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.

 

Moon Landing was NOT faked.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 07:41 PM
link   
sorry my fault, someone who responded a post in the UFO section was going on about the lunar landings being faked. So I posted it here and it is out of place your right.




posted on Dec, 31 2003 @ 10:30 PM
link   
I've had the privilege of getting to know a few people who were actually involved in the first Apollo missions.
When I was living in Arizona, I worked at the "Challenger Learning Center". Basically, a large, pulbic facility all about space and space exploration, with a focus on the Space Shuttle.
Many of the retirees who lived in AZ volunteered their time at the center, and many were directly involved in the Lunar missions. I can say with certainty that these people are genuine and there is no 'conspiracy' behind any of this.

Oh, and I'm sure it's been mentioned before, but I have to throw the link out there to any fools who bought in to that Fox special or any of the conspiracy theories.
All explained and detailed by a REAL scientist with no affiliation with NASA whatsoever, who actually knows what he's talking about.

www.badastronomy.com...

So for anyone who still buys into the moon landing hoax theory, visit that link and don't cry too hard.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Standard reply to Moon Landing threads:

There is no 'evidence' against the moon landings that hasn't been solidly and repeatedly debunked.

A few sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

Or you could go to NASAs site and search on Moon Hoax.

Proof...
Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



There is also this picture of the Apollo 15 landing site by a lunar orbiter.

www.space.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
This, in spite of the "proof" will keep being debated until we go back.

[Edited on 1-1-2004 by groingrinder]



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
i heard they were ticked off when they got there because there was a bunch of americans in ufo's waiting for them. they were jealous they had to take the hard way.
there is no end to disinfo. i do believe the shadow crowd has tech 50 yrs. a. of what they've trickled down to us. frickin' reptiles.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 01:32 AM
link   
I am recent to this site and as I read it, some of you people make me laugh. You talk as if you have the aswers to everything ( mainly to do with physics) yet im positive none of you, or almost none, have a degree in a mathematical field, besides something like programming. Now im in college for physics, i havent completed it yet but the things that you people bring up on trying to discout the moon landing are totally stupid. I think i read that " who took the picture and why does the camera follow the lander as it ejects" I will leave this one for you to figure out. But perhaps the be all end all of the discussion about this would be the fact that , when the astronauts landed on the moon, they callibrated a series of mirrors and reflectors in positions so exact, that no probe at the time could have done it autonimously. Proof of this exists in universites that posess lasers powerfull enough to beam to the moon. If the laser is focused on one of these reflectors, you can actually monitor various things , measurements, seismic activity, ( which there is none on the moon anyway). Also as a side note which really has nothing to do with this is that, during the 50s a nuclear bomb, a small one, was placed down a deep well in Los Alamos. A 4 ft in dia. 1000lb manhole cover was then placed on top and highspeed cameras were placed around the surface. After it was ignited and the pictures were analyized, the engineers realized that the cover was only in one out of a few frames of the film, the speed surpassed the escape velocity of the earth and it is belived that this (1955) was the first manmade object in space by 4 years, but there is no real proof becuase of the lack of tracking. Any way its just interesting about how there are things like this that we dont know about. Happy New year!!!



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 01:40 AM
link   
I'm surprised that after 34 yrs they haven't gone back to the Moon .. Possibly because they've never been 'or' they're hiding something from the rest of the World.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 01:54 AM
link   
I sense that you mean Aliens? yes, there is definatly something that people, Astronauts, reagular people and, haha....Nikola Tesla see or hear, just a joke,.....but yet still no passive radio signals that are not pulsars or other things predictable.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sapphire
I'm surprised that after 34 yrs they haven't gone back to the Moon .. Possibly because they've never been 'or' they're hiding something from the rest of the World.


I think the question is:

"What's the point?"

Seriously, what IS the point of going back? You have to realize the money and risks involved in all of these missions.

NASA is not going to send another lunar mission risking lives and costing millions and millions of dollars to try and prove to a handful of conspiracy loons that we never went.
There is no possibility of finding life or evidence of past life, as in the Mars mission, so there's another reason not to go.

Aside from setting up some kind of lunar research lab, there is no incentive for going back. These "bases" on the moon don't build themselves, and would require immense INTERNATIONAL cooperation, much like the ISS. You're talking about an installation costing billions and billions of dollars, and NASA (believe it or not) is one of the least funded major government agencies, especially with defense spending increase and other, more pressing needs around the world right now.

I just find it incredibly naive to think that something like a moon landing can just be done on a whim, with no point but to 'prove' you can do it. There's both science, safety, money, and politics, all playing a huge role in even the tiniest space missions.



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Personally, I couldn't care less if we went to the moon or not, after all, its still all going on down here.

Whats the moon really good for? So yeah some people say we could mine it, but to gather information to wether we could it would be better to send a non-human system (Just not the beagle).

But lordfinesse was there any need to make an attack on others that think differently then you? You have your opinion, some people have others if you cant deal with people thinking differently then you, maybe you shouldn't have the audacity to try and change that. But I will admit you raised some good points, but as McGotti says you cant base fact on opinions.

If we did go to the moon, fair play but it was pretty pointless. If we didn't it was used as cold-war propagander that the USA couldn't get out of.

[Edited on 1-1-04 by BruceAkolD]



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by BruceAkolD
Personally, I couldn't care less if we went to the moon or not, after all, its still all going on down here.

Whats the moon really good for? So yeah some people say we could mine it, but to gather information to wether we could it would be better to send a non-human system (Just not the beagle).

But lordfinesse was there any need to make an attack on others that think differently then you? You have your opinion, some people have others if you cant deal with people thinking differently then you, maybe you shouldn't have the audacity to try and change that. But I will admit you raised some good points, but as McGotti says you cant base fact on opinions.

If we did go to the moon, fair play but it was pretty pointless. If we didn't it was used as cold-war propagander that the USA couldn't get out of.

[Edited on 1-1-04 by BruceAkolD]


The moon landing was propaganda, whether we landed on it or not (which we did, the proof is there, but there are some out there...


That was the reason there was so much public and especially government interest in NASA and space at the time, because it was a way to "beat the russians''. They had been a. of the US in almost every space mission up to that point, but the moon landing was a huge morale boost for the US and slap in the face to communism/Soviet Union.

But let's call a spade a spade. The moon landing was certainly totally fueled by the Cold War. Not so much to the curiosity, love of their field, and interest, but the government funding certainly was.
Everything at the time was a competition with communism and the USSR, so the space landing was the ultimate symbol that a free, democratic society could indeed keep up with a socialist republic.

[Edited on 1-1-2004 by SevenZeroOne]



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenZeroOne

Originally posted by Sapphire
I'm surprised that after 34 yrs they haven't gone back to the Moon .. Possibly because they've never been 'or' they're hiding something from the rest of the World.


I think the question is:

"What's the point?"

Seriously, what IS the point of going back? You have to realize the money and risks involved in all of these missions.

NASA is not going to send another lunar mission risking lives and costing millions and millions of dollars to try and prove to a handful of conspiracy loons that we never went.
There is no possibility of finding life or evidence of past life, as in the Mars mission, so there's another reason not to go.

Aside from setting up some kind of lunar research lab, there is no incentive for going back. These "bases" on the moon don't build themselves, and would require immense INTERNATIONAL cooperation, much like the ISS. You're talking about an installation costing billions and billions of dollars, and NASA (believe it or not) is one of the least funded major government agencies, especially with defense spending increase and other, more pressing needs around the world right now.

I just find it incredibly naive to think that something like a moon landing can just be done on a whim, with no point but to 'prove' you can do it. There's both science, safety, money, and politics, all playing a huge role in even the tiniest space missions.



Your right SevenZeroOne ... The Gov't spends that just on Resorts and other crap. There would be no reason to spend it on any more Space Exploration


[Edited on 2-1-2004 by Sapphire]



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Have a look here, it looks a hoax.

www.dc8p.com...



posted on Jan, 1 2004 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by akummma
Have a look here, it looks a hoax.

www.dc8p.com...



LOL! That was hilarious! Good find!



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
one definite thing that would prove that the moon landing was a hoax is if the Russian space program mission to the moon actually was executed and the people basically were burned or something b/c of the Van Allen radiation belt. and if the russians, who had a lot better space program, couldn't get to the moon with their technology, who's to say that the American space program was any better at combatting the van allen radiation belt and getting there? What, did NASA make some special suit that can combat radiation or something but they always were 2nd when it came to space program against russia?



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 12:51 AM
link   
strange, us being second and all... considering the russian designed rocket to take men to the moon couldnt seem to stand flight. so much that it exploded in midflight every time

that is weird, isnt it. oh i dont know, i guess its nothing, carry on.



posted on Jan, 2 2004 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlexJones
one definite thing that would prove that the moon landing was a hoax is if the Russian space program mission to the moon actually was executed and the people basically were burned or something b/c of the Van Allen radiation belt. and if the russians, who had a lot better space program, couldn't get to the moon with their technology, who's to say that the American space program was any better at combatting the van allen radiation belt and getting there? What, did NASA make some special suit that can combat radiation or something but they always were 2nd when it came to space program against russia?


That, like every other hoax theory, has a very obvious and scientifc answer.

I'll go a. and copy+paste it for your convenience, but this is a pretty easy find and known by any astronomer.

Bad: A big staple of the HBs is the claim that radiation in the van Allen Belts and in deep space would have killed the astronauts in minutes. They interview a Russian cosmonaut involved in the USSR Moon program, who says that they were worried about going in to the unknowns of space, and suspected that radiation would have penetrated the hull of the spacecraft.

Good: Kaysing's exact words in the program are ``Any human being traveling through the van Allen belt would have been rendered either extremely ill or actually killed by the radiation within a short time thereof.''

This is complete and utter nonsense. The van Allen belts are regions above the Earth's surface where the Earth's magnetic field has trapped particles of the solar wind. An unprotected man would indeed get a lethal dose of radiation, if he stayed there long enough. Actually, the spaceship traveled through the belts pretty quickly, getting past them in an hour or so. There simply wasn't enough time to get a lethal dose, and, as a matter of fact, the metal hull of the spaceship did indeed block most of the radiation. For a detailed explanation of all this, my fellow Mad Scientist William Wheaton has a page with the technical data about the doses received by the astronauts. Another excellent page about this, that also gives a history of NASA radiation testing, is from the Biomedical Results of Apollo site. An interesting read!

It was also disingenuous of the program to quote the Russian cosmonaut as well. Of course they were worried about radiation before men had gone into the van Allen belts! But tests done by NASA showed that it was possible to not only survive such a passage, but to not even get harmed much by it. It looks to me like another case of convenient editing by the producers of the program.
(Taken directly from www.badastronomy.com)

Again, I find it so hard to believe that some of you here while purporting to be searching for the truth seem too indisposed to do a little research grounded in reality and draw your own conclusions, rather than what is fed to you by Fox or garbage websites.


Oh, and to the poster right above me, that's a very good point. You see, the difference is, when the USA made a mistake with the space program, it was HEADLINE NEWS all over the globe and every person with a television knew everything about it.
However, whenever the USSR made a mistake, it was closed off to the media and "covered up", for lack of a better term.
People seem to think that the USSR and USA had the same "media playing field" at the time, and the USSR had the same media scrutiny the US did, but that simply isn't true. Yes, the US covered many things too and still is, but it was/is far, far harder. The USSR didn't want something known, that was it. No one would know of it.

One of the many "perks" of a dictatorship and suppression of the media.




[Edited on 2-1-2004 by SevenZeroOne]

[Edited on 2-1-2004 by SevenZeroOne]



posted on Jan, 30 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lordfinesse
Fact of the matter is, if it was faked neither man could live a lie so large as that one. For me that ends the discussion right there, dead in its tracks. Both men are PROUD, NOBEL, men who worked SO damn hard to become and get the chance to become astronaunts. No chance they could keep that a secret it would literally rip their mind's apart. The guilt they would feel. I mean lets face it many times a day they are reminded by just the people they meet of what they did. Think they could keep it up? NO way. They're integrity and pride and human nature completely in my opinion kills the chance of it being a fraud, they themselves would be entire frauds if so. But not so, so. :/


so you're saying it was the nobel, proud, honorable Neil Armstrong that said quote "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell no lies"?


what about Aldrin threatening to sue if his interview was distributed publically?


and the NASA footage showing them staging it?


you need to buy the documentary



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I knew a guy who worked on the Lunar lander. An awesome guy, with a great story: he hit the shores at age 8 with 10 dollars and became a rocket scientist lol
Though the arguements are quite interesting and the event was an EXTREMELY hard thing to do given the ancient technology, we still did it, but maybe not on the first try.



posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Subject: Moon Landing was NOT faked.



fraggle.alkali.org...



[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Esoterica]

[Edited on 31-1-2004 by Esoterica]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join