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.

 

Ultimate evidence on NASA faking Moon landings (VIDEO)

page: 5
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Nearer the bottom of page 4 Blaine expresses his opinion about your efforts being wasted. Blaine I echo with your entire post but that one sentence. Phage, your efforts are very much not a waste of time. Please don't let it ever creep into your mind that that is the case. You have quite rightly gained a high level of respect around here and many members (me included) wait for your responses in these types of threads to enable them to way up both sides of the argument and come to a more informed conclusion.

Personally I'm a believer that there have and are activities on the moon that we do not know about. I believe the moon landings happenened, but admit its entirely possible that some photography was later touched up or faked. Nevertheless, I want each and every phony claim and hoax thread to be torn down and thrown away. I'm after the truth no matter what that truth is. If my beliefs and conclusions are challenged, so be it. If I'm proven to be wrong then the positive view is to understand that I have learned something new.

In this case I didn't need your assistance to debunk this. One only needs to look who the OP is to know that. However, other members most definitely did need your input on this thread, and we all need it in the future. It takes a big man/woman who has authored a thread to then later agree it was bunkum, however this OP is not one of those people.

Thanks Phage for all your efforts, especially the ones that lead to me changing my mind about something.

[edit on 16-11-2009 by spookfish]




posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Mr Mask: Rude, no I think you were funny. And if you are working with sound then you might be able to analyze sound data better than me as I do not work with such. And , English is not my first language, not even my second, so I admit I can do mistakes like everyone else. But as stated, it is not the DIALOGUE of the clips that are the most important, it is the VISUAL aspects, and what is going on in them. I am not scientist or expert in any image analyzing or space technology or anything like it, but there ARE scientists in those very fields whom DO question the very same things as I do, and whom also consider the moon footage hoaxed and staged. As mentioned, even the DESIGNER of the Hasselblad cameras used on the Moon questions these photos and how they could be taken without artificial studio lighting.

And we DO have people FROM NASA whom admits to covering up, hoaxing and manipulating footage.

Regarding the debunkers, I do not think they offered any good evidence to prove the moon landing footage is all real, in fact some of their explanations are straight out silly - though you would probably say the same about my explanations and the ones supporting them.

The bottom line is, there is a lot of suggestions that NASA did fake their footage, and a lot of credible witnesses and scientists and experts support this. Thus it is something that should be studied and explored further - one day perhaps the world will truly know.

If I personally had any better evidence, I obviously would expose that, but it is limited how much evidence you can get when all you have is the material released to the public, and the once in a while leaked footage that comes up from previously unreleased material etc. I do not work for NASA - God bless - but I have been involved with many different organizations and seen things first hand and had my own experiences that have removed any shadows of doubts of what is really going on. Unfortunately for me and you there is no way for me to prove personal experiences that did not leave any evidence for me to show.

Blaine: As long as there is a reason to suspect something going on here, there is a reason to question and research and examine these things. And as said, many highly profiled people including NASAs own astronauts and other employees have spoken out saying that NASA lies, covers things up, they know about aliens, and so on. This also goes for most other institutions, organizations and governmental groups, from NSA, to CIA, FBI, the Military, the Navy, the Air Force and so on - there are hundreds of people from all these places that have come forth and told about their direct involvement with such cover-up projects on the whole UFO and Alien subject ALONE. Then you have all the other projects people have been involved with, from remote viewing ( Project Stargate and CIA) to occult practices and magical rituals (governmental employees of all ranks part of various occult orders), and so on.

And, since this is a fact and not a hoax, there is only one place for this thread to be suitable, and that is in the Conspiracy section because that is what this thread is about - the conspiracies of the governments, specifically the Moon Hoax conspiracy in this case. Whether you personally finds the evidence credible or not is your decision alone and has nothing to do with the truth of the conspiracy being real or not - it is your personal opinion and not a fact.

superdebz: I never said no one ever went to the moon, in fact I said they did. I said one of the main reasons they faked footage was to hide what was really up there, and also possibly because of problems such as getting good footage up there in the first place, or preparing themselves in case they would not get up there at all so at least they would have some material to show off with. Regardless of what reason they had for using faked photos in their releases, the evidence show that they did so, they did manipulate and tamper with the footage, and if they have done that with even one photo then it should be questioned WHY they would do that.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Spookfish:

It is a ridiculous statement, and most ignorant, to claim that what I am posting have to be fake or not real "beacuse of who I am". You do not even know who I am, nor do you know anything about me at all, except for what you may have read me tell about myself. And regardless of what you believe about my PERSONAL background, what does that have to do with important issues such as what this thread is about ?

I could care less if you believe a word of what I am saying, but to say that everything I have to say automatically must be false simply because you do not agree with something I have said before, well that is as ignorant as any can get as far I can say.

With all due respect my friend.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


You sir (that's if you've stopped believing you are an alien) are bringing this subject and this site into disrepute. You are doing no one any favours with your laughable threads, poor research and willingness to ignore reasoned opposition to your position. Please refrain immediately. I believe that the official story of the history between the Moon and man is way off the reality of what has happened and what continues to happen. However, I don't want you fighting for that cause because you only weaken us.

If you insist on participating in such debates perhaps you should bat for the other side because then when your 'proof' or arguments are shown to be fallacy, you will indirectly be helping our cause.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Perhaps the day you stop believing you are a Human my friend.

As I said, you only show your own ignorance by the statements you make about me.

If you do not like my threads, feel free to skip reading them, I did not force you to come into this one, you opened it yourself, knowing it was me posting it.

So, by all means, do not waste your time by reading my threads if they do not interest you


There are plenty of people out there whom enjoy my threads and have found them useful and insightful so far in either case, and if they did not I would not have much point in posting anything at all as my purpose of being here is to spread truth and information and make people question their reality and what they have been manipulated into believing, and help them be more free thinkers and get their heads out of the box.

I have posted several videos in this thread alone that has not been properly adressed back, such as the exposed face and hand of the astronauts, to the underwater sequences with air bubbles seemingly rising up suggesting the footage was hoaxed underwater and so on.

So if you want to participate with something useful, keep to the topic instead of to me, and discuss those videos and explain them so we can let them rest and move on.

Blessings,
-Maggador



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
Spookfish:
I could care less if you believe a word of what I am saying, but to say that everything I have to say automatically must be false simply because you do not agree with something I have said before, well that is as ignorant as any can get as far I can say.

With all due respect my friend.

-Maggador


I wasn't talking to you so any response on that basis is neither welcome nor valid. However seeing as you insisted...

NO! It's ridiculous to assume that the validity of a message is not at least in part dependent on the validity of the messenger. If Roger Penrose tells me that there are some anomalies with spacetime in near earth space, I am tended to believe him more than my 6 year old neice who states she saw the hands on my wristwatch wizz around and change time.

You say you 'could care less' if I believe a word of what you say. Well thats great, but if it upsets you that much why not try to care less if as you say you can. Why not care so little about what I believe or say that you can honestly reply that 'you couldn't care less'. I'd feel a lot better if I knew you couldn't care less, having you upset with me really plays heavily on my conscience.


Finally, you're no friend of mine, nor I of yours, so please refrain from stating such in future. I find such faux familiarness offensive.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
The whole point was, you do not know the messenger, as you state it - I certainly am not your 6 year old niece, you have simply made up your mind about my "validity" from your personal belief on what is real and what is not - in this case my background, which you personally obviously do not know anything about. That is why I called you ignorant - you certainly must be if you ignore something from someone you actually do not know anything about, he could tell the truth, or be lying, but you will not know by shutting your eyes and ears instead of looking into the possibilities put forth.

In either case, enough off-topic chitchat, if you want to participate on the topic feel free to do so, and I will be happy to reply to that instead of this.

All the best,
-Maggador



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
There is nothing strange that First Moon landing was hoax and the rest as well. Stakes were too high to fail at late 60'. That was politically right strategy and only tactic that can be led USA to win the race to the moon and more in a long shot. Real nature of Mission Apollo was purely political. Apollo had one goal, not Moon but to change world politics and economical balance and polarity and boost economic.

It was too risky to sending man to the moon and fail. They come to obvious conclusion that possibilities to 90% successful moon flight to the Moon and back to the Earth was less than can be tolerated and fail meant catastrophic fail in political field.


The winner is the one who better conceal the truth.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlkyatingAntineoplasm

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
I don't trust any photographic material as it is to corruptible.
I trust common sense. If it were possible to put a man on the moon no one would have stopped going back.
That would be like Europeans never returning to the Americas after the first six visits. Or climbing Mt. Everest after it was conquered the first time.
Man on the moon, BA

Europeans visited America in reusable ships. Climbing Mount Everest doesn't require burning up a giant, expendable rocket every time you attempt the summit. We stopped visiting the moon because the only means we had of getting there (Apollo-Saturn V) was too expensive to maintain. Saturn production was actually ended before Apollo 11.


Oh swell, the ancestors of modern NASA man were so far more progress and competent.
And with wood. And within budget. And with universal respect.
NASA enjoys none of this.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
PsykoOps:

What are you talking about? So you are telling me the guy who created and designed the cameras they used on the moon had no idea about photography? NASA hired a complete fool to design their cameras? Certainly he should know enough about what he was doing to come with statements as he have, and when he finds the photos from the moon suspicious and saying he dont know how they could have taken such photos without artificial light sources, then that certainly doesnt strengthen the credibility of these photos being real moon photos. He was the head of Hasselblads engineering team that actually modified the cameras to be suitable for the very Moon surface - obviously a person assigned such a task should not more than "just alittle" about photography.


Original source please? I don't know who the guy was but if this is even true then he doesn't infact know anything about photography. Maybe it was some excecutive who only pushes papers?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwoods
There is nothing strange that First Moon landing was hoax and the rest as well. Stakes were too high to fail at late 60'. That was politically right strategy and only tactic that can be led USA to win the race to the moon and more in a long shot. Real nature of Mission Apollo was purely political. Apollo had one goal, not Moon but to change world politics and economical balance and polarity and boost economic.

It was too risky to sending man to the moon and fail. They come to obvious conclusion that possibilities to 90% successful moon flight to the Moon and back to the Earth was less than can be tolerated and fail meant catastrophic fail in political field.


The winner is the one who better conceal the truth.


Sorry no winners this way. Did you see Armstrong at the 40th
Are you aware of the ire of the Grissoms?



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   
STAR & FLAG and posting for further comments ...

LOVE the research~!!! Right up my ally !!!



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by northwoods
 


Sounds like you're a full bottle on the supposed moon hoax.

I'm curious about your thoughts on Luna 16, a soviet probe that was the first automated probe to return samples of the moon back to earth.

An interesting thing to note is the soil samples brought back by the probe.


Analysis of the dark basalt material indicated a close resemblance to soil recovered by the American Apollo 12 mission.


Do you understand what this means for all of the moon landing hoax theories?

Utter BS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
PsykoOps:

"Jan Lundberg, engineer at Hasselblad and responsible for producing the photographic cameras used in Apollo"

"Mr. Jan Lundberg was the Hasselblad engineer responsible for modifying the company's 500/EL Data Camera for use on the moon"

"Hasselblad were the manufacturer of the camera that took all
of the photos on the Apollo missions. Jan Lundberg was the
Manager Of Space Projects at Hasselblad from 1966 to 1975 and
responsible for the production and building of the Hasselblad 500
EL/70 cameras that were used on the Apollo Missions. He says
'Originally NASA made all the alterations themselves, then they
presented what they had done to us and asked if we could do the
same, to which we replied yes we can, and we can do it better. We
proceeded to make the alterations that were accepted by
NASA.'"

"Even Jan
Lundberg from Hasselblad, the
makers of the camera, says that the
pictures seem as though Armstrong
is standing in a spotlight."

static.scribd.com...

He appears in this documentary but I am not sure in what part. He has also been interviewed in other moon hoax documentaries and books, such as the one linked above with quotes.

www.youtube.com...

He also brings up other things that are wrong with the photos, I can not remember all the other details so you will have to view the interviews with him yourself.

But he did have a major part of the direct production of the camera used, so he does know what he is talking about, at least more than you and me should know, I would call him a photographical expert considering his work and expertise with this important job and all his years in the photographical industry.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Of course he looks like standing in a spotlight, it's called the sun. Where exactly is the guys interview? I'm not going to watch through all that rubbish just to find the guy.



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 

Is every an aeronautical engineer an expert pilot? Are the engineers who design formula racers expert race car drivers?

Just because Lundberg was an engineer who worked on modifying cameras used on the Moon, it does not make him an expert in photography or what photographs taken on the moon "should" look like. But he is welcome to his opinions.


[edit on 11/16/2009 by Phage]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
All of this youtube "evidence" if downright laughable. Anyone who truly studied the moonlandings sees nothing but ignorance and obvious lies to fool the viewer/listener in these conspiracy videos.



[edit on 16-11-2009 by JustAThought]



posted on Nov, 16 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
If the moonlanding is fake, then the question we should be asking is WHY fake a moonlanding?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:12 AM
link   
At about 1:25 on the video where the astronaut falls over, he drops his equipment and it behaves VERY normally for something light in a place where the gravity is at 17% of that which it is here on earth.

At the same time it still makes me wonder how a perfect footprint could be left on a surface devoid of water (though now we 'know' there is 'some' water on the moon :\). Ever tried leaving a sneaker sole-print in dry sand?

I would additionally imagine dust would easily be kicked up in such low conditions of hydration and gravity...and wouldn't settle for a nice long time.

I'm not saying mankind have not been to the moon...just that this is what Steven Spielberg is to the Jurassic period.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ShiningBeneath
 

Moon dust is very fine, finer than sand, and it has a different composition. Have you ever tried leaving a footprint in dry cement (I don't mean hard cement, I mean dry), it's powdery and holds its shape quite well.


Dust did get kicked up on the Moon, both by the men kicking it around and by the buggies. But since there is no atmosphere to suspend it, it falls right back to the surface.




top topics



 
47
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join