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.

 

If you don't believe moon landings occurred, what NASA abilities are you willing to accept?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
I know this has been discussed before but with the recent anniversary and the increase in my own interest, I thought I'd bring this up again for those who wanted to participate. My question is, if you believe the moon landings to be false, then what's the line you draw for what NASA was, or is, capable of? What is the factor or concept for you that leads you to believe they didn't occur?

Honestly, I don't know how many people on here believe that they were entirely faked, there are obviously a lot of people who think NASA is covering things up in photographs but I don't know the extent of the disbelief.

I would assume things like, being able to put men in orbit who are capable of surviving is not in question. You can go watch a launch, we have many sats, and the space station can be clearly seen from Earth. I would think there are things both sides can agree on, I'd be interested to see where that stops.

Is the the Van Allen belts? The procedures involved in the landings such as the lunar orbital rendezvous or multiple LM stages? The perception of technology at the time? Political pressures? I personally believe that the landings occurred and were not faked. I'm not looking to bash someone for not agreeing with me. I'm genuinely interested to hear the opinions of the other side. That's not to say I won't attempt to logically debate you
but we can all be civil and try to learn from each other or see it from a different perspective. Thanks for reading and have a good one!




posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Can't leave this S+F hanging around with showing my face, can I..
Just wanted to say I'm interested as well. There's a sensationalist part of me trying to believe it never happened, but then there's so much out there that obviously isn't faked. I'm not particularly well-read on the subject - I hope this thread sheds some light on it. Let us pick your braaaaiins!



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by scraze
 


The sensationalist thing is what gets me, sure I'd find it interesting if this was all faked or whatever but the sensations seem to overlook other obvious facts. You can argue about flags waving or how the motion would appear to be on the moon, but if those turned out to be falsified it would mean every other part of the program was also a ruse. Every member of NASA who worked on the landings, engineers, scientists, astronauts, everything would have been faked if it was necessary to stage the landings. And then we have to suppose that we know how things would work on the moon or space. We have equations and what we can figure out by observing, but that only goes so far. Only a few men have left earth orbit, even fewer walked on the moon (i know that's what is being contested). So do I trust the guy who I feel has been to the moon or the armchair astronaut who assumes it couldn't work that way? Of course this is all my perspective, which is why I'd love to hear others.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The "Moon Hoax" believers seem convinced that NASA is a monolithic, all-powerful organization capable of perpetrating a massive conspiracy to fake the moon landings in a studio, keep that fact secret despite the vast numbers of people involved, and then cover up evidence of alien artifacts on the Moon by airbrushing all the photos.

On the other hand, their "supporting evidence" involves pointing out "obvious errors" such as lack of stars, waving flags, lighting anomalies, and blurred rectangular "retouched" patches on photos. All of these would indicate that NASA personnel are completely inept at creating a successful cover-up.

So which is it? Do they believe NASA is omnipotent or inept? You can't have it both ways.

If NASA wanted to fake the landings, wouldn't they have avoided inconsistencies that would be easily discovered? If they wanted to hide something in a photo, wouldn't they make sure the edit wasn't obvious?



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
On the other hand, their "supporting evidence" involves pointing out "obvious errors" such as lack of stars, waving flags, lighting anomalies, and blurred rectangular "retouched" patches on photos. All of these would indicate that NASA personnel are completely inept at creating a successful cover-up.

So which is it? Do they believe NASA is omnipotent or inept? You can't have it both ways.


Great point to bring up. If anyone should know how to fake them, it's NASA. It's like when people think something is airbrushed out because it is blurry or if a piece of information is missing and left black. First if there was something to hide, why would they even release that photo? They still wanted to share the pic's beauty but not reveal the hidden stuff? Because they are so lazy that they'd smudge the alien away? The thing is, if something agrees to those then hell, that's what you think and by all means do so. It bothers me when people aren't willing to address those issues in their belief.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I think it is highly probable that NASA is/has engaged in deception. There was a recent post here about NASA faking APOLLO missions...11? Pretending to be near the moon when they were really in LEO. Why would they do this? IMHO it was to hide the real mode of transportation to the moon...antigravity machines developed on the work of T.T. Brown and others. Do I have proof? No, just a hunch based on what I have gleaned from posts here on ATS and elsewhere. Also the many reports of craft that could only be based on AG technology...black triangles, discs, etc.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Parabol
I would assume things like, being able to put men in orbit who are capable of surviving is not in question. You can go watch a launch, we have many sats, and the space station can be clearly seen from Earth. I would think there are things both sides can agree on, I'd be interested to see where that stops.

I wouldn't even go that far. I'm arguing on another forum right now with a hoax believer who also insists that even ISS is fake, and it wouldn't be the first time I heard that claim. The theorists recently started posting youtube videos with "evidence" to support their position.

They typically claim anyone who has seen the space station close enough to make out details is lying and part of the conspiracy, something I've been accused of. Often, but not always, it goes back to a disbelief in some basic ability required to complete most shuttle missions; spacewalking can't be done, their suits would balloon up, Newton's laws don't apply in a vacuum so rockets won't work in space, the earth is flat and space travel is impossible because you can't orbit the flat disc (satellites are just balloon decoys).

I don't know if we have any of those types actively here, but I know there were a couple flat earthers on the skunk works forum before.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Straayer
 


But why use Apollo as a disguise for anti gravity ships? They could use them all they wanted and never tell any of us, they don't need Apollo to cover it up.

It just blows my mind that there is a ton, a ton of evidence that NASA does what it says. Mountains of pictures and data which match or help uncover the mysteries of physics. The AG ships or other stuff is entirely hearsay. It's articles on the internet, there is no substantial evidence to show that any of that stuff exists. I don't understand how everything from NASA can be shadowed by a few people claiming to know stuff or ideas.



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Straayer
I think it is highly probable that NASA is/has engaged in deception. There was a recent post here about NASA faking APOLLO missions...11? Pretending to be near the moon when they were really in LEO.

If this were true then it would have be visible from the ground. Nevermind the Soviets, who had the most sophisticated space tracking system at the time. If Apollo hadn't left LEO, it would have been obvious.

[edit on 29-7-2009 by Credulity Kills]



posted on Jul, 29 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Parabol
 



But why use Apollo as a disguise for anti gravity ships? They could use them all they wanted and never tell any of us, they don't need Apollo to cover it up.

They need Apollo to keep "us" in the dark about AG. Spam in a can to LEO and then AG (with Apollo on board) to the moon. Most of NASA has no idea of the deception. The astronauts do of course, which explains a lot of the bizarre behavior/statements made by the astronaut corps, and a few higher ups in NASA. No one without a 'need to know' needs to know. How would you feel about riding a bomb to LEO knowing there is much safer technology available but you are forbidden to talk about it? How about the shuttle disasters?



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
Redacted

I made a mistake.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join