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.

 

Did We Land on the Moon?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   
I'd like to start an argument on whether we landed on the moon on July 20th, 1969. I suppose that at this point I should share my beliefs and my story on what affected my beliefs on the matter (this is my first thread, please forgive me for any mistakes).

I BELIEVE that we did land on the moon on that day. After watching a conspiracy video in my Earth/Space Science Class, almost everyone had decided that, through the evidence of the conspiracy theorists, the landing was a fake video created by NASA in order to make the Soviets believe that we beat them to the moon. They said, "The belief at that point in the Cold War was that if you reach the moon, you have more advanced technology, and you essentially win the war through intimidation." Some of the points that they used were things like the untimely deaths of the original crew, the fact that the flag moved while they adjusted it (what a huge surprise), and that if you sped up videos of the astronauts 2x it looked as though they were walking like normal people.

Here are THE REASONS that those things happened: The deaths of the original crew were due to the amount of oxygen on the training shuttle. There was basically pure oxygen on the training shuttle (in order to properly simulate the environment of the actual shuttle), which is extremely flammable. There was an unexplained spark in the shuttle, which resulted in an outrageously disagreeable fire.

The flag only moved while they were twisting it into the rock-hard lunar surface. Other than that, it stayed still. The argument should have stayed there.

The speed of the walking of the astronauts was the only things brought up about the gravity on the moon. They claimed that there were no videos of them jumping straight up and down, and sure enough, there are, and they jumped approximately 6x higher than they normally would.

Anyway, those are my beliefs, and I would like it very much if anyone reading this with an opinion on the matter would please reply. Thank you.




posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I can't really provide you with an argument, friend. But, I have a friend who worked for NASA for a couple of years as an intern. He told me about these mirrors they have up there to measure the distance the moon recedes from the Earth every years because of gravity and the orbit. My question has always been - how did those mirrors get up there? Magic? Yeah.....

Star and Flag for you - but - I'm sure there are other threads here on ATS already covering this exact issue. You should go take a look.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Yes we did go.

We were told not to come back, we didn't.

As for the above poster, IF they had not gone they still could have easily placed those mirrors on the Moon with rovers and such.

The flag thing is not that it moved, it's that it was waving in the wind, and as we all know, there is no wind on the moon.

There are also various other reasons it seems quite impossible we went. Van Halen Radiation Belt, Multiple light sources in photos and obviously doctored photos of the landing and the trip. I think there were a mass ammount of doctored footage, but probably because they figured it would be easier to show that stuff instead of having the data transmitted and what not.

I am pretty sure we did go, I mean truly the biggest piece of evidence for us NOT having gone to the moon is why haven't we returned? It's been almost 50 years since we placed men on the moon, you would think they would have a starbase built out of that thing by now.


~Keeper

[edit on 3/29/2009 by tothetenthpower]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I think usa did goto the moon earler than the day of apollo 11, with more advanced technology. this is why they hide it all, and they know they would never really got to the moon with the tech they showed the world.

They used hidden tech, that is secret.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Im happy to sit on the fence here somewhat, the moon sits outside the kyperbet "big thing protects earth from deadly sun raidiation" - and in them days they didnt have the shielding to get past it "some say" then we have the pictures!! i find this interesting when i watch movies of little things "shadows and objects" wizzing about over the moon...

also we have the alien base thing like the another poster said, if indeed the little fellas are up there then why are the usa going back will china one day make manned mission to the moon? or india? or another country!...

Then! I find it somewhat amusing that we have n ever sent a rover to the moon? I mean its the closest body to the earth yet we have never sent one up just to check stuff out "just for the hell of science ect"..

So im in 2 minds, one side of me thinks we did land and the little dudes said sorry mates this place aint for sale find ur own moonbase
and dont be coming back!

Or

we didnt and well.. add any theory you wish to add to that i guess as many have.

so for me "i dunno" very interesting tho :



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
We did land on the moon.

although it seems an impossible feat.

I grew up from a child with the moon landings always in history, people born after it will take it for granted, it dosent seem as great as someone who lived to see it happen.

the only time I can apreciate it is on a crisp clear night when I look up at that tiny ball of light and think... we sent men there.....

thats when it hits me!

[edit on 29-3-2009 by TrentReznor]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Yes, there will be many people who flatly state that we went to the moon. And perhaps we did. Just not when they said. This always ends up being an emotional debate -- almost like a religious belief -- rather than an impartial examination of the hundreds of anomalies in the Apollo lunar missions.

People believe because they want to believe, otherwise it's too much deception to deal with. Also, the consensus reality is that it really happened and it sounds crazy to suggest otherwise. But just like the government's version of 9/11, when you weigh all the questions and contradictory evidence without bias or preconceived notions, it seems unlikely at best.

For example:


Why is there undisturbed soil and pebbles beneath the LEM's rocket engine?

Why are there no lunar rover tracks when there are boot prints all around it?

What about the hundreds of photo anomalies that show artificial lighting, fake backgrounds and fake boulders? There are other photos of position crosshairs behind the images and even a rock with a carved "C" on it (claimed to be a stray piece of hair on the negative.)

And this video:


Why does this official NASA video that was purportedly accidentally released show Apollo 11 astronots faking TV footage of the earth? Some claim it's just "test footage", but test footage of what? How to fake shots of the earth?

And how did NASA manage to "lose" 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission? This was supposedly mankind's greatest achievement, but NASA somehow "lost" EVERY original tape that just happens to be of a much higher quality than what was seen on TV? C'mon.


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.

The original video, taken directly from the moon and beamed to deep space network observatories in Australia, has never been seen by the general public or even NASA officials.

The entire world watched fuzzy, ghostlike images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. But only a handful of technicians saw the good stuff live, sharp enough to see Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's faceplate, said Stan Lebar, the retired Apollo television camera manager.

"The quality ... is two, three or four times better than we ever saw," said Richard Nafzger, a senior engineer at Goddard who on Tuesday was put in charge of the search effort.

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




[edit on 30-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
They did NOT land on the moon when they say they did.

They have been there way before then, and still are.

Lunar Orbiter photos are legit - some were altered, airbrushed, and blurred deliberately to conceal the ruins/artifacts/bases (old and new) that could be seen in these photos from 1966.

And just about everything "NASA" ever since has been BS.

Apollo photos of the mind controlled astronauts were fake. Hoagland thinks these were real - I dispute this. I think what Hoagy picked up were the studio lights and rigging in his analysis. He does use some LO pics to talk about what he found - that is different.

All the NASA live TV footage we are privileged to see due to the keen people that recorded the shuttle missions ect - I think most of these are real UFO's seen. NASA caught with thier pants down I'd say. Notice we don't see your tax paying dollars at work via live feeds anymore?

India , Japan and China should all be ashamed of themselves for falling into the NASA spin of hear no see no speak no ETs or UFOs.

That's my wrap, and buy OLD NASA publications that may have LO photos that you can check out for yourselves.


wZn



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This subjects been hashed about a lot lately.
Did you go? I think yes.
Did Apollo go? I'm sure not.
Was there massive fakery by NASA? Absolutely.
Was this to fool the Soviets? No. The cold war was a fake. At lower levels people thought the space race and cold war where real. But the higher ups new it was all part of a boondoggle. The purpose was to get a space program up and running that funneled lots of money into black projects.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetFox
There was an unexplained spark in the shuttle, which resulted in an outrageously disagreeable fire.

According to Gus Grissom's family, the spark that caused an "outrageously disagreeable fire" was not unexplained. They insist he was murdered:


Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

02-04-2000

from TPDL 1999-Feb-11,
from NewsMax,
by Christopher Ruddy:

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the February 16 edition of STAR magazine.

In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family's long held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The January 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that enveloped the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father's death was no accident, he was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told STAR.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules' electrical power source from an outside source to the ship's batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When the one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship's batteries, a spark was created igniting a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald alleges that he determined an electrical short caused by the change over to battery power had caused the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth but I didn't want to hurt NASA's image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can't let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom's widow, Betty, now 71, told STAR she agrees with her son's claim that her husband had been murdered.

"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon."


www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...



[edit on 29-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by StreetFox

Welcome aboard, there are many, many great moon threads. check out the search function. I have some personal favorites but I'll let you explore. It's hard for me to find a firm belief with moon questions, which is why they're so interesting for me. There are plausible theories froom many angles but here's some of my thoughts

The NASA moon landing videos are crap! No way. I reserve that we may have been to the moon but NOT Just in time to beat the USSR. Then the question begs why did we never go back? the answer is usually that there is no good reason and it's so expensive. When Bush announced that we were going (back?) to the moon by what was it 2020? NASA told us they would have to design and build rockets to take us there. HUH? What's wrong with the saturn 5 technology that worked in '69 and has surely been improved 40 years later.

The Van Allen radiation belts + 1960's technology = Doubt it.

The Photos... (search C ROCK Light Angles etc.)

So really No, I don't believe the official NASA story pretty much in any way, BUT There are many other interesting things surrounding the moon, such as we MAY have been poking around up there with secret technology, and I think at this point we are being fed a mixture of truth and lies. remember they can never admit the original lie so they put out this big sticky web that we must sift through. I believe this is by design to keep us off balance.

There are deeper questions surrounding just what is the moon? There is evidence it is hollow.
Was it intentionaly put there? If so why? Ancient writings speak of the time before there was a moon. some say it was towed there by aliens.

I feel like I'm going over some pretty basic theories. It's only because your a new member and you mentioned your class, which I assumed was high school. Let me know if I'm way off. I would love to have a good moon discussion.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
If you had asked me that question 10 years ago I would have said yes and argued the point till hell froze over. But now I simply do not know the answer to that question. I want to believe that we did so much but the truth is I just do not know. It would hurt to find out that we did not. I have a feeling the answer will make itself know in the next few years. Why to I think this? I do not know that either. Just a feeling.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Right, that's what I mean. It isn't so easy as simply Did we go or not? I mean for some reason with this one topic I just cannot grasp a definate answer.

It is a little unnerving. Even now as I think there is credible reports of all sorts of UFO encounters and mysterious things seen by the astronauts while on the moon. I believe these and at the same time I believe all I said above. Everything contradicts and I can't tie it together. Mabey I've been brainwashed.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleeceWhy is there undisturbed soil and pebbles beneath the LEM's rocket engine?

The dirt left grooves in the rock below the LEM as it was blown away:
history.nasa.gov...
It shouldn't be expected to leave a crater any more than an F-35 does, and it should disturb the ground even less in the moon's 1/6th gravity.


Why are there no lunar rover tracks when there are boot prints all around it?

Because they picked up the rover and repositioned it.


What about the hundreds of photo anomalies that show artificial lighting, fake backgrounds and fake boulders?

Uneven terrain, stereo image proves it's not fake,
i14.photobucket.com...
and...


There are other photos of position crosshairs behind the images and even a rock with a carved "C" on it (claimed to be a stray piece of hair on the negative.)

First, the C on the rock does not appear in high resolution scans. The hair was on the low resolution LPI scan, not the high resolution ALSJ scanner. And I see you're still peddling the crosshairs lie. Funny, when you look at a low resolution copy online the crosshairs disappear in front of bright white objects, but if you bothered to look at the full resolution version they reappear:
history.nasa.gov...
Note the missing fiducial line on one of the white flag stripes
It's completely missing here:
www.lpi.usra.edu...
But in high res? It's back:
history.nasa.gov...



Why does this official NASA video that was purportedly accidentally released show Apollo 11 astronots faking TV footage of the earth? Some claim it's just "test footage", but test footage of what? How to fake shots of the earth?

What, are they supposed to not train for anything involving a visible earth, just because you say so?


This was supposedly mankind's greatest achievement, but NASA somehow "lost" EVERY original tape that just happens to be of a much higher quality than what was seen on TV? C'mon.

You never stop lying. The only mission that higher quality pre-conversion footage on those tapes was apollo 11. No other mission used that slow scan camera on EVA.
en.wikipedia.org...
Please stop passing disinformation.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Why is there undisturbed soil and pebbles beneath the LEM's rocket engine?


Since there isn't a substantial amount of air to puch around, none of the solid rock or lunar dust moved.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

The Van Allen radiation belts + 1960's technology = Doubt it.
The Photos... (search C ROCK Light Angles etc.)


Radiation is only substantially deadly if you are exposed to it for prolonged amounts of time. They were only in the VAB for about 8 seconds. And no matter how hard I try, I can't explain those photos with completely similar backgrounds yet different objects in the foreground.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetFox
And no matter how hard I try, I can't explain those photos with completely similar backgrounds yet different objects in the foreground.

Are you any good at "magic eye" puzzles? This is similar (but I find it easier):
i14.photobucket.com...
Cross your eyes until the images overlap. What do you see in the mountains? You should see their 3d shapes. The foregrounds are different because the astronauts traveled a good distance between pictures, inadvertently creating a 3d stereo pair of images. If apollo had been shot on a soundstage or had any kind of superimposed background, the mountains should appear to be perfectly flat when comparing images like this.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   
What difference does it make if we landed on the moon, or not?

What did, if we did, make a differnce to us?

How has it been of a benefit, if we did, after the money spent?

Who cares, really, if we did or not, given the amount of money spent.

It could have been put to better used, here on earth!

I could care less to find out if the moonn is made up of green cheese.

People matter, animals matter!

edit for typo

THE MOON IS THE LEAST OF OUR WORRIES, AND THE MONEY WE SPEND ON IT!

[edit on 31-3-2009 by Blanca Rose]



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose
How has it been of a benefit, if we did, after the money spent?

Nuclear technicians, firefighters, soldiers, anyone on kidney dialysis, anyone wearing athletic shoes, anyone using community water resources requiring filtration, anyone using oil from the alaskan pipeline, just to name a few, are the ones who have all benefitted (indeed, in some cases lives depend on it) from Apollo's accomplishment.
www.sti.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   
If I may say so, allow me to express myself when I say that I agree with anyone that says that were ARE CURRENTLY on the moon. I know that the people there are only Greys and humans (of some birth in space), but I also know that there are VIDEOS of the rover exploring ruins, but the only video I found is considered a hoax by every person who watched it.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join