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: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Ezekial, I think you are talking about the retroreflectors on the moon. Probly the one biggest proof that man did land and walk on the moon. And that is not the issue, the issue it seems is the validity of the visual evidance of the moon landing (i.e. video)




posted on Jul, 7 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   

UFO's and moon bases. Thats the only thing that seems plausible. See I have come round and accepted that we did go to the moon but alot of the pictures were doctored, millions of them doctored.


What makes you think that millions of the pictures have been doctored? Do you have any evidence of this?


apc

posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   
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."



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc
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!!!"


NASA knows that film costs too much! - Neil was probably screwing about for about 3 takes


Purhaps it WAS live?
that is RECORDED INFRONT OF A LIVE AUDIENCE



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by backtoreality

Originally posted by CyberKat
Me, just beginning to really get into "Conspiracy Theories", etc... fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Well, after having a few months to toy with the idea, I decided that it is no more proven one way or the other than it ever was. I mean, I've been to Universal Studios, I know how just how real things can be make to look that are in fact not real at all. But, just as easily, there are only so many catagories that can be contrived as "conspiracies", and I can also see how easy it would be for someone tired of writing about the same old things, to come up with a brand new idea - "The great hoax of the moon landings". Hhmmmm. Don't really know for sure what to think about the whole thing. I wasn't there. I don't trust our government not to lie to us, that's for sure. I also don't take every conspiracy theory seriously either.

OK, here's the whole paragraph. Doesn't change your statement though.


My contribution is to debunk your agenda. This thread is about the moon landing. Your post is trying to tie together your anti-government beliefs with the moon landing--with absolutely no proof.

That's where I stepped in to call you on it.

Now, if you are sitting on the smoking gun evidence, then come forward with it. Otherwise, statements like 'I don't trust the government, so it might be a hoax' are nothing more than empty beliefs.


BTR: I am confused. It seems as if you are so caught up in your own need to prove something, that you have lost sight of how to read a post and put it into proper perspetive.

You quoted my entire sentence. Then you say that your contribution is to bebunk my agenda. Well, where did I say that I had an agenda? I was being about as neutral as could be, as I simply don't know. It's 50% could be true and 50% could be a hoax. All I said was that the subject has been gone over and over, with no absolute proof either way. So, why waste so much time over it.

However, your comment as to the fact that I am getting my so called "anti-government" views, politics so you say mixed up in whether or not the moon landing was a hoax or not. This really confuses me, because for one thing, no where in my post did I try to explain that it was a hoax. However, if it were to have been a hoax, the reasons for creating a hoax couldn't possibly be anything but political.

However, I said let it go, we don't know.......

You seem to be a very agitated person.

Try to have a better day today, O.K?

CyberKat



posted on Jul, 8 2005 @ 02:34 PM
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.


Actually static garbled that part up, and Armstrong later admited he was taken by the momment and said "A man" when he was originally planning to say jsut "Man"

latest audio attempts to clear up the static have been inconclusive.

Tho if it was a hoax, you have to provide evidance on who was in on it. Since it seems very clear during the moon landing everyone in mission control was on the edge of thier seat as Armstrong piloted the craft himself to a landing



posted on Jul, 11 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
One of the many reasons I believe NASA did go to the moon, BUT the Apollo missions I think they were fake, is Boeing- and all other US manufacturers of F-15's F-16's and 18's spend hundreds of hours doing wind tunnel tests and thousands of hours of Practice flying tests after the prototype of the aircrafts (F-15's-16's-18's-22) are built, now I know going to the MOON is like 100x more dangerous than building text flying F-Planes, so AS FAR as I know when was the last time YOU guys EVER heard NASA text fly remote controlled Lunar Modles THOUSANDS of times going to the moon and coming back, before they actually put 3 Humanbeings in it to do the REAL flight 250,000 miles to the Moon?????????????



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:23 AM
link   
Anyone game to ask Buzz if they really went?



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by one_small_step
Anyone game to ask Buzz if they really went?


How do you propose we do that!

And dont you think he'll give an obvious answer?

Mic



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Harrison Hagen (Jack) Schmitt was on Apollo 17 mission and he was one of the ones that actually went on to the "dark side" on the moon.
He happens to be a second cousin of mine. At a family reunion a few years ago, he was showing some pictures that he and Eugene Cernan made while on the moon. I have sent him an email to see if he would
1) Be willing to do an interview for ATS to disabuse people of this conspiracy.
2) be willing to either post some of these pictures so that you can view them or to send me some so that I can.
I will let you know what his reply is.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Harrison Hagen (Jack) Schmitt was on Apollo 17 mission and he was one of the ones that actually went on to the "dark side" on the moon.
He happens to be a second cousin of mine. At a family reunion a few years ago, he was showing some pictures that he and Eugene Cernan made while on the moon. I have sent him an email to see if he would
1) Be willing to do an interview for ATS to disabuse people of this conspiracy.
2) be willing to either post some of these pictures so that you can view them or to send me some so that I can.
I will let you know what his reply is.



Excellent news.....

Keep us all posted on his reply!

Mic



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by SiberianTiger
One of the many reasons I believe NASA did go to the moon, BUT the Apollo missions I think they were fake, is Boeing- and all other US manufacturers of F-15's F-16's and 18's spend hundreds of hours doing wind tunnel tests and thousands of hours of Practice flying tests after the prototype of the aircrafts (F-15's-16's-18's-22) are built, now I know going to the MOON is like 100x more dangerous than building text flying F-Planes, so AS FAR as I know when was the last time YOU guys EVER heard NASA text fly remote controlled Lunar Modles THOUSANDS of times going to the moon and coming back, before they actually put 3 Humanbeings in it to do the REAL flight 250,000 miles to the Moon?????????????


The moon and space have no atmoshpere, so I wonder what good windtunnel tests would do on the lunar module. The only thing ever needing testing would be the Casules, but NASA had allready plently of experiance in doing that. Not to metion there was over 55,000 hours of testing just for the apollo program
Source: Page 2, 1st paragraph

Secondly, the lunar modules were not remote controled. The time lag of radio transmissions prevented that. There was an auto-pilot system used, and also people like Neil Armstrong were trained in LLRVs to practice thier moon landings. Neel armstrong almost crashed in one to, but thanks to an ejection system installed his life was saved.

you can find some videos here:
Lunar Landing Reseach Vehicle Videos

Your ignorance on a subject does not mean your right.

And i thought this thread was dead

[edit on 7/12/2005 by Jehosephat]


jra

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Harrison Hagen (Jack) Schmitt was on Apollo 17 mission and he was one of the ones that actually went on to the "dark side" on the moon.


Are you sure about him going to the far side of the Moon? I'm not saying you're wrong, but this diagram shows the landing site to be between the Sea of Serenity and the Sea of Tranquility. Which isn't on the far side of the Moon. Diagram

Perhaps it was the barrier between night and day that they might have been near them at the time?


He happens to be a second cousin of mine. At a family reunion a few years ago, he was showing some pictures that he and Eugene Cernan made while on the moon. I have sent him an email to see if he would
1) Be willing to do an interview for ATS to disabuse people of this conspiracy.
2) be willing to either post some of these pictures so that you can view them or to send me some so that I can.
I will let you know what his reply is.


That's really cool. And it would be really great to have him come here. It would be so neat to talk to some one like him, although I don't know what i'd ask, but it would be very cool regardless.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
And i thought this thread was dead


Probably was until the discovery that kenshiro2012 is related to an Apollo 17 astronaut.

Mic


[edit on 12/7/2005 by MickeyDee]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee

Originally posted by one_small_step
Anyone game to ask Buzz if they really went?


How do you propose we do that!

And dont you think he'll give an obvious answer?

Mic


Didn't Buzz bi@tch slap Michael Moore when asked or told Buzz he didn't land on the moon.

Just being a smarty pants.


Good news re the 17 Astronaut. keep us posted.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   
What I was meaning iz going to space is more difficult than testing a fighter plane on earth from wind tunnel testing to prototype flying testing so if US Military contracters test these planes for thousands of hours before they are sold to the U.S. Gov then NASA would deffinatly "HAVE TO" Remote control-Auto pilot the Lumar Module thousands of time from Earth to the Moon before putting Human beings in it.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
siberiantiger, do you realise the costs involved in that? and what more could they have learned from what was nothing more than an orbital ballistics program with maybe 2-3 neccesary burns. What do you think apollo 1-10 missions were about? Apollo 1-10 were basically building on the steps taken priviously.

Just becasue it is rocket science does not mean it should be more complex then testing out atmospheric fighter jets. jets are designed to push the limits of speed and performace while a pilot controls or interpets all of the devices, and has to perform several thousand hours of operation before being scrapped. While the saturn V rocket shuts off after going a few hundred miles and coasts for almost the whole trip to the moon and back. and once done, isn't expected to perform another mission.

Sometimes shortcuts have to be made in testing becasue of limited budget and time constraints.

but obviouly you never bothered to follow my link explaining the testing that was done

[edit on 7/13/2005 by Jehosephat]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Those link lead to NASA's DISinformation sites or what ever group that is speaking in a "PRO-Apollo went to the moon way", use commen scense, NASA could not and would not truly try and go to the moon based upon 1-10 tests, if it's real hard testing a fighter jet for service in the U.S. Airforce here on earth, then it will be 100% harder and time cunsuming to fly L.M.'s to the Moon, think about it if they realy acomplishied Remote controlling a L.M. or Autopiloting it to the moon many time they would have shown the world in LONG DETAILED fashion, they never did, all they did was show 3-minute clips back in the 60's claiming "we made a auto piloted journy to the moon today, wow now we will go to the moon", ha, anybody who knows about the NWO nad DISinfo could easily disifer that as a TOTAL LIE.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   
please prove that they are Nasa disinfortion sites, otherwise all your doing is using disinformation tactics to ignore any evidance put forward

you tell me to use common sense? If you have something useful (like hard facts or evidance) to contribute which actually supports your comments, let's here it -- preferably without snide personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage.

(btw, for everyone else siberian tiger just used method 18 and 19 in disinformation tactics)



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I knew you wouldn't understand and that I would have reexplain my question, I said either those sites are 1. NASA DISinfo sites or 2. They are not nasa sites but other sites that are PRO-NASA "went to the moon" sites, thats what I was saying, now YOU will not be able to show everyone here on ATS.com that NASA tested Autopiloted/remotcontrolled L.M.'s thousands of times before putting 3 men in them back in 69, I challendge you to show us that NOW!!!!!

[edit on 13-7-2005 by SiberianTiger]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join