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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 659
377
<< 656  657  658    660  661  662 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Why was no '16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera' used during the historic 1969 moon landing..


It was:





posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



When you win an argument like this.. one of the stooges begins writing irrelevant responses to bury the thread.


You're beginning to confuse yourself with your own nonsense.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



Why was the 16mm movie FILM, in a movie camera not used for the moon landings, when it had proved so effective previously?


You could actually do some of your own research, for a change.

Apollo 11 Mission Photography

Or, ignore the historical facts, and continuing wallowing in abject ignorance.

Your call....be smart, or remain uninformed.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No but the footage on the moon not studio footage, there is nothing on this to suggest it is the moon..

Where are the moonscape shots? the earth from the moon, the best views seen by mankind.. missed opportunity !

Surely the point in getting to the moon.. it might be prudent to gets some footage of the moon?

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 



No but the footage on the moon not studio footage, there is nothing on this to suggest it is the moon..


What would it take to convince you that it is the Moon?


Where are the moonscape shots? the earth from the moon, the best views seen by mankind.. missed opportunity !




Wasted opportunity, indeed.


Surely the point in getting to the moon.. it might be prudent to gets some footage of the moon?


According to FoosM, it was more important that they take pictures of stars, which they did:




posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


There are no historical facts, history is written by the victor.. This the U.S version of history.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by mockrock
 



No but the footage on the moon not studio footage, there is nothing on this to suggest it is the moon..


What would it take to convince you that it is the Moon?


Where are the moonscape shots? the earth from the moon, the best views seen by mankind.. missed opportunity !




Wasted opportunity, indeed.


Surely the point in getting to the moon.. it might be prudent to gets some footage of the moon?


According to FoosM, it was more important that they take pictures of stars, which they did:




Can you post the link for the 16MM movie FILM of equivalent scope? They seemed to have left it pointed at the dirt..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room.

Seriously, you guys are playing chicken with someone who thought we would all be dead a week ago.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the analytic process you're dealing with.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room.

Seriously, you guys are playing chicken with someone who thought we would all be dead a week ago.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the analytic process you're dealing with.


That's why I've pretty much given up. No sense in arguing with these people.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Thank you DJW001 for posting that specific picture of the earth floating above the moons horizon. It is simply awe inspiring.

Gib



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColAngus
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the War Room.

Seriously, you guys are playing chicken with someone who thought we would all be dead a week ago.

That should tell you everything you need to know about the analytic process you're dealing with.



I confess I was really worried, because all trust in government has been eroded by such mass hoaxes as the moon landings and 9/11. It is hard to know what to trust.. When they say an asteroid is coming you don't know if it is real.. designed to create fear or just a fly-by. It wasn't always this way before 9/11 I am sure most of us had a lot more faith in authority.

That is why it is important for governments to re-establish the trust of their people. We are told to support wars..On information that later turns out to be false.. We are told we went to the moon.. We were told 9/11 was unforeseen.. That economic depressions were a thing of the past. All turned out to be false and with each lie the future becomes less certain..



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by mockrock
 


There are no historical facts, history is written by the victor.. This the U.S version of history.


Agreed. The official US propaganda of the 1950-80's was designed to portray USA versus CCCP, West versus East, freedom versus totalitarianism. "Communism" was a dirty word in America because it meant you have labor unions and welfare programs (individual and corporate welfare programs, to be exact.) And for all the treasure spent going to the moon, beating the Russians......... this is still the best enhanced image we can get in 40+ years from NASA.
www.lroc.asu.edu...
Enhanced LRV tracks.
Enhanced astronaut footpaths.
Enhanced shadows around the LM.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Well, I am truly sorry that your distrust of government has resulted in such debilitating cynicism. But that doesn't mean you have to automatically accept the exact opposite of what you are being told by the TPTB and treat it as truth.

2005 YU55 is a perfect example of that. NASA said it won't hit, so you automatically assumed it's gonna hit. You went out and compiled as much "evidence" that you could supporting this all the while ignoring the multitudes of evidence and data coming from non-governmental sources that coincidentally agreed NASA's assessment, and guess what? All that stress and anxiety for naught.

I'm not saying blindly follow our dark overlords; just try and keep a level and open mind when researching the facts for yourself. And if that research turns out to align with what TPTB are saying, well, just maybe they're being straight with you. Deny ignorance, don't make love to it. Not everything is a conspiracy.

All that being said, we totally went to the Moon. Cheers.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ColAngus
 


I'm afraid we didn't. There is no credible evidence.. the photographs are impossible... they didn't film any 16mm movie film footage of any moonscapes, earth from the moon.. astronauts with background. They got such incredible footage of the 1965 spacewalk.. why didn't they take the same care with the 16mm movie film footage as they did with the photographs.. It does not make sense.

It didn't happen.

And YU55 was designed to create fear, we now have no way to discuss any space threat events that could occur next year as any scenario will be ridiculed as another Elenin or YU55.. If we have lost trust in NASA it is because they told the greatest lie in human history (that we know about so far at least!)

All the sites revealing the hoax no longer rank in the organic searches in Google, there is an active operation to promote the Apollo lie, why is so much being spent on it? It is a shame not one piece of quality movie footage from that first landing exists to support the Apollo landing.

If we had been less trusting in authority then maybe 9/11 could have been prevented.. and perhaps we wouldn't have lost all those troops in the pointless wars that followed.


Question everything our governments do, hound them and let them know they can't get away with future hoaxes!
edit on 16-11-2011 by mockrock because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by mockrock

All the sites revealing the hoax no longer rank in the organic searches in Google, there is an active operation to promote the Apollo lie, why is so much being spent on it? It is a shame not one piece of quality movie footage from that first landing exists to support the Apollo landing.


The active operation, as you say, continues today with Keepout Zones and Charles Bolden now in charge of NASA. Look him up in wikepedia, he was a military general, he was an astronaut, he was in-charge of a "No Fly Zone" during the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Thunder, en.wikipedia.org... ) Actually, his entire career has prepared him for this job. He is the perfect guy with the perfect qualifications to run the Keepout Zone.

en.wikipedia.org...


And this quote of his is just completely awesome.



In a NASA video, published April 28, 2010 titled "NASA's New Era of Innovation and Discovery", Bolden said: "We're gonna turn science fiction into science fact."



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by mockrock
 


Lie


.....they didn't film any 16mm movie film footage of any moonscapes...


I posted just one YouTube video that showed Apollo 15 footage taken by the 16mm Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC) mounted on the LRV.

Why continue to lie about it?




posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Nonsense. The "Keep-out Zones" needed to be defined officially now that it is becoming more and more likely that more manned missions are planned. AND, robotic rovers from other nations, and even private industry.

This is similar to the exclusion of people not authorized to enter into the Stonehenge monument. Or, to prevent people from accessing other archaeological sites of importance.

What a silly comparison.....especially since there is nothing to prevent anyone who cared to access on the ground, and within viewing distance for photographs...just as is the case at Stonehenge, Egyptian sites etc.

Further, even from above.....the lateral distance of exclusion is not so far as to make it impossible to verify the Apollo artifacts.

Why, if the "truth" is on "your" side, is it necessary to continually lie and twist the facts in order to "argue" your (failing) points? Oh..."failing"? Maybe that's why.....



Fears include the proximity of landing, liftoff and flyover from a future landing/robotic vehicle, where rocket thrust may erase footprints and treads, sandblast nearby hardware and cause deposition of chemicals/dust.

There are also concerns relating to robotic rovers accidentally running over the footprints created by Apollo astronauts, or contaminate a site via physical contact with heritage hardware.


Also, particularly Apollo 11 and 17 are going to be protected a bit more:


The recommendations add additional emphasis for the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites, making reference to a “Keepout Zone”.

“While all the Apollo sites represent significant historical/heritage value in the material culture, the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites carry special significance,” added the presentation.

.....The exclusion zone for Apollo 11′s site will result in a keep-out zone of 75 meters from the lunar module descent stage, where as the zone will extend 200-225 meters from the Apollo 17 site.


Only 75 meters?!?! Well.....gee, dontcha think YOU could see a lot, even from that far away?? Not even a full football field length. Nice pair of binoculars, and you can "eyewitness" the Apollo artifacts to your heart's content!!

Hey! Why not hitch a ride with Jarrah White??? He's only short....how much, on his "goal" to raise money for his own expedition?

So, what about the other four Apollo sites???


However, for the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 sites, more access should be provided to individual components and artifacts, NASA added, allowing for future robotic missions to get within touching distance of Apollo hardware – as much as they won’t be allowed physical contact.


Protecting Apollo sites from future visiting vehicles


What a shame, the "fake" Apollo hoax fantasy crumbling right before every HB's eyes, right now, in this decade!



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


"Man With Ice Cream Cone" is from an official NASA movie.

He appears for only a few brief seconds in the official NASA film...


But the most important thing about him is not that he is eating and ice cream cone in April 1970 ... it's what he's watching... he's watching a TV... he is mesmorized by the TV showing updates about Apollo 13.

"Man With Ice Cream Cone" is the perfect example of the mindless American TV consumer in April 1970. They are exactly the same mindless American TV consumers as we have today. Like millions of other Americans he has no idea if this is real or a TV show.

"Man With Ice Cream Cone" if we examine him very closely... he is just a man on the street... eating an ice cream cone... in April 1970... in an unknown city... and he's watching the newest, latest Apollo TV show. But he could be a skeptic, too. He could be thinking to himself "That is not real!" or "That is totally faked!".

I think we can all identify with him because he represents to most of us who only know Apollo through the records, the tapes, the transcripts of interviews and TV documentaries, newspaper articles and personal biographies.

There were only 12 men who could make the claim. And that is a small group of determined men. That is how conspiracies are made and that is how the world get's changed (from time to time) by the Powers That Be.

Now that 40 years have gone by without a single human being travelling beyond LEO there is a new issue to deal with... a New Race To The Moon I think NASA's hidden secrets are about to be revealed. NASA is in the position of having the Apollo Myth revealed by foreign satellites.

There is an honorable outcome for those people at NASA who will disclose the truth about Apollo. The Cold War is over. No reason to continue fighting it.

Unfortunately there will be a lot of hearts broken when the truth comes out about Apollo. But it doesn't need to be so bad. If NASA chooses to go with UFO disclosure *now* they could justify an Apollo Hoax on the grounds that the public was not ready to accept it. It is really that easy! That is why the USIA and CBS and AT&T were involved in Apollo. The "new media" will handle the disclosure.

Ultimately, this is the realm in which "Man With Ice Cream Cone" exists. He lives in an in-between world. TV is real? but it's not really reality? This is also the realm where TV and film are produced for public consumption in order to evaluate the psychology of the general population. Are we ready for full disclosure? About Roswell?

If the general public, the man on the street, bought the reality of 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin affair - he will also buy 24 round trip tickets to the Moon! Edgar Mitchell had one of those round trip tickets and he believes that Roswell has been covered up by the government.

Belief is a strange thing. And history is tricky. Like a Tricky Dicky. We often misunderestimate it's tricks.



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird Fears include the proximity of landing, liftoff and flyover from a future landing/robotic vehicle, where rocket thrust may erase footprints and treads, sandblast nearby hardware and cause deposition of chemicals/dust.


Fear.

NASA has fear.

Fear of the truth.

Fear of the New Race To The Moon*



*please note on the pie chart where it indicates "Crewed" but there haven't said "6 Crewed" like the other slices of the pie chart. they only say "Crewed".
edit on 11/17/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I would like to know where people think the moon hoax was filmed? Was it indoors? If so, where are they hiding the gigantic building that was big enough to encompass the equivalent of what is basically a small mountain range in the background? Then maybe they filmed it outdoors? If so, how were they able to completely black out the sky? And whether it was indoors or outdoors, how were they able to light up the vast landscape so brightly and yet manage to not get any atmospheric lighting distortions such as hazing, refraction, light rays, etc.

Also, what kind of crazy huge lights did they use. I don't see any drop off of light at a distance. Meaning the ground is lit up the same on the hills in the background as it is in the foreground. That would be just about impossible with an atmosphere, and still really hard without one unless you were using something like, oh, the SUN.

I would REALLY like to hear your explanations. I can't wait.

edit on 17-11-2011 by JohnnySasaki because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 656  657  658    660  661  662 >>

log in

join