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: 63
29
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Crowpruitt, what was the convincing evidence from the national geographic documentary?????
Please tell!!!

Realanswers, that was a most interesting post!! Who or what do you suppose made the artificial moon then? Also, where can I get any decent information about the things observed on the moon like the domes?

How can believers in the moon landings deal with all the ridiculously tampered photos and unbelievable footage? Have you played the moon rover videos in double speed? HOW ON EARTH (LOL) can you dismiss that kind of outrageous insult to human intelligence? In the roughly 1/3rd gravity of the moon dust will travel 3 times higher at least than on earth and with the lack of atmosphere it should travel REALLY far (proportionally). It doesn't. Bla bla bla.... The arguments go on and on.

Even if one can have disputes with this kind of argument how can you ignore the political side of the argument?? The Russians best everyone every time on every level and POUFF!! suddenly the Americans are top dog... Perfect timing after ceaseless humiliation in the space race? The story smells just a little fishy (sarcasm) even before you look even a little deeper!!!




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:42 PM
link   
The dust does not travel far because it is electrostaticly charged when kicked it. It just flops back over on itself as if poured.

You ever try to make electrostaticly charged particles fly ?



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by realanswers
How on Earth can a moon continuely not rotate at all if it is not being guided by an artificial source? The moon's dark side doesn't ever turn to give a chance for the people on Earth to see what is over there.


At one point the Moon did rotate,but the Earth slowed it's rotation till you can only see one side. The moon is slowing the Earth's rotation and someday it have only one side of the Earth facing toward the Sun.


jra

posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Most of your questions have been answered many times before in this thread, but it's been a while, so here we go...


Originally posted by realanswers
How on Earth can a moon continuely not rotate at all if it is not being guided by an artificial source? The moon's dark side doesn't ever turn to give a chance for the people on Earth to see what is over there.


The Moon rotates. It rotates close to the same speed that it orbits the Earth, so one side only faces the Earth. There is no dark side of the Moon, only a far side. All sides of the Moon get equal light.


The American flag was seen briefly to wave in ... a breeze? But we are told there is no air on the Moon.


If you watch the video, you will clearly see an astronaut with his hand on the flag pole, twisting it into the ground, thus the flag moves back and forth.


The flag was then starched.


There is a small pole that runs horizontally along the top of the flag to keep it out straight.


Also we saw dust kicked up by the astronauts clearly drifting in . . . what? Dust particles do not drift in vacuum---they cling together.


I've seen the dust kicked up by astronauts, but i've never seen it drift. I've always seen it fall back to the surface soon after. I've never heard of dust clinging together. Got a source for that info?


And what about the feeble leaps of the astronauts off the Moon's surface---were their spacesuits and backpacks really so heavy? The Moon is supposed to be about one-sixth the gravity of Earth.


Why would you expect the astronauts to do giant leaps? It would be too dangerous, they could make a bad landing and rip there suit or crack there helmet and that would be no fun. Plus a lot of the EVA's lasted for hours, so if they were to be putting more energy in there jumps they'd become exausted really quickly. Aldrin or Armstrong, I forget which one, made a 5 foot jump onto the LM ladder though.

The suits are rather heavy, about 180lbs (not including the astronaut) on Earth if I remember right. Plus the PLSS (the backpack) affected there center of gravity. So if an astronaut were to jump as high as he could, he could have tiped over backwards.


Originally posted by Kupios
How can believers in the moon landings deal with all the ridiculously tampered photos and unbelievable footage?


What about the photos looks tampered to you? They look good to me, as does the footage. Care to elaborate on this?


Have you played the moon rover videos in double speed? HOW ON EARTH (LOL) can you dismiss that kind of outrageous insult to human intelligence?


I've seen clips sped up and I think it looks obviously sped up. It does not make it look like they are on Earth to me.


In the roughly 1/3rd gravity of the moon dust will travel 3 times higher at least than on earth and with the lack of atmosphere it should travel REALLY far (proportionally). It doesn't.


The moons gravity is 1/6th of Earths. And the dust does fly higher then it would on Earth. It just depends on how much force is applied.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
I never said there was convincing evidence.If you would have read my post Kupios you would have seen that I was helping someone remember the name of the program.
believe what you want,The men that went to the moon are true AMERICAN heros.Tell them that it was all faked.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Here are some links on Lunar dust:

science.nasa.gov...

science.nasa.gov...

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Did anyone listen to last night's "Coast To Coast AM" radio talk show with special guest Dr. Steven Greer who is the founder of the Disclosure Project. During the radio show, he shared secretive information about the ET presence, that he said has come to him from corroborated sources. One of his associates, who worked with Neil Armstrong at Purdue, said that Armstrong told him once they stepped out of the lunar module on the moon, they were literally surrounded by ET vehicles. Further, Armstrong was approached to be part of the Disclosure Project in 1997, but declined over threats that his family would be killed, said Greer, who commented that fear and intimidation have kept many witnesses from coming forward. Last night was a great show. It covered many of the major questions concerning hiddened agendas and what was being covered up.
The first lunar landings were documented in high resolution and quality pictures and footage. The space program had all this proof stored away, but they have claimed to have lost the footage and pictures of the most significant event in the history of human space exploration (The first lunar landings.). Who is actually buying that rediculous official claim? I guess we will have to just sit on the poor footage of the first man of the moon: www.solarviews.com...
As you can see, there are unusual light reflections shown off of the shadow of the lunar landing ship. I'm sure that Neil Armstrong was a bit nervous and it shows.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Crowpruitt, I am most terribly sorry indeed! My post was in fact meant to answer the same post by schmidt1989 that you were answering too. I apologise sincerely for completely misquoting you! No harm intended!

The idea for scmidt1989. NOT Crowpruitt!!, was to explain what exactly convinced him to become a 'believer'...

As for the tampered photos... well... I imagine that this has been well covered before but how anyone can ignore the 'cross-hairs' being occluded by objects in the photo is anyone's guess. The man who originally atached the Hassebled cameras to the space suits says himself that the camera view finder was not visible by the wearer of the suit etc etc... the multiple light sources etc etc... I think that we all know the argument anyway.

The moon rover videos played in double speed distinctly show typically earth environment-like dust behaviour. If you don't agree it is of no particular consequence to me since I have extensively looked at the evidence and formed my own 'informed opinions' that would require serious 'debunking'. Of course I mean no offense and all opinions are respected just as I would like mine to be. Debate is THE ONLY way forward but the more civil the better. We are, as is typical in general of atsnn, intelligent people looking for the truth.

Sorry. terribly sorry indeed, for the 1/3 rather than 1/6 gravity. The behaviour of dust particles doesn't change for as much though. Dust should travel further and higher etc. If you do speed up th moon rover footage it appears suspiciously earth-like! Just try it!!! It's fun no matter what you believe!!

Surely here at atsnn we are searching for the truth rather than attacking? I purposely worded my last post to be as general as possible so as to avoid any possible offense. I am here to be convinced if I'm wrong and hopefully to discover unknowns and new dimensions to debate.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
jra, makes perfect sense to me. Either you are paid some change, or you are one of those they call "useful idiots" (no offense) - people who help the wrong people becouse they do not know what they are talking about, but they have a lot of energy to spend...
for the lasers theory, we need more proof, links, documentaries...tone of proof (your school). And, if you provide that (not gonna happen), I will tell you that mirrors could have been left on the moon by an unmanned vehicle.


you obviously didn't read my first link showing russion probes that did leave mirrors after apollo 11, so why should I bother providing further evidence ?

would you like to meet me at the observatory that is currently using the mirrors to track the moon so we can take a tour ??

this is a waste of time, but here goes anyway

www.signonsandiego.com...

physics.ucsd.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...

how did youy get so brainwashed ? do websites with mutliple fonts, colors and background music hypnotize you ?


jra

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by realanswers
The first lunar landings were documented in high resolution and quality pictures and footage. The space program had all this proof stored away, but they have claimed to have lost the footage and pictures of the most significant event in the history of human space exploration (The first lunar landings.).


NASA never claimed to have lost the pictures. Only the original tapes, they still have copies of all the data. If you want to view thousands of high res pictures from all the missions, this is a great site. www.apolloarchive.com...


Originally posted by Kupios
As for the tampered photos... well... I imagine that this has been well covered before but how anyone can ignore the 'cross-hairs' being occluded by objects in the photo is anyone's guess.


It's simply light 'bleeding' over the thin lines. The crosshairs only get covered up by bright objects, due to a bit of over exposure from the bright reflected light. If you wish, you can read more about the crosshairs at this link, just scroll down a ways and it explains the issue in more detail. www.clavius.org...


The man who originally atached the Hassebled cameras to the space suits says himself that the camera view finder was not visible by the wearer of the suit


This is true, but not an issue really. The astronauts spent a lot of time taking photographs without a view finder. You don't really need it and it doesn't take a lot of practice to figure out what will be in the shot. If you have a digital camera, just try taking shots of things without the viewfinder or LCD screen, you should find it's not too difficult to get what you want in the shot.


the multiple light sources


I find this claim to be quite erroneous. Multiple lights should create multiple shadows per object, but in all the examples I have seen from those who believe the landings to be fake. There photo examples do not contain mutiple shadows. The do contain shadows that go off in slightly different directions, but this is not a sign of mutiple lights.

So more links about lighting and shadows. www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...


The behaviour of dust particles doesn't change for as much though. Dust should travel further and higher etc. If you do speed up th moon rover footage it appears suspiciously earth-like! Just try it!!! It's fun no matter what you believe!!


But if it were on Earth, the dust would remain suspended in the air. In the videos that i've seen, the dust flies up and then falls immediately to the surface. Have you ever seen a car traveling down a dirt road? They usually kick up a lot of dust, creating big cloudy trails that can sometimes stay suspended in the air for many minutes. This does not happen in any of the Lunar Rover footage that i've seen. I also feel that the dust kicked up by the rover and astronauts feet was a fair amount given the amount of force applied. The Rover didn't travel that fast, there top speed was 13 km/h (8 mph).

[edit on 12-9-2006 by jra]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

You have voted jra for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


vote awarded simply for maintaining his composure in the face of the overwhelming ignorance and IMHO wilfull evasion of evidence and logic which certain posters have demonstrated repeatedly in this thread

JRA , you have the patience of a saint - i salute you .



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Seriously, I mean, I already voted jra once, and am thinking to do so again. He continually provides evidence to support his claims, refuses to lower to other members' levels, and posts in a clear, coherent tone.

oh yeah, and kuhl, you are cool too


Back to topic. Why would the government lie about the lunar landings, and hold on to this lie for almost 40 years? and, in those 40 years, not one person has provided conrete evidence, just theories, about the conspiracy? And what about the other moonwalks we have done? How do you discount those?


jra

posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I was going to comment on this earlier, but I forgot...


Originally posted by Kupios
Even if one can have disputes with this kind of argument how can you ignore the political side of the argument?? The Russians best everyone every time on every level and POUFF!! suddenly the Americans are top dog... Perfect timing after ceaseless humiliation in the space race? The story smells just a little fishy (sarcasm) even before you look even a little deeper!!!


The claim that the USSR/Russians were ahead the whole way up until Apollo isn't quite true. They did have a number of firsts, but so did the US and before Apollo went to the Moon. The US started to surpass the USSR around the time of the Gemini and Mercury programs.

List of Space Exploration Milestones, 1957-1969

And as a high school teacher of mine used to say, "being first doesn't always make you the best".



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
You can deny the evidence all you want to, but it's very clear that the photo and video of the Apollo missions were faked. The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders. Were the astronauts trained to take expert photographs by using the Force?

One of the most glaring problems is that there were no blast craters beneath ANY of the LEMs. The astronauts even felt a need to comment on this. The LEMs still weighed about 2000 lbs even in 1/6 moon gravity. The rockets were designed to provide 10,000+ lbs of thrust. There is NO explanation as to why there is no indication beneath the LEMs that any force was applied to the moon surface to keep the lunar lander from falling like a rock. Add to that the fact that it the lunar module was able to remain stable with tiny stabilizer jets and *ONE* central rocket????

Try to go for independent thoughts people. Always start from the premise that nothing the government tells you is true *just because* they say it is.


jra

posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by smibbity
You can deny the evidence all you want to, but it's very clear that the photo and video of the Apollo missions were faked.


How is it clear that they were faked? Why is it that people who don't believe we went always say this, but never explain in detail what makes them look fake.


The Hasselblad cameras had no viewfinders. Were the astronauts trained to take expert photographs by using the Force?


Read what I wrote just 4 posts above yours. It just takes a bit of practice, but it's not hard at all.


One of the most glaring problems is that there were no blast craters beneath ANY of the LEMs. The astronauts even felt a need to comment on this.


Well they were originally unsure as to how dense the ground was going to be. The rockets thrust did blow away dust, but the ground was fairly solid, so no blast crater. There are videos showing dust blowing away durring landing and taking off on the various missions.


The LEMs still weighed about 2000 lbs even in 1/6 moon gravity. The rockets were designed to provide 10,000+ lbs of thrust. There is NO explanation as to why there is no indication beneath the LEMs that any force was applied to the moon surface to keep the lunar lander from falling like a rock.


But there are photos that show the dust has been blown away under the LM rocket. You should also remember that the descent rocket was throttleable, meaning they could lower the amount of thrust coming out of the rocket. I don't think it was going at 100% thrust at landing. Either way, dust was blown and the video and photo record shows it.


Add to that the fact that it the lunar module was able to remain stable with tiny stabilizer jets and *ONE* central rocket????


I fail to see the issue here. There are 16 RCS thrusters that put out 100 lbf each. And why would you need more then one central rocket? Adding another would add more weight.


Try to go for independent thoughts people. Always start from the premise that nothing the government tells you is true *just because* they say it is.


Well the evidence saying we went actually holds up to scrutiny, unlike the 'evidence' saying we didn't. That and the fact that Nixon, who was presedent at the time, couldn't even keep his own stuff secret. I don't trust any Government completely, nor do I distrust them completely. I also don't think the Government would be competent enough to keep something like a fake moon landing a secret for so long. That and the fact that I believe it would be harder to fake it then to actually do it.

[edit on 21-9-2006 by jra]



posted on Sep, 21 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
masqua, thanks for the tip about "ignore". Maybe this thread will eventually be very short for me


Thanks again, I will use "ignore" with pleasure.


so much for deny ignorance !


when confronted with reason and facts, you resort to insults and denial and avoid the many simple questions asked of you

why ?



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   
of the 'laser mirrors' and all I get is marketing glossy photos, links, and wikis...

Instead of attempting to mock me... Subscribe to the premise that I AM FROM MISSOURI.

Show me some real proof of the mirrors in action today.

That proof would work something along the lines of meeting at a facility, utilizing their equipment to fire off a beam to the Moon REALTIME and confirm what the distance to the Moon is like at that moment.

That my friend Zaphod58 would be the kind of tangible proof a person of intellect/science would view as constituting 'proof'.

Simple enough... Isn't it?



Big hello to swimmer. When the fortune teller encounters the soothsayer they wink at each other...



Here's to thinking outside of the box!

Well... actually... Here's to thinking.



Hi JRA.



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
you asked for " proof " , it would be interesting to hear what you believe proof actually means [ in this context ]

and exactly what evidence would actually convince you


Originally posted by golemina
of the 'laser mirrors' and all I get is marketing glossy photos, links, and wikis...


what makes you think that the " glossy photographs " do not show the appolo laser ranging experiment ???

what links have you looked at , and why don you not accept them ??

just to humour you , try this :

gravity experiment

this is a good link , because it tests if you really do think outside the box as you claim to .

this experiment into the fundamental nature of gravity , is using the luna laser ranging system to test by inference , a seperate hypothesis regarding gravity .


Current lunar laser ranging can measure the distance to the Moon - roughly 385,000 km - with an error of about 1.7 cm. Beginning this fall, a new facility funded by NASA and the National Science Foundation will boost this accuracy 10-fold to within only 1 to 2 mm. This jump in accuracy will mean that scientists can detect deviations from Einstein's theory 10 times smaller than currently possible, which may be sensitive enough to find the first evidence of flaws.


there , do you understand that ? they are only using the laser ranging data to tst a seperate theory


it does not IMHO get much simple or clear cut than that -- 3rd party scientist using the apollo laser ranging experiment to validate thier own word in an unrelated feild

i will await your reaction to this data



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
of the 'laser mirrors' and all I get is marketing glossy photos, links, and wikis...

Instead of attempting to mock me... Subscribe to the premise that I AM FROM MISSOURI.

Show me some real proof of the mirrors in action today.

That proof would work something along the lines of meeting at a facility, utilizing their equipment to fire off a beam to the Moon REALTIME and confirm what the distance to the Moon is like at that moment.

That my friend Zaphod58 would be the kind of tangible proof a person of intellect/science would view as constituting 'proof'.

Simple enough... Isn't it?



Big hello to swimmer. When the fortune teller encounters the soothsayer they wink at each other...



Here's to thinking outside of the box!

Well... actually... Here's to thinking.



Hi JRA.


and what, pray tell, evidence can you provide that we didn't place the mirrors on the moon that isn't someones imagination !!!!
do you have witness testimony, realtime photos of a probe placing the mirrors rather than apollo 11,
anything


here is some more of your requested data

mcdonald observatory main site

more einstein theory work

you can google it yourselk, if you're not afraid of dispelling your fantasy, that is

DO YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO DO IT ????



posted on Sep, 23 2006 @ 12:37 PM
link   
the source of the problem...



I will speak vvvveeeeerrrrryyyyy sssslllllooooowwwwwlllllyyyyy....

golem: 'That proof would work something along the lines of meeting at a facility, utilizing their equipment to fire off a beam to the Moon REALTIME and confirm what the distance to the Moon is like at that moment.'



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 60  61  62    64  65  66 >>

log in

join