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: 25
109
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by borutp
reply to post by DJW001
 


For instance...compare these two pictures and tell me your explanation....It looks to me like backgroud tampering ?

Pic 1.

Pic 2.

A hint : look at the stones position on the ground compared to the ladder


Is that black stone-thing alive and moving?
edit on 9-9-2011 by borutp because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by borutp because: the right picture added



My goodness. Parallax is a phenomena to you?

Hold up your index fingers, one directly in line with the other before your eyes.
Now, holding your hands still, move your head while focused on something, say your desk, in the background.

See how your desk just moved on its own! I bet you never realized that your desk had such ability. Notice also how at least one of your index fingers is moving despite the fact you are fooled into being certain that you are holding it motionless.

Explanation:

Your desk is an alien, and always moves when it wants to.
NASA, via one of its secret satellites, is causing one of your hands to move while blocking you from feeling the motion.

This is why it is not safe to remove our tin hats.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by zuvrick
Joseph H. Cater...(We got fiber optic technology from the Roswell '47 crash and other UFO crashes



Fiber optic technology was invented before that.


A simple google search reveals...

was first demonstrated by Daniel Colladon and Jacques Babinet in Paris in the early 1840s.
British physicist John Tyndall popularized light guiding in a demonstration he first used in 1854
Image transmission through tubes was demonstrated independently by the radio experimenter Clarence Hansell and the television pioneer John Logie Baird in the 1920s
and in a 1930 paper he reported transmitting the image of a light bulb filament through a short bundle

...and so forth.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
If NASA really did go to the moon in the 60's, there's no chance they will ever go again because the politicians are not smart. NASA's most recent accomplishment was crashing a satellite into the moon, great job

Nah, that was very deliberate, they said it was a shame to waste a damaged sattelite so they steered it into the moon for 'seismic studies'
Translation: They had to destroy some alien artifact that was about to become visible from earth (probably that Japanese survey?)
NASA= Never A Straight Answer

edit on 9-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Keyboard dying



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by borutp
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Like the background is important??

Please explain this picture to me...fake?


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


You are doing a lot of "tasking others" without taking the trouble to provide the images inline or do any of your own research.

None the less, I am aware that some claim that the top of that image represents "movie set lights:"


AS15-89-12015

What persons making that claim have failed to research is what allows the claim to be so popular.

Are you aware that the David Scott image is taken with a 500mm lens? That rather rules out peripheral overheads-- you are, essentially, looking through a telescope. Anything in that field of view is a looooong way away.

Are you aware that the sun ranged only between 13 and 39 degrees for the duration of the mission?

Here is the "movie set" video taken when Dave Scott took that photo-- right after removing the lens cap.



So, if the photo taken with a 500mm lens shows "movie set lights," why do we not see them in the video?

Is it not REASONABLE to contemplate that what has been "proof" of "movie lights" is not actually lint from the scanner and not on the original photo; or perhaps reflection from components inside the camera mechanism when the shutter is open?

The hoax theory requires a cast of tens of thousands. A most reasonable theory requires no other assumptions.

Furthermore, why would you erect overhead light scaffolding when the sun would only range between 13 an 39 degrees above the horizon for the entire duration of the mission?

Next, look at the shadows. How many light sources are there? There is one. One very bright and very distant, light source. In the movie set business, they call that "the sun."

If you are confident in you analytical skills, then analyze without tasking others-- and then show your work rather than mere claims and innuendo.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by GodIsPissed
 


Mythbusters are full of it

Although this is very convincing, and probably true, it's one hell of a laser, and there are areas of the moon that are very highly reflective, i believe 'crushed glass' was the expression one of the astronauts used. I even have original nasa pics that show this. It's probably quartz.
In any case, i think there's another reason we did not return...they got what they went for.
Think about it for a minute.
Something alien crashed at Roswell.
After taking a good look at the moon, they know there's alien artifacts there, too.
The cold war & pride in their tech led the U.S. to go for it, followed with a lot of hype about man's greatest endeavour yet.
They went, they gathered up lots of alien junk (probably from the infamous Shorty Crater) and some rocks for the lab guys & the press & scooted off home. The moon is by some accounts still occupied and the occupants took strongly to us stealing their trash

Since then we have developed the B3 and lots of super high tech stuff, and took some pot shots at them with our new ronald raygun particle beam sattelites during the early shuttle missions.
Since then we have been at a standoff, the aliens getting their own back by abducting people & cattle mutilation (it's not mutilation it is collecting certain soft tissues most favourable for genetic engineering)
Really, it's all very simple

edit on 9-9-2011 by playswithmachines because: Keyboard really ill now....



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


It really burns me up when people say that humanity is not capable of inventing everything you just mentioned in your post...I mean seriously, we have had some of the greatest human minds in the last century! Hawkins, Penrose, Einstien, Kaku and many others. With minds like these do you really think that humanity couldnt have invented high tech devices??

As for your "theories", got any proof or is this all just speculation on your part?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Because it all fits.
I don't have proof we did'nt go, i also said i think we did go, but i don't have any real proof we did, either.
I am quite aware of what we humans can invent, and there are noticeable gaps or jumps here & there.
Also it makes sense why we didn't go back. The 'moon rock' handed over to the Dutch university during Armstrongs world tour turned out to be fossilized wood
i guess that's NASA's idea of a joke.
I tend to put things in a humerous or ironic context, you see.
Sorry if you don't understand.
Edit to add; Do you notice that all the above scientist's theories conflict each other

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

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

The petrified wood did not come from NASA. And it was not given to a Dutch university.
Another example of the perpetuation of nonsense to support Moon hoax believers.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'll have to check up on that one....
I will add; i don't beleive it to be a hoax, more of a cover-up

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

Do that.
And be more careful with your "facts" next time.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'm not a fossil expert, a rudimentary or laymans knoweledge of arhaeology.
Besides, it's a good story....



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

Not that good a story. And you don't need to know anything about geology to know the facts of it.
But like I said the hoax believers love it even though it has nothing to do with their notions. Not that irrelevancies are ever a concern of theirs.

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



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Let's not derail this thread just yet.
I proposed that we DID go, and i gave some plausible reasons for the why & how.
I asked people for thoughts along those lines, and so far not a single satisfactory answer.
Debate, please.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
It was deamed too dangerous to keep the alien greys from Roswell on Earth. Apollo returned the ET greys back to their base, the moon, sealed in the LM descent stages and jettisoned from the CM. That is why we went to the moon and should never return. New proposed theory



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


So in other words the Russian space probe can be seen while American Astronauts are on the moon? I have a hard time finding any Russians that have discounted the moon landing as that is the avenue in which I would like to explore. Thank you for your help in this matter I have no doubt that mankind has been a visitor to the moon unless of course someone will try and say that the Russians were in on the "hoax" I will try and find the name of this probe and get a course of its travel as well as time and date that if corrosponds with the moon landing it will be amusing to see anyone refute that unless they claim conspiracy with no proof that, that probe was not there lol maybe even have someone call it space junk before there was space junk. Again thanks.
Bman



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 


Well, your idea of satirical writing is way different than mine my friend.

Just to address some of your points. As Phage has already stated, the petrified wood is bunk. Also, the list of greatest minds I mentioned do not intact have conflicting theories. In fact, many of there proposed theories are all based on Einsteins theory of Relativity. They do not conflict, but rather they borrow ideas from one another to create new ideas in the areas of physics. You should really look up Penrose. He is one of the most under rated minds of all time.

I'm happy to see that you do believe the truth of the moon landing but your reasoning behind it sounds more like a Lions Gate flick than reality.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   

you ask whether the (Soviet LOK from the) N1 (heavy lifter) crashed on the Moon shortly before the Apollo 11 landing. As we have seen, that is impossible since the N1 was never able to reach Earth orbit, let alone the Moon. I suspect you may be confusing the crash of the second N1 that occurred 17 days before the Apollo 11 landing with an unmanned Soviet probe that crashed on the lunar surface during the Apollo 11 mission. This probe was part of the Luna series of orbiters and landers launched by the Soviet Union to explore the Moon between 1959 and 1976.

Luna 15 began its journey on 13 July 1969 as a last-minute attempt to regain national pride in the face of the pending Apollo landing. Luna 15 was a fairly sophisticated craft designed to land on the surface of the Moon and collect soil samples to be launched back to Earth. It was hoped that the soil could be returned prior to Apollo 11's splashdown making the Soviets the first to bring lunar material back to Earth. Though the probe was successfully launched and made its way into lunar orbit, bad luck again struck the Soviet lunar program. Luna 15 had completed 52 orbits of the Moon when it attempted to make a soft landing on the surface. Unfortunately, the final retrorocket burn failed and the probe crashed in the Sea of Crises on 21 July 1969, just one day after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made their historic walk on the Moon.


More information on the N1 rocket and the Soviet's efforts to land on the Moon can be found in an excellent book by Asif Siddiqi called www.amazon.com...

This information and much more details were taken without permission from Aerospaceweb.org

Interesting reading on the highly complex (having 42 separate rocket engines) N1 during two years of trying none ever reached earth orbit. It's also clear the Luna crash was no where near the Apollo 11 landing.

www.russianspaceweb.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DerbyCityLights
 


Why?
So Einstein borrowed from Maxwell who borrowed from....
The point is, there have been photographs obviously tampered with, coming directly from NASA.
As i stated in a similar thread years ago, you can even (if you are very lucky) download the same photo 24 hours later & it will be different. I also explained why & how this would happen.
Now, if we went to the moon (established) why doctor any photo's at all

Relativity, string theory & n theory do not overlap or supplement each other as you stated, they actually contain a few contradictions that have still not been reconciled, except by tagging yet another theory onto the old one.
A bit like all the versions of Windows

Penrose,rings a bell, but i will have to look him up.
One thing you may learn from studying these theories is that anything is possible in what we call the 'physical' world. Conventional science is (sadly) not based on observation & logic, it's based on politics & assumtion as well, as has been proven for over 150 years.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 



Now you are really losing all credibility. You first buy the stories of some poor photo analysis, then you claim science is wrong, well let me tell you something, 'The Bomb' works, and has for over 60 years. If science is so off what are the chances of detonating a nuclear reaction such as the ones in the first bombs? Do you have any idea of the precision necessary to detonate a nuclear/atomic/hydrogen bomb?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stirling
AHUH Yeup!
If they can stage something like pearl harbour, or other false flags that people accept as reasons d etre even though these same things have been proven hoaxes ....Duh they can suck us into the moon landing concept too.
Suppose they had to stage the landings in a studio because they really couldnt get the tv signal too clearly from the moon?
And two guys in space suits cavort around the arizona desert and a sound stage to give the public their thrill.....propaganda.
While the reality was far cruder and fraught with danger for the crews.

Well find out soon now, Space X is getting into orbit and who knows what after that?
Private industry may succeed where govt didnt.We need more commercialisation of earth orbit factories and labs which could do wonders with such an absolute vacuum, and whieghtlessness to boot.
What industrial engineer wouldnt be in heaven with just those two advantages?













Staged Pearl Harbor?? Yep, in fact, there were no Japanese in the 40's, no NAZI's either. In fact, WWII never happened, it was all a hoax, neither did the American Revolution, it's all a Free Mason, NWO, Illuminati joint conspiracy.

Really? Not everything is a conspiracy. Now we all know that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy, and the moon landing MAY HAVE been faked. but Pearl Harbor?? You're jumping at shadows now, get out of the house, go to a VFW, and ask some of the veterans of that one, some of them are still alive.




top topics



 
109
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join