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.

 

NASA to Take Photos of the Lunar Landing Sites to End Conspiracy Theories

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
It's really obvious that a good majority of the photo and video record of Apollo is fake. That doesn't mean we didn't get there by some other means or are ready to get there now by some other means. Photos won't mean anything. It does indicate that, for some reason, NASA has reached a critical mass on the complaint meter and is ready to fabricate evidence instead of just superfluous denial.




posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Alaskan Man
i don't doubt we went to the moon,

I think we went there for sure, NASA just lied about 90% of what they found.

So proving we went there will do nothing for me.




I wish i could zoom off to the moon with a digital camera, i think that's about the only way i will be truly happy with the evidence provided.

Ditto fasho.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
here is the Coast to Coast A.M. Show with Richard Hoagland as the Guest



Hoagland contends that NASA started the Moon Hoax theory themselves to confuse people so they would not be asking the real questions such as, what did they really find on the Moon.

imo, it's a very interesting discussion

here is part one




follow the rest here...

www.youtube.com...


part 5, Hoagland mentions the LRO photographing the Apollo landing sites.

















This is an infrared image of the Moon, taken by one of the two "mid-IR" LCROSS cameras during the initial swing-by. This is exactly as this IR image initially appeared on the official NASA LCROSS website, in the early hours of June 23rd.

Study it carefully--

For it contains essential clues to, not only a tumultuous "inside NASA" revolt apparently now on-going within the LCROSS mission itself ... but, extraordinary visual evidence confirming the existence of our Enterprise model of "a set of ancient lunar domes" ....

Behold, our "smoking gun."


www.enterprisemission.com...









[edit on 9-7-2009 by easynow]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
[edit on 9-7-2009 by son of total newbie]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
What I don't understand is that it takes 3 days to get to the moon with 1950-60's rockets and technologies? As evident by the Ranger rocket program. They are dragging this out to fit some sort of timeline I'm afraid. They could have put this to rest many many years ago.

What they need to be doing is sending some rovers up there with some cameras to get some pictures of the Apollo landing sites. To retrieve some pieces of the landers and survey the damage done by cosmic exposure over the last 40 years so they can build better spacecrafts.

The Nixon pardon was what made me wonder about Apollo. In the audio of the pardon, Ford clearly says July 20.1969. The day man set foot on the moon. Yes, the transcript says otherwise. Was this a political move?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:05 AM
link   
All I know is I hope they are going to use better cameras for this because history with NASA has been their pictures appear to be taken with the worst possible camera shots ever taken.

[edit on 7/9/2009 by CaptGizmo]



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Atlantican
I've seen the surface of mars and the face open up to reveal an escape pod. It was more real, to me in some ways, than many things NASA has shown me so far. It was in the movie "Mission to Mars". A production that had a lower budget than many satellite launches.

Nasa has a problem with authenticity.

[edit on 9-7-2009 by Atlantican]


Yeah, but Nasa aren't alone in that respect. Take the auto industry for example: Their cars explode hardly ever and if they do they dont produce such a nice fireball.
How should i believe in cars if they don't explode like in the movies?

Anyway:
Earth-Moon still takes around 3 days. LCROSS Is up there, but they won't crash it until the end of the mission. Nasa was thinking about crashing first, and then doing the orbiting and photographing stuff, but they ultimately decided the other way round would be better


Rovers on the Moon: We did that: lunokhod 1+2. We even put some highly sophisticated biotech rovers on the moon, and even brought them back again (apollo 11-17 with the exception of 13)
It's actually planned to do the rover thing again, same model as in the 70ies actually.
But this time we want to have them up there for a longer time. because doing the same thing twice is kinda boring.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:16 AM
link   
It would be easier to just go up there with a video, film around a bit, then prove its real by opening a bottle of water and pouring it out in front of the camera. How are you going to fake slow falling water?



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
The conspiracy will never die.

When NASA takes photos of the sites, the photos will be declared fakes and there will be lots of pseudo-scientific analysis to "prove" that the new photos are also fake.

This will not die.


100% correct...

even the article states that people will be chatting PHOTOSHOP, PHOTOSHOP



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by TamtammyMacx
 


Tamtammy,


What they need to be doing is sending some rovers up there with some cameras to get some pictures of the Apollo landing sites. To retrieve some pieces of the landers and survey the damage done by cosmic exposure over the last 40 years so they can build better spacecrafts.


OK....you provide the funding, and I'm sure there is/are some individual or organization that would be happy to cater to that wish.

FWIW, Apollo 12 landed near a previous NASA unmanned lander,


Conrad and Bean removed pieces of the Surveyor 3, to be taken back to Earth for analysis.

en.wikipedia.org...

Surveyor 3 was landed April 20, 1967.

The analysis of the exposure to radiation on the Lunar surface for the more than two years can easily be used to determine the effects of longer term exposure on future spacecraft (that's already both singular and plural) design. It's known as 'extrapolation'.

I'm afraid you may, judging by your remarks, have simply fallen victim to just another one of the false "claims" that are made up by Moon landing 'Hoax' theorist's websites and publications. The ignorance demonstrated and outright lying that goes on by those people is simply astonishing.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I still won't believe them. they edit all their pics anyway.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Sadly until someone not american photographs or visits the site i doubt the stupid conspiracy will ever end!
To be honest, the fact they are even planning to prrove the conspiracists theory wrong should be enough proof that they never lied about going to the moon!

I am sure in my heart that man went to the moon



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by danzi
Sadly until someone not american photographs or visits the site i doubt the stupid conspiracy will ever end!
To be honest, the fact they are even planning to prrove the conspiracists theory wrong should be enough proof that they never lied about going to the moon!

I am sure in my heart that man went to the moon

You indirectly alluded to one of the biggest proofs of all that it wasn't a hoax. America's biggest cold war enemy at that time, the USSR, was monitoring the mission. Does anyone think the USSR would have let the USA get away with such a lie? The British monitored the mission too but conspiracy theorists might claim the Brits were in the USA's back pocket, but I don't see how they could think the USSR would allow the USA to get away with lying about it.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
reply to post by easynow
Mine is better quality


Look! Three lights (I mean UFOs) on the moon! And they're all moving in unison, looks like they are connected by some metal beam!

And here I thought the stories about alien craft warning us off were made up, I finally get to see what they look like!


Those aliens walking around up there look kind of humanoid though, I thought they might look different.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 



America's biggest cold war enemy at that time, the USSR, was monitoring the mission.


There's talk floating about (saw it somewhere on some website called 'ATS') about a possible desperate attempt to upstage Apollo 11 by the USSR, with an unmanned land-and-return-a-Lunar-sample in July, 1969.

It failed.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


LOL, the 'fake Moon landing people' will say it is CGI. LOL, the argument will be NASA has had enough time to perfect 'debunking proof CGI'. No really I think this is GREAT, put a rest to this RIDICULOUS theory once and for all.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Demonis
It would be easier to just go up there with a video, film around a bit, then prove its real by opening a bottle of water and pouring it out in front of the camera. How are you going to fake slow falling water?


Adjust film speed



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by danzi
To be honest, the fact they are even planning to prrove the conspiracists theory wrong should be enough proof that they never lied about going to the moon!


Since NASA did not make that statement it proves nothing... use brain instead of heart.



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Well I guess me and you will just need to go to the Moon and have a live feed to ATS to disprove it right?LOL....



posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArbitrageurDoes anyone think the USSR would have let the USA get away with such a lie?


I do
The 'cold war' was a lie. But both sides used it to 'arm up'

Russia and US always had an agreement... they were more like rivals than enemies. Even von Braun told us that

Read...
Two Sides of the Moon: Our Story of the Cold War Space Race: David Scott, Alexei Leonov

A cosmonaut and an astronaut tell it like it was


In a book...
Book Titled "High Frontier"
Subtitle "There is a defense against Nuclear War"

by General Daniel O.Graham
Former Deputy Director of the CIA

Newt Gingrich says...

" . . . He who Controls Space may well control the future of Mankind. We have a chance, through High Frontier, using existing technology to develop a space program that is absolutely necessary to our survival and that will give us a chance to move past the Russians to assure our own nation and freedom a future on this planet"

This was written 1983 during Regan's Star Wars program (BTW Clementine was also a star wars mission
)

There is more but you get the picture ;cool:



[edit on 9-7-2009 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join