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.

 

Bart Sibrel and all Apollo Moon hoax debunked here!

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


why are you dragging me into GF's point? i had nothing to do with that.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF....look again, please, at the Boot Print.

It is NOT an 'inch' deep. Barely an eighth of an inch deep...

Here's a fun experiment....buy a bunch of Baking Soda.....make sure it stays dry!!! Now, find a pan to spread it in...(again, very dry)...

Now, put on a tennis shoe, and step into it....and look at the result.

I'm not sayin' the result will be one inch deep.....AND, I am NOT sayin' the regolith on the Moon is similar to Baking Soda.....I am just trying to make a point.....



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


yeah but half of what you refuted GF with was your fact about the lunar surface not being the same as earth. what difference does it make if there was an inch or an 1/8th inch of dust?

the point is that there IS dirt in that picture. whether or not the lunar module would've left a signature is the issue. maybe it did kick up dust but it settled before the picture was taken. maybe not.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Except I could blow away more soil with my breath than that "throttled-down" LEM.

Take another look at this photo.



The astronaughts left 2 inch-thick boot prints in the soil, but the LEM's rocket engine didn't move a small rock beneath it?

C'mon. This has gone from the ridiculous to the absurd.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   
What I would like to know is how Bart faked the footage of the cardboard been taken from the window, the zoom in and out shots of the false perception of distance to the earth, the curtain been pulled back and Armstrong standing there????? Man he's good if he did that


Now that leaves the question was it a back up in case they suffered some tragedy on the way? Did they also use films sets/ the desert as a back up also? Were the fake shots better for PR than those on the actual moon? I want answers......



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


The tinfoil and duct tape you speak of is aluminized Kapton.

It can handle high temperature and will also deflect radiation.


Kapton is also commonly used as a material for windows of all kinds at x-ray sources (synchrotron beam-lines and x-ray tubes) and x-ray detectors. Its high mechanical and thermal stability as well as its high transmittance to x-rays make it the preferred material. It also does not suffer from radiation damage


Sounds perfect for lunar missions doesn't it?

Oh and there are kapton adhesives too:

www.kaptontape.com...


Also, what's that about no disturbance from the lunar landing pads?



Original here:
www.apolloarchive.com...

Looks disturbed to me..but no doubt you will just say it was from when it was swung in with the crane....

Who's gullible again?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
i've heard something about the undisturbed dirt before. yeah let's get into that for a bit.


You said you wanted to get into the undisturbed dirt, so I did.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF...so now you're an expert on the regolith and the make up of every portion of the Moon???

GF...sorry, epic fail, because you do NOT know everything....as do I not know EVERYTHING....but, landing sites were chosen for a reason....

Let's flip the script....imagine you are the Commander of a fleet and are just encountering the Earth.

Again, in imagination....where would YOU choose to land???

Which portion of the Earth? Where, exactly??

See? It's not so easy is it?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   
ok so no one wants to go from here huh? chad strikes a point.

i'm gonna go watch that video and see about that carboard whatever.

zaphod, ???.

[edit on 24-3-2009 by Mozzy]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


www.youtube.com...

Thats the one...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Also why did the OP register on the 23rd, post a thread on the 23rd and has not been back since
No interest in his own thread?? Very strange! Or maybe its an ATS member who posted it under a different alias for some reason. Maybe the same member is actually participating in thread under he true alias. Who knows?

Anyway thats were boredom gets you waiting for replies from those with the relevant knowledge.............



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
interesting video. i don't see what it has to do with apollo though. there's really not a lot to tie it to the us space program as far as i can tell.

i dunno guys. seems to me like we did land on the moon. there were a few good moon hoax points but now that i look on youtube i see a new breed of anti moon hoax vids and none of the ones i remember.

there used to be a video that showed the light source on the moon as being faked. also the shadows were telling because they would go in different directions.

i dno't have a problem saying that bart is full of BS. doesn't bother me in the slightest. i still think there's some good questions out there though.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by kcfusion
 


kcfusion....if you actually believe that BS from YouTube, then i fear for you sanity.

There was ONE, and exactly ONE circular porthole on the Command Module, in Apollo....it was the viewport in the Hatch.

Bart Sibrel is a piece of 'poop' who doesn't deserve mention....ANYWHERE!!!!!

He is an idiot.......the YT link is just bogus, and any person with even a wit of science can tell you why it's BS.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


you've still got a gust up wind up your sails huh? lol weed you're something else. you came to this thread, didn't prove anything and now your just go around yelling at people.

seriously i'm really kind abored of this. chad made a good point, i think i made some good points also. i also think there are some good hoax points out there that haven't been answered.

but unless someone else wants to put up with weed i'm out.

later guys.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by kcfusion
 


kcfusion....if you actually believe that BS from YouTube, then i fear for you sanity.

So everything on youtube is BS??? Nothing wrong with my sanity at all. So then what exactly are they doing in the footage????

There was ONE, and exactly ONE circular porthole on the Command Module, in Apollo....it was the viewport in the Hatch.

And........ care to elaborate??

Bart Sibrel is a piece of 'poop' who doesn't deserve mention....ANYWHERE!!!!!

Im not interested in him and dont know enough about him to agree or disagree.

He is an idiot.......the YT link is just bogus, and any person with even a wit of science can tell you why it's BS.

Ok scientifically explain why its BS please. Unfortunately I dont have a wit of science!



Edit to Add

How the hell do I quote just sections at a time?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by kcfusion]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kcfusion

Edit to Add

How the hell do I quote just sections at a time?

[edit on 24-3-2009 by kcfusion]


Close out the quote for the section you want to quoted.

So you would have [ quote] (without spaces) [ /quote] then put quote boxes around the next section, etc.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Cheers Zaphod!


Not
a
one
liner
now.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

GF...so now you're an expert on the regolith and the make up of every portion of the Moon???

Does it really require an expert on the "regolith" to point out the absurdity of seeing Apollo 11 astronaught's boot prints on the ground next to undisturbed dust and soil beneath the rocket engine of a lunar lander? Does this make any sense to you? Do you really believe NASA lost all 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission?


NASA Searching for Moon Landing Tapes
NASA launches official search for more than 13,000 original tapes of Apollo moon missions

WASHINGTON, Aug. 16, 2006
________________________________________________________________________

(AP) Red-faced because the best pictures of its glory days are missing, NASA said Tuesday it was launching an official search for more than 13,000 original tapes of the historic Apollo moon missions.

What's missing are the never-before-broadcast clear original videos -- not the grainy converted pictures the world watched on television more than three decades ago.

The tapes aren't lost, insists the NASA official put in charge of the search. But he doesn't know where they are...

www.cbsnews.com...

No offense Captain Whacker of Weeds, but when did you start believing everything the government says without subjecting their claims to the slightest bit of common sense or critical analysis? Whether it's their equally ridiculous version of 9/11 where falling towers defy the laws of physics or a building collapses without being damaged -- not to mention a half dozen officially identified "hijackers" (name, nationality, date of birth and photo -- including a Saudi Airlines pilot) who are still alive! Don't you at least have any sympathy for a fellow airline pilot? How would you like to be identified as a 9/11 hijacker when you're still alive and know nothing about it?

Then there's water vapor from "persistent contrails" that can magically obliterate a clear blue sky in an hour or two and an Apollo lunar module that looks so flimsy and amateurish that you thought it was a mock-up. It seems there's no amount of absurd propaganda or implausible government lies that you won't accept.

I guess Hitler was right when he said, "The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed."


[edit on 24-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF....not sure why I bother....but I wil try...

The LM was landed six tmes ... under the legs (three of the four legs)n wwer probes to indicate, to the pilots, 'contact'....this meant that the engine would be throttled down for the landing.


SO.....the actual vehicle did NOT 'blast away' from the descent nozzle!!!

Seriously, a little bit of research would help you understand the science!!!!

The Male Cow poop that sprays around the Internet is truly vile....



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


OKAY, GF.....once and for all/////

THIS thread is NOT about 9/11.

It is NOT about Hitler.

It is about one thing only....Bart Sibrel, and his incredibly pathetic attempts at 'debunking' the Apollo Landings.

Mr. Sibrel has been, repeatedly shown to be a charlatan, and a liar.

He has manipulated NASA footage archives, with the wrong 'sound tracks', in order to further his 'sales' of bogus material.

One has only to look at YouTube (and, no...."YT" is still valid, there is good stuff there...) to see.

Lool for posts, on YT, by 'svector'....if you care to learn the truth.

Back to the OP's original point....Bart Sibrel is in it for whatever money he can scam from unsuspecting people....THAT is how he currently makles his living!

The Internet jjust makes it easier for him....and, that is sad.....



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join