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.

 

Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 17
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



No human had ever claimed to have walked on the moon before the Apollo 12. The ONUS is on the Apollo 12 to prove they actually did.


No human claimed to have flown across the Atlantic Ocean before Lindbergh. You are welcome to believe he did, or believe it was some sort of magic trick. Same for Apollo. You can believe all the evidence or not. If you do not believe the evidence, you are welcome to refute it. That puts the onus on you.


You are always changing the topic to unrelated issues...




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


No sweat. There's more about that which don't add up to me, such as the varied shadow intensity/light sources (what's going on in the bottom left quarter for instance; Shadows? Reflection? *shrugs*look artificial, but I'd rather not beat a dead horse.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

Here is a satellite image at 0.5m/pixel (the highest resolution allowed for commercial use by the DOD).
geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com...

Here is an LROC image of the Apollo 14 landing site at 0.5m/pixel.
www.lroc.asu.edu...

Considering that the descent stage is about 13 feet across
upload.wikimedia.org...

A Chevy Blazer is 14 feet long, what is it that you would expect to see?


It will be a long time I'm afraid before I see anything conclusive from NASA.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
It's easy enough to fake evidence of a fictional event at a fictional representation of a setting if the only flow of said evidence and material for comparison is handled by you. I do however wonder how we have higher resolution pictures of places many light years away than of a place 60's technology, as crude as it was, could reach so much closer to home.

I would like to see one of these pictures of something many light years away with a resolution better than the LROC's 0.5m resolution.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

Here is a satellite image at 0.5m/pixel (the highest resolution allowed for commercial use by the DOD).
geoeyemediaportal.s3.amazonaws.com...

Here is an LROC image of the Apollo 14 landing site at 0.5m/pixel.
www.lroc.asu.edu...

Considering that the descent stage is about 13 feet across
upload.wikimedia.org...

A Chevy Blazer is 14 feet long, what is it that you would expect to see?


So, are you saying a Chevy Blazer is on the moon? Wrong!

Just kidding, I couldn't resist.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


No sweat. There's more about that which don't add up to me, such as the varied shadow intensity/light sources (what's going on in the bottom left quarter for instance; Shadows? Reflection? *shrugs*look artificial, but I'd rather not beat a dead horse.


Strange how Apollo believers never seem to address those issues.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
The problem is: you know those pictures where you can see your car in the driveway? They weren't taken by a satellite.


I never wrote that they were...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



#1 Why would NASA use a low resolution BLACK and WHITE video camera to capture arguably the greatest event in human history?


How old are you, actually? Did you know that at one time people didn't carry telephones in their pockets? Technology needs to be developed. One of the "spin offs" of the space program is that light weight television cameras were developed.

en.wikipedia.org...


Surely they could afford a colour one.


Again, how old are you?


#2 Armstong's first step the first word's on the moon's surface. There is absolutely no joy, excitement or euphoria in his voice. If you were the first human to set foot on the moon wouldn't you show more excitement??


Ever jumped out of an airplane? You are drilled in performing the PLF, you are drilled in recognizing whether the canopy is deployed properly or not. You are drilled in spreading the lines to un-twist a tangled chute. You are drilled in pulling the cutaway in the event that doesn't work. You are drilled in deploying the emergency chute. Failure to perform any of these tasks immaculately results in death. Are you beginning to understand that the pressure of life and death just might outweigh joy?


#3 Armstrong remarks how the surface of the moon is similar in topography to "much of the high desert of the United States".....hmmm did he make a Freudian slip? Was the moon landing faked in the "US high desert"...Area 51 perhaps?


Funny... when I've camped out in the desert, I've compared it to being on the Moon. Freudian slip?



The more I seem to examine NASA's evidence the more questions I have.


Then do some research and post your results. Rhetoric gets you nowhere on ATS.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Stanley Kubrick, or at least his not insubstantial film techniques, were used to make the Apollo mission footage. Jay Weidner has a DVD which has unfortunately been removed from youtube due to copyright infringements which explain in great detail how Stanley actually gave all clues in his movie The Shining. The clues were hidden in his deviation from the book and the DVD is called "Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo". It has been removed from youtube because it is a commercial DVD. Why would someone take the trouble to make a commercial DVD busting the whole thing wide open unless it was true?

His last movie, Eyes Wide Shut (a reference to Freemasons I believe, or Illuminati or some other secret society) was released contractually on a certain date. July 16, the same date as the Apollo program. The date is not coincidental. Several days later he was dead.

People are quick to say "Oh its just a youtube video" but there are plenty still out there. A Funny Thing Happened on The Way To The Moon, and The Lies In Their Visors are 2 that spring immediately to mind, along with the above mentioned commercially available film. I have watched them all and the evidence, when viewed with an OPEN MIND, speak volumes. NASA are liars, They may be unwitting liars, but in the eyes of the law, ignorance is no excuse. Oh wait...we can't pu a company in jail...

Debunk the hoax I cannot, I can say categorically that most if not all NASA have 'released' with regard to Apollo is complete and utter hogwash. That is not the same as saying man has not been to or on the moon, but they certainly did not do it on the Apollo mission footage we have seen.

NASA is just a front and so are many of the people here seeking to protect their good image(s).

I cannot debunk the hoax, because it was just that.

Thank you.

PS Did I mention they had a colour camera on board?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



I never wrote that they were...


I never said that you did.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Don't you think the Russians would have said something a long time ago if it wasn't true? Old tech and lots of guts got us to the moon.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by ShiningBeneath
It's easy enough to fake evidence of a fictional event at a fictional representation of a setting if the only flow of said evidence and material for comparison is handled by you. I do however wonder how we have higher resolution pictures of places many light years away than of a place 60's technology, as crude as it was, could reach so much closer to home.

I would like to see one of these pictures of something many light years away with a resolution better than the LROC's 0.5m resolution.


Sorry, my intention is to evoke thought on the comparative difficulty of such imagery. I meant to have you think of the distance and factoring in whatever may alter, diffuse, distort or otherwise impede the quality, not to say scale for scale the resolution is the same. Note to self: Language here really must self-monitored lest have your point be lost in favour of the literal




On the aerial photography vs satellite imagery - I suggest you take a look at areas designated as permanent no-fly zones



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

There is a lot of suspect circumstantial evidence to suggest we did not go to the Moon - However,i for one trust my general self judgement and believe that when a man with the apparent integrity of Buzz Aldrin says he went to the Moon then that for me is good enough for me.
And the general and more relative point that you have missed is that why have we not been back?why are we still here on the earth?Why haven't we left the close proximity of our atmosphere in all those years?Figure that out or at least ask those questions and i'll tell you you're on the right track.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Ever jumped out of an airplane?


Oh yeah Armstrong jumped 5000 ft to the moon's surface when he STEPPED off the Apollo craft. I can only imagine his sense of relief surviving such a death defying descent.

Colour video cameras existed well before 1969.

As for my age; I may be older than you...personal insults only make your pro moon landing arguments look weaker.

Keep up the good work DJ; your posts are rather amusing.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by southbeach
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

There is a lot of suspect circumstantial evidence to suggest we did not go to the Moon - However,i for one trust my general self judgement and believe that when a man with the apparent integrity of Buzz Aldrin says he went to the Moon then that for me is good enough for me.
And the general and more relative point that you have missed is that why have we not been back?why are we still here on the earth?Why haven't we left the close proximity of our atmosphere in all those years?Figure that out or at least ask those questions and i'll tell you you're on the right track.


Why hasn't mankind "returned" to the moon since?

Excellent question!

Maybe DJ or Phage can answer these questions...they seem to know everything...maybe they should be running NASA.

The only answer that I could give you is that a manned NASA spacecraft CAN'T return to the moon's surface because NASA doesn't believe they can land successfully. They know the people of the Earth will demand stunning detail and clarity of the landing site with HD COLOUR video cameras with crystal clear sound.

They may have been able to fool most of the people 40 yrs ago with their hoaxed imagery...they would become a laughing stock if they tried to hoax another "moon landing"
edit on 5-9-2011 by GrassyKnoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


I thought that one of the "proofs" that men have not been to the Moon is that men cannot survive outside the protective Magnetosphere (let alone atmosphere) of Earth. Low orbit missions like shuttle and ISS don't count. Leaving earth orbit in a soda can and standing in the full stream of the Sun's radiation on the surface of the Moon is supposedly lethal, right? I don't know, because nobody has ever shown me a study of how much radiation impacts the Moon from the Sun. Moon "soil" is sterile right? Like Mars? And Mars is further out. Astronauts are still alive today that walked and talked on the Moon. They haven't died of 22 cancers yet, so what's up with that? How come space is so lethal to satellites sensitive electronics and humans have survived so long after traveling to the Moon and back?


You thought wrong.

The answer to your youtube-video-inspired objection is not difficult to find. Shoot, I have a copy of the NASA medical summary dealing with the how and the what this was dealt with on my own computer. These are smart people at NASA. They actually thought of things like that before sending men through that danger zone.

The transcripts, in fact-- all of them-- have a simple sequence of three numbers mentioned each day before the sleep cycle. Those numbers are from the cumulative radiation of each astronaut.

But you go research it for yourself- like I and others have done. The youtube videos only persuade people who will not do their own research and the producers of those videos know it and count on it.

For those who know the subject, I am tempted to add that, not only do I have a copy the document, but ask, "Who doesn't?" But then, I set out to learn not to put forward a hypothesis that requires no study other than watching youtube.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Well, if you are looking for conclusive proof of anything, it will be hard to find. Though if you are looking for some really good logical arguments trying to prove we didn't go to the Moon then I suggest Jarrah White's youtube channel. Unlike most conspiracy theorists he actually addresses his critics that try to debunk him, and effectively debunks the debunkers. Personally I do think that we probably went, but I also think some parts were faked...some for PR reasons, and others to hide things they do not want us to know. I still find it impossible to believe a VTOL aircraft that barely worked in test flights on Earth could come screaming out of a lunar sky at thousands of miles per hour, right itself, then slow to a stop when landing on the Moons surface. Considering that it would only be using rocket thrusters to accomplish these radical maneuvers since there is no air pressure with which to help steer or slow oneself down...and also considering that this was a completely alien environment where inertia is the same as on Earth but Gravity is less, as well as the speed at which you fall.

When you look at the manned VTOL/SVTOL technology of today (excluding bladed helicopters which wouldn't work without atmosphere anyway) such as the Harrier Jet, or the F-35....these things can barely make any complex maneuvers...the F-35 being impressive because it could actually stop, make a 360 while hovering...then continue on forward again. Considering how incredibly unimpressive that is when compared to the complexity of the maneuvers of a Lunar Lander, It's hard not to conclude that they may have used some sort of levitation technology that is secret to this day, such as (but not necessarily limited to) anti-gravity or electro-gravitic.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DirtyRed
Don't you think the Russians would have said something a long time ago if it wasn't true? Old tech and lots of guts got us to the moon.


I'm sure a lot of Russians expressed doubt four decades ago; it's not like 60 minutes was there to get their side of the story.

I would be interested to know what Soviet politicians said back then and what they say today.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   
The Russians tracked the rockets to the moon, they would have said straight away if the Apollo missions were just in Earths orbit waiting until they could return to hoax the world, plus this could be seen by many with decent telescopes.

I met Russian Cosmonauts Alexander Martynov and Alexander Volkov at a Dinner at Ewood Park, Blackburn Rovers Football Ground in the UK in 1999 and asked them if he thought the Americans went to the moon.

He said they went to the moon 9 times.

Wish I had asked him how many times he thought they landed on the moon!

Perhaps the Russians wouldnt start claiming the Americans never landed because then they would have to go to prove it and they didn't have the technology so they just agreed to have lost the race.

I for one trully beleive they landed on the Moon, the pictures are there, they got the rocks, you can see the lander and tracks on the moon in many pictures and none of the Astronauts have ever said fake.

These men were the best of the best, they had the right stuff, they would not have stood for a hoax.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver
Stanley Kubrick, or at least his not insubstantial film techniques, were used to make the Apollo mission footage. Jay Weidner has a DVD which has unfortunately been removed from youtube due to copyright infringements which explain in great detail how Stanley actually gave all clues in his movie The Shining. ...


If you knew what that film about Kubrick ad the Apollo program was about and why it was made, you would really be embarrassed about posting what your wrote.

I mean, the "Woody Allen" Rabbi, and the joke about the Jew who became biting, even in his humor, so you might say he was an "Acidic Jew!" I laughed so hard. But then, I knew I was watching a comedy.

The McDonald wrappers in the jungle was also a favorite gag.

Ah, humor is lost on the ... on the whatever.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join