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.

 

Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Review these links to get an idea.


en.wikibooks.org...




www.ufoskeptic.org...




posted on May, 3 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Time is irrelevant. Your 'logic' is irrelevant. Time is not constant through out the Universe.

You're right --- humans never set foot on the Moon. They couldn't, they had to wear boots to protect from the vacuum.

-or-

There are no such things as satellites, because the Earth is flat and the entire Universe revolves around us. Up above the atmosphere is a crystal dome. We live in the equivalent of a 'snowglobe'.

The Great Holy Purple Spaghetti Monster, who lives above us in the aether, made it all up. Worship HIM, for HE is your Master.

Bow down NOW!! Lest you receive HIS Holy smite!

Forgive ye, all hope. Deny your existence as a thinking, rational Human Being, for there is no hope, your only reason for being is to please the Great Holy Purple Spaghetti, to perform for HIS infinite amusement.

Remember your places, oh lowly ones!!!!

Ah, how I ache for the simplicity of the Dark Ages, when Heretics were dealt with appropriately!!!







[edit on 5/3/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Sigh. That is really all I can say to you at this point. Math is wonderful and theories are fun but there is no ACTUAL PROOF there. Sorry but it is all conjecture at best and fantasy at worst. give up. Are you trying to prove aliens are here but we did not go to the moon or that we did go to the moon and that is why aliens are here or that we did not go to the moon and aliens are not here but you want to prove they probably are???????? Stop. Let it go.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

After cutting the poor humor out of your post, you said really nothing except: man wore boots when stepping on the moon, and time is irrelevant to the universe.

Now please apply that to a response. BTW I would refrain from trying to be humorous, it is not your strong suit.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Now please apply that to a response. BTW I would refrain from trying to be LOGICAL, it is not your strong suit.


[edit on 3-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


What are you talking about? I don't think you know. Simply put my original post stated:

If one believes man has set foot on the moon, they should then be in belief that Earth has been visited by Adavanced Tech Life.

Now go ahead and give me your "fact based retort" on why that should not be assumed by those believing in the moon mission.

I do not believe we have set foot on the moon. Nor do I believe we have been visited from ET's.

This is not that difficult of a premise for someone to understand. Maybe it is a very bad assumption. Go ahead and show me why then.






[edit on 3-5-2009 by FX44rice]



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


What are you talking about? I don't think you know. Simply put my original post stated:

If one believes man has set foot on the moon, they should then be in belief that Earth has been visited by Adavanced Tech Life.

Now go ahead and give me your "fact based retort" on why that should not be assumed by those believing in the moon mission.

I do not believe we have set foot on the moon. Nor do I believe we have been visited from ET's.

This is not that difficult of a premise for someone to understand. Maybe it is a very bad assumption. Go ahead and show me why then.






[edit on 3-5-2009 by FX44rice]


I believe I have already pointed out that you have repeated yourself just fine but have done nothing to back it up. Now you repeat it again and then tell me I have to back up my point? It doesn't work that way. I am not the one making crazy claims that cannot be backed up by even one fact.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
That was pathetic. Talk about grasping at straws.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rizla
That was pathetic. Talk about grasping at straws.


What exactly are you referring to? As your post follows mine, I can only assume you are talking to me. I believe I am wrong though, am I?



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


FX, then how about a serious question?

You don't 'believe' that Humans have constructed spacecraft enabling six landings of twelve men on the Moon. Nor, by inference, that 15 additional individuals circumnavigated the Moon without landing.

(for clarity, I refer to: Three on Apollo 8, 10 and 13. Twelve landed, Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, whilst one remained on orbit in the CM for each of those missions. Technically, some of the Astronauts were 'repeats'. Lovell, Apollo 8 & 13, no landing. Young, Apollo 10 & 14, one landing. Cernan, Apollo 10 & 17, one landing).


Why?

Furthermore, what would it take to convince you that you may be incorrect?

I'm trying to scrounge up a Clementine orbiter image showing the Apollo 12 landing site, but doubt that'll be convincing enough.

It would be interesting to hear how YOU think that, given the lack of CGI and any other such computer-assisted image manipulation technology in the late 1960s/early 1970s HOW a 'fake' Moon mission -- no, NINE circumnavigated with SIX landings -- how these could have been accomplished using video trickery of some sort, given the state of art in filmography (? Is that a word?) of the era.

This is an honest challenge to you. Because, it seems that where the overall evidence of actual, successful Lunar missions is substantial, your claim to the contrary will require more than just a "belief".

"Hoax" advocates' websites and blogs do not provide convincing evidence - all they offer is another 'belief' based on incorrect assumptions and inaccurate scientific assertions.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Honestly Weed it would take a return trip at this point. With bulletproof evidence to the accomplishment.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to

"Hoax" advocates' websites and blogs do not provide convincing evidence - all they offer is another 'belief' based on incorrect assumptions and inaccurate scientific assertions.


What about well researched actual books written by real scientists? What about NASA's own footage of them faking their distance from earth three days out? I think it is great that people want to dismiss the internet so quickly but there was a world before the internet you know.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
interesting points. I too would love to see us go there again with modern equipment it would be incredible. Back to the OPs pic and analysis. That did not convince me. Needs to be clearer for me. It just wasn't conclusive and if I can't see it then millions like me won't be able to see it either. We need more. Right now, I'm leaning towards that we did land there. There are some interesting arguements that we didn't and i'm open minded enough to look at everything.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


I think both sides are taking their cases to the internet.

Unless each one goes to the Moon like people go to Disneyland
there will be doubters and those that rally in the misfit data.

I know rockets can fly and got my hopes about the Tesla conspiracy
has the UFO but how NASA landed on the Moon seems more
difficult somehow as if we go one put over on us again because
that what the Illuminati do for a living.

These net id names are catchy and one of the net's good
high frequency high voltage experimenters is one of your
henchmen from his id.



posted on May, 3 2009 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

Please stop the insults...

They are unnecessary and against the Terms & Conditions Of Use we all agreed to on joining..

Thank you

Semper


jra

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Remember that 747 they piggy back it on and can launch it in the air from?


They don't launch it from the 747. That's only for transporting it from one location to another. The Enterprise test shuttle was the only one to separate from it and do approach and landing tests. But it can not fly long distances as it has no fuel.


Launch cape Canaveral and land in Africa, stay at the CGI ISS a few weeks then Piggy flys up in the air and we all make believe we just sent men to space.


So you don't even believe the Shuttle really goes to space either? People can see the ISS and Shuttle with there backyard telescopes. ngchunter is one of those people who has photographed it himself. Many people have done this.


I mean for god sakes, every experiment they need "micro gravity" for could be done in a modeling computer at 1/100th the cost.


I don't think so. Computer simulations have limitations. There are too many unknowns about the effects of microgravity on living organisms and on other materials, that a computer model can't show us. Computers only work off the information we give it and we don't have all the information needed to make an accurate computer simulation.


I also had asked about scientists still doing experiments that made something proven or a law. I believe once a Journal has been released it is put on the shelf, therefore "all of the scientists" are operating off of nothing more then passed on notes, not understanding the actual concepts except for on paper.


So you think all scientists are stupid and have no clue or understanding about their profession? ...Right... That's an extremely wild claim. I don't even get how you can make such a claim. Journals are peer reviewed by other Scientists. Scientists are not mindless drones that agree with one another on everything. They all have there opinions and views, just like everyone else and they help to bring about new knowledge and new technologies. Like the computers we're using to have this discussion.


I'm not saying the 400,000 employees aren't real, but I've heard that before without a shred of fact to back it up, but even if, how many employees does the Government employee currently at NASA...


Not all the 400,000 worked for NASA directly. I believe that number includes the people at various aerospace companies like Boeing, Grumman, North American Aviation, Douglas Aircraft Company. As well as companies like Black & Decker, RCA, Westinghouse, ILC, just to name a few. Plus there were about 10,000 students from about 200 different universities all contributing as well.


...and really, how could anyone actually verify that other then someone saying it or a piece of paper saying it.


Employment records maybe? But if you don't accept the information coming from a person or in a document, then I don't know what's left. It sounds like nothing would be acceptable to you.


No real evidence mainly because you are asking people that already don't believe the moon missions happened to believe figures and calculations, number of employees, distances, volumes of pressure, capsule design, Saturn rockets (I want my EMPTY V), rock samples no average person can test


Figures and calculations can be checked, many of those things you listed can be checked and verified if you're willing to spend time researching and studying the subject.


Movies that are so fake that 2001 and starwars look more real and believable, and astronauts making inside jokes they think no one gets while walking around on the "moon".


Have you seen 2001 or Star Wars? They don't look close to believable. Great movies and the special effects were great for there time, but there are things you see in the Apollo videos that can not be done with special effects for that time. Not even today. But you seem to be ignoring that.


And guys you're grown men, don't tell me the movies where the astronauts fall down flat on there face and then miraculously rebound with out even pushing up from the ground that looks.


It may look odd since it requires less effort to push off the ground (plus if it's the video I'm thinking of, he was holding onto the other astronaut and using him for leverage), but then it's on the MOON! I would expect things to be different due to the 1/6th G environment with no atmosphere. A fully loaded Astronaut is going to weigh about 136kg (300lbs) on Earth, that's a little over 22kg (50lbs) on the Moon. That's nothing.


Plus if the moon is held by earths gravity, then why isn't the gravity on the moon the same?...


I'll second what weedwhacker said and suggest you brush up on some basic science.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by jra]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
In the batters box....Barak Hussin Obama. What's barak going to champion? What do you know....Back to the moon, only this time with Killer sets and believable graphics. CG I just like all the other stuff. Sure a shuttle launches, but it comes right back down. Remember that 747 they piggy back it on and can launch it in the air from?

I've seen the shuttle coming in to land with my own eyes - there's no 747 anywhere to be seen, and 747s can't break the sound barrier (let alone safely release a vehicle at mach 1+); the shuttle's distinctive sonic booms are louder to us on the ground than that produced by any other vehicle at that altitude. And as pointed out by myself and JRA, I've also seen the shuttle on orbit with my telescope, please explain that.


Launch cape Canaveral and land in Africa,

How do you land in africa with a north east launch trajectory? North is to the left in this image:
farm4.static.flickr.com...


stay at the CGI ISS a few weeks then Piggy flys up in the air and we all make believe we just sent men to space. I mean for god sakes, every experiment they need "micro gravity" for could be done in a modeling computer at 1/100th the cost.

I'm amazed you can actually believe this. Are you saying I faked my avatar? It isn't CGI. It's quite real. Computer modeling cannot substitute for real experiments, especially things like cell culture in vitro experiments. Even the best computer models need real world verification. I know for a fact the shuttle and ISS really do orbit the earth, in fact I'm planning to get more pics of the latter later this week.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
The probe landed in the area known as Mare Crisium. The mission successfully returned 170 grams of lunar samples to the Earth on 22 August 1976.

Hmm, 170 grams versus 842 pounds... methinks these two are nowhere close to equivalent lol! All the russian unmanned sample returns put together collected about 300 grams of regolith (and that ended well after apollo was done). At an average of 100 grams per mission, it would take 3,814 missions to return the mass equivalent of Apollo's samples, and none would be as large as some of apollo's samples. Robots, even 1970's robots, are no substitute for a human when it comes to collecting rocks.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


If you had bothered to read my post on the subject, you would note that I have been clear that the soviet probe was cited as a proof of concept - and to show that it could be done (weedwacker denied such a thing was done at all).

*The infamous and oft-cited laser reflector could also have been placed by an unmanned probe. I gave an example of a soviet probe that did just this.

This does not mean the Apollo missions were faked, it just shows that certain objectives on that mission could have been accomplished via unmanned probe.


If you are of the opinion that I believe the Apollo missions were hoaxed, please locate a post wherein I specifically state that it was or that I believe it was. I know for a fact you will not find such a quote.

Why do you dedicate so much of your time to suppressing speculation of the sort I engage in?

Are you here to protect the young fragile minds?



Cheers!!!

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



Read my post VERY carefully. I spoke of the first FOUR robotic landers on the Moon. THEN I said NONE of those I mentioned returned Lunar samples. This is still a true statement. Reading is fundamental.

THOSE four occured prior to Apollo 11.



Subsequent Soviet return missions, that whopping few ounces of soil (no rocks...core samples) were obtained AFTER the success of Apollo!


EXUBERANT1, THAT is what I wrote. So what if the Soviets succeeded in collecting 3/4 pound total of Lunar soil sample via robotic equipment AFTER the success of Apollo 11?? I was addressing YOUR contention that the mass of evidence currently on Earth, since late 1969, could have been returned by using robots. That was an incorrect opinion. Further, the Soviet robotic lander slated to arrive with a reflector mounted on it was never proved in service, since it was destroyed at launch. AND, we have the photos of the actual relfector put in place by the humans of Apollo.

[edit on 5/4/0909 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join