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.

 

Possible Evidence of Faked Moon Landing...

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Ok before i begin this thread i would just like to post my personal opinion:
I (personally) do believe that we have landed on the moon. I think a lot of this has to do with UFO and ET bases on the moon, but thats off topic. While i do believe we have been to the moon, i also belive that the video footage we saw was faked... all done in a studio. There are just waay too many problems with videos and pics, and im sure everyone has done their own research into the possibilty of a faked moon landing before, so im not going to present all the reasons why i think it was faked.
That being said, here is some new evidence that might prove the video footage and pictures NASA released of our moon landing was indeed fake.
I would like to check out these two pictures that Sringer posted in his recent thread John Lear's Moon Pictures on ATS
Here are the two pics i would like to present:
files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...
Ok, so as you can clearly see, stars are visible in the background!
One of the biggest debates over the video and pictures NASA released was why there were no stars in the background!
So why i ask, would we see the stars now, in these pictures, and not have been able to see them in the official pictures of the moon landing NASA released?

for more info on some of the arguements of why people think the moon landing was faked, I have provided a link:
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...




posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
I don't think those are stars...if you look at any other shadowy area, you see the same speckles. I think it's just a dirty lense, or dust...or maybe just not a very good camera...it was the 60's afterall.

After looking at the pics some more...you can even see some of the "stars" over the lighter terrain.... i.e. in the foreground.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Jaruseleh]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Perhaps it is just a dirty lense. but in the sencond picture, it looks like theres a star cluster in background, or a strange blur of some sort, and im assuming they are using the same camera, so wouldnt it appear on both shots?



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   
You would think...which means it's most likely dust. I could almost buy into it if I didn't see speckles all over, rather than just in the background. There are also a lot of black speckles on the white as well...I'm not sure what it all is, but my gut tells me it's not stars.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   
If stars can't be seen in space how does the Hubble telescope work?
RR



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by RudyRed
 


lol no no no. not from space. just from the moon! you see... the reflection of... and the lack of atmosphere... and, yeah sry, i got nothing



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RudyRed
If stars can't be seen in space how does the Hubble telescope work?
RR


It's not that stars can't be seen in space...it's the fact that stars can't be seen with a camera when there is a bright light source nearby... i.e. the sun reflecting off of the moon's surface. think of it being similar to when you're in a large city, you can see very few stars in the sky, but if you were out in the middle of the country somewhere, the sky is full of stars. Cameras take that principle and multiply it...I'm not a photographer, but it has to do with the focus and shutter speeds and technical mumbo jumbo like that, but it's the same idea.

Besides, I think hubble sees in infrared (correct me if I'm wrong....
)

[edit on 22-8-2007 by Jaruseleh]



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   
NASA's infra-red space telescope is called the "Spitzer Space Telescope". It was launched in 2003.



It's part of the 'Great Observatories Program'

The others are the Hubble (HST), which observes visual light and near-ultraviolet. It also has near-infra red capabilities now.

Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) handles gamma and hard x-ray observations.


Chandra (CXO) observes soft x-rays.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 


Thanks for the heads up.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:54 PM
link   
Ok, that makes sense. I've read this on here before and thought it was silly, I misunderstood.
RR



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Yes, those are great points. And all make sense... tho i still think stars would be visible from the moon (IMO the blackness of space compensates. We cant see stars in the day, but its always dark on the moon bc the moon does not have an atmpsphere), I guess the real question is whether or not thats dust or stars in the photo.




top topics



 
0

log in

join