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: 28
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Would Phage or DJW001 or any of the other fairytale pushers care
to comment on this video, which was banned in the great US of A?


The fact that this Fakery worked so well was the inspiration behind
the use of similar methods to pull off any even bigger hoax - 9/11

NASA THIEVES AND LIARS.

p.s...I ask Phage again to deploy some of his obvious skills in analysing ALL
released 9/11 footage, to determine whether it is faked or not!
I am sure ATS members would be grateful for your analysis.
Come on Phage. Show us how genuine you really are.




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
I implore you to go get this movie For All Mankind - Bluray Edition. Its the film video camera footage that was taken on the Apollo missions. Not the digital transmission that we saw live. This movie is a couple decades old and keeps getting released on the latest format as picturew quality gets better. Film has a near limitless resolution and at 1080p this is one of the most beautifull movies I have seen.

There probably isn't better quality then this movie (on Bluray) available to the public. Watch and decide if you think they had the ability to create this realistic of a "set". And then remember that it would still be 10 years before Star Wars would break grounds with amazing special effects that were still "noticable" by todays standards.

Seriously get this Bluray. Its stunning.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
Banned in America. Right. A hoax title for a stolen piece of nonsense.
It's from that jackass Bart Sibrel's movie A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
en.wikipedia.org...

The fakery is Sibrel's.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 9/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Banned in America. Right. A hoax title for a stolen piece of nonsense.
It's from that jackass Bart Sibrel's movie A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
en.wikipedia.org...

The fakery is Sibrel's.
www.youtube.com...
edit on 9/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Unconvincing at best Phage imho. It still looks exactly the same as when, according to a previous poster they were "goofing off". Words like nonsense hold little sway here as I'm sure you can imagine. The ...hmm, whats the word...detail and resolution in your posted youtube film of the earth looks EXACTLY the same as the so called goof video presented in Bart Sibrels film, just slightly better filmed and without the mistakes we got to see. Detail, definition and resolution are exactly the same though so I still say BS.

At least they tried to get the earth bulge right this time though. Practice makes perfect.
I can make much seem small that is large on a camera, and vice versa. its called zoom, or rather the lack of it. Bad try.

An in your opinion bad title for a youtube film does not refute its evidence, none the less.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

Both used the same source video. Sibrel chose to edit certain parts out. Parts he didn't want you to see. In particular the parts that show that the "arm" is actually the window frame.


A cutout on the window...right.

I wonder why the youtube poster had to call it "Banned in America". I wonder why he didn't provide the source of the nonsense.
edit on 9/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


The levitation technology is called rockets, they work quite well in zero atmosphere. The problems with VTOLs are they are just jet engines, with a fraction of the thrust and have to work from ground, or sea level where the atmosphere is thickest. Besides, the lunar landers didn't make any incredible maneuvers, they just slowed the craft to land, quite simple with 1/6th earth gravity and no atmosphere.


Actually it's incredibly complex to do such maneuvers in a completely alien enviroment...or do you forget that even though gravity is less, the inertia of bringing a craft carrying multiple people screaming out of the lunar sky will be exactly the same as on earth....Remember G forces that fighter pilots experience? Those are not caused by gravity, but are caused by inertia...Landing the lunar lander wasn't like operating a submarine where everything goes in slow motion....The pull of gravity might be slower, but inertia will be the same, and everything would be going quite quickly without any atmosphere to brake the craft or guide it, your talking about an incredibly exotic bit of flying done at a time well before computer simulators were advanced enough to even make a Pac Man game, let alone a sophisticated flight simulator...In other words there was no way to practice these maneuvers in any realistic way for the Astronauts, so they would be completely winging it.(though 'winging it' is a poor choice of words in this situation!)
.....If it were so easy then our unmanned computer controlled landers would perform them all the time when landing on foreign planets....instead of relying on exotic Ideas like inflatable airbags and enormous parachutes (on planets like mars that barely have enough atmosphere for such an Idea to work)
Also jet engines work quite well...the only reason they are used over rockets on Earth is that they are more efficient.....Unfortunately in space there is no atmosphere to add to the mix of jet fuel. As for their thrust abilities, I imagine that rockets do offer more thrust, but I'm not how that translates to making them better for maneuverability than a jet engine...I don't think the Lunar Lander would have used thrust exceeding that of which jet engine(s) could produce under the same conditions except perhaps at take off....(assuming you could find or simulate the an environment just like the Moon but with atmosphere for the jet to work)....I could be wrong about that, but I don't really think it effects my argument that much, since I'm not really arguing Rockets VS Jets, but rather pointing out the complexity of the Lunar Lander's maneuvers, and how nothing we have today could match it whether it be rocket or jet powered.
edit on 8-9-2011 by bhornbuckle75 because: My foot fell asleep.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


but rather pointing out the complexity of the Lunar Lander's maneuvers, and how nothing we have today could match it whether it be rocket or jet powered.

What complexity do you mean? Do you think docking the shuttle and Souyz spacecraft with the ISS is trivial? Or is that a hoax as well?

You know there was a trainer for the LM right? The pilots were well trained and highly skilled but you know that most of the "flying" of the LM was under control of the autopilot right? You can read a little bit about it here:
www.ibiblio.org...




edit on 9/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
In other words there was no way to practice these maneuvers in any realistic way for the Astronauts, so they would be completely winging it.



The landings were indeed practised using a real LEM, in a very realistic way, during Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 missions.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
because for the life of me I cannot find conclusive proof that anyone landed on the moon.

Here is a picture showing the locations of alleged moon landing sites:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Can anyone please provide me with high resolution photos of the sites showing NASA artifacts left behind?

And please no grainy 0.5 megapixel crap.

I mean we have google earth, google sky even google mars...why the hell don't we have a high resolution google moon app??? This reeks of a conspiracy to me.

A thought occured to me earlier today; the infamous shot of an American astronaut hitting a golf ball on the moon. What was the temperature on the moon that day. If the temperature was really cold like -100 C or colder wouldn't the golf ball have been so brittle that it shattered into hundreds of pieces?? Anyone remember their highschool science teacher dipping a balloon into liquid nitrogen and then shattering the ballon like glass all over the floor???

If it were to be proven that the moon landings were hoaxes, wouldn't this be one of the greatest lies of all time??


Well I wont have a chance to read the posts below this till much later today but hopefully you have been told that

1) Google earth etc are just a huge database of pictures
2) Google earth has pictures taken from space ,AIRCRAFT and from ground level.
3) The 0.5 mtr res that people moan about is just as good as the pictures Google earth uses from space.
4) Hubble can only resolve objects around 300 ft in size on the Moon thats due to optical principles not conspiracy theories!
5) The reason the Google earth pics look better taken from space is because you see HUNDREDS of objects you can recognise such as buildings houses bridges vehicles etc. IF the moon was covered with those like the earth the LRO 0.5 mtr pics would look just the same as the google earth pictures look.

Dont know if this has been posted or not have a look read how its done and enjoy!


edit on 9-9-2011 by wmd_2008 because: spelling



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSandMansExecutioner

Originally posted by patternfinder
is nasa calling a no fly zone over the moon for real?


According to Here:
No Fly Zone



Well there's a reliable source of information



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
A stride is about 3ft on earth. The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth so the strides should be a lot bigger.

Do your legs get longer as gravity decreases?



Actually astronauts do get a little taller because all the weight is taken off their joints and vertebrae so they expand but go back to normal once back on the the ground.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valar God
Have you ever flew by a plane ?

Did you have a 20kg or something of weight limit ?

Did you measure your bag or even every peace of clothes separately
in order to not exceed that limit but to carry as much as you could ?

Well, the same thing is with the space flights.

Do you know how much fuel does it take to get 1 kg to the orbit ?

Can you imagine how much would take to get it to the Moon ?

How much would it take to get a golf club, those vehicles with their heavy batteries,
and all the other crap they allegedly took to the Moon ?

How much would it take to get tons of rocks from the Moon ?

How much fuel would it take to carry that fuel needed for carrying that crap ?

Yes, they were carrying loads of # there and back, no problem with that.



All of this, if there was a propulsion system that could get anything outside Earth's orbit.


Yes, THERE IS NO PROPULSION SYSTEM KNOWN TO MEN THAT CAN GET HIM
ANYWHERE OUTSIDE EARTH'S ORBIT !


Even if the rocket system works, one would have to refuel numerous times till Moon.

Yes, all the Mars missions are fake.

There are no satellites orbiting anything except Earth's orbit.

There is no Milky Way.

You would have to go outside the Milky Way in order to see it.
You can't determine that you are in something by looking from inside of it.

Any picture of something in space is either photographed from the Earth or it is a fake.

And most of them are fake.

In order to look at something far far far away you would need incredibly incredibly incredibly
precise mechanism for moving the telescope to compensate the Earth's rotation.

Yes, that exists but it is not that precise to allow you to fix on something that is too far away.


As for the people "believing" in Moon landing,
I just can't believe that someone SO stupid exists,
so I incline to think that they are shills,
instead of idiots,
but if they are persistent, they might prove me wrong.





You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


You demand it. NASA offers it.

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSandMansExecutioner

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Testing in vacuum chambers; unmanned flights with test equipment on board. Also keep in mind that 8 years passed between the first man in space and the moon landing, so there was time for development, improvement, and safeguards to be developed.


Without sounding arguementative,How would they have known to test for a vacuum?
This is why i mention the probability of nasa being helped by other intelligences.


I fully agree with the idea of improvements being made during regular orbits, and the landing on the moon.
Practise Makes Perfect.

But unlike normal events, this had to be perfect without practise!!!

As i said, The Moon will always be No.1 Debate Material.

Personally, i think weve been there and back on hundreds of occasions. Maybe even other planets.
Just not with conventional rockets and fuel.

There are probably a few things missing from the complete periodic table, to the ones we are shown.



They knew space was a vacume because earth has an atmosphere.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Valar God
 


I actually have to point you to it? You make no effort on your own yet make those claims???
Start here:

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...



I am impressed that you know how to google something
and that you know about wikipedia.

The thing you are lacking is RELEVANCE !



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
...


You don't burn fuel all the way to anywhere in space including the moon. You burn fuel to push off and depending on how far you have to go and where you're are going is how long you have to push off for. Once you're on your way to your desired velocity you cann the rockets or else you'll end up going faster than you want and overshoot your target or burn up more fuel than you wanted in order slow down. So you only need enough fuel to start, slow down, stop start again and then slow down and stop or slow down and re enter.



And you know that how ?

From the Moon missions ?

LOL.

Are we going in circle here ?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:00 AM
link   
Hello,

I admit I haven't run through all 26 pages so I don't know if this has been posted, but just a few days ago NASA just released some new photos from a low passing satellite. I'll post the link below to the popular science article about it. But to make things short, the picture shows the astronauts landing vehicle and all the foot prints of the trails they left while walking around the moon. Pretty interesting.

I've always been a skeptic of the moon landing but this looks legit.

Article: www.popsci.com...

Photo: www.popsci.com...
edit on 9-9-2011 by Inous because: (no reason given)


Oh looks like rocket88 found a similar post on NASA's site. Either way its still a good photo.
edit on 9-9-2011 by Inous because: Giving credit where it's needed



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:16 AM
link   
If you cant bebunk it yourself you should change your opinion...



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join