It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The moon landing was not a hoax

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 18 2008 @ 11:10 PM
With so many threads that have no basis of fact claiming things are a conspiracy. May I dare say that the moon landing was not a hoax. It was 100% real. After all the threads here that bash NASA. I think its time to defend. Will it be allowed on this site, perhaps.

But heres your chance NASA bashers. Prove to us how it is a hoax. And I will prove how it wasnt by answering every point you ever possibly could bring up.

[edit on 18-6-2008 by bknapple32]

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:05 AM
Okay I'm personally on the fence with this issue (actually I am on a lot of issues here) but according to this one website they brought back moon rocks and if that's the case it has to be true.

However I still wonder why no stars can be seen on the video footage...

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by MissInformation

However I still wonder why no stars can be seen on the video footage...

Do you see stars standing in Times Square?

Reflective washout.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:24 AM
What he do flag his own thread?lol......the moon was a hoax...they are scared of the aliens and the big smokestacks up there.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:25 AM
Why would they lie really? The technology was there, they used it. A grand and useless accomplishment. (Useless in the practical sense of course, I happen to think it's awesome that they did it.)

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:27 AM
I was just joking....i totally believe that they did in fact land on the moon.I just thought i would bring some humor to the thread.They stated there is a beacon up there that still showing by some means the landing site.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 12:32 AM
reply to post by MissInformation

Wow. That's really been debunked hard. On ATS, fairly often actualy. Have you ever used a camera? Or a video cam or anything? Camera's don't quite capture images as well as our eyes do, at least, not retail ones. The moon is a fairly bright object, and it's white. The stars in the background are sort of drowned out by the compensation.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 02:58 AM
reply to post by RuneSpider

So far some great replies. But I want the full on conspiracy theorists to challenge this one. A full on debate here. Where we, the believers, will answer every point argued. And finally put this to rest.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:30 PM
The theorists are mighty quiet on this. They get their chance to debate, and nothing. Could be because they know the answers to every conspiracy arguement.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:34 PM
It could be the fact that numerous threads have already been on here with all the answers you will give and so people see no point.

I, by the way am on the fence.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:42 PM
reply to post by umbr45

Could be, but those threads usually end in some sort of decorum fallout. ANd the facts get washed away. Who knows, maybe new arguments and answers could come out.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:43 PM

Originally posted by bknapple32

But heres your chance NASA bashers. Prove to us how it is a hoax.
[edit on 18-6-2008 by bknapple32]

are you serious?

do a search for this subject there is like 322 pages of posting and debating

start there captain then come back if you need more calrity

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 01:45 PM
reply to post by MurderCityDevil

As said before, this thread will be for people who dont use sarcasm or name calling to get their point across, as so many ended up as personal debates. You,sir, have already failed.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:25 PM
reply to post by bknapple32

I don't need to. Just show me non CGI photos from space of all
the Lunar Landing sites to prove NASA did not leave no Lander behind.

If NASA can't do that, then I can't prove anything.

I'm just discontent. And asking for photos.

Its so Illuminati, they hold all the lies.
If I'm bashing, then the lie started before I got here.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:34 PM
I would find it more believeable that they did land, but found something that scared them enough not to go back, or even that they were told not to. Then again, the whole going back thing may actually be being done secretly.

My grandfather talked to one of the astronauts who landed on the Moon, I can't say which. What he told my grandfather was that they found things up there, "that weren't ours." Artifacts and structures, even a bridge. He never did say "alien" though, which in my mind, leaves the door open for the possiblity that we went there during an earlier civilization that has been lost to our memory.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:43 PM
What they find boogiemen on the moon?I heard all the theories aliens up there.This that,we will learn soon enough when they go back up.

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 04:57 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

The German mass media was full of going to the Moon with Werner Von
Braun storied of going to the Moon.
He even said it was a dream of his.
Even those that say he finally got their, I might say he got there twice.

Perhaps the landing site were chosen by VB to be close to sites he had
already gone to. Yes, he had plans and not just with rockets.
We know about FOO craft but some think a submarine might have been
the first choice to go to the Moon. VW Bugs were quite air tight but
as high altitude FOO it can't be substantiated.

Since we have seen neither in photos, I can't except any tale.
News of other civilizations have been heard of for ever but
here on earth its a practical power to tell these tails to the masses.
NASA would love any astronaut to say artifacts were on the Moon.
Just add more lies to the already big lie.

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:14 AM
Surely by now what with all the records and data collected, someone must have a decent enough sized telescope to look at the precise spots where the lander landed?.
I know the moon can be very bright but you dont look at it when its full on sunlit?.
I'm thinking there's people out there with at least something bigger than a 10 inch telescope. after all those people that look at the stars can look at a nearer object? even with filters and internet access they can attach a camera to the telescope, and have a motorised scope so the area they're focusing on stays in the field of view?
So come on you bunkers and debunkers, get in contact with some with a really big telescope and prove or disprove once and for all......

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 05:30 AM
Please explain how they survived Alpha, Beta, and Gama Radiation, and the particle cascade caused by attempting to shield from it.

For a Fallout shelter that requires between 6 and 12 feet of earth shielding.

Please do not say "Gold Foil" Please, I beg you!

The space station is within the Earth's protective electromagnetic field.
Lets get it clear up front, when you leave that you have a major problem.

You might also address how they plan to spend 4 or more years exposed to that, to go to Mars.

Even NASA admitted in the 60s that one Solar Flare and the Astronauts were cooked. I remember!

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Cyberbian]

posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by alienstar

Nothing wrong with flagging your own thread. Lots of members do it. No need to even mention it.

I think the best proof is the fact that if the USA did not land on the moon, then the USSR would have been using that to discredit the West. I have yet to hear a satisfactory counter-argument to this point.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in