Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01

Originally posted by ViP3r
reply to post by ViP3r
 

What Neil should of done was : put his left hand on the bible and said "Hi, I'm Neil Armstrong and i DID land on the moon " ...BUT instead his little buddy was tryng to get the guy to leave...here's the link again for those that have not seen it !
www.youtube.com...



The guy is a pest.....Look at how he approaches them and walks around them. He is too confrontational. The dude is an azzhole.

How would you react in a real world situation like that. I have seen guys get their azz whipped just for looking at a dude wrong

OK,I do see your point in a way,but in another way, i don't.Obviously both Neil and the religious/nut/reporter aren't convicts or felons and dont act that way !




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I like to question things they try to spoon feed me. You don't. It isn't a fault, we are just different. If something seems fishy to me, I want to try to understand it, that is why I am asking for solid, credible proof, because I don't have any for either side.


If you are genuinely interested in understanding the topic you can begin by learning about rocketry, astronomy, physics, photography and other related disciplines. You will then be able to review all the data, understand it and reach an informed, independent conclusion. Everyone who has done so is entirely convinced that the Moon landings occurred more or less as described in the historical record. No-one is going to spoon feed you anything. Knowledge is something you need to work hard for.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
With the sheer amount of people involved and with the Russians watching, the idea that the Moon landings were hoaxed is just preposterous.

You mean to tell me, that in 42 years not one whistleblower has surfaced? Not one?

By the way, if I was Buzz Aldrin and I got lured to that location under false pretenses by Bart Sibrel I would've punched him too. He was just asking for it.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Short of landing on the lunar surface hiting one of the golf balls and taking photos of the LEM second stages and lunar rovers allegedly littering the lunar surface ......

As you noted in your OP it does seem somewhat odd that google moon doesn't offer a hi res option to look at the alleged landing sites, and no doubt those who belong to the "US landed on the moon" camp will point to the laser receiver allegedly left on the lunar surface by the apollo programme,can this be proven?



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedeadlyrhythm
OP, wouldn't it make more sense for you to debunk the moon landing itself first before you demand people debunk the (assumed, and thats a big one) hoaxed moon landing? just a thought


All I want is high resolution satellite photos of Apollo mission artifacts left on the surface of the moon.

I never said the moon landings were faked...I just want solid proof. Not the grainy satellite photos NASA has provided us with that confirm absolutely nothing.

Wouldn't NASA want to boast of it's achievements by providing ultra high resolution satellite images?

It would only cost NASA a few million to send a high resolution spy satellites to orbit the moon and give us stunningly clear images of the Apollo landing sites. It would also be fascinating to explore the moon in accurate detail.

I'm still waiting...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

and no doubt those who belong to the "US landed on the moon" camp will point to the laser receiver allegedly left on the lunar surface by the apollo programme,can this be proven?





posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by superman2012
 


I take it then you have no evidence of a rover ?


No I don't, just as you don't that man was there.


sooooo

if the mirror wasn't placed with a rover, and the rocks were not brought back with a rover, the only logical explanation is the apollo misisons, correct ?

surely you don't dismiss every space flight since garin , right ?

or is it only the prestigious historical and beloved US manned missions you have a problem with ?


Space flight isn't a problem with me, the only thing I question is the many unanswered questions regarding the apollo missions to the moon. Not all of the questions that I have asked have been answered, the believers seem to cherry pick the questions as do the non-believers. See? I can admit that we don't have all the answers too.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Junkheap
With the sheer amount of people involved and with the Russians watching, the idea that the Moon landings were hoaxed is just preposterous.

You mean to tell me, that in 42 years not one whistleblower has surfaced? Not one?

By the way, if I was Buzz Aldrin and I got lured to that location under false pretenses by Bart Sibrel I would've punched him too. He was just asking for it.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Junkheap because: (no reason given)


What about the amount of people that were in the Vietnam war? Did they know they were lied to? No. It is compartmentalization. Already stated earlier in the thread.

ps- I agree that that man was very annoying to Buzz Aldrin, he should have gone about it a different way. That being said, there are too many inconsistincies if you watch his "documentary" to believe the "official" story.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:29 PM
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??


If everything "reeks of conspiracy" to you before you know anything about it, is reasoning and evidence likely to change your mind?

The "grainy" .4 meter/pixel stuff is the newest and greatest available.

Here is something for you to try:

Using Google Earth's Moon setting, zoom down to where you see pixels.
Measure the pixel.


Whatever resolution your were expecting is not what is actually there. The current moon images used by Google earth as the default is something close to 100 meters/pixel from what I can tell. Whereas the largest man made object on the moon is the Saturn S-IVB third stage rocket boosters which went "splat" is only 6.6 meters in diameter. That means you won't see anything man-made.

There are newer images becoming available on Google Earth taken from a newish (2009) orbiting camera using your "grainy" .4 meters/pixel resolution. These include some of the Apollo landing sites and two of the third stage booster craters. Those are easily available to you and anyone else for Google Earth users or simply by going to the NASA site and downloading for yourself.

Of course, that won't help because you already have it set in your mind that if you actually see what is there, then the only explanation you will accept is that the image has been faked. For you, the discussion is futile.

But for others:

Here is a Apollo 14 S-IVB impact crater-- the crumpled S-IVB booster visible in the center of it.



Finally: Earth images are high resolution because of several needs which justify the cost of satellites providing regular imaging. Those needs do not exist in regard to the moon-- those person are not needing proof that the moon landings happened, nor are they interested in using resources to find the hatches in the craters through which the Altarians launch their mother-ships. Besides, if we actually did need an image of a mother-ship hatch inside of a crater, there are hundreds of "authoritative" and "reliable" conspiracy blog sites which will provide you with images of these-- completely free of NASA technology so you can trust them.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasco2
reply to post by superman2012
 


The evidence is all in the public domain. If you are not equipped to evaluate the evidence and come to the inescapable conclusion that we did in fact go to the moon that is not my problem. It's yours.


I will, however, give you this as a start:

www.nasa.gov...
edit on 5-9-2011 by wasco2 because: add link


Your link provides grainy low resolution images that prove nothing. In fact they raise more questions. Why doesn't NASA want to provide high resolution photos? Someone should tell NASA it's 2011 and not 1969...photo and satellite technology have improved by leaps and bounds.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



I'm still waiting...


You need only to wait until tomorrow:

www.nasa.gov...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by nake13
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Short of landing on the lunar surface hiting one of the golf balls and taking photos of the LEM second stages and lunar rovers allegedly littering the lunar surface ......

As you noted in your OP it does seem somewhat odd that google moon doesn't offer a hi res option to look at the alleged landing sites, and no doubt those who belong to the "US landed on the moon" camp will point to the laser receiver allegedly left on the lunar surface by the apollo programme,can this be proven?


I agree with you, we should go back to the moon. It is not feasible at this time, nor do they have the right shielding anymore(?) (as I stated before).

I also quoted that the laser bouncing off the moon is NOT proof that man landed on the moon. They bounced a laser off the moon years before "man went there".



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ViP3r
First off ,i like to say i would rather trust SOME and i mean SOME you tube video's over wikipedia's ,since wikipedia content can be modified at any time ...Usually it says something like this at the bottom (This page was last modified on.date..) .. Now , i believe also that the moon landing was faked as well .So a star for you Mr. Grassyknoll. Check out Buzz and Neil. Buzz is getting violent and Neil wont swear to it . Hmmmm
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...




Armstrong doesn't sound credible when refusing to swear on the bible...he looks like a liar.

No wonder he punched the the reporter in the other video...he's losing his cool...are all these years of lying causing him to go mental??



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by superman2012
 



I like to question things they try to spoon feed me. You don't. It isn't a fault, we are just different. If something seems fishy to me, I want to try to understand it, that is why I am asking for solid, credible proof, because I don't have any for either side.


If you are genuinely interested in understanding the topic you can begin by learning about rocketry, astronomy, physics, photography and other related disciplines. You will then be able to review all the data, understand it and reach an informed, independent conclusion. Everyone who has done so is entirely convinced that the Moon landings occurred more or less as described in the historical record. No-one is going to spoon feed you anything. Knowledge is something you need to work hard for.


I understand what you are saying, and it would take a lifetime for an individual to do all of that, however, why would NASA Langley's chief scientist say, " how little we still know about the effects of cosmic radiation and zero gravity on the human body and mind, how we don't even have spacesuits that protect against radiation"? Is there not radiation in space? On the moon? Van Allen radiation belts? You surely can see where I am coming from. I am trying to believe the other side because it is a nice story, but, not everything is described accurately or without inconsistincies.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



I'm still waiting...


You need only to wait until tomorrow:

www.nasa.gov...


Got it bookmarked can't wait to see NASA's new photos.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I also quoted that the laser bouncing off the moon is NOT proof that man landed on the moon. They bounced a laser off the moon years before "man went there".


I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of a retro-reflector. It bounces the light straight back the way it came, with no diminution of energy. that's why:


The recent images released by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter of the Apollo landing sites are truly remarkable. But there is one instrument on board LRO that must avoid studying some of the the Apollo sites as well as other places where humans have placed spacecraft on the the lunar surface. The Lunar Orbiting Laser Altimeter (LOLA) pulses a single laser beam down to the surface to create a high-resolution global topographic map of the Moon. However, LOLA is turned off when it passes over the Apollo sites because bouncing the laser off any of the retro-reflective mirrors on experiments left by the astronauts might damage the instrument.


www.universetoday.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by iNkGeEk
 


I suppose you are right, with the level of technology we have now we can replicate the moon landing on a hollywood set itself...



they were photoshopping just fine back then....theres a thread on this site that goes into detail about the techniques they had way back.....


Link to that please? Photoshop development started in 1987


I am assuming the person is refering to photoshopping as a verb, just as people call all facial tissue, Kleenex.

Here is your link.


Yeah I'm familiar with photographic manipulation techniques. In the film era it wasn't that easy and it's pretty time consuming. After trying some myself I can only smile at people who suggest apollo was hoaxed using these techniques. Also when it comes to film manipulation in movies that is a whole different ball park and in the 60's and 70's they had nothing that could've gotten the job done.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 



I understand what you are saying, and it would take a lifetime for an individual to do all of that, however, why would NASA Langley's chief scientist say, " how little we still know about the effects of cosmic radiation and zero gravity on the human body and mind, how we don't even have spacesuits that protect against radiation"? Is there not radiation in space? On the moon? Van Allen radiation belts? You surely can see where I am coming from. I am trying to believe the other side because it is a nice story, but, not everything is described accurately or without inconsistincies.


No-one has 100% knowledge about everything, or even anything. All one needs to know is enough. NASA knew enough about space radiation to know that the exposures involved in a short trip to the Moon were manageable. We also know enough now to know that the probable exposures on a lengthy trip to Mars (or a long stay on the Moon) probably aren't manageable. That is why scientists study these things, and engineers keep looking for a "work around."



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Yea I totally agree, the moon landing was a hoax. I watched lots of videos about how they did it with the help of MGM and a bunch of high paid people to take the Kennedy situation off the radar. It was a hook line and sinker, and the public fell for it once again.

And if they went to the moon.......why wont they go back again? Maybe they missed something where they didnt land? Dont they have to re-test their results with another person to confirm it? Say, send the Russians, Japanese, Korean, Chinese to check out and confirm the landing? How come there is no more talk of it? It just happened and dont dare question it? Sounds like goverment conspiracy to me.

And another thing, why hasnt anyone, like a independant researcher with lots of money take a bunch of photos of the moon with their fancy telescope? Is it because they landed on the 'other side' of the moon so we couldnt see it? Seriously....



edit on 5-9-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 



Yea I totally agree, the moon landing was a hoax. I watched lots of videos about how they did it with the help of MGM and a bunch of high paid people to take the Kennedy situation off the radar. It was a hook line and sinker, and the public fell for it once again.


Yes, some people believe anything they see on a video.


And if they went to the moon.......why wont they go back again? Maybe they missed something where they didnt land? Dont they have to re-test their results with another person to confirm it? Say, send the Russians, Japanese, Korean, Chinese to check out and confirm the landing? How come there is no more talk of it? It just happened and dont dare question it? Sounds like goverment conspiracy to me.


If you cut me a check for 150 billion dollars, I can send you to confirm it yourself.






top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join