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: 7
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I saw the Mythbusters episode on the Moon landing yesterday. It was interesting, not as much because of their "debunking" -but rahther because it actually showed how easy it is to fake such photos - their photos using only minature models looked surprisingly real and identical to the original photos.

Then I remembered watching some of these videos claiming to reveal that many of the moon photos were taken using miniature models of the astronauts and craft:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...




posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Several years ago I watched a TV "Special" on this subject which was quite convincing that a fraud had occurred.

I remember one last comment on the program was "in early 2009 the Chinese would have a satellite in place around the moon and positioned to send pictures of the alleged US landing site to definitely settle the question."

So I put any conclusion on the back burner and have seen nothing more about this except to notice that several NASA Big Wigs went to China at exactly this time on a Trade Mission and that no photos have been released by the Chinese.

Do I mis-remember or does anyone know anything more about this particular aspect???

And also, either evidence is there or it isn't. As with all things, time will teil.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Well going to China wouldn't help as it was the Japanese who had the satelite sent up to take HD photos.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


So which is it, they were done in a studio or they were done with miniatures? I am getting confused you kind of seem to be all over the place with your explanations man.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brown Bear
Several years ago I watched a TV "Special" on this subject which was quite convincing that a fraud had occurred.

I remember one last comment on the program was "in early 2009 the Chinese would have a satellite in place around the moon and positioned to send pictures of the alleged US landing site to definitely settle the question."

So I put any conclusion on the back burner and have seen nothing more about this except to notice that several NASA Big Wigs went to China at exactly this time on a Trade Mission and that no photos have been released by the Chinese.

Do I mis-remember or does anyone know anything more about this particular aspect???

And also, either evidence is there or it isn't. As with all things, time will teil.
Maybe this is what you mean ?

gizmodo.com...

and

gizmodo.com...

Ofcourse this won't satisfy the youtube armchair scientists simply because they don't care if we landed on the moon, all they care about is watching manipulative youtube videos that make them feel special and "in the know". If they took a look at the evidence FOR the moonlandings and put them against this youtube garbage they might actually learn something...

[edit on 17-11-2009 by JustAThought]

[edit on 17-11-2009 by JustAThought]



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


About the gravity as you mentioned, it doesn't completely sit well with me still. Gravity is supposed to be constant, and without an atmosphere to work upon an object, any and all objects should fall at the exact same rate.


Maybe this will help



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Sputnikesteve: What about: In a studio, using miniatures in the places it would be more convenient and easy, such as many photos, while videos obviously would have to use real people to look real enough.

I am not saying that is necessarily how it was done, but it seems possible from the evidence presented. I always thought the moon shown when the lander ascends seem extremely fake and model like, and as it is just moving as a spherical object below the camera and not a camera moving over its surface upwards. It would be an effective and easy way to simulate the effect of flying over the surface, simply spinning a smaller scale model around with a camera mounted above it.

With that said, I am not entirely convinced of all the miniature claims from those videos I just posted above, but some of them have some interesting points to them, and I posted them as an example on how it possibly was done using miniatures in some cases - in the same manner Mythbusters used miniatures to create rather realistic looking "moon photos" in the mentioned episode.

Also, I noticed some strange thing in the mythbuster episode itself - they did not seem as interested or convinced over their own conclusions as they usually do, it almost looked somewhat staged, and the way they presented it was somewhat suspicious too. For example during the "shadows test" and "multiple lighting sources" experiment, it did seem to me that they actually DID use more than one light source as the room was extremely well lit and I seemed to notice other lamps in the room while they supposedly were taking the photos showing shadows in different directions using one light source.

For example a bit later, they were replicating the photo of the astronaut descending the ladder, to see if he would be illuminated. In this case they suddenly shut out ALL other light and made the room completely black and apparently only used one light source - why did they not do that in the first case as well, after all there were only one light source on the Moon and that was the sun, and all the rest was black. They even stated themselves that they had to black it out during this sequence so that no light would be reflected from other sources.. so kind of odd they did not have to do that with the shadows and multiple lighting sources test right before.

I did notice that when they showed the miniature astronaut on the ladder with the normal video camera just before they took the photo, he DID seem to be in darkness as conspiracy theorists claim, while he suddenly turned out all lighted up in the photos themselves after.

For all I know, NASA could have paid them to run that show just to "shut down" the ones such as myself and those whom believe the Moon landing was hoaxed. Apparently studies show that 20% of the american population believe it was staged and hoaxed - according to the same show. A show like that certainly is not any real "evidence" towards the moon landing taking place as the whole show could have been staged to make people believe their official story, who knows what they did in between takes and how they cut and edited the video together and so on.

That last part of course is just speculation, but knowing how the governments use the media all the time for their own agendas and brainwashing it would be a plausible reason for the specific episode alltogether, and just a personal observation.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Phage: That video does not actually prove anything. It just shows a person dropping two objects on the ground. We know nothing of what those objects really were - only what we were told they were. We do not know if strings were attached to them so they easily could be lowered down at same speed. In fact, the whole "feather and hammer" sequence in itself is somewhat odd, and would be a great thing to put in to "prove" they were on the Moon for their viewers.

The other questions posted by the other person regarding gravity and objects falling as on Earth still remains open in my opinion.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by IX-777
 


You missed the point entirely. It does not matter what the objects were. It does not matter how much they weigh. Objects in the same gravity field accelerate at the same rate. This is a demonstration of that principle.

In 1971 there was no need to "prove" they were on the Moon. The idiocy of claiming they weren't didn't begin until later.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
We didn't find the Titanic either. It was faked!

God, some will now believe that too. I haven't been onto every UTube authroitative nd manipulated video but there is one about a wire. Idiots! It's an ariel and it extends exactly the distance from the backpack it is suppossed to. How do you think they communicated...cell phones?



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Phage: I clearly understood your point. I know what they demonstrated (or at least allegedly demonstrated).

My point was simply that the video you posted does not debunk what the other poster was talking about in regards of objects falling as in Earth gravity and atmosphere as seen in other videos (allegedly) if the video you posted was faked to give people an idea of them being on the moon by that demonstration. The hammer does fall kind of oddly, almost as it is suspended by a string, but I agree that I can not rule out that being because of the gravity on the Moon (I do not claim that ALL videos and photos are faked, but that many or even most are, perhaps all even - but I do believe they actually DID go to the moon, just so that is clear.)

In other words, apparently they did a few mistakes in other videos where things like sand, dirt and other things are falling or flying around as in Earth atmosphere, even though they got it "right" in your posted video.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by IX-777
 


You missed the point entirely. It does not matter what the objects were. It does not matter how much they weigh. Objects in the same gravity field accelerate at the same rate. This is a demonstration of that principle.

In 1971 there was no need to "prove" they were on the Moon. The idiocy of claiming they weren't didn't begin until later.



It is not idiocy---The logic that NASA or any body has set foot on the moon in their space programs IS ----- That for the last forty years of extravagant budgets and giant steps in technology. Nothing has been accomplished in manned space at all.
Low earth orbit is as far as man has traveled. Big deal monkeys and dogs were the pioneers here. I'm with the OP here! Only fools would abandon the moon.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by IX-777
In other words, apparently they did a few mistakes in other videos where things like sand, dirt and other things are falling or flying around as in Earth atmosphere, even though they got it "right" in your posted video.


Did you consider that the surface of the moon is not a constant in regards to density? Some areas will no doubt have loose dust and others hard, compacted dust. Did you further consider that direction of force is rather important. For example when the Moon buggy was going along it often seems to kick up dust because of the spinning action of the wheels.



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
ImaginaryReality:

I am not sure if I understand what you are asking me. How would the moon buggy throw up sand/dirt in any other way than the action of the wheel spinning? And how does it matter if the sand, dust or dirt was hard and compact or loose? Both these things are the same way on Earth, and apparently it seems like these act the same way on the Moon like they do on Earth from many of the videos - which suggest that those videos must have been recorded on Earth and not the Moon if what is said about the gravity there is true. I think this was the point the other poster was trying to make as well.

The moon buggy, using that as an example, do not seem to kick up the sand any more than it would on Earth, something it should if it was on the Moon in that low gravity. The same goes for the astronauts jumping around kicking sand around etc. And since it is in vacuum it should move with no other force slowing it down than the Moons gravity alone as well, which would make it fly even further than it would on Earth if it had the same gravity as the Moon. This is the explanation the debunkers use in regards of the "waving flag" too, no atmosphere to make it stop moving and low gravity not pulling it much down.

-Maggador



posted on Nov, 17 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Well I can see that you are making a great effort here IX, I will give you credit for that. However I just don't think your arguments are sticking up well.

For my last comment on this thread, I would like to point out one simple point that bothers me. "I always thought the ground of the moon looked weird and blah blah blah..."
Well, when you are surprised how the moon looks, it is because you have never been there. You cannot possibly have any idea living on earth of how some distant planet or moon will look. It must be a requirement for you to drop all preconcieved notions of what you believe other planets look like. You cannot possibly expect these notions to stick to the same rules we have on earth. I hope that made sense. Have fun in this burnout of a thread.

Keep fighting the good fight Phage, until they beat you into submission eventually =)



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


About the gravity as you mentioned, it doesn't completely sit well with me still. Gravity is supposed to be constant, and without an atmosphere to work upon an object, any and all objects should fall at the exact same rate.


Maybe this will help


LMAO~!! I'd like to know who was dong the zooming with the camera since there were only 2 a-naunts up there .. DOH~!!

What remote tech did we have at that time since remote control was only seriously free of issues by the Y2k !!! LOL..



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sputniksteve
Well I can see that you are making a great effort here IX, I will give you credit for that. However I just don't think your arguments are sticking up well.
his arguments aren't stacking up well? there are many fun things we can say but we normally need to back them up.



Well, when you are surprised how the moon looks, it is because you have never been there.
who said they were surprised of how the moon looks?!


You cannot possibly have any idea living on earth of how some distant planet or moon will look.
what the heck are you talking about?


It must be a requirement for you to drop all preconcieved notions of what you believe other planets look like.
who the hell said anything about what the moon is supposed to look like???


You cannot possibly expect these notions to stick to the same rules we have on earth.
what notions?????


I hope that made sense.
it made no sense . . .


Have fun in this burnout of a thread.
are you burned out?


Keep fighting the good fight Phage, until they beat you into submission eventually =)

I understand Phage; you i do not.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by JPhish]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:53 AM
link   
This thread is great, plenty of humour and alot of laughs


Guys, Phage has debunked this thread from page [1]


....but do carry on



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by IX-777
 


You missed the point entirely. It does not matter what the objects were. It does not matter how much they weigh. Objects in the same gravity field accelerate at the same rate. This is a demonstration of that principle.

In 1971 there was no need to "prove" they were on the Moon. The idiocy of claiming they weren't didn't begin until later.



unless there is a trick like a string...But I don t say it s a Hoax ^^



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
LMAO~!! I'd like to know who was dong the zooming with the camera since there were only 2 a-naunts up there .. DOH~!!

What remote tech did we have at that time since remote control was only seriously free of issues by the Y2k !!! LOL..


Omg lol you're right, you've found the definite proof!!! Hey did you know that they have a liftoff sequence on tape when they blast off the moon and the camera pans upwards to follow them? OMG lol lmao they left one guy behind to film it or they did it in studio.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join