New Video Purports to Prove Moon Hoax

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackCash
reply to post by omnicron
 



Umm,
You need an atmosphere to see stars. That's how we seem them on Earth, the light from the star reflects the atmosphere and that is how we are able to see them. In space, you would'nt generaly see that.

So I'm told.


[edit on 17-12-2007 by JackCash]


I agree, it's something I reluctantly have to admit. Theres really no pictures of space out there WITH stars.
I could only find this, but i'm not sure if it's real.

www.fotosearch.com...

I'm going to keep looking, it's kinda fun.

Actually you can see faint stars in this picture.
ali.apple.com...
And before you all go crazy, that gold thing in the middle is said to be the command module.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by T0by]




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by omnicron

They refused to swear on the bable because the bable could not explain the of existence what they saw up there.



Touchee, that is a very interesting supposition that I never heard before. I know that they would have probably been threatened by the Government to keep quiet, but if it was me who had been to the Moon and seen all kinds of crazy sh*t I would have to talk about it.

SO that means either;

1. They did truly go to the Moon and it was exactly as explained and shown.

or

2. They never went.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by SantaClaus
And the reason there is backlight is because of the reflective quality of the surface, along with very high powered flash photography.

[edit on 12/17/07 by SantaClaus]


1) No flash

2) Moon surface reflectivity is only 7%

3) Why do the photos from unmanned probes show silhouettes of the rocks with absolutely no backlight?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by T0by
 


Once again, this whole stars thing is totally off topic. Please focus on the arguments made in the OP and not some other silly non-sense. Thank you.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
isn't there already about 1000 moon landing hoax threads? do we need to go back over the same tired theories? Do an ATS search.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   
All I have to say is that if we went with 1969 technology then why do we need until 2020 (As NASA has stated) to go back??? It would seem like a pretty simple operation considering the advancements in technology.

I think I know why though - because we've never been there and many of the Conspitacy Theorists who bring up rational explainations for why we couldn't have done it are right and NASA STILL hasn't figured out how to deal with the issues - like the Van Allen belt.

Also, to point out - stars become MORE visible in a vacuum as there is nothing to diffract or diffuse the light like atmosphere. The mere notion that an atmosphere is required to see stars is trulyt beyond preposterous. Starlight travels many millions and billions of miles through a complete vacuum yet remains visible every step of the way. If the argument held any water then the Hubble Telescope would be nothing but a worthless piece of space junk!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ironclad
reply to post by sp00n1
 


There's one way to know for sure if we went there or not.

Look through the most powerful Telescope you can find, at the landing site & see if the Rover & other junk supposedly left behind are actually there.

Couldn't be any simpler..lol


youre sure right about that ... and its that simple: one of the first moon landing crews left behind a gigantic mirror on the moon which is used by scientists for whatever reason. so if they point their laser on the mirror on the moon, its being reflected and send back ... so theres your proof



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I didn't know there was wind on moon, either.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


What part of the title thread "NEW VIDEO" makes you think this is the "same tired-old theories" to which you are referring?



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by mulderscully
 


The unmanned rovers on Mars have mirrors on them too. Clearly mankind has also walked on mars according to your illogic ad hominem en ad infinitum.

And before you say "the moon rocks prove we've been there," we have mars rocks too... Nope, never been there either.


[edit on 12/17/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sp00n1
 


Sorry but just because you put the words NEW VIDEO in the title doesn't make it new. And everything that you guys are talking about from film, van allen belt, can't see the stars and wind on the moon has been talked about and debunked 100 times. There is a search engine for that reason.

[edit on 17-12-2007 by zerotime]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
NASA has something like 350 kilograms of moon rock in its possession. The total number of meteorites identified as coming from mars is 34 according to Wikipedia.

Now, you could argue that because the Moon is so much closer more meteorites fall to Earth.

That doesn't account for the fact that these vast (by comparison) quantities of moon rock suddenly appeared in NASA's possession one day. Sure, you could add more unsupported speculation and say that NASA was collecting moon rocks and lied about their origin. But that's just adding another factor in this already complicated equation.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Interesting theory. We need to do some homework however. What you have outlined is plausible, but the devil is in the details.

I was actually on the website for the filming simulators you show here some time ago. I found out about them when researching a project. I did not think to link. Can anyone link that?

Here's what would need to happen. The actual film and set from these simulation setups need be found and linked if possible. They have a limit in focal, FOV and duration. Those limits, the actual surface relief from the moon also should be superimposed on a lunar map to jibe with any film in question. We are walking the talk here by doing this. That's real science.

That is not to say that other such sets where not built, but it is less likely as NASA's budget was fairly scrutinized. DOD $ is not out of the question.

How about these videos (below) of a massive alien ship on the other side of the moon?? Why would a government agency fake these? Show that these where faked and it is more likely the others could have been too.

By the way, these have not been disproven yet. These should be easier to debunk, but have not proven to be anything but what they look like.

The surface area in question, see videos below, is on the other side of the Moon. I don't think they would have had good enough detailed photos and relief data to use that surface for the simulation at the time they did this. I believe the sets you show where preparatory for Moon missions, and at that time good photo topography was scant. So, we need to identify the surface geography (lunography?) and match it to lunar topographic maps. Once done, a simple comparative can be done.

Alien Ship From Apollo 20

Apollo Flyover & Survey Video

CSM Flyover

Alien Moon Ship Stills

Then for these videos (and stills) in particular, there needs to be a motive for the hundreds of thousands of dollars such a project would entail to ?? prove ?? aliens had been on the moon?? This needs to be explained. These could have used the same equipment and sets. But from the moon's non-facing side? Not logical.

These should be easier to prove as fakes. But, seem not to be. So, prove a fake and gain some ground on the rest.

I personally believe that some faking was done to cover mission time where DOD and classified assignments where carried out while Apollo crews where on the Moon. But, people like Edgar Mitchell and others spending time on the surface whom we would think would talk about, or at least hint on such have nothing to report. Does not mean it did not happen however.

The missions above (18, 19, and 20) where supposedly launched from Vandenberg secretly after the program was cancelled. I've been to Vandenberg for a launch and can see how such a massive Saturn V launch could actually be hidden by a night launch. The area is not an easy eye shot from anywhere in central coastal area, and could be pawned off as a test or satellite mission. I have also seen a couple launches from there from many miles away. One with my large 17.5" amateur telescope from 50 miles north of the facility, and a night launch from Death Valley I photographed. The DV launch was announced, so we saw it in the paper when we got to the Furnace Creek store. Otherwise there was no way of knowing "what" was launched.

There are so many chinks in the records that proving anything will take an act of congress to afford it seems. I know I do not have the time and resources to follow up on more than a comparative for film and record. Who can walk this talk here? I can try and help.

ZG



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by zerotime
 


THIS VIDEO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THAT!



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


I think all of that UFO stuff is meant to keep the conspiracy minded crowd from finding out the truth. It also provides a great cover to all of the problems we see in the videos. For instance, im sure ATS has a bazillion threads about "UFO's" in the apollo landing footage that were actually dust bunnies blowing around in the studio. Also, Buzzed Aldrin is now claiming that they saw a UFO tracking them on the way to the moon. This was to cover for that fact that Neil Armstrong radioed back to NASA because they were almost hit by a piece of space debris since they never left low earth orbit.




posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   
I think it's important to pick your conspiracies, which ones you like the best, because some of them are self-limiting. Obviously, if the Moon missions were faked, then all the stuff having to do with alien bases and ships being found on the Moon is also fake. Can't have it both ways. That is, unless you want to go the circuitous John Lear route of building a whole secret space-faring society, where the Apollo missions were real, but a cover for all the alien stuff.

But that's a long way around the block. It's much more believable that the Apollo missions were real, and that the alien stuff is bullcrap. But you'll get people to argue both ways.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
I find it ironic that we have pictures of "Opportunity" on Mars,
yet there isn't a single picture of the Lunar rover taken with Clementine.


yorkregion.blogs.com...

Either way, one thing is for sure; at this point in time,
the Chinese and Japanese scientists have evidence
that we don't have to prove this theory.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
OMG STOOOOOOOP!! jeez havent we all been through this ONE too many times?! To believe we never went to the moon is an insult to all the discoveries and advancements we've made. All those Moon Hoax videos have already been dis-proven blah blah blah....want to tackle a real mystery? someone tell me why theres no such thing as grape pie? thats a mystery.



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by blueyedevil666
 


What discoveries have we made by 'going to the moon' exactly? If this video is so debunkable, then go ahead and debunk it!

Oh wait, you cant?! All you can do is throw around loosely organized innuendo?! WOW!!!

[edit on 12/17/2007 by sp00n1]



posted on Dec, 17 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   
i agree with spoon it is in no way certain that we travelled to the moon.

the bulk of evidence says NO .......... space race anyone?





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join