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 Hoax Apollo 17

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I find this whole conspiracy theory insulting, and it insults and questions the service of all of the astronauts who dedicated their lives in service to this country! To those of you who subscribe to this 'conspiracy', why don't you just go spit on the graves of Lt. Col. Virgil Grissom, Lt. Col. Edward White and Lt. Cmdr. Roger Chaffee who gave their lives for the Apollo program.

I watched every one of the service modules orbiting the moon on every mission through my uncle's telescope. Wanna explain how they hoaxed that???? Getting there was the hard part. Landing and returning to orbit was the easy part.

By continuing this BS, you belittle the service of some of the finest men who have ever served this country. While you're at it, why don't you go throw rotten eggs at the service men and women who are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. It's about the same in my book!

[edit on 21-3-2009 by JaxonRoberts]




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


The shuttle passes through the south atlantic anomaly which is part of the van allen belt system. The belts DO have thinner regions, the thickest is right at equator. Rather than accept this and learn the truth you're busy accusing us of being "paid disinformation agents." You ask for proof but you won't accept sources. I feel bad for the other posters who blew their time trying to cite info you should have already known if you had studied the nature of the van allen belts at all, yet you never had any intention of accepting the new information.

And just because they launched from florida doesn't mean anything - higher orbital inclinations than the launch site's latitude are easily achieved with the right launch heading.

The astronauts did suffer medicinal consequences of their flights; the apollo astronauts have a much higher rate of cataracts than the general population. One suffered heart failure because of over straining it while dehydrated during reentry. Another died of cancer while still quite young. They paid a price for their trip, it just wasn't instantly lethal. It's unfortunate that you will no doubt continue to deny their sacrifice.

Lastly, you ignored my information about "backdrops" completely, I wonder why?

[edit on 22-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I find this whole conspiracy theory insulting, and it insults and questions the service of all of the astronauts who dedicated their lives in service to this country! To those of you who subscribe to this 'conspiracy', why don't you just go spit on the graves of Lt. Col. Virgil Grissom, Lt. Col. Edward White and Lt. Cmdr. Roger Chaffee who gave their lives for the Apollo program.


This sounds like the neocons how they say not to criticize the War on Terror because it is disrespectful to the victims of 9/11 and their families. Only problem is, the neocons did the dirty deed themselves and the victims' families are the biggest critics of the phony war on terror and of the whole phony "investigation" into 9/11.

Same with the rescue workers, the ones who were left to breathe all the aerosolized concrete and asbestos and told by our friendly government 'here to help us all' that the air was "safe to breathe." Now most of the rescue workers are either dead or dying. (watch Truth Rising online by Alex Jones, great documentary, no voiceover).

The astroNOTs you mention are the ones who knew there was no space-worthy vehicle to travel in and for which they were murdered, ritual style according to the sacred geometry and special numbering of the Illuminati Freemasons who run NASA.

[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

The shuttle passes through the south atlantic anomaly which is part of the van allen belt system. The belts DO have thinner regions, the thickest is right at equator. Rather than accept this and learn the truth you're busy accusing us of being "paid disinformation agents." You ask for proof but you won't accept sources.


Right. I don't consider the fox guarding the henhouse to be a source, nor some psychic's website.

Originally posted by ngchunter
And just because they launched from florida doesn't mean anything - higher orbital inclinations than the launch site's latitude are easily achieved with the right launch heading.



Great. But what evidence do we have of this? None that I can see.


Originally posted by ngchunter
The astronauts did suffer medicinal consequences of their flights;


Right. Extreme guilt and a tendency to drink too much and to become a recluse and to cry in public and make vague promises about someday the truth will be revealed.


Originally posted by ngchunter
Lastly, you ignored my information about "backdrops" completely, I wonder why?


I never discussed backdrops other than to say the stage set would involve more than a backdrop.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Go stand under a street light and look up and see how many stars you can see. The reflectivity of the moons surface blocked out the stars in the pictures. One of the reasons that the astronauts didn't see stars is because they would have had to lean back to look up above them. If they did that with the backpack on they would have toppled over, and once they were on their back it would have been extremely difficult to get up again.


This is about the lamest NASA excuse I've heard yet. I would be ashamed to present such an excuse. Are you actually a paid agent, or are you just the kind of person who will defend the devil himself if given a chance?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 




Either the highest sound studio in the US or they covered the stars out there in the Nevada desert...



Q&A with Dr Jack Schmidt (skip to 17 minutes). Schmidt is very clear that the astronauts couldn't see stars. The sky was 'blacker than black' and the sunlight was like on a 'snow-capped mountain.' 23 minutes: discusses orange soil and doubts the Moon's origin as an outcome of planetary collision. I'm not sure I understand his logic on that?



I know you will cheerfully dismiss this as evidence, but others might enjoy parts of the Q&A video. I wonder, do you have any similar videos or images of the underground bases? Statistics of the thousands of children taken by aliens? Documents that implicate the CIA or FBI in past or present pedophile rings? Images of the aliens that control humanity? Your views on 'Zionists' have been clearly stated, do you have any documents that could support the assertions? If you can't do this, is it at all possible that your conclusions are mistaken? Would you rather hold incorrect beliefs than accept a truth you find unpleasant (NASA Space program)?

I'm curious. How can anyone dismiss tens of thousands of documents, papers, images and videos to claim the SIX Moon landings were faked? The mountain of evidence is cast aside and you've replaced it with the, essentially, 'hearsay' accounts of a group of extraordinary claimants


(No hostility, no scorn, just raising a point)



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


In the Last Humans on the Moon clip, can you explain why the lander is bobbing up and down in the film? It takes off and then goes up and down, up and down, travelling sideways.

How amazing to think this thing is going to travel straight up 60 miles to hook up with the mother ship. Right out of Star Trek, beam me up.

We all heard how they used a Hasselblad camera to take all the crystal clear perfect pics we see on NASA's picture album website.

But what kind of camera did they have to take all the shots of everybody, almost as though they had a robot cameraman who knew just when to shoot and when to turn off the camera, and cameras placed everywhere to capature everything that happened from every angle. Sometimes we get the same shot in several angles.

Quite amazing. Maybe the bobbing of the spacecraft was caused by the aftershock wind from the takeoff and it blew the camera around? But since there was not a bit of dust blown away by either the take off or landing, how can that be?

Any explanations for that one?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


On the Eva 1 Core film clip you posted it is so, so obvious the astroNOT is on wires.

He's floating around, leaning way over but held up by the wires, and yet the dirt that's kicked out by his feet shoots out regular speed.

This is so hokey, so fake. Just watch it and you can see the guy is on wires.


[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 




I know you will cheerfully dismiss this as evidence, but others might enjoy parts of the Q&A video. I wonder, do you have any similar videos or images of the underground bases? Statistics of the thousands of children taken by aliens? Documents that implicate the CIA or FBI in past or present pedophile rings? Images of the aliens that control humanity? Your views on 'Zionists' have been clearly stated, do you have any documents that could support the assertions? If you can't do this, is it at all possible that your conclusions are mistaken? Would you rather hold incorrect beliefs than accept a truth you find unpleasant (NASA Space program)?


People that share your views aren't dissuaded from them by any evidence. Better men than me have tried and failed. I can explain the videos I posted but...

Before I do...just as a matter of fairness...I wonder...can you provide any of the evidence I asked for?

I had many a sleepless moment last night as I imagined the screams of those children being eaten and tortured by aliens beneath the cities of the US. Their poor parents must be too terrified or neglectful to report them missing. Is it possible that the New York subway is a secret means of transporting the captives to the bases? These Government pedophile rings could look like ordinary passengers until they get off at concealed stations. If you can provide the evidence maybe something can be done? There must be some humans left in the corridors of power!

Have you such evidence?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Stop wasting peoples time if you wont accept basic facts with multiple sources, most of which you ignored. Just admit your mind is closed and nothing will convince you.

Same goes for launch heading - get a free spaceflight simulator like Orbiter to see the effect of launch heading for yourself.

Backdrop is one of the necessary elements of filming on a stage; since i disproved they used a backdrop i disproved your hoax theory.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
America's tax dollars at work -- paying government disinformation Moon hoax debunkers to come on threads like this and post lame excuses for an obvious hoax.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until I read this one!


Do you really think you're so important that the government would pay people to discredit you?

There's just no need because you do it so well yourself, it's no good having tons of theories and arguments when you go and say something like that and give a major insight into how your mind works.

Tell me how the laser reflectors came to be on the moon?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


On the Eva 1 Core film clip you posted it is so, so obvious the astroNOT is on wires.

He's floating around, leaning way over but held up by the wires, and yet the dirt that's kicked out by his feet shoots out regular speed.

This is so hokey, so fake. Just watch it and you can see the guy is on wires.


[edit on 22-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



It's called low gravity, you can lean further without losing your balance, it's really quite simple.

As for the dust, there is nothing stopping it from moving, no atmospheric resistance so it moves fast, did you see the famous test involving a hammer and feather?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

The whole thing is a giant hokey scam. Come on. Just like 110 foot skyscrapers made of concrete and reenforced steel don't go SPLAT at the speed of gravity because a couple puny fires are going (actually burning out with black smoke, oxygen starved and going out).


I think you should know that the fires were caused by two large passenger aircraft slamming into the buildings at over 400mph, you don't seem to know that as only an utter cretin would omit those facts and you're not a cretin right? Please explain how you were not aware of these facts.


Originally posted by Salt of the Earth


Have you looked at this thing? Do you really think that thing could have landed on anything, let alone the moon, in those goofy spider legs with the big pads and the gold foil and all the rest? The hokey ladder coming down?


Well I'll give you credit for such an in-depth and scientific analysis! Thank god you're an engineer and know EXACTLY how to design a functional moon lander, otherwise you would look like a complete idiot with absolutely no right to criticise or question the optimum design for lunar vehicles. I'm assuming you're not an idiot, all you need to do to confirm this is to prove that you know how to design a functional moon lander and hence have a valid point of reference for your criticisms!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
The bouncing leg to leg while walking seems strange as if normal
walking as they did down the ramp to the launch pad was not possible.

Have any space scientists suggested reasons why we have to walk
like that when we get to the Moon or Mars.

That seems to put a dent in a mission for planet landing enthusiasts.
I mean to walk around like donald duck with a camera that
can't be visualized through.

The whole expedition was scripted as far as schedules and activities
as any project is but somethings just look like a put on.


jra

posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
The bouncing leg to leg while walking seems strange as if normal
walking as they did down the ramp to the launch pad was not possible.

Have any space scientists suggested reasons why we have to walk
like that when we get to the Moon or Mars.


For going short distances, one could walk relatively normally, but if you needed to go faster and cover more ground, a normal running motion would have been more difficult due to the lower gravity and the reduced flexibility while wearing the space suit. NASA originally proposed a "kangaroo" hop as a way of moving around on the Moon, but Armstrong and Aldrin both found it awkward. The "lope" as they called it, where you push off one foot and land on the other, without separating the feet too much, seemed to be a good compromise.

When ever we do go to Mars, I don't think one would need to move in that same manner, due to Mars having a higher level of gravity. Although I can't say this for certain.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
I think we have to view the whole conspiracy as a combination of two truths:

1) They did land on Moon - but found evidence of Alien life

2) They needed to fabricate footage to conceal their real findings.


[edit on 3/22/2009 by MyXlog]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by ngchunter
The astronauts did suffer medicinal consequences of their flights;


Right. Extreme guilt and a tendency to drink too much and to become a recluse and to cry in public and make vague promises about someday the truth will be revealed.

Since when do any of those, ahem, interesting, accusations have anything to do with cataracts? And why would the heart problems be predicted by the biomonitoring conducted during the flight itself; how could they have known that particular problem would happen ahead of time?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


I would never say that criticizing the war on terror is disrespectful of those who perished on 9/11. Apples and oranges! This is completely different. You are accusing every Astronaut of being a liar and intentionally deceiving the public.


Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
I watched every one of the service modules orbiting the moon on every mission through my uncle's telescope. Wanna explain how they hoaxed that???? Getting there was the hard part. Landing and returning to orbit was the easy part.


I did notice that you did not attempt to answer this part of my post. I guess you're calling me a liar as well! Not everything is a conspiracy, and the Government does not lie about everything. Crawl out from under your bed, take the tinfoil hat off and open your eyes to the possibilities that science can expose. But I know I am just wasting my breath. There are those of you out there who will not believe no matter what the evidence is to the contrary. Sad really. So grab your rotten eggs and head to the nearest military base to wait for troops returning home. It's a shame that those of you who have not served this country and defended the freedom we enjoy delight in belittling and slandering those of us who have!



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   
caus I was snooping at some STS photos and it showed no stars what so ever, and that is why I reacted to the photo.
It isnt that long ago I saw an moon debate where the obious 'proof' of fake moon footage was that there were no stars in the background.

I figured since there are no stars in the STS photos, we can remove that as any debunk statement. Atleast so I think......



posted on Mar, 23 2009 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by MyXlog
I think we have to view the whole conspiracy as a combination of two truths:

1) They did land on Moon - but found evidence of Alien life

2) They needed to fabricate footage to conceal their real findings.


[edit on 3/22/2009 by MyXlog]


This is exactly what I think too.
That would explain the footage being fake/no fake since it ectually are both.. And alot of astronauts have come forth with the truth, so help them god.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join