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: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   
It´s stupid to say usa didn´t go to moon if they leaved marks at there + laser devices to be pointed towards earth to get accurate distance etc.
But the pictures are propably faked because a. Their camera couldn´t stand the radiation b. They didn´t want to risk that greys would drop and say hello
.

-aape




posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Dear Sunofone,
maybe my U2U wasn't checked by you
Can you put the "ppl behind the curtains" and the other videos as you have put the arm in www.abovetopsecret.com... (the link under the photo of the arm). That one I could view.
I have no skills in such things and they are not on tinypics anymore.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Sorry, but I couldn't get the vidoe to work, so I acn't comment... Howevr I would be very eager to see it... even though I really believe that they went to the moon...



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Hello Sonofone & all. I read heaps but don,t post much, sorry. I was thinking, it,s 1969 & i am in a space race. Only a couple of years ago the Chief Astronaut said that we would not be ready for at least ten years, anyways he died in an accident & we are ready. I want to take some photos for the people back on Earth. Don,t want to spend all that money & get no photos. What sort of film do i use ? After all the temp range on the moon is -243 deg F to 225 deg F & the window of opportunity for photos will be small. www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/moon/facts.ssi How about damage from radiation ? How do i protect the camera ? How do i protect the film ? I need good photos. If i have to change the film in the camera in situ can i take my gloves off ? Hard enough on earth with bare hands on a sunny day. The temperature range for film deterioation is small enough on Earth. www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e30/e30.pdf I have five grown up kids that i been taking photos of since they were two inches tall & i can,t figure out how they got those photos up there let alone them having heads in the background. I know too that when i go through the X ray at the airport they are concerned about damage to Pro film. Hmm, does anyone know about film ?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wombathole
Hello Sonofone & all. I read heaps but don,t post much, sorry. I was thinking, it,s 1969 & i am in a space race. Only a couple of years ago the Chief Astronaut said that we would not be ready for at least ten years, anyways he died in an accident & we are ready. I want to take some photos for the people back on Earth. Don,t want to spend all that money & get no photos. What sort of film do i use ? After all the temp range on the moon is -243 deg F to 225 deg F & the window of opportunity for photos will be small. www.adlerplanetarium.org/learn/moon/facts.ssi How about damage from radiation ? How do i protect the camera ? How do i protect the film ? I need good photos. If i have to change the film in the camera in situ can i take my gloves off ? Hard enough on earth with bare hands on a sunny day. The temperature range for film deterioation is small enough on Earth. www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e30/e30.pdf I have five grown up kids that i been taking photos of since they were two inches tall & i can,t figure out how they got those photos up there let alone them having heads in the background. I know too that when i go through the X ray at the airport they are concerned about damage to Pro film. Hmm, does anyone know about film ?


Google is your friend

history.nasa.gov...

history.nasa.gov...

www.schicklerart.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Man... that must have been one huuuuuge studio!
Some photos from Apollo 16

Charles Duke, with lunar rover somewhat behind him...


Lunar module Orion taken from a distance (middle right)


Luner Lander Orion and rover in front (so you get an idea of the size of the lander in the above photo) Astronaut John Young stands to the right and slightly back of the lander.



Man... that must have been one huuuuuge studio! continued
Some photos from Apollo 17



Photo of above landing site from the Command Module in orbit


Hey, Eugene, what's with that antenna on your backpack?

Yeah that antenna... oh wait Harrison has one on his backpack too!



An itty bitty rock in the 'studio'

Same rock after Harrison Schmitt walked around the back of it from his buggy.

Schmitt going back to the buggy.

Same boulder, both astronauts on same side as buggy.

Wow, what a gigantic studio... must be 2000+ football fields!

Those photo editing guys even got the reflections of the moon on the command module (Apollo 17) right!


Hoax indeed...



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Hello Maya,

That is Alan Bean's arm.

On the trip from the Earth to the Moon, the TV camera was mounted on platform called the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly) to the left of the ladder.
The MESA was folded up against the side of the LM during the flight out from Earth. When Pete Conrad crawled out through the hatch at the start of the first EVA, he pulled a release mechanism that allowed the MESA to rotate down into working position. Can see the TV camera on the MESA in a picture Pete Conrad took while Alan Bean was coming out the hatch.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here is a detail with the camera and the lens labeled. Note that the lens is pointing to the right, toward the ladder. Also note that the TV camera is attached to the MESA upside down because of its handle.




2.2 a12det6725.jpg image/jpeg 291.62 KB



3.2 unnamed text/enriched 0.19 KB



In photo 6725, the handle is difficult to see because a strap is in the way.

Here is a detail from a training photograph

www.hq.nasa.gov...




4 a12det69H991.tiff image/tiff 1442.80 KB



5.2 unnamed text/enriched 1.59 KB



which is a training photograph. Note that the TV camera in this photograph is a different type than the one in 6725. The TV in 6725 is a color camera. The TV in 69-H-991 is a black-and-white camera similar to the one flown on Apollo 11. Note that, in each picture, the TV camera is firmly attached to the MESA.

At the start of the video clip,

www.hq.nasa.gov...>a12v.1155619.rm

Pete Conrad and Alan Bean are out-of-view while they erect the S-Band antenna, the large umbrella-shaped antenna that is on the righthand side of

www.hq.nasa.gov...

At about 115:56:48, Alan returns to the MESA to remove the TV camera, mount it on a tripod, and set it up about 30 feet away from the LM. As he removes the camera, we see his arm.

Do you think that the people who post at sites like www.abovetopsecret.com...
believe what they write?

Hope this helps,

Eric


==============================
what do you think?



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 04:04 AM
link   
What happened to the picture and video links ...... were they tampered with????

The pics are now cartoon images!

Dallas



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Everything is not a consperacy.


Your grammar is. ^^^^



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Now before anyone jumps up and down on me i beleive the US wwent to the moon.
I was looking at a website today and on there are 30 odd questions that the Hoax advocates want answering. I dont have the scientific back ground or schooling to answer them so i wondered if anyone on here could have a crack at them.
Here they are.



1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.

2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?

3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?


Link to website i took the questions from.

MOD EDIT: Please don't copy-paste entire websites.

[edit on 9/28/2005 by cmdrkeenkid]


I copied the 32 questions that i mentioned, not an entire website. Bit of an exageration there dont you think?

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Janus]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
www.clavius.org...

Dear Javus,
there were many stupid claims that could be answered, you can find their answers on the site above, however, I don't think everything is stupid.
regards

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Wind]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Clavus does cover most of it


Just a few from me



1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view. Yuri Gagarin, pronounced the stars to be "astonishingly brilliant". See the official NASA pictures above that I have reproduced that show 'stars' in the sky, as viewed from the lunar surface. And why exactly do you think there are hardly any stars visible on Apollo films taken from the Moon? The answers simple - Professional astronomers would quickly calculate that the configuration and distances of star formations were incorrect and so NASA had to remove them to make sure they could keep up the scam.


The reason stars don’t show up in the lunar surface photographs is due to the exposure limitations of the film. The objects being photographed were so bright, that in order not to over expose the film, the lens opening was stopped down. This reduced the amount of light hitting the film, and thus the stars were not visible, since they were only a small fraction as bright as the sunlight reflecting off the lunar soil, the white space suits, etc.



2) The pure oxygen atmosphere in the module would have melted the Hasselblad's camera covering and produced poisonous gases. Why weren't the astronauts affected?


Pure oxygen was not used in the module after the fire in the training module killed three astronauts. I won’t even attempt to address the part about “melting the Hasselblad's cover,” as it makes no sense whatsoever.



3) There should have been a substantial crater blasted out under the LEM's 10,000 pound thrust rocket. Sceptics would have you believe that the engines only had the power to blow the dust from underneath the LEM as it landed. If this is true, how did Armstrong create that famous boot print if all the dust had been blown away?


The dust layer was only a few millimeters thick. The brecia under the surface dust was fairly cohesive.



4) Sceptics claim that you cannot produce a flame in a vacuum because of the lack of oxygen. So how come I have footage on this page showing a flame coming from the exhaust of an Apollo lander? (Obviously the sceptics are wrong or the footage shows the lander working in an atmosphere)


You’ve got to be kidding me! Rocket fuel contains its own source of oxygen.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Good lord. There are mirrors on the moon being used in experiments to this very day.

They were placed there BY people who landed ON THE MOON. If we never got to the moon, the mirrors wouldn't be there, and if they weren't there the experiments using them wouldn't be taking place.

If you ignore that obvious proof that we went to the moon (the mirrors) and look at the other "evidence" that "proves" we did not, every single bit of it has been discounted for the same reasons.

Lack of attention to detail and flawed reasoning.

We went to the moon. Period.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by boredom]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
What the conspiracist can't answer is why if there are multiple light source why are there not multiple shadows?

This seems to be a glaring question for the moonspiracist.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by boredom
Good lord. There are mirrors on the moon being used in experiments to this very day.

They were placed there BY people who landed ON THE MOON. If we never got to the moon, the mirrors wouldn't be there, and if they weren't there the experiments using them wouldn't be taking place.

If you ignore that obvious proof that we went to the moon (the mirrors) and look at the other "evidence" that "proves" we did not, every single bit of it has been discounted for the same reasons.

Lack of attention to detail and flawed reasoning.

We went to the moon. Period.

[edit on 28-9-2005 by boredom]



I never said the US didnt go to the Moon, these were just some questions that the author of the website said couldnt be answered. I thought some of you guys may have had a bit of fun picking his questions appart.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

What happened to the picture and video links ...... were they tampered with????

The pics are now cartoon images!

Dallas

sorry for not responding for such a long time--i havent been here in months--here are the original images that lost their host
nasa frame with diagram
nasa frame 2 with diagram
nasa frame 3 with diagram



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
video available here of buzz faking earth images--
**********************************************************
The Apollo Moon Landings Are Science Fiction

The Space Shuttle, so far, has killed fourteen people, merely trying to attain an orbit about two hundred fifty miles above the Earth. How is it then, that a third of a century ago, with less computing power in the entire rocket than in a present day twenty dollar Wal-Mart watch, NASA claims to have gone 100,000% farther, six different times between 1969 and 1972, landing on another celestial body and then returning, without ever killing anyone? How could they have powered air conditioning in two hundred fifty degree heat for three days with batteries? Why is the "second round" of "returning" to the moon estimated to be no earlier than half a century after the first? (Would there be a fifty-year span between the first and second trips across the Atlantic in an airplane?)

If the moon landings were, as we believe, a government deception, then George Orwell's comment, "whoever controls the past, controls the future" is a scary wakeup call to insist that our government reform to the truthfulness of our founding father "who could not tell a lie." Otherwise, the powers that be will continue their addiction to deception and we all will be worse off for it.

WE GUARANTEE THAT OUR VIDEOS WILL PROVE
THAT THE MOON LANDINGS WERE FRAUDULENT
OR YOUR MONEY BACK.

All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in Apollo 11 Monkey Business and explained in A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon, proves they did not leave low-earth orbit.

link



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
But Sunofone,

the pro-apollo people say that astronauts were getting trained on how to use the equipment in the LM or whatever...

I don't want to call you to enter on discussion on other boards, but just have a look at www.apollohoax.net... . Many issues are discussed there



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
There is also evidance of observatories who visially tracked the Apollo Module and even took pictures of some of the fuel/water dumps. Not to metion having some of the first pictures of the far side of the moon being taken. Finalyl there are the retro-reflectors that are being used to this day. Shine a laser thru a telescope, the laser beam ends up being a poor version of a flashlight, and the reflection is recorded by the observator which if you know the speed of light you can calculate the distance withen a few inches

I find it interesting that moon consipracy theroists allways point out flaws, yet never provide any proof to discredit known information like the above information



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
There is also evidance of observatories who visially tracked the Apollo Module and even took pictures of some of the fuel/water dumps. Not to metion having some of the first pictures of the far side of the moon being taken. Finalyl there are the retro-reflectors that are being used to this day. Shine a laser thru a telescope, the laser beam ends up being a poor version of a flashlight, and the reflection is recorded by the observator which if you know the speed of light you can calculate the distance withen a few inches

I find it interesting that moon consipracy theroists allways point out flaws, yet never provide any proof to discredit known information like the above information

visually tracked it??!?! ha yeah right--this is proposterous--as far as the reflectors and images of dumps go honestly try to imagine how "easily" both of those things could be faked--even the moon rocks could easily have been collected from the polar region where they are known to be abundant--i find it interesting the way people ignore the obvious



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join