.
In order for this to work they had to have an antena that could reach earth, it does not matter how big the antena on earth is, if the signal does not reach earth it cant pick it up because there is nothing to pick up.



The dishes on Earth were powerful enough to pick up the fainter signals coming from the Moon.

Again , that if the signal made it to earth.

I will look at the antena caracteristics that was used from the moon.
I will look at interfirence.
I will lool at when the signal becomes unstable and at what range it becomes a problem for tv transmisions.
I will look at what range the signal becomes undetectable.

To transmit live tv feed for hours from 250.000 miles with out any problems is a serios chalange

I'll see what was the 60's eqiptment that was used on the moon and what range it had.
Remember we are not talking about coded data transmison, we are talking about a live tv feed, satelites sometimes encounter problems and they are on orbit very close, sometimes they just cant send the signa thru it's enough to have a storm and you can get a very weak signal, if you have a tv satelite dish sometimes you just dont get the signal at all due to bad atmosferic conditions, and all this here in the proximity of earth.

For now I'm looking at the caracteristics, and I'll tell you, it does not look good.
For now I wont say anything, when I have all the data I'll make a case out of it.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I am not an expert on sound/video waves or frequencies, but wouldn't be EASIER for either type of trasmission to travel in space? Someone please correct me if I am wrong... Also, they had live feed from the Apollo 13 mission, why would they not have the technology for the Apollo 11 one?

Just jumping into the conversation...



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   
How come there was a rock on the moon, with a "C" written on it with what seemed to be a marker, and a "C" on the ground near the rock.

This was on an Apollo 17 flight, I am really confused as to which side of the argument to believe, both have convincing points. I guess i'll never reallly know for sure until i go there myself



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
I got one for the idea that all the video footage was faked...

What about "One small step for _ man, one giant leap..."

It was live, wasn't it? They tried to say it was a glitch in the comm's, but it was really just Armstrong having a brain fart.

But if it was a hoax it couldn't have been live now could it? What would have happened, as our friend so gleefully pointed out, if something went wrong?
What if a light rack fell? What if a mic wandered into the shot? What if someones dog ran out onto the set? Can we honestly think that NASA would take that big of a risk? Over something so incredably major and significant... could they really risk anything going wrong and revealing the fraud on a live feed to the entire world?

So it had to have been a recorded mockup... but if this is so, why leave it in? Why not go "CUT! ... Neil!!! Get it right!!!" That one little slip up confused millions and left them with a running joke and a blush for decades after. Would they have done the same if say... Buzz forgot to flip down his visor? "Oh he just felt like getting a tan."


you do realize that some people saw a coke bottle on the surface of the supposed "moon" live footage. and then when it aired again the next day it seemed to be edited out

wtf nasa


jra

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by cometkid89
How come there was a rock on the moon, with a "C" written on it with what seemed to be a marker, and a "C" on the ground near the rock.


It was a hair. The original print doesn't have it. You can read more about it here. www.clavius.org... and about the coke bottle here. www.clavius.org...



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Excellent, excellent digging, JRA.


That explains the supposed "coke Bottle" phenomena perfectly, wow.












[edit on 9/4/2006 by bodebliss]



posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by cometkid89
How come there was a rock on the moon, with a "C" written on it with what seemed to be a marker, and a "C" on the ground near the rock.


It was a hair. The original print doesn't have it. You can read more about it here. www.clavius.org... and about the coke bottle here. www.clavius.org...


Okay, thanks.

I just watched the footage of the "coke" bottle, and it wasn't even a big deal.
Sure it looks like something is bouncing across the ground, but i couldn't make out a bottle...

The only thing that gets me now about the moon conspiracy now, is the lighting inconsistencies and other anomolies.



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
OOPS


deleted

[edit on 5/9/06 by Mouth]



posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:11 AM
link   
My jury is still out on this, but Im leaning towards us not going.
My top 3 reasons?
1-They cant reproduce the rockets, the plans were lost and the only guy who knew how to make them is dead. INconceivable.
2-They lost all of their high def footage. Unbelievable, considering that it could be used to prove or disprove.
3-Nobody else in the world has been able to make it there in 40plus years.

So all this talk about antenas and mirrors and what not is fine and dandy, but my 3 points speak volumes to me.

As I was groing up I had an uncle that lived in the backwoods of Kentucky.
He always said that we never went to the moon, and I always laughed at him because of it. I considered him a backwards county hick without much of an education.
Now I find myself realizing that old uncle Raleigh may have been spot on, about more than just the moon landing.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join