Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Idiots saying we never landed on the moon

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:37 AM
link   
of course man went to the moon, how could the USA government make up a hoax like that and still have us believe it?

www.badastronomy.com...




posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:17 PM
link   
still saying that the best solution is going back there to make them shut up. we will find the proof there and if we waren't there in the sixties we have been there on that moment to check out the proof



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Check out the link below. It explains rather nicely the crosshairs apearing to be behind objects, the shadow controversy and also the "2 miles away" photos.

www.badastronomy.com...



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Ok you bird did you see that fox show... it explains so obvisly that its a hoax because the flag is blowing in the video... theres no air in space so thats impossible its fake get over it NASA IS A WASTE OF MONEY!



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
the flag was "waving" because they were moving it back in forth trying to put it together. you can still shake something in space and it will still move. dont matter if theres air or not.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whats Happening?
theres no air in space so thats impossible its fake get over it


One word --- momentum.

When you move an object, it tends to want to keep moving, especially when there is no air.

This hoax concept is just plain silly, and based on a basic lack of understanding of science.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark


WOW and they were able to do that in 1969, before photoshop!!!!



WOW and they were able to walk on the moon but werent able to add a couple of lines to a photo?!!!!


jra

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Read this section on clavius.org if you want to find out more information about the crosshairs and why they disappear behind some things. www.clavius.org...

EDIT:

And one more thing i'd like to say is, cavscout. Why would they add lines to the photo after? And how would they disappear behind things when adding them to the photo?

[edit on 30-7-2004 by jra]



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Ok don't get on my case if there is a perfectly good explanation for this but I have been thinking and in every picture I have seen of the so-called "moon landing", or the shots of earth from afar... there is no stars. Where have all the stars gone? I don't know... please can someone explain why there is only a black sky and not even a trace of one single speck of anything??



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Well, a few thoughts on this thread. Firstly, noone is an idiot just for asking questions about the lunar landings, or for seeking answers to what appears to them to be an anomaly. Especially with all the misleading information (and TV shows, damn irresponsible FOX!) out there.

What does get stupid is that there is a small percentage of people who are so attached to the idea of the landings being hoaxed, that even when presented with the scientific explanation of their queries. Even when shown proof of the landings, continue to refuse to consider them anything but a hoax. That is what gets annoying.

Now, as stated there is a hell of a lot of bad pseudoscience out there 'proving' the landings fake. But luckily, there is also a lot of good actual science out there to refute this junk and show the truth of the matter. Excellent sites such as Clavius moon base, Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy and Redzero's Moonhoax. Cover every question or query posed about the landings. They are a very good starting point to start to clean up the lies and pseudoscience spread around by the proponents of the moon hoax theory.


Now, just for luck, I've added my standard reply to these moonhoax threads:


Standard reply to Moon Landing threads

There is no 'evidence' against the moon landings that hasn't been solidly and repeatedly debunked.

A few sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

Or you could go to NASAs site and search on Moon Hoax.

Proof...
Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



There is also this picture of the Apollo 15 landing site by a lunar orbiter.

www.space.com...


jra

posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
superslicksh0es: The reason we don't see stars in the photos has to do with the exposure of light on the film. We see a black sky and we tend to think of it as night time, but those photos were all taken in the day. With the sun shinning down on a light grey surface with people wearing white space suits, that creates a lot of reflected light. That means when one takes a photo, the shutter speed on the camera is going to be pretty fast. The stars arn't bright enough to show up on film on a fast exposure. I do believe the astronauts on the moon could see the stars (i remember reading that somewhere), but one would have needed to do a longer exposure to get them on film.

Even down here on Earth when you're taking a photo of the night sky. You would need at least a good 5 to 10 minute exposure to get the stars visable.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 10:05 AM
link   
thanks, i knew there had to be a good explanation for it.



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 10:31 AM
link   
You have been watching too many bad science fiction movies. I'll bet you would also expect that when something explodes in space yo hear the boom from miles away!



posted on Jul, 30 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Question: Even if the landing was a fake, what possible importance could there be at this point? Of all the conspiracy theories out there Id have to say this is the weakest of them all.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Almost every advance in science has arrived because someone dug deep and expressed doubt about something that our governments and religions have made painfully dogmatic.


Am I the only one who ses how pitifully wrong that statement is?

Skip. I'm afraid you simply do not understand how science works.


Comment:

I would say I do understand the paradigms that underscore the history of science. For one I recommend Thomas Kuhn and his excellent book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

The Church says "the world is flat," and Copernicus comes also and says it is not necessarily so.

I rest my case in the more than obvious, so what is your question?



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 02:25 AM
link   
I've been thinking about this recently, you have to take a step back and look at the big picture. I don't think this is about wether we went to the moon or not, it's about, how many people could be fooled to believe that something didn't happen.

If we send 2-3 special agents to iraq, i could argue that we never sent anyone there, but a lot of countries sent men in there so its undisputable, when you have 2 astronauts, and 100,000 hoaxers supporting this crap the scales are going to tip in favour of the hoaxers.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
four words that prove we never went to the moon---VAN ALLEN RADIATION BELT



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:30 AM
link   
Those four words don't prove much apart from proving you really haven't looked into it.


jra

posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 03:39 AM
link   
*sigh* Again with the Van Allen belts...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

You should read up more about radiation and the Van Allen belts before stating such things like the Van Allen belts being something that would stop the Apollo missions.



posted on Aug, 1 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Those who claim that the moon landing was a hoax based on supposed "facts" are realy doing nothing more than relying on bad science and media conspiracy theory hype.
Please please please, before anybody else post their so-called "proof", PLEASE check out the numerous links posted above regarding the badastronomy website.
Stop using pseudo-science. Its embarrasing to you and insulting to your intelligence.
Please, again, before anybody posts another "its a hoax and here's the proof" comment, please check out the badastronomy links that have been generously provided above
To do otherwise is to willingly wallow in ignorance.





new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join