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.

 

Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 11
109
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Detergent
 


I see the tire tracks behind the rover, but you obviously don't want to see them.



well here, look at this pic and tell me where the belle m is......i'm telling you it's easy to do photoshopping


misclassified.cz.cc...




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Talk to me about Photoshop, I've been using it since 1989. I'm not here to tutor you or examine every photo a hoaxer has a problem with, it's not my problem.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Frira
 


I am with you 100% on that. I remember the moon landings being on TV. I also remember IBM 360 computers and tray of punch cards. Unfortunately youngsters have absolutely no concept of what things were like then.

The IBM I worked on took up a complete floor of the building it was in, and yes it was programmed with punch cards. Try cracking that code when you have dropped the tray!! Graphics? - nope!

reply to post by patternfinder
 


Tell me. Were you even alive then?
edit on 5/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)


so they managed to send a manned mission to the moon and return them all with the computing equivalent of a scientific calculator and they cant do it now with supercomputers that can out smart a human???? yeah that makes sense...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TiM3LoRd
 

Who said they can't?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
While I believe that moon landings took place, I don't believe all if any of the footage was real , especially the first landing.

Think of it. They sent up national heroes,to the moon, the first time man had set foot on another planet so to speak.And they pulled it off, on live TV in 1969.Luckily, everything went just fine.But what a risk to take, our heroes could have died horribly before our very eyes.Aside from being a human diaster it would have been a political armageddon

Now think of the time,1969. Think Cold War and Space Race. Propaganda was everything, be it predicated on truth or falsehood. What good was it landing on the moon without strong visual proof to show the world?

I believe they embellished their accomplishments with falsified footage to garner public enthusiasm and political kudos.Pictures paint a thousand words and moving pictures paint an entire library. Without them the whole impact of the event would have been greatly lessened.I find it hard to believe they filmed a perfect virgin moonlanding on live TV when we can barely make a cellphone call today without a hitch.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I was a 20-year-old geek when Armstrong was suppose to have set foot on the moon.
I was gung-ho America. Na Na Russia. We beat you there. Ha Ha Ha
I was also very pro-science and believed astronomers were the coolest people on the planet.
They showed the astronauts walking around. This was suppose to be live from the moon. No one had ever mentioned hoax/scam yet. 99.99% of the world, myself included, just assumed that, of course this was real.
Then I saw a shooting star pass behind Armstrong.
I considered a random cosmic particle had hit the camera but the odds of two hitting it, one that lasted just until it reached Armstrong, and another beginning on the other side of him and continuing along the same path just seemed too far-fetched for serious consideration. It was a shooting star and it passed behind Armstrong.
I did not read any moon hoax books
I did not need to go to any moon hoax sites
I know that one of two 'alleged' facts is wrong and I know it from personal experience.
Either there is an atmosphere on the moon sufficient to heat an incoming body and produce a 'shooting star' effect
OR
What I was watching was NOT filmed on the moon.

Did a moon hoax require the involvement of two dozen or two hundred people? I don't know. But I saw a shooting star behind Armstrong.
Did the astronauts circle the moon and send down the lander by remote or did they hide out in earth orbit for a week? I do not know. But I saw a shooting star behind Armstrong.
How proud and committed and devoted were the people working on this project? How many had sons who admired them? I don't know. But I saw a shooting star behind Armstrong.

Until that fact is explained all the arguments why it could not have been faked are meaningless. I do not need to argue how deadly the Van Allen radiation belts are or why shadows seemed misaligned or why the light reflected from the moon's surface that seemed to illuminate everything else did not seem to light up the bottom of the rocks right next to it. None of these things matter to me. I saw a shooting star pass behind Armstrong. 'Nuff said.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   
was your father One of the Scientist that was in Operation Paperclip ?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Could you clarify your post a little? Are you saying they faked 6 moon landings because they got money for it? Or are you referring to a specific youtube poster?

If your saying that they faked the moon due to them getting money... well sorry I just don't buy that. No pun intended.

Every single argument trying to prove the moon landings a hoax can be refuted. So now it seems people are arguing over radiation levels. But I take little value in armchair physicists hypothesis.



It was a race between the Russians and the U.S. to get to space. You don't think we would fake the first one just to say we got there first?

If everyone of the theories can be refuted can you explain the 'wire' theory to me?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I don't see any way around the video where the guy is laying on the "moon surface" trying to get up... then an invisible force just lifts him to his feet.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by blah yada
 


Already many links posted in this thread that has extensive coverage of all of the aspects of all of the Apollo cameras, yawn.

Apollo Lunar Surface Jurnal

Apollo 11 TV and Communications Documentation

The Cameras of Apollo

Apollo Flight Jornal

Mission Photography

Hasselbald in Space



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
I think that only the first moon landing was fake. Since then they definetly went to moon, but not the first time at least..


I'd be interested to know why you think this?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athin

Originally posted by DerekJR321
reply to post by patternfinder
 


Could you clarify your post a little? Are you saying they faked 6 moon landings because they got money for it? Or are you referring to a specific youtube poster?

If your saying that they faked the moon due to them getting money... well sorry I just don't buy that. No pun intended.

Every single argument trying to prove the moon landings a hoax can be refuted. So now it seems people are arguing over radiation levels. But I take little value in armchair physicists hypothesis.



It was a race between the Russians and the U.S. to get to space. You don't think we would fake the first one just to say we got there first?

If everyone of the theories can be refuted can you explain the 'wire' theory to me?
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

I don't see any way around the video where the guy is laying on the "moon surface" trying to get up... then an invisible force just lifts him to his feet.



top notch videos!!!!!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Athin
 

It's called an antenna, not a wire.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.xmission.com...
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
edit on 9/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATS23

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
I think that only the first moon landing was fake. Since then they definetly went to moon, but not the first time at least..


I'd be interested to know why you think this?


He has a point, the first time they went to the moon they didn't land, it's called Apollo 8.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Athin
 

It's called an antenna, not a wire.
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.xmission.com...
lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...
edit on 9/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



oh, so the antenna, pulled that one astronot up off the ground? very interesting..........



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ex_CT2
I was an adult (19 years old), and in the Navy, when man first set foot on the moon. Having lived and breathed the heady atmosphere of American know-how of that time; the extreme exaltation and the heartbreaking tragedies of the astronauts; the excitement of the news coverage of every launch and recovery--back when the "MSM" meant "Uncle" Walter Cronkite--no one can tell me we didn't send men to the moon. And brought them all back alive.

Now I'm just an old guy wishing someone would *finally* get some high-def photos of the landing sites, so we can at last get some closure on this. And shut these annoying little ####s up!


Looks like the propaganda worked as intended. You admit having extreme pride in your country and that is the effect it was meant to have on millions of Americans. But looking at the evidence with a clear and open mind, one comes to a different conclusion than the U.S government and media have created.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


It's called momentum, and 1/6th earth gravity assist. *rolls eyes*



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Your imagination is so limited. Yes, the Apollo missions happened. However, that does not mean the astronauts went to the Moon! only the machines went to the Moon. The astronauts were inside a hangar and played live theater for the wolrd.

Your dad need not know anything about it, and also the engineers didn't need to know anything about it.

And before you say "but communications were received in real time and with the appropriate delay from the Moon", I will tell you this: the communication signals were truly sent from the Moon, through a relay station that transmitted the signal it received from the hangar the theater took place.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by blah yada
While I believe that moon landings took place, I don't believe all if any of the footage was real , especially the first landing.


If none of the moon landing videos are real then there is no proof the astronauts were ever there.

The pictures are vague at best. At worst they raise more questions.

Like the lunar rover tracks being much lighter in shade than the footpath...ridiculous!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by patternfinder
 


It's called momentum, and 1/6th earth gravity assist. *rolls eyes*



oh, wow, that's one crazy momentum then...he was standing straight at around a 35 degree angle from the ground and all of a sudden just pops up.......very interesting that momentum on the moon just kicks in when it wants to don't it? even at weird times....

edit on 6-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ellis1234
Just contributing something i was reading before, i don't have much knowledge on moon landings but thought this was relevant




Source: www.bbc.co.uk...


Well .. interesting to note off the BBC link..


The lunar body is constantly bombarded by micrometeorites


well.. I was interested in what exactly is a micrometeorite


Micrometeoroids are very small pieces of rock or metal broken off from larger chunks of rock and debris often dating back to the birth of the solar system. Micrometeoroids are extremely common in space.

Tiny particles are a major contributor to space weathering processes. When they hit the surface of the Moon, or any airless body (Mercury, the asteroids, etc.), the resulting melting and vaporization causes darkening and other optical changes in the regolith. In order to understand the micrometeoroid population better, a number of spacecraft (including Lunar Orbiter 1, Luna 3, Mars 1 and Pioneer 5) have carried micrometeoroid detectors..


Effect on spacecraft operations

Micrometeoroids pose a significant threat to space exploration. Their velocities relative to a spacecraft in orbit can be on the order of kilometers per second, and resistance to micrometeoroid impact is a significant design challenge for spacecraft and space suit designers (See Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment). While the tiny sizes of most micrometeoroids limits the damage incurred, the high velocity impacts will constantly degrade the outer casing of spacecraft in a manner analogous to sandblasting. Long term exposure can threaten the functionality of spacecraft systems.

Impacts by small objects with extremely high velocity are a current area of research in terminal ballistics. Accelerating objects up to such velocities is difficult; current techniques include linear motors and shaped charges. The risk is especially high for objects in space for long periods of time, such as satellites. They also pose major engineering challenges in theoretical low-cost lift systems such as rotovators, space elevators, and orbital airships.
Wiki

..........HUGE AMOUNTS OF RISK to equipment and the man themselves and purely against ALL odds we manage to DODGE ALL of this without ripping though the spacesuits, it's equipment, damaging the humans in the suits themselves of not going straight thru themselves not even to mention getting in the controls and what not.. !!! WOW.. !!!! isn't that a miracle !!

sorry pics of the landings gives ZERO Proof against the sheer amount of odds of physics, logic and common sense, science and the properties of space itself.....but.. as long as NASA says we did it .. yup .. we did .. because we're #1 !!!

with the multiple BILLIONS $$$$$$$$$$$$ the governments of the world are generating.. you'd think we could be a unmanned machine .. you know much like the Mars rover...................right ??
edit on 6-9-2011 by Komodo because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
109
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join