The moon landing was not a hoax, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 10:42 PM by bknapple32

reply to post by Choppsmcfame

For whatever reason it is gone. But the poster below you answers this. AS do many wit ha simple google search

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 10:45 PM by imeddieone4202003

Next? Did you forget to answer the cross-hair dilemma?

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 10:50 PM by imeddieone4202003

And I quote you "And I will prove how it wasnt by answering every point you ever possibly could bring up." What exactly was your answer? Please prove how an the image overlaps the cross-hairs which is physically impossible...Unless its a faked NASA image which wouldnt need to be done if we took genuine pictures on the lunar surface. And if you are going to continue to post a single link to another website as your answers, i see no need for you to even continue your own thread as you are the one who stated "And I will prove how it wasnt by answering every point you ever possibly could bring up."

[edit on 24-6-2008 by imeddieone4202003]

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:06 PM by pccat

reply to post by Choppsmcfame

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

you answer is here..

www.clavius.org...

[edit on 24-6-2008 by pccat]

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:08 PM by Solo954

Originally posted by bknapple32
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.

I got one for you.
youtube.com...

Maybe not entirely true, but the reason why I bring this up is because of this picture.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which that image has now been covered in the up to date link of the original NASA pic
www.nasa.gov...

What are your takings on that?

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:10 PM by Solo954

reply to post by Solo954

oops cant forget about this one
youtube.com...

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:11 PM by Solo954

I shall light up a ciga-weed and wait for a response.

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:12 PM by jackinthebox

Why would they hoax going to the Moon?

Sorry for the one-liner, but I think this is really at the heart of the debate. Why? Who would benefit?

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:20 PM by W3RLIED2

It was all about beating the commies!!!!! we wanted to be #1 in the space race becasue it had a direct coralation to the nuclear arms capability of ICBM's and the type of rockets we could launch at USSR and vice a versa. hence the reason we fake it in 69 and make us look like a big bad ass powerful nation because we got to the moon first.

So when the space program realized that a moon landing was a physical imposibility in 69 we faked it.

reply posted on 24-6-2008 @ 11:22 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by W3RLIED2

We had the tech. If we can build a nuclear bomb or do any of the other amazing things that were done in the 20th century, we certainly could make it to the Moon and back.

reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 03:07 PM by bknapple32

reply to post by Solo954

Interesting stuff. Still proves we went to the moon. But I am looking into this further. Just now reading about whistling sounds apollo 10 heard on the far said of the moon. Any info on that?

reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 03:39 PM by Anonymous ATS

Simple answer to all who believe the moon landing was a hoax.

Bad Astronomy

www.badastronomy.com...

Rebuttal of all hoaxers' "evidence" by a real astronomer

reply posted on 25-6-2008 @ 05:07 PM by W3RLIED2

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by W3RLIED2

We had the tech. If we can build a nuclear bomb or do any of the other amazing things that were done in the 20th century, we certainly could make it to the Moon and back.

The nuclear bomb is old technology circa the Manhattan project... that started in 39 or 40 or something like that.... and that was dropped from a plane... ICBM's Are big rockets with a nuke strapped to the tip of it.... Going to the moon and back is a little different than a bomb dropped from a plane, and a rocket that doesnt make it completely out of earths atmosphere.... The space program was still in its infancy when the apollo missions started...

Listen i'm not saying we havnt been to the moon, there have been moon probes and other unmanned missions taking pictures like galleileo (spelled incorrectly i know) i just dont think we got there in 69.

reply posted on 26-6-2008 @ 05:50 PM by jackinthebox

reply to post by W3RLIED2

Nuke tech is different than going to the Moon, granted, but I don't think the trip was really as difficult as you might imagine either. I really don't doubt that we had the tech to go to the Moon. There are plenty of amazing things that Man has done in the past few centuries, so going to the Moon is not at all implauseable.

And that's without even considering the possibilities of secret tech, and even "alternate" tech that may not be the fruits of our own civilization.

reply posted on 28-6-2008 @ 02:27 AM by bknapple32

the cross hair problem is ismple. in most every pic when it appears that the crosshairs are off, it is when they are with an image that is white. white bleeds on negatives when being developed. thus the image of the crosshair appears to be in front of or being an object.

Pages: << 1 2 3 >> ^^TOP^^