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.

 

Moon Conspiracy - New Evidence

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


I don't get it

I just don't understand the moon landing conspiracy theories. Most, if not all, have been thoroughly and rigorously debunked time and time again. What possible reason would they have for faking it? They built the rockets right, the Saturn V, they spent how much on that to shoot it into space EMPTY? How many hundreds of people worked on those rockets, in the control rooms, how many witnesses watched the rocket take off? They don't launch something that expensive and then turn around and fake the footage and photos, its entirely illogical.

Plus, what was the main reason we went to the moon? To beat the Russians there right, to get up there and plant our flag before they could, if the moon landing was faked don't you think every citizen in Russia would have come out in 1969 claiming it was fake? If the footage was fake and the claims the moon hoax believers held any water at all the Russians would have come out soon after the moon landing and called NASA's bluff...?




posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Howe can this moon landing be debunked by us. The way i see it its more a challenge on who's source is telling the best story.Its like who's story do you want to support. Pic your source. You sure have picked your side and your source. Now your arguing on behalf of your source compared to the source OP has given. Is that debunking or supporting?

How do you know that your source is telling you the 100% truth?



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I don't get it

I just don't understand the moon landing conspiracy theories. Most, if not all, have been thoroughly and rigorously debunked time and time again. What possible reason would they have for faking it?


Really? You don't think the Cold War was more than enough reason to fake it? How different would this world have been had Russia been the first to land on the moon do you think? It would be enough to be considered a motive in a murder case.

Also there is proof floating around on the internet of a de-classified FOI document showing that the Kennedy administration had considered staging September 11 type attacks on it's own citizens in the 1960s to whuip up public ferver so that they could attack Cuba. If they would consider going to that length to lie to their own citizens... I think faking some moon landing pictures and video is small fry.


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
They built the rockets right, the Saturn V, they spent how much on that to shoot it into space EMPTY? How many hundreds of people worked on those rockets, in the control rooms, how many witnesses watched the rocket take off? They don't launch something that expensive and then turn around and fake the footage and photos, its entirely illogical.


That's a flawed argument that I hear all of the time. Just because a few hundred people put some bolts on the Saturn Rocket or the LEM... would not mean they would know of fake footage. Even the people in the control room would not know....as far as they were concerned they built a rocket and it took off into space. That is ALL we know is fact. Nobody knows what happened once it went up there.... even those in the control room are only looking at screens of data from a computer.... they don't know whether that computer is giving real data from the module.


Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
Plus, what was the main reason we went to the moon? To beat the Russians there right, to get up there and plant our flag before they could, if the moon landing was faked don't you think every citizen in Russia would have come out in 1969 claiming it was fake? If the footage was fake and the claims the moon hoax believers held any water at all the Russians would have come out soon after the moon landing and called NASA's bluff...?


The moon landing conspiracies were not necessarily around back in the late 60s. The internet was certainly not around.... computers in every house that allowed people to study the footage closely definately weren't around. I have seen several russian cosmonauts talking about how they thought it was impossible to get to the moon and basically had given up trying... and were very surprised that the USA were successful.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Here's a follow-up for you.

If the Cold War provided sufficient incentive for NASA and the U.S. Government to fake the manned Moon landings, didn't it also provide sufficient incentive for the Soviet Union to blow the whistle on the con job? The Soviets were more than capable of tracking the lunar missions by a combination of radar and radio direction-finding. For that matter, a slightly above-average ham radio operator could get a fair track on the missions using civilian equipment (one of the older men in my church did exactly that, in fact). So...if the landings were all faked, why didn't the Soviets expose the trickery to the world? Why didn't the Australians at Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex spill the proverbial beans?

I guess I'm just far too gullible...I have a hard time accepting a conspiracy that requires the active participation (and total maintenance of secrecy) from several hundred thousand engineers and scientists in all 50 states, AND several foreign countries, some of which were not in any way allied to or under the thumb of the United States.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
Here's a follow-up for you.

If the Cold War provided sufficient incentive for NASA and the U.S. Government to fake the manned Moon landings, didn't it also provide sufficient incentive for the Soviet Union to blow the whistle on the con job? The Soviets were more than capable of tracking the lunar missions by a combination of radar and radio direction-finding. For that matter, a slightly above-average ham radio operator could get a fair track on the missions using civilian equipment (one of the older men in my church did exactly that, in fact). So...if the landings were all faked, why didn't the Soviets expose the trickery to the world? Why didn't the Australians at Canberra Deep Space Communications Complex spill the proverbial beans?


The funny thing is we can track a rocket all the way to the moon but can't track the 100,000s of UFO's out there.... I find that a little hard to believe..... unless the russians are all lying to us about that as well.

Anyway what if they did get to the moon? My issue is that the photos and videos we were shown were faked...... they may well have flown to the moon but now wanted to show us what was there so faked the footage.

The main issue I have is with the footage being faked.


Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
I guess I'm just far too gullible...I have a hard time accepting a conspiracy that requires the active participation (and total maintenance of secrecy) from several hundred thousand engineers and scientists in all 50 states, AND several foreign countries, some of which were not in any way allied to or under the thumb of the United States.


As I've stated before you do not need 100,000s of people to be involved for the hoax to come off..... you only need a very few people in control of some video footage. The engineers have no way of knowing whether the capsule they worked on is currently sitting on the moon of floating out in space.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Total Package]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 



Now do you know exactly how much higher the astronaut on the right would have to be to cast a shadow that much longer. Could you please let me know.


Your sneering use of condescension is noted.

NOW...why don't you go do the experiment for yourself? Get two friends, a camera, and a nice sunny day at the beach, or anywhere with a rough and uneven surface, and take pictures, preferably early morining, or late afternoon, to get nice long shadows. Take copious notes, and measurements. PROVE to us, by re-creating that Apollo 11 photo that is continually being sported, and show everyone how to "fake" it.

Or, if you stopped being so disengenuous for a while, and looked at ALL of the multitude of images, and videos and listened or read the transmissions from the missions, and put it all together as one whole, rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces to "prove" fakery, perhaps you'd be able to learn a little more about what actually went into an endeavour such as this....



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


I do believe that we went to the moon, but you can't call those pictures proof. They are of such poor quality and could basically be anything.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 


No the Cold War was not enough reason to fake the moon landing mainly because going to the moon did NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help us win the cold war. If landing on the moon had done anything to help us "win" it would have ended a few years after we landed there, instead it went on until the early 90s. Had the Russians managed to land on the moon first very little about the world would be different, except that history books would say that Cosmonauts were the first ones there instead of us...

I think it would have taken a few thousand people to build the Saturn V rocket, not to mention those ROCKET SCIENTISTS that worked on the project and you think they're dumb enough to get fooled into buying fake footage filmed in Burbank by Kubrick and some government cronies? They built the equipment to go to the moon, why spend all that money to go to the moon and then fake the footage and not even try to actually get there? Its illogical...

Had the Russians or the American people or any number of scientists worldwide watched the footage and had any inkling it was fake when it was broadcast the conspiracy theories would have started immediately. The very fact that it took the internet to begin to popularize these questions and theories is suspect in and of itself because of the low quality video and faulty data present all over the web...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Total Package
 



Now do you know exactly how much higher the astronaut on the right would have to be to cast a shadow that much longer. Could you please let me know.


Your sneering use of condescension is noted.

NOW...why don't you go do the experiment for yourself? Get two friends, a camera, and a nice sunny day at the beach, or anywhere with a rough and uneven surface, and take pictures, preferably early morining, or late afternoon, to get nice long shadows. Take copious notes, and measurements. PROVE to us, by re-creating that Apollo 11 photo that is continually being sported, and show everyone how to "fake" it.


Well you are the one making the claim that those shadows are as a result of hilly terrain... why don't you prove it? Prove they chucked the flag on the side of a hill. Just for you though I will do it... but I will do it the "Mythbusters" way... because apparantly they could prove the shadows intersecting was debunked... by doing it with a spotlight in a studio... I'll do the same and show you the results.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
Or, if you stopped being so disengenuous for a while, and looked at ALL of the multitude of images, and videos and listened or read the transmissions from the missions, and put it all together as one whole, rather than cherry-picking bits and pieces to "prove" fakery, perhaps you'd be able to learn a little more about what actually went into an endeavour such as this....


Cmon now... I have been looking at the multitude or images and videos.. THATS THE PROBLEM!!!! It's so blatantly obvious they were not taken on the moon. Do you think because I believe it was hoax'd that automatically I must not have done my research?

Did you even read the original website I posted which explains how it was done using scotchlite or did you immediately put on your skeptic hat and go into debunk mode. I've noticed from most of your posts that your initial post is always to explain away rather than investigate.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Total Package
 


No the Cold War was not enough reason to fake the moon landing mainly because going to the moon did NOTHING WHATSOEVER to help us win the cold war. If landing on the moon had done anything to help us "win" it would have ended a few years after we landed there, instead it went on until the early 90s. Had the Russians managed to land on the moon first very little about the world would be different, except that history books would say that Cosmonauts were the first ones there instead of us...


Ok then can I ask you this then.... Given that Kennedy committed sending man to the moon only weeks after Russia launched SPUTNIK much to the panic of an entire nation who thought Russia were now able to launch nuclear weapons from space onto America and there was nothing they could do about it........ why would America spent a large fortune on getting man to the moon in the 60s.... if it would do nothing except "change the text in a few history books".

You don't think it was done to show Russia and the rest of the world that the USA had the technical know how to counter the Russians and indeed go further than Russia could by landing on the moon and potentially set up bases there? What did you expect the USA to do.... spend trillions of dollars and go "Sorry Guys.... we tried... we can't do it." while Russia and the rest of the world sits back and laughs at them? Do you know anything about the state of the world in the 1960s?



Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

I think it would have taken a few thousand people to build the Saturn V rocket, not to mention those ROCKET SCIENTISTS that worked on the project and you think they're dumb enough to get fooled into buying fake footage filmed in Burbank by Kubrick and some government cronies? They built the equipment to go to the moon, why spend all that money to go to the moon and then fake the footage and not even try to actually get there? Its illogical...


No what is illogical is that you think a Government that has been proven to LIE to it's own people.... who have gone to the lengths of planning terrorist attacks on their own people with the intention of giving them public support to invade another country (No I am not talking September 11.... I am talking Operation Northwoods in 1962 which was only rejected at the last minute by JFK... and we all know what happened to him) and yet you think it's illogical that the US Government would fake a few pictures and videos of a moon landing to save themselves embarressment whilst the entire world watched? I find that illogical and extremely gullible.



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Total Package
 




The above photo is easily explained.
I drew 2 lines, the black represents either flat or somewhat down hill terrain and the red arrow represents uphill. You can tell this is the case by the amount of light hitting these areas. Since the light is comming from the lower right corner of the image, the ground that is lighter would be up hill as we are looking at it.

This would shorten the shadow of the central figure. it's hard to determine how much slope is there since I do not know the hight of the sun on the horizon. However I belive this is a very plausable explination of the shadows.

ALSO.
That image is from apollo 12.
This image (also from 12) shows the hill rather clearly.






The popular explination for the differing shadows is that a spot light would create this. However a spot light would shorten the shadow as it got closer not legthen it.

Wiedner seems to agree with this by posting this image...



and explains it away by stating the Kubric made this mistake on purpose. A fairly common defence.

The article is rather unconvincing to me considering the image from the movies have clearly defined delineations between set and background, yet the moon images are IMO a stretch.

All this aside, this is NOT proof of a hoax. It is mearly an explination of how it could have been done.




[edit on 27-7-2009 by Halfofone]



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:02 AM
link   
As To, ... "The Moon Landing Conspiracy", ...
******
There are, ... At Least 21, Or 22 "Items Of Note", ... Or, "Laws Of Physics", ...
As, They, ... Pertain To , ... The "Properties And Nature Of Space", ...
And How, ... Those "Properties", ... Relate To, ... And, ... Interact With, ...
"Materials And Elements Of Earth", ... And, ... Our Own, ... Human, ...
"Sciences And Technologies", ...
That I, ... have Collected, ... Or, ... Made Note Of, ...
Since NASA, ... Started, ...
Its Attempts, ... To, ... "Land On The Moon", ... And, ...
"Venture, ... Into Space", ... In General, ...
In The 1960"s, ... And There After, ...............................
******
(Many Of These, ... "Items Of Note", ... NASA, ... Itself), ....
(Has Researched, .... And Collected, ... Over The Years), ...
(And, .... ALL OF THEM, ... Have Been, ... Thoroughly, ... Investigated), ...
(And, ... Recorded), ...
(In, ... The Discipline Of, ... The Science Of, ... Physics), ...
******
******
Almost ANY, ... Five, ... Of Those "Items Of Note", ... Can't ALL, ... Be TRUE, ... AND, ...
NASA's Claims, ... Of Going To The Moon, ... Or, ... Going, ... ANYWERE Else, ...
Deep In Space, ... Be TRUE, .... AT THE, ..... SAME, ..... TIME !!! ...
******
******
I have Posted, .... AT, LEAST, ... Five, ... Of These, ... "ITEMS", ...
Under, ... My, ... www.Google.Com ... Blog, ..........................
TITLED: "To The Moon!!! Did We Really GO There?" ...............
******
AT: ........ ffjr51.blogspot.com...
******
I, .... Tried, ... To State, ... The WEAKEST, ....... Most REFUTTABLE, ...
Of, ... These, ... 21 Or, 22, ... "ITEMS" , ...
In The ... First, ... THREE, .... Of, ... the, ... FIRST, ... Five POSTS, ... To That Google Blog, .........
******
In, ... A While, ... I Plan, ... To ADD, ... Posts, Of, ....... TWO, .... Or, ... THREE, .... More, ....
Of, ... The, ... "ITEMS", ... To The Five, ... Or, .. So, ........ That, ... Are, .... Already, .... Published, ....
There, ...........
******
Please, ... READ THEM, .................
I, ..... Believe, ... Even The FIRST , ... Five POSTED, ......... Make it Hard, ...... For NASA, ......
To, ..... DEBUNK, .......... And, ......... REFUTE, ...... ALL, ..... Statements, .....
That They, ..... NASA, .... May, ... NOT, ....... Have ... GONE, ... To The Moon, ....... Or, ......
Deep, ..... In, ..... Space, ...... Anywhere, ......................



posted on Jan, 3 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


welcome back PHage

HADES



posted on Jan, 4 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Total Package
I can't see that anyone has posted this.... I stumbled across it... and it was only released 5 days ago.

It's a piece by Jay Weidner where he examines the conspiracy that the moon footage was done with the help of Stanley Kubrick.... using scotchlite technology.. the same technology used in Space Odyssey 2001.

I must say... this is very very compelling argument... and once he points out to you the anomolies in the photos.... you can't ignore it. Personally I think it's some of the most conclusive proof yet.

jayweidner.com...


Jay Weidner sees the film making process as part of the universal collective unconsciousness of being. He makes several good analysis of Kubrick connections in The Shining (kids Apollo sweater) and 2001:A Space Odyssey. His essays on the subject of Stanley Kubrick are worth reading for the connections he makes and the analysis that he unfolds.
edit on 1/4/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: grammaaar



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join