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.

 

"New"evidence proves apollo was Hoax

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Ok, first of all, you can't make out harfly anything with the clip you showed (as has been stated several times already).

Secondly, as far as i'm concerned, the apollo mission was no hoax. My grandfather worked for nasa during the apollo missions. He swore to his grave that it was no hoax. My father said, though personally I have never seen it, that he had at least one picture from the project. I would think now my uncle probally has it, but I'm not sure.




posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
I'll put this out there to the believers of a hoax.....what did the thousands of eyewtinesses to the launch actually see in your world ? how do you explain that away ?

they observed a satelite that was launched into orbit and returned after the stage production had finished broadcasting the faux operations--the fact that photos exist at all(much less with out radiation damage)is a red flag-a recent imax video that was to be produced in orbit (no where near the van allen radiation belts much less beyond their protection) had to be scrapped due to the damage that was being done to the film (identical to the film used in the apollo missions)which was a fraction of the amount of radiation the apollo film would have subjected to yet exibited no damage


I'm no expert here, let me try this from another angle. What about the splash-down when they returned ? did we drop them from a spy plane to make it look good ???

The final phase of Kennedy's challenge was completed at 12:50 p.m. EDT on July 24, 1969, when the Columbia splashed down about 812 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii, returning the 3 astronauts safely to Earth. Here they are shown in a life raft with a Navy frogman. All four men are wearing biological isolation garments, awaiting helicopter pickup and transport to the U.S.S. Hornet. The day before splashdown, Aldrin said, "We feel this stands as a symbol of the insatiable curiousity of all mankind to explore the unknown."



posted on Apr, 8 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   
I dunno, but in the video to me it looks like there are a bunch of people behind him holding the curtin.

Maybe some people just dont want to believe its a hoax, they want to believe there are alien bases up there.

Or maybe its true they did land, im undecided right now too many theories.

[edit on 8-4-2005 by kiMMii]



posted on Apr, 9 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Although i do believe there are bases on the backside of the moon, i do not see what Sun sees in the vid. Ive watched it 19x in many different ways, speeds, angles and it still looks like crumpled gold foil of the lunar lander.

the blown up pics show many different things, like the ronny james dio devil sign the dude is throwin..maybe he is illuminati and throwin it in our faces.
Jk. I am a believer of many things but peeps behind a curtain(if u were shooting a space scene...wouldnt it be dark behind the scenes also like it is when movies/tv/theaters are being filmed??) Im just not gettin it man but maybe its just me.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
I'm the happy medium ground, remember? Maybe it happened, maybe it didn't? Anyway, just wanted to mention something I just read over this past weekend, concerning another "missing video".

I had read that there was this woman who swears she remembers seeing a Coke bottle being kicked across a moonshot, from when an astronaught skipped by during one of the live feeds. However, that scene was missing throughout all later airings.

To me, that does sound a little bit far-fecthed. After all, wasn't there a three-second delay when airing the live feeds? That's plenty of time to turn a switch from "broadcast" to "off", isn't it?

But as long as I am talking about video, I would like to pose this question.

The one thing that has bothered me is the images of the Apollo rocket blasting off looks alot like a blue screen image. Know which one I'm talking about? The scene in which you see the rocket on the right side of the screen and the word APOLLO is seen? I don't know... but for some reason, the space between the rocket and the scenery seems kinda... clear, like it was super imposed. Comparing those launch shots with the space shuttle videos, and you can see a distinct difference.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by soothsayer


The one thing that has bothered me is the images of the Apollo rocket blasting off looks alot like a blue screen image. Know which one I'm talking about? The scene in which you see the rocket on the right side of the screen and the word APOLLO is seen? I don't know... but for some reason, the space between the rocket and the scenery seems kinda... clear, like it was super imposed. Comparing those launch shots with the space shuttle videos, and you can see a distinct difference.


Blue or green screen animation technology was not even introduced till the mid 80's so I think that you might just be noticing the difference in camera tech.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
puppet video
more puppet footage
please check these links-again official nasa video-from apollo16
in both videos linked i noticed TWO(2) seperate unusual or artificial anomalies that i wish to point out and ask if they are indeed what they appear to be--the first,which is the one that is suspect and may be dismissed right away, is the reflections that are being flashed from some type of "wire" that appear to be attached to a protrusion on the tops of the packs the astronauts are wearing-are these some type of standar piece of equipment like an antenna? ive never noticed attenna on the astronauts packs before-can someone with knowlege of such attachments please link references to them or detail their purpose and point a finger to where the data can be verified--second,which is a bit more damning imo,is the obvious artificiality of certain movements within those videos--in the first the astronaut appears to either fall or purposely go down to all fours at which point he is magically "pulled" back up to his feet-its damning because if he was intentionally going to all fours his intentions were reversed by an unkown force or if he fell its obvious that he was assisted in returning to the upright position-- in the second there is a moment when one of the astro's is digging with a litle shovel at which point he is pulled up and is forced to hop around in a little circle to stop from falling--the movement is obviously subject and if there were never any antenna that were standard equipment on the suits then that is a double whammy confirmation of a hoax--experts on the moon suit equipments please clarify whether this is a double whammy or just a case of anomalous and suspicious movements-the movement is reminisent of the motion induced by a trampoline training harness that uses bungee cord--

[edit on 10-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone
the first,which is the one that is suspect and may be dismissed right away, is the reflections that are being flashed from some type of "wire" that appear to be attached to a protrusion on the tops of the packs the astronauts are wearing-are these some type of standar piece of equipment like an antenna?


If you pause the clip and run it frame by frame, you can clearly make out an antenna on the packs.



second,which is a bit more damning imo,is the obvious artificiality of certain movements within those videos--in the first the astronaut appears to either fall or purposely go down to all fours at which point he is magically "pulled" back up to his feet-its


The moons gravity accounts for this. Moving around in those space suits is very ackward.

soneofone, I think you really need to step back and ask yourself WHY you feel the moon landings were faked. Everything you have shown as suspect is not. Im not trying to be mean or deflate your sails in anyway. This IS a consperacy site afterall. Its just that this consperacy isnt even accepted by most consperacy theorist. There is just to much physical evidence to prove we went there. Period.



posted on Apr, 10 2005 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Yes, those are antenna.. you see flashes from them reflecting the sun's light.

Also when the guy goes down, he is looking for an object. before coming up you see he bends his arms and you head and audible grunt as he pushes himself up. Due to the 1/12 gravity he is able to get to his knees, and his momentum brings him to his feat.

But I agree, what do you have against NASA and every astronaut going into space, inculding all the ones for the Mercury, Gemini, Appolo, and definatly Roger Chaffee, Gus Grissom, Ed White who died in Apollo 1. Thier deaths mean nothing because the missions were faked anywaz? That men risked thier lives and died to pull a fast one on the world?



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:13 AM
link   
sorry guys hate to "burst" your bubble but the research has been concluded and there are not nor have there ever been antenna on any suit developed by nasa-those flashes are 100% proof of the hoax and the movement is just evidence of the "wires" that are connected to the packs--more links to the puppet "wire" caught on film in nasa's own video to follow soon!--c'mon experts where are you? id love to hear to guys try and weasle out of this--proove my comments about the antenna wrong or explain the wire obviously viewed by at least two skeptics here



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
what do you have against NASA and every astronaut going into space, inculding all the ones for the Mercury, Gemini, Appolo, and definatly Roger Chaffee, Gus Grissom, Ed White who died in Apollo 1. Thier deaths mean nothing because the missions were faked anywaz? That men risked thier lives and died to pull a fast one on the world?

man this type of naivety really burns me -cant you see i am one of the few people that is fighting to preserve and expose the purpose of their death and ensure it will not be in vain- those guys were probably going to blow the whistle and were used to send a powerful message to anyone considering dissent in an evil twisted plan of deciet--we cannot allow the perpetrators to succeed and the powerful mind control grip the military and media propaganda machine has must be broken--when are we going to realize that war and killing is wrong? that the elite have tricked the masses into exterminating themselves and that war has been manufactured by the elite in order to create classes in which the gap between the ruling class and the cattle is hidden--whats worse is that these elite are living amongst us secretly reveling in their ability to get the masses to laugh "with" them at proposterous "conspiracy theories" while in reality they are laughing "AT" you --prisons used to be for murderers until the murderers obtained control now killing is sanctioned through the ruse of war and jails are flooded with nonviolent offenders --every murderer should be imprisoned for life no exceptions--when it comes to rounding up killers we should train and use inmates that have killed before and are in prison for life--they could be chosen carefully and rewarded with special priveledges--yet a clear and distinct line would be demonstrated to the masses concerning the difference between violence and despair and the price to pay should be universal and inalienable--you kill you go to prison for life--self defense would be the only allowance and it must be determined through careful investigation and court procedings--companies like lockheed martin should be dismantled immediately--tanks should be melted and forged into plows a new "way" of thinking must emerge--its a tall mountain that must be over come but we will never see its summit until we start climbing



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   
These types of posts should only warrant a response full of
s because that's the only response that anyone should ever give someone who actually believes this crap.



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 01:58 AM
link   



here are two images taken from the nasa video--as i have stated the research concerning whether or not antenna were used has been concluded and the facts are no antenna have ever been attached protruding from the tops of the packs on the suits-the final burdon lies on you to explain what is reflecting light in these videos-the movement is a dead give away but is easier to ignore than the actual capture of the "wire" which cannot be denied-ill soon be posting images where the glare and wire run for many feet above the astronauts--



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
hea-www.harvard.edu...

They did have Antenna

Amzing how these cranks rely on these grainy pictures when there a some nicer ones out there they could use.





PS i dont think it was a hoax.
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...


[edit on 11-4-2005 by Vanguard]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sunofone
id love to hear to guys try and weasle out of this--proove my comments about the antenna wrong or explain the wire obviously viewed by at least two skeptics here


You need to quit being such a little condesending child. Here is your proof straight from the pages of NASA.


The radios for spacewalk communications have two single UHF channel transmitters, three single-channel receivers, and a switching mechanism. These backpack radios have a "low profile" antenna--a foot long rectangular block fitted to the top of the PLSS. The radios weigh 8.7 pounds and are 12 inches long, 4.3 inches high, and 3.5 inches wide.


vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...


Sorry to burst YOUR bubble..............


Any other 'evidence' you would like me to debunk for you?




posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
ok kidfinger please tell me how three lines of text concerning a "low-profile" antenna prove or disproves anything--vangaurds attemp was a little more researched but still inconclusive as the images show something that clearly could not have caused the glares in the video i presented and others i will be posting and are completely lacking of any official description of what he was intending to post and focus on--here are the best images i could find regaurding the suit and anything relating to the communications area on the pack--the first is from the webpage you linked-which must be the reason why you could not offer photographic images--beyond the suits the "movement" cannot be rationally explained--i hope its obvious im keeping some aces up my sleeve and that as soon as i get someone who can come close to rationalizing the glares as antenna i will present the images that will refute the evidence whatever it may be
************************************************
no antenna

still no antenna

again no antenna

closer yet still no antenna


[edit on 11-4-2005 by Sunofone]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 11:51 AM
link   
LOL! Try looking at the APOLLO Space suits!


Oh, and which part of:

These backpack radios have a "low profile" antenna--a foot long rectangular block fitted to the top of the PLSS.
do you not understand?

It is right there from a NASA site. Just like you asked for. You wouldnt be denying the evidence would you? I sure dont think it is ignorance you are denying.



[edit on 4/11/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   
which image are you insinuating was not used in apollo?
more images showing the lack of a visible antenna
****************************************
neils suit

source with more images
www.hightechscience.org...



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
These backpack radios have a "low profile" antenna--a foot long rectangular block fitted to the top of the PLSS.


please offer your details on how a "foot long rectangular block" is going to produce a glare that extends a foot or "more" above the helmet



posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Look, I have given you a description from NASA, not some fan club science site with pics of decommed suits that probably dont have any electronics left in them.
If you want to continue to embrace ignorance, then be my guest. You asked for proof from a reputible site and I gave it to you from NASA itself. Then you try and tell me my proof is wrong by presenting 'evidence' from a no name science site that is using museum pieces to give a description. Your attempt to deny the evidence is a clear indication that you have no, nor have ever the intention of actually debating this fallicy.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join