It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by ngchunter

Ok, here is the picture you just posted laid one over the other. How are these from different angles?

Here's a little thought experiment...

There are some mountains a few miles from my house. If I take a picture of those mountains from my front door, you would see those mountains in the background and my front yard in the foreground of the photo. If I then went to my next door neighbor's front door and took a picture of those same mountians, you again would see those mountains in the background, but the foreground woud be totally different (my neighbors front yard).

In each picture, those mountains will look exactly the same to a casual viewer and the difference in the angles angle would be practically indistiguishable -- i.e., the background will seem to be unchanged. However, the foreground would be 100% different -- i.e. it would be a picture of my neighbor's yard and not mine.

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 11:30 AM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

serious question

if you honestly believe that the US faked the moon missions, why not go visit the good people at mcdonald observatory in Texas ? They claim they have never gotten a visitor who challenges the apollo missions. They could show you the lunar laser ranging station, and it's significance to this debate

make history !

unless, of course, you are just bored and looking to kill time on the web...

Seriously, no one has ever challenged them? Yes, they could show me a lot of things I'm sure, everything but the moon. Besides, I never said they didn't go to the moon, I'm providing evidence that what is shown the public is a publicity (For public consumption) stunt, and only one mission as that is all I have evidence for.

Does no one understand that the Apollo Missions ran almost the exact same length as Americas involvement in the Vietnam War? Does no one understand what both Eisenhower and JFK warned of? There is more than enough reason to lie to the public...Lots and Lots of money...Not aliens, not superiority in the space race. JFK had other plans like actually going to the moon, not Johnson or Nixon. But, they saw a cover and something that could wash all that money made by bell, and Northrop and Boeing and every other war profiteer as white as the moons surface.

Everyone forget the fact that the navigation computers were not as powerful as a watch computer from the 80's? The Van Allen radiation Belt?

when you say the folks at the mcdonald observatory couldn't show you the moon indicates to me you didn't actually research the facility.

I would encourage you to do so

link to observatory

not a single hoax believer has ever visited them. The reason, of course, is they can provide iron clad proof armstrong was on the moon
and planted the mirrors himself just like in this photo

everyone forgets the apollo astronauts brought back moon rock samples and gave them to many many countries as a good will gesture and not a single nation has ever challenged the origins of the rocks in over 40 years

everyone forgets almost all the computations were done on earth and trasmitted to the apollo craft, so the computers didn't need to be any bigger or faster

everyone forgets there were 400,000 people employed by NASA at the time of the apollo programs, and not 1 has ever come forward to say it was a hoax

everyone forgets the guy the van allen belts are named after is on record as saying the astronauts were not in the belt long enough to suffer any effects of the radiation

everyone forgets there must have been literally dozens of people involved in filming a hoax, and not a single one of them has ever come forward

everyone forgets the russians were listening to the apollo transmissions, and they had to point their equipment at the moon to do so

everyone forgets what they want to

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 12:25 PM
May i add to the stuff people keep forgetting list?

It was done in a time where people were able to use sliderules.

And to the challenge/thought experiment thing:
What mathematical operation can a modern PC do that a Apple II or C64 (or a PDP-1) can not? (yes, you can make a c64 calculate with 64 bit words. you need more than 64 bits to store them, but you can calculate with them)

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by syrinx high priest

syrinx high priest. I thank you for the links you've provided. I would like to visit these places and honestly didn't know of their existence.

I look at it like this. I can ask a priest to show me God. They can't show me God, but they can show me everything in the world relating to him. They can offer me every man on earth who is "connected" to God, be they the Pope, The Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, Yogi Mahrishi, and Muhammads Great Great Great Great Great Grandson. The one thing they can't show me is God and guess what. They NEVER will be able too.

Perhaps I'm not very trusting in the leaders, and for that I am honestly sad. Perhaps I'm not very smart, and for that I am honestly sorry.

When I was a kid, I always wanted to go to Knots Berry Farm but we lived to far away to travel there. I would be in the car going, "come on dad, please" and he would answer me like this, "Let's say we did, but don't".

Why would they need to set up a mirror to measure the distance to the moon? I thought lasers could do that by themselves, being a strait beam of light? Plus, how did they calculate how far it was in the first place?

Couldn't they bring back rocks from Antarctica that would yield "off world" results?

[edit on 25-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

First off, your signature deserves a round of applause..."the flowing robes"...
"On your deathbed you shall receive full consciousness, so you know, I got that going for me"...the best, thanks

I hear what you are saying and do see your point.

I ask you a question or anyone else who believes the moon missions are real.

Why do you believe it? Is it the scientific evidence or is it because, faking it seams unrealistic?

Just out of curiosity..


posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 08:55 PM
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Sheesh! Your Dad was kinda mean....
Knott's Berry Farm was only two hours away from San Diego... (wasn't all that good, anyway...Disney way better:lol

Antarctica?? You go out and try to find 880 lbs of 'off-world' the granules, the dust, all the little bits...OH! AND find something that didn't have the tell-tale signs of heating up during entry through the Earth's atmosphere!

[edit on 4/25/0909 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 25 2009 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Yes...'faking' would seem unrealistic.

Amateur Ham Radiio operators tuned in. Every...and I mean EVERY radio transmission sounds, to my ear, absolutely true. If they were acting from a script it would sound as phony as a four-dollar bill.

Amateur skywatchers...regular people...could track the spacecraft with their telescopes.

I tend to see these Moon 'hoax' thoughts come about from the younger generations.

I was 12 years old on July 20, 1969. I lived it.

Most of this nonsense seems to have gotten started by a bloke named Bart Sibrel. Others, seeing the money to be made from fooling the masses with made-up 'hoax' baloney, jumped on the band-wagon.

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:27 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thank you weedwhacker, That was a strait forward sensible response. I really appreciate that friend. I am 35 and admittedly a junior to the senior crowd here.

I was taught to always respect those of age over you and because of that, I can not just discount what is said to me by other members due to age, for I know and am learning that age brings wisdom.

I learn a lot from you guys even when challenging you, but always in search of answers, please know that. I appreciate "the seniors" input

thanks again weedwhacker

Did you guys like the animation at least? I worked hard on


[edit on 26-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by weedwhacker

I didn't grow up in san diego. I grew up in northern Nevada. I would of gone nuts if I lived in san diego as a kid. My dad is cool he would of taken me in a heart beat if he could of, but we were over 500 miles away.


posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 02:18 AM
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

Your animation was interesting. Reminded of how early 'roughing in ' of digital movies are done.

But, of course...the 'circle' was too small....would have to be at least tens of KM in radius...THEN you'd need an extremely strong single light source...which would be the Sun. BUT, on Earth, the Sun only comes out during the day (last I checked).

Also, you'd have to bring in millions of tons of gray 'dirt'...gee, seems easier to just go to the bloody Moon!!!

Thinking outside the box, good though!

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Redpillblues

Here's a question; why can we get really good pictures of mars, but we still dont have any really crisp images of the moon, or its dark side. Why are the images so bad.

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 12:47 PM
I dont know what pictures you have been looking at but the ones I've seen are top notch quality. Check out nasas official sites for high res pictures.


posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 10:41 PM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I ask you a question or anyone else who believes the moon missions are real.

Why do you believe it? Is it the scientific evidence or is it because, faking it seams unrealistic?

I believe it happened because of the amount of evidence that supports it and because I honestly think faking it would be harder than actually doing it. There were too many things you'd need to overcome in order to fake it, some things movies today still can't do.

If one were to believe in the various conspiracy theories regarding Apollo. It would require you to believe that NASA is both incredibly clever and incompetent at the same time. Being able to fool everyone, even the Russian's. Yet making silly mistakes that even amateur film makers wouldn't do. Like using shiny metal wires instead of matte black ones, which is the norm in movies. Things like that.

There were nearly half a million people who were apart of the Apollo program. Some of the brightest minds from the top Aerospace companies designed and built all the hardware for NASA. Either they all had to be in on it or they were all left in the dark. I find either option completely unrealistic. Had they all been in on it, you would probably have had hundreds of deathbed confessions by now.

And then there's all the evidence and tons of documentation that supports it. Some of the best evidence in my opinion, is the +800lbs of Lunar samples. Which can't be faked on Earth or found in Antarctica. Meteorites found on Earth are different in both appearance and in composition from the samples brought back from the Moon.

I could go on, but this sort of sums up why I believed it happened.

posted on Apr, 26 2009 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by jra

Probably the most iconic movie ever made was "2001: A Space Odyssey".

They (Trumball and Kubrick) did their darnedest to make it as realistic as possible, for its day. Still, for nitpickers, there are many mistakes.

It is due partly to the consequences of shooting on the Earth, in a 1G environment.

Also, their vision of the Lunar landscape was off...more reminescent of the 1950s, with lots of sharp edges.

The exteriors of the spaceship models, out near the orbit of Jupiter, show a lot of light, even though the Sun is 5 to 5.5 AU away....that means Jupiter is about 4 to 4.5 times farther from the Sun than Earth. Light will be dimmer. Of course, the models were highly detailed, and filmed with loving care....

No....the sheer numbers of stills and videos and the Lunar soil and rock samples....the hardware, the telemetry, the audio WOULD have been far harder to fake all of that.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:34 AM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by ngchunter

I guess I'm confused because first of all, they are not the same image as seen from two different vantage points to render a "parallax".

Yes, it is, as clearly seen above.

They have two different light patterns, are shot at two different times of two different scenes.

So now it's "two different scenes"? You just said it was the same scene. The lighting is the same in both.

Wouldn't you want to use a marker to get a true parallax?

The mountains show true parallax.

Also, the depth of field is messed with in the left picture to distort it.

No, as stated before your own conspiracy sites ruined the pictures and that resulted in a blurred left image. The other copy I showed was taken from the original source material and is not distorted.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 08:37 AM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Everyone forget the fact that the navigation computers were not as powerful as a watch computer from the 80's?

I've run the actual apollo guidance software using an emulation of the actual hardware, it's powerful enough, it works.

The Van Allen radiation Belt?

2,500 rems per year or 7 rems per day, they spent less than a day transversing it, far from fatal.

[edit on 27-4-2009 by ngchunter]

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 09:23 PM
reply to post by weedwhacker

Thanks Weed. I see it differently, only because of the money.

I in vision that Ike and Kennedy alike, really wanted to put an end to what they saw becoming a problem..."The military industrial complex".

I believe that Kennedy was a threat to this plan, even though his idea would of employed the same contractors, it would not of been the way we see it now as Kennedy saw this as something that could bring the world together, that is the space frontier.

I believe his and all of the baby boom generation only wanted to carry on in the same pioneering spirit and most of all in peace.

For the past 5000 years known to man there has not been such an endevor that could bring all peoples together to strive for a goal other then killing one another to profit of those sending them to die.

I believe Kennedy really did want the moon, but I believe Johnson had other plans and interests well rooted in the old system and wasn't about to give up his fortune and fame.

That dream died with Kennedy. Maybe it might of been much easier to just go, but it would of been a lot cheaper to fake it. Some black backdrops, sheet metal space ships, wires and grey dirt is the cost of making a b rate movie.

Same effect under military cover, which it is anyway, only profits that could never be seen if they actually had to go.

My take, Peace


posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Maybe it might of been much easier to just go, but it would of been a lot cheaper to fake it. Some black backdrops, sheet metal space ships, wires and grey dirt is the cost of making a b rate movie.

The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" which was released in 1968, the same year in which Apollo 7 and 8 flew. The special effects were state of the art at that time. The film had a budget of $10,500,000. That's no B movie budget. And as good as that movie is, it still doesn't come close to looking as real or totally believable. There are certain things that are impossible to overcome when filming on Earth, like 1G gravity and an atmospheric environment.

For example, when the Moon Shuttle lands at Clavius base in 2001. The thrusters blow dust off the landing pad. You can see that the dust billows up and remains suspended in the air like a cloud and slowly falls to the ground. But in reality on the Moon. The dust would fall back to the ground much quicker due to a lack of an atmosphere, (I know technically the Moon has an atmosphere, but it's extremely thin and not worth noting). If you watch any footage of the LM landing you can see the dust blowing out from under it. You can see that it doesn't act like it's in an atmospheric environment and doesn't remain suspended in the air like it would, if it were being filmed on Earth. The Apollo astronauts feet were always kicking up dust when ever they were walking around. Again you see the dust falling back to the ground right away. Unlike on Earth, when you kick up dry powdery dirt, you get a little cloud of dust hovering around your feet.

You'd also need a huge warehouse that's several KM in size for Apollo's 15 - 17 since they drove around in the Rover. There is no warehouse that big to my knowledge, let alone one that is a vacuum chamber. And then there's the issue with gravity. Cable rigs like they use in movies wouldn't work for Apollo since I believe they would limit your range of movement (like being able to only move forward and backward). Which is fine for movies, since they work on a shot by shot basis. But the Apollo astronauts were moving all over the place with several hours of uncut, live footage. Plus how would you edit out the cables and all the rigs and all related equipment the from live footage anyway? Plus the video camera did 360 degree pans (as did the astronauts with the still camera). And no film crew or support system for cables is ever seen.

So I must strongly disagree that some cheap B movie could pull off making a convincing hoax. Especially when Stanley Kubrick couldn't over come certain issues that were beyond his control. No amount of money would solve these problems. Unless of course that money is used to send people to the Moon to film there instead.

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:43 PM
Here is another one for you.

Explain why it is, that in the third view of our "time lapsed" view of the fly around of the ISS that at the very top of the frame you can see the ISS shadow on the water hundreds of miles below. It is so big, the shadow, that it looks as if a plane is flying over.

You can see the shadow of the ISS in the beginning of the third view as that view is cycled.

(click to open player in new window)

How can this shadow be this large?

posted on Apr, 27 2009 @ 11:52 PM
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

I'm sorry, reader. I don't know what you think you saw.

Me? I saw no shadow.

I've often seen my own shadow of the airplane I'm in...but, that's only from about 5 or 6 miles up. It is not clearly defined, it is diffused...even the contrail will make a shadow.

But, the ISS, at about 200 miles altitude...well, won't see an appreciable shadow.

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in