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.

 

Reason for moon landing hoax?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   
I had an idea come to me recently, after watching a couple of documentaries and reading one or two different websites on the subject! I guess its a bit out there, but then no more so than a few of the other threads I have read on this site, (no offence intended) so I thought I would throw it out there an see if anyone had any thoughts on it!

I'm pretty sure IMO from what I have seen and heard that the majority of footage and photo's of the moon landings released to the world in 1969 were faked! It was filmed in the Nevada Desert or similar and then broadcast to the nation! Photo's have been altered and played with the facts are there to be seen!

This does not mean however that I believe that man did not land on the moon in 1969 as reported to the world I just think maybe we didn't get to see the actual landing rather a very close copy of what was actually happening as to fill the bits in that we weren't allowed to see! I have read on many websites of the apparent first radio transmissions between the the astronauts and NASA control describing strange lights and craft that were seen by the astronauts when they first landed, there have been reports of strange structures and buildings that have been photographed and then cut and pasted out of the photo's which was observed by an ex NASA employee!

I guess my point is I think the moon landings as we know them weren't the real deal which is why there are so many anomalies with the evidence the reason for this is they were a cover up for the actual moon landings that took place, because they knew to one extent or the other that there was something going on on the moon!




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
I'd recommend viewing this thread...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The current one on the Moon Landing "conspiracy"...


The connection of the above post to "Aliens & UFOs" is tenuous at best, but letting it fly for now...

Just for fun, lets see what you'd have to believe in order to accept that the moon landings were "faked"......

1. That ALL of the video footage, photographs, radio conversations, etc. would have to be faked, involving literally hundreds of press people, NASA workers, etc.

2. That we somehow found some other way to bounce laser beams off the moon, as one of the Apollo missions is what put the reflectors there.

3. That the Clementine pics of the Apollo landing sites' blast marks are also falsified.

4. That the Russians, (having fully penetrated our Intel services at the time) would have been unaware of the "faking" or decided (???) to not take the opportunity to call the US on it!

5. That of course, everything you read on the internet is pure fact...


Not to mention a whole other host of other issues...
Check NASA.gov (search on "moon landing hoax") or badastronomy.com and see BOTH sides of this, before jumping to a conclusion....


Check out a book called Project Orion (fictional account of what you're suggesting). I'd bet you'd find it a good read...



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
So what your saying is you think we did land on the moon in '69, but what everyone saw on television was faked because the government didnt want the public to witness what was found up there? I dont buy that.

Didnt it all happen live? The launch, and the televised first moon walk. How would they have had time to fake everything after finding what they supposedly found and still show it on tv that soon? And what are the photos that have been altered?



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
The current one on the Moon Landing "conspiracy"...



'current' is just crying out for some formatting



Anyway, I believe the photos you were talking about Whiterabbit29 are the Clementine ones from 1994, obviously well after the Moon landings.

I am not sure how to take them, they are odd though, and there are witnesses in the disclosure project that have 'apparently' been shown them without editing, and it is supposedly a base.

There is one static place in this universe (ok possibly an exaggeration) we will never receive direct radio waves from, and that is the 'dark' side of the moon. If I was an alien and wanted to monitor the earth without much public detection, that is the perfect location.

As for "did man walk on the moon", Moon rocks is normally the definitive answer to that one.


edit omgffstbh links going wrong


reedited to add completely OT comedy bbc news item news.bbc.co.uk...

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Strodyn]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
This will be of some aid to some here, as well:
Topic and Discussion Index for HAARP and the MOON LANDING

Good job and solid post, Gazrok.






seekerof



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
What I'm understanding from the original poster actually makes more sense than most of the theories out there. Lemme see if I'm getting this right though: you're saying

1) we did go to the moon.
2) the footage viewed was at least partially faked due to what was allegedly found on the moon.

A partial fake could make sense; let's throw it around a bit.

Constant communication could still be maintained. Have an X second delay between the incoming transmissions and the broadcast; something happens, there's "technical difficulties" while one astronaut switches channels and keep talking about what's going on. Buzz is talking to mission control on a "private" line while Niel is going into your living room. I'm not a rocket scientist, so I don't know the logistics of having multiple communication channels; I don't imagine it would be that difficult though.

The Eagle lands in Tranquility base, everything gets setup for the first moonwalk. Maybe they were able to angle the lander to where it wouldn't show anything incriminating; that shouldn't be too hard to accomplish, especially if they saw some craft/base/whatever prior to landing. No one on earth sees anything, Armstrong makes his infamous statement, everyone's happy.

From that point on, it might be a little trickier, but still not impossible. With a long enough delay, they can have a feed-dropout whenever something happens. This can even be something done by the astronauts themselves; they keep an eye on what's going on up there and keep the cameras pointed in an entirely different direction. And any vocal transmissions may possibly be done by someone on the ground, either in Mission Control itself or some outside operative. I'm sure the Apollo missions were on a particular radio frequency, and it wouldn't have been that difficult for someone with enough clearance to get it and transmit from a different beacon.

It's possible that the government knew something was going on before hand as well, and could have created particular segments here on earth. Again, finding a back door wouldn't have been that difficult, and no one there in Mission Control might have had anything to do with it.

Under this, looking at Gaz's points:



1. That ALL of the video footage, photographs, radio conversations, etc. would have to be faked, involving literally hundreds of press people, NASA workers, etc.


Not necessarily; as I said before, although possibly unlikely, someone could've gotten a back door ride sending in their own transmissions. The only ones who would need know about it would be a few higher ups and the astronauts. And it wouldn't require faking everything, merely editing out the parts that wouldn't jive with the story.



2. That we somehow found some other way to bounce laser beams off the moon, as one of the Apollo missions is what put the reflectors there.


If they went, they still could've placed them, regardless of anything else that may (or may not) have happened.



3. That the Clementine pics of the Apollo landing sites' blast marks are also falsified.


Again, the landing still could be perfectly valid, just missing some of the story.



4. That the Russians, (having fully penetrated our Intel services at the time) would have been unaware of the "faking" or decided (???) to not take the opportunity to call the US on it!


There may be parts of our intelligence networks they never even conceived of. Remember, this is about paranoiac conspiracies--there's always one level higher than what you think you know. Also, and I'm not doubting you in anyway, what are you basing that on? I've never heard anything about that; if you've got a link I'd be much obliged.



5. That of course, everything you read on the internet is pure fact...



Of course it is. What would make you doubt that


I think I might have highjacked this theory a little, but that's where my mind ran with this. I definitely think it's more appropriate than just straight up saying it was all done in a sound stage. Even saying we did go and absolutely none of the footage shown or transmissions broadcast to the public were factual makes more sense than that, and based on a lot of the reasons Gaz pointed out.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
IMO they made it to the moon, But anyone who know's the slightest about photography know's the hasselblad and media they where using would of just produced useless pictures. So they had to just fake the pictures everything esle like the radio conversations where real. There's just to many people that would have to keep secrets and we how that turns out. This explanation would make the most sense.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join