Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:41 PM
link   
amazing no?...

i86.photobucket.com...




posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Dear Zaphod58:

Of course the moon landings were totally faked. Sorry about saying it so harshly, but that’s reality, however much it hurts.

The problem — still unsolved to this date — is not getting past the Van Allen Belts. It’s what lurks behind 'em — a world of unrelenting very deadly outer-space radiation. Our astronauts would have gotten ‘cooked well done’ several times over had they really tried to make it to the moon. You think I’m kidding? Then why are we still so heavily researching the subject of radiation levels in space? Here’s an older article written in 2001, but it’s an easy read, so I’ve linked it.

International Space Station Tech Check, Volume 1, Issue 3, Autumn 2001
Radiation in Space voyager.cet.edu...

Here’s another link to a Van Allen Belt discussion internet.ocii.com.... The author of that article calculated a minimum radiation exposure of 375 rem/day for the Apollo astronauts. The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation estimates that our Moon travelers were only exposed to a cumulative 0.5 rem for their entire mission. And, I would agree with their assessment. They're not ‘lying’. Because the astronauts never went past the Van Allen belts!

And because I love you guys and ATS so very much, here’s still another link with emphasis on the dangers of radiation -- NASA REALLY MOONED US!
www.maar.us...

Cheers Ya’All,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
yeah...right...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:35 PM
link   
and so on...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:36 PM
link   
and so on...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
and so on...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
and so on...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:42 PM
link   
all these images were faked ...right...

i86.photobucket.com...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by crowpruitt
If they were faked ,what was the need to create the apollo 13 disaster?


Hah, why don't you use that big green ET brain and think for a moment. Then maybe you'll be able to tell me why they did that, LOL.

It's really very simple, man.

(cool avatar, btw).



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by coastlinekid
yeah...right...

i86.photobucket.com...


Congrats on learning how to post links to .jpgs, kid. I think you got it, so you can stop now.


BTW, try looking for the uncropped version of that SPA-11114-1-X.jpg pic. You'll see the American Flag on the dark side of the LEM all light up like a Christmas Tree. How is that possible, given it should be in total shadow? Maybe it was special 'glo-stick' flag material, eh?


jra

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Others show, to me, that you just haven't done any research.

For instance you're in here arguing these points, but have you looked at all the 'conspiracy vids' that are freely available on the 'Net?

I doubt it.


I haven't looked at all of them, but I've watched a number of them. I've also read through plenty of sites that claim the landings were fake.


So let me challenge you to go look at Google video and watch the vids I posted to JC.

Then come back if you have any more questions.


If and when I have the time, I might.


Maybe you think you don't need to view these 'nutty' videos and you can just go on your 'opinion'. Well, it's nice to have opinions, but even better if they're informed.


I've read the claims by those who believe the landings are faked and I've done lots of research over a number of years. I'm not just simply stating my opinion.


Why are you asking me to do your googling for you? You're not one of those people that just because they can't find the answer, make something up that sounds right, are you?


What did I make up? All I did was ask. I did do some searching and looking around, but I didn't find anything. I assumed you knew more about it, thus you could at least give me a start on where to find more information.


Did you know they lost the plans to the Saturn V? (yep, good old NASA, Land of the Lost).


Heh, speaking of not doing ones research. I hope you weren't just repeating what you saw on one of those vids


The plans are on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center and in a few other places too I believe.


If someone told you the 'moon rocks' couldn't be faked, would you take that as gospel, or would you look into the characteristics that are used to verify the 'moon rocks', look into CoC, look into the size of the sample of the moon rocks that are sent out.


I have indeed looked into the details of how the Moon rocks differ from Earth rocks and the types of tests they have done. Plus many geologists, chemists and physicists from around the world have examined them and can confirm that they are not from this world. They show signs of having been formed in low gravity, a lot more radiation exposure than Earth rocks, pitted with micro meteorites, completely devoid of any water. Things you won't find on Earth rocks.


Did you know they only send out very tiny samples, less than the size of a bouillon cube?


I think the size of the samples vary, depending one what you intend to do with them, but they are pretty much considered priceless at the moment, since they don't have a lot to go around and no way to get more right now.


Did you know that NASA has facilities that can precisely duplicate the conditions that exist on the moon, and had done some experiments to try and duplicate the property of the rocks found on the moon?


Do you have a link that I could see? What conditions can they duplicate exactly? I've seen some articles recently talking about NASA trying to simulate Lunar soil. But this is only to test equipment, it would not fool a scientist if they were to take a sample of it.


Did you know that the rocks found in Antarctica are similar to moon rocks, but with a couple notable exceptions?


Did you know that the Lunites found in Antarctica were found after the Apollo missions? And that they didn't know they were Lunites until they were compared to the Apollo samples? And yes there are some difference between them. Most notably that they have signs of having entered through the atmosphere also lots of weathering and other chemical interactions due to being on Earth for so long. They are fairly easy to tell apart.


So don't be one of those posters that hide behind expert opinion and just stand back and snipe at those who are trying to uncover potential deception, while not doing the basic reading and viewing needed to intelligently articulate the discussion, m'kay?


Same to you.

EDIT to add more


You'll see the American Flag on the dark side of the LEM all light up like a Christmas Tree. How is that possible, given it should be in total shadow? Maybe it was special 'glo-stick' flag material, eh?


The surrounding surface not in shadow will reflect light back onto the flag. And in regards to that particular photo, the sunlight is also shining through the fabric.

[edit on 8-4-2007 by jra]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
of all the images I posted, thats your only complaint?...you gotta do better then that ...



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Dear coastlinekid:

I like your pictures. I really do. There is only one small problem. What type of film did our space cowboys use to make those charming snapshots. Fuji or Kodak?

I guess it doesn’t matter. Because solar radiation would have rendered any conventional film outside the Van Allen Belts useless anyways. Chemical film material is way more light/radiation sensitive than we are. We can handle a few ‘rays’, film cannot. So the only pictures we do get from outer-outer space are digital ones. I. e. I’m not talking about footage from the Astronauts closely orbiting the Earth. Which means those (rare) blob-like tini Earth in the background photos are probably phony too.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 4/8/2007 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
Short term radiation exposure in space can be protected against. It was in Apollo through several methods, and some luck as well. Space isn't one massive seething radiation pool that will kill you if you're in it for longer than a couple of days. If you're exposed for months and years, like on a mission to Mars or a moon base, then yes, it's incredibly dangerous, but short term exposure isn't deadly. You are probably exposed to more radiation living down the street from a coal plant than the Apollo astronauts were.


Radiation was not an operational problem during the Apollo Program. Doses received by the crewmen of Apollo missions 7 through 17 were small because no major solar-particle events occurred during those missions. One small event was detected by a radiation sensor outside the Apollo 12 spacecraft, but no increase in radiation dose to the crewmen inside the spacecraft was detected. Solar-particle releases are random events, and it is possible that flares, with the accompanying energetic nuclear particles, might hinder future flights beyond the magnetosphere of the Earth.

Radiation protection for the Apollo Program was focused on both the peculiarities of the natural space radiation environment and the increased prevalence of manmade radiation sources on the ground and onboard the spacecraft. Radiation-exposure risks to crewmen were assessed and balanced against mission gain to determine mission constraints. Operational radiation evaluation required specially designed radiation-detection systems onboard the spacecraft in addition to the use of satellite data, solar observatory support, and other liaison. Control and management of radioactive sources and radiation-generating equipment was important in minimizing radiation exposure of ground-support personnel, researchers, and the Apollo flight and backup crewmen.

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

As for the film, it was protected with shielding in both the camera, and on the spacecraft itself.

coastline kid, other than the sheer annoyance factor is there any particular reason you couldn't have posted all your pictures in ONE POST? Or did you have to take up the entire page just for yourself?


[edit on 4/8/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
I haven't looked at all of them, but I've watched a number of them. I've also read through plenty of sites that claim the landings were fake.


Please list the one's you've seen.


Did you know that the Lunites found in Antarctica were found after the Apollo missions? And that they didn't know they were Lunites until they were compared to the Apollo samples? And yes there are some difference between them. Most notably that they have signs of having entered through the atmosphere also lots of weathering and other chemical interactions due to being on Earth for so long. They are fairly easy to tell apart.




Wrong. WvB went to Antarctica to collect lunar rocks in 1968, in person.




You'll see the American Flag on the dark side of the LEM all light up like a Christmas Tree. How is that possible, given it should be in total shadow? Maybe it was special 'glo-stick' flag material, eh?


The surrounding surface not in shadow will reflect light back onto the flag. And in regards to that particular photo, the sunlight is also shining through the fabric.[edit on 8-4-2007 by jra]


Wrong. You're talking about the free-standing flag on a pole. I'm talking about the flag that was attached to the side of the LEM.

I do appreciate your willingness to view the vids I posted. Believe me, there's enough high strangeness surrounding these missions to satisfy the most rabid skeptic.



posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I can't find any reason for them to fake 13's disaster,other than a reason to stop all moon landings,or to interest the public in the Apollo missions again.If they wanted to end all space travel couldn't they say they ran out of funds?
Seems strange that they would do it for a publicity stunt.LOL(btw the avatar is by Mechanic32 ,he does awesome work)




[edit on 8-4-2007 by crowpruitt]


jra

posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Please list the one's you've seen.


I don't remember all the titles off hand, but I've seen stuff made by Bart Sibrel, David Percy and read lots of material by Jack White and Ralph Rene. Those are some big names on the hoax believer side.


Wrong. WvB went to Antarctica to collect lunar rocks in 1968, in person.


Yeah... right... It makes perfect sense to send a Rocket scientist to collect rocks instead of, I don't know, some one qualified like a geologist?
You can't identify a lunite by just looking at it. It needs to be examined in detail under a microscope, because they look like normal rocks otherwise. Plus you also need real lunar samples to compare them to.

Wernher von Braun did go to the Antarctic on a trip, but it wasn't to collect rocks. And I believe it was the Japanese that found the first Lunites some time in the 70's.


Wrong. You're talking about the free-standing flag on a pole. I'm talking about the flag that was attached to the side of the LEM.


The light reflecting off the ground and other objects will still illuminate it.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:53 AM
link   
How would one evenly light a such huge area, with a single light source, without filling in the ground shadows with reflected light from the studio ceiling? Indeed, how or where could you shoot a scene like this, on earth, with such a bright light?

If you're going to claim all the images and vieos were faked, you'll have to come up with an explaination as to HOW they were faked.





[edit on 9-4-2007 by nowthenlookhere]





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join