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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Genya

Originally posted by lordfinesse
the possibility of those "other" lunar images being fabricated crossed my mind especially while looking at them..... Probably those generation x'ers. bad gen x bad.


Hi lordfinesse!!

Well, first, *welcome* to ATS - this board rocks!!


It's nice to know that there are some "old timers"
here to say "how it was": the excitemnt of being in a genration that witnessed Mercury, Gemini and Apollo within a decade was truly awesome... Whilst not "dissing" youth, I really think *we* had the "halcyon days" when things *happened* in Space Exploration (I should, perhaps, explain that I was born in 1950 and remember Sputnik 1 onwards quite clearly... and have been an "amateur" astronomer for about the same length of time).

So, I don't doubt we went to the Moon - my only regret is that - politically - the "public" became disinterested and NASA had to "penny pinch" and cancel missions. By *now*, we *should* have had colonies on the Moon and outposts on Mars.... The "public" are very fickle, me thinks ....



going to the moon was about politics. it was just to beat the russians. and thats it.




posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 08:07 PM
link   
im undecided about the moon landing, plenty of dodgy things noticable and plenty of reasons to fake it, saw a clip of a supposed 'mars' landing in '62, if we wanna believe the conspiracies maybe we need to believe some of the ones they say really happened



posted on Apr, 1 2004 @ 08:11 PM
link   
OK... first off... I think the moon landing did occur.

Secondly... isn't there more important discussions than this occuring right now?



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I don't appreachiate anyone telling me to accept that something like the moon landing happened.

There are too many discrepencies for ANYONE to be 100% positive that this event took place. Yes, you can believe what you want but don't try and look past the many problems that have been raised.

Just to be honest, there's no way that those space suits could have protected the astronauts from the lethal levels of radiation that occur when you leave earths protective shield.

Second, the LEM was an unstable, unpredictable craft that crashed a few days before on earth....

Third, why is there so many shots of astronauts fully lit up when standing in the shadows of the LEM if there wasn't any other light source?

There's so many other questions that have been raised. Don't be ignorant and ignore these discrepencies or try to tell people to just ACCEPT that this event actually happened. If you think that the US Goverment couldn't pull off a hoax like the lunar landing then you're just another stupid fool who deserves to be lied to. Question everything that the goverment claims, if you find holes in the story than mostlikely you're being deceived...

-psd_1

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by psd_1]



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Everyone... please go back read this if you want some actual FACTS about the moon landing.. This guy (Phillip Plait) is an expert on the subject and backs up every claim with a SCIENTIFIC FACT.

badastronomy.com...

Now, i suppose you can still choose to believe whatever you wish after reading this...

P.S. Just for a laugh, remember when Buzz Aldrin punched that guy who got all in his face about the landings being faked...



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Kano a little help please.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 07:38 PM
link   
I remeber responding to this topic a looooooooooooooooong as$ time ago. But anyway; the moon landing was faked just look at the flag on the tape. Its waving like hell. There is no air/wind on the moon. How could the flag wave. And no the flag was not made to wave. NO flag could wave like the flag on the footage did without wind. And if the Americans didnt make the flag wave there lie would have been perfect. They needed to do something because the Russians were ahead than they were.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 07:50 PM
link   
We landed on the moon. Yes. This one is a conspiracy I dont believe.

For starters, technology as it was known back in 1969 to the public, is different from what the US govornment actually had. So, while the public wasnt aware of tech back then, the secret parts of the gov did have it, thus it was possible.

And this crap about itbeing impossible to penetrate the radiation layer? The Russians had no problems. We had no problems. the radiation layer is penetrable. The astronauts contact with it is minimal. he wear special suits.

The reason we havent been back? Cost, pure and simple. The cost in dollars for the moon project is FAR greater, like 3 times more, than the mars rover project, in todays dollars. It was an accomplishment.

Its not speculation, its fact. We landed.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 07:53 PM
link   
did we land on the moon? oh yeah. if not the russians woulda found out eventually and something big woulda happened



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
The russians did not leave the protective radiation belt, they never even tried to go to the moon. THey knew that the technology they were using would have killed any human trying. The russians were way ahead of the US in the space race, why didn't they if they clearly were more advanced? Because they knew that astronauts would die of radiation poisoning

-psd_1


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
We landed on the moon. Yes. This one is a conspiracy I dont believe.

For starters, technology as it was known back in 1969 to the public, is different from what the US govornment actually had. So, while the public wasnt aware of tech back then, the secret parts of the gov did have it, thus it was possible.

And this crap about itbeing impossible to penetrate the radiation layer? The Russians had no problems. We had no problems. the radiation layer is penetrable. The astronauts contact with it is minimal. he wear special suits.

The reason we havent been back? Cost, pure and simple. The cost in dollars for the moon project is FAR greater, like 3 times more, than the mars rover project, in todays dollars. It was an accomplishment.

Its not speculation, its fact. We landed.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I found this site that raises many difficult questions. It deals with the technology requirements for a moon landing. I would love for someone to answer some of these questions.

www.mt.net...



NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. NASA claims that water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space. There are two problems with this that cannot be explained away. 1) The amount of water needed to be carried by the astronauts in order to make this work for even a very small length of time in the direct 55 degrees over the boiling point of water (210 degrees F at sea level on Earth) heat of the sun could not have possibly been carried by the astronauts. 2) NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   
How many times do we need to run through this crappy, childish ignorance posing as semi-science? deny ignorance. Use your brains. Do the research. Discover experiments needing live-interactive on-the-moon adjustments by humans in 1969, that are still functioning today.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by psd_1
I don't appreachiate anyone telling me to accept that something like the moon landing happened.

Just to be honest, there's no way that those space suits could have protected the astronauts from the lethal levels of radiation that occur when you leave earths protective shield.



They didn't spend much time in the Van Allen Belts.



Second, the LEM was an unstable, unpredictable craft that crashed a few days before on earth....


please provide support for your claim about the LEM being unstable.


Third, why is there so many shots of astronauts fully lit up when standing in the shadows of the LEM if there wasn't any other light source?


Reflected light. The surface of the moon is highly reflective. That is why the moon is so bright at night.





There's so many other questions that have been raised. Don't be ignorant and ignore these discrepencies or try to tell people to just ACCEPT that this event actually happened. If you think that the US Goverment couldn't pull off a hoax like the lunar landing then you're just another stupid fool who deserves to be lied to. Question everything that the goverment claims, if you find holes in the story than mostlikely you're being deceived...

-psd_1

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by psd_1]


And of course your theory also means that the Russians were in on the hoax also.

I am curious. How old are you? do you remeber the moon landings yourself?



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AD5673
I remeber responding to this topic a looooooooooooooooong as$ time ago. But anyway; the moon landing was faked just look at the flag on the tape. Its waving like hell. There is no air/wind on the moon. How could the flag wave. And no the flag was not made to wave. NO flag could wave like the flag on the footage did without wind. And if the Americans didnt make the flag wave there lie would have been perfect. They needed to do something because the Russians were ahead than they were.



The flag was "waving" because there was no atmosphere.

When the astronuat pushed the flagpole into the lunar soil, he twisted it back and forth to drive it in. This twisting motion caused the flag to move back and forth. in the absence of an atmosphere, the motion was not damped out by air. it took the internal friction of the flag material to finally damp out the motion caused by the twisting.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
How many times do we need to run through this crappy, childish ignorance posing as semi-science?

deny ignorance.

Use your brains.


As long as this site is conspiracy related you will have people questioning the moon landing. You may have made up your mind regarding this subject but to call someone an “ignorant child” is no way to foster an atmosphere conducive to “Denying Ignorance”. To “Deny Ignorance” questions must be asked. Even if you consider the question “semi science”, “bad science” or “no science” the person should be treated with respect. What is worse asking a “bad question” or not asking at all?



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:39 PM
link   
The debate does get a little repetative at times.

The problem I have with the debate is that the suporters of the fake landing theory tend to be a little shaky in thier understanding of simple science, optics, etc.

Most of these issues can be resolved with a simple google.



posted on Apr, 2 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
The debate does get a little repetative at times.

The problem I have with the debate is that the suporters of the fake landing theory tend to be a little shaky in thier understanding of simple science, optics, etc.

Most of these issues can be resolved with a simple google.


You can do a Google search and find sites to support or discredit the theory. Both sites can appear to have sound science. When people gather on a web site for the purpose of discussing conspiracy related subjects nine out of ten will tend to believe the conspiracy related angle. Even if people are a little shaky in their understanding of simple science they shouldn’t be mocked or put down. Their questions should be treated with the same respect we want for ourselves. Science and Physics are difficult subjects, anyone that tells you they know everything is probably lying.



posted on Apr, 3 2004 @ 12:09 AM
link   
Personally I’m undecided. If you asked me three weeks ago I would have said no way the moon landing happened. I had a discussion with Kano and he brought up good points about the Russians being able to expose NASA as liars if they tried to fake it because they could detect the radio signals being sent and determine their origin. This is why I like ATS because I can learn; I don’t attempt to argue just to validate my position. If I hear something that seems to make sense I will accept that information rather than arguing to protect my previous ideas so that I can be right. If I was unable to talk about this subject I couldn’t better my understanding.



posted on Apr, 4 2004 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Firsst off, what does age have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING. Just cause you might be old as dust doesn't give you any right to use age discrimination. The fact that you are older and more ignorant should prove this fact.

I have seen video footage of the LEM being piloted by Arrmstrong before the supposid moon landing. It was so unstable that he had to eject and the LEM crashed and blew up.

I don't believe your excuse about the light refacting. THere were way too many pics where astronauts were standing in complete shadows (where the temperature would have been -256 below) and they are still lite up like a christmas tree.

Try and explain the flag blowing, no matter what you say it blew long after they were done fiddeling with it.

There's so many other issues, but if you want to use your age and your holier than tho attitude so be it.

-psd_1


Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by psd_1
I don't appreachiate anyone telling me to accept that something like the moon landing happened.

Just to be honest, there's no way that those space suits could have protected the astronauts from the lethal levels of radiation that occur when you leave earths protective shield.



They didn't spend much time in the Van Allen Belts.



Second, the LEM was an unstable, unpredictable craft that crashed a few days before on earth....


please provide support for your claim about the LEM being unstable.


Third, why is there so many shots of astronauts fully lit up when standing in the shadows of the LEM if there wasn't any other light source?


Reflected light. The surface of the moon is highly reflective. That is why the moon is so bright at night.





There's so many other questions that have been raised. Don't be ignorant and ignore these discrepencies or try to tell people to just ACCEPT that this event actually happened. If you think that the US Goverment couldn't pull off a hoax like the lunar landing then you're just another stupid fool who deserves to be lied to. Question everything that the goverment claims, if you find holes in the story than mostlikely you're being deceived...

-psd_1

[Edited on 2-4-2004 by psd_1]


And of course your theory also means that the Russians were in on the hoax also.

I am curious. How old are you? do you remeber the moon landings yourself?




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I am very open minded, I watched the fox special and did my own research into their claims. The whole part about there being no stars in the pictures was LOL funny. There are stars in the pictures, even the pictures they showed on the show! I had a friend in scholl who belived anything that someone said to discredit anything we did technologicly, he said we never sent a rover to Mars because there was a bottle cap in one of the pictures. People like this are not worth even talking to, they don't llok at the facts, all they do is fallow what the media tells them, they need to get out of the media matrix and jack in to the real world.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join