Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 5
109
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The Apollo moon landing was the single most watched event in the entire known history of the world. It was a very transparent operation, all of the science behind it was presented to the world daily on TV leading up to the event. School classes were even interrupted so we could watch the latest updates as they unfolded. As has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, hoaxing it without anyone realizing it was a hoax would have been completely impossible. Attempting a hoax of that magnitude would have been much harder than the moon landing itself. The Russians would have gleefully exposed it has a hoax had it been one, those that didn't live through the times simply have no understanding of the relationship between the US and Russia back then, Russia would have done anything to discredit us. A lot of these hoax scenarios imply a level of technological sophistication that did not exist back then. Beaming secret video feeds of a fake moon landing that were taken in a studio rather than on the moon is just laughable, back then this kind of stuff wasn't possible, if the feed was coming anywhere but from the moon then it would have been obvious as NASA wasn't the only entity tuning in. And has been mentioned, anyone with a good radio setup could hear the astronauts' transmissions. And many thousands of ordinary citizens did exactly that. The whole moon hoax thing is a fairly recent (You Tube era) phenomenon which should be indication enough that it shouldn't be taken seriously. Every single piece of so-called "evidence" that's been offered in hoax scenarios has been soundly debunked, but of course that's never enough for those who want to see conspiracies under every rock.


edit on 6-9-2011 by SavedOne because: typo




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by SavedOne
 


Yeah I thought 9/11 was watched by millions as well, why are we here questioning the official story when we all watched it... I guess I could say since I lived through 9/11 I watched the planes hit and it was absolutely terrorists who had done it because that's what they told us.... Could you imagine how many people it would take to pull off a false flag like that???? A lot more than the moon landing I can tell you that!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by jheated5
 

Moon hoax believers say men didn't walk on the Moon.
Are you saying planes didn't fly into the World Trade Center buildings?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
No i'm saying we have so called pictures and such of the moon landing, and for 9/11.... just making a comparison...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
I was about to post a picture I took of Apollo 12 and 13, both inside the Vertical Assembly Building (where I got to inside and toured—you may bow, reverently ;-) ) but realized I would lose copyright by posting here.


I just opened this thread up and instantly saw this. Not true. Copyright excist untill it expires. You do not lose it if you post something in a public medium. If you're worried you can always add the copyright info into the image. Problem is that ATS has retarted image system that removes all exif data. So copyright info there would be lost. An image however does not require a registration or copyright information to have one. It is automatic right.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Videot

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder
 

How about you tell me what the "frequency" of 5MeV electrons is.
How about 40MeV protons?


I kinda hate to get in the middle of this(!), but doesn't the theory of wave/particle duality imply that all particles do indeed have a frequency? I vaguely remember an equation from college physics that relates the two, though not the details.

And of course, if string theory is correct (decidedly undecided at this time) everything is made up of oscillations.



well, phage is relying on the idea that a particle isn't a wave.....i am of the idea that a particle is made up of waves......that's where we are butting heads....


Okay... but the relevance?

I believe this section of the discussion had to with contesting the transit through the Van Allen Belt, and not merely of biological material, but that doing so would be like placing metal in a microwave oven? In which case, every nation sending probes beyond Low Earth Orbit are also hoaxing.

So either nothing is real, or something is wrong with the theory of the Van Allen Belt being radiation like a microwave oven. I'm betting the latter.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Thank you.

I did add copyright data when uploading-- but have seen no way to include if someone decided to download it anyway-- not to mention that "other site" grabbing entire threads and posting them as anonymous (discussed on some threads here last week).



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by patternfinder
 


I really really wish that our government was as smart, powerful, and disciplined enough to pull off the kind of deceptions like this and others that we talk about here.

But sadly the truth of the matter is that they can't even cover their own lies about Iraq, I mean how hard would it be to plant ONE biological or Nuclear device? But they didn't why? Because our government is a bunch of bumbling self serving buffoons incapable of such a massive deception.

Really if you think the moon landing was faked, then explain why we didn't plant one nuke in Iraq to justify the entire war effort?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I think that they faked the landing to be the first and then went to the moon..in other words they knew they could not do it fast enough to be the first which was very important at the time so yes they did a fake landing for TV first.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


just so you know, i truly believe that man has walked on the moon, and although i know the debunkers will destroy this, i just hope phage will come along and either back this image up, or discredit it altogether!



www.bbc.co.uk...







hot off the presses!
edit on 6-9-2011 by schitzoandro because: add image



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by schitzoandro
 

More here:
asunews.asu.edu...




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


You would have had to register the copyright to recover any monetary penalties. It only costs 30 bucks last I filed.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 



Awww Phage, you know someone will scream photoshop



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


i greatly appreciate your immediate and always helpful replies!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Why, it was only July, they had a whole half of a year left to achieve the Kennedy pledge.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Excellent thread. S&F

I love to read about actual accounts of the Apollo missions from those who were there.

To those who think the moon landings were faked, you should really try and get some "first hand" accounts from people who actually lived through the 60's. The scale of people involved in both the USA and Australia is far to large to be able to fake such events. Surely someone would have come forward in the last 40 years with solid evidence if it had actually been a hoax. Instead we only have crackpot theories with no basis beyond wild speculation coming from people seek to capitalise on gullibility.
edit on 5/9/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

I tend to agree about the scale of the conspiracy. However, unlike say the 9/11 conspiracy the moon one depends on a very very small number of people. The whole "truth" depends on a feed from 3 astronauts. So that's a fake feed from 3 astronauts plus however many people need to fake the feed. Not only that but all that is needed is a delayed feed from all the genuine instrumentation measuring genuine "actors" coupled with fake video!! Everyone else, the thousands downstrem are entirely dependant on the data coming from the Apollo craft. OK two feeds one from the command module and one from the lem.

So it is just possible but still requires a lot of faith from technicians at the time not double checking the data feeds.


On the surface, it could appear to be that way (Capricorn One), but such technology as telemetry data and directional antennae complicate. One example, is the way the radio and video feeds were handled-- by line-of-sight, and then land line when possible.

Keep in mind, on the "small select group" scenario, you have a whole lot of professionals to fool-- and yet there was not a hint of suspicion of any.

If I recall correctly, I believe that I read that the network television feed was not functioning in real time, the video having to be downloaded (s-l-o-w-l-y) and then transmitted via land line to Houston; so rather than wait, the networks, at times, simply filmed the monitor at the receiving station. I wish I could remember where I read about that-- something specifically on the NASA communication network at the time) Maybe someone else knows the source?

Also, a read of the transcripts (or listening to original audio) produce a number of unnecessary complications-- telemetry indicating that one of the crew members forgot to set a circuit breaker, garbled transmissions and the resulting request to "say again" and that sort of thing. That is no proof, but suggestive, none-the-less.

At some point, the details such as those start to overwhelm the concept of a "script", and the more details known, the less credible the hoax theory becomes. Any single piece of the hoax scenario might be plausible in isolation, but when taken as a whole, is far more difficult to support and to believe than that the astronauts really did walk on the moon.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Thank you.

I did add copyright data when uploading-- but have seen no way to include if someone decided to download it anyway-- not to mention that "other site" grabbing entire threads and posting them as anonymous (discussed on some threads here last week).

You should"watermark it" add your copyright text to the front of the image.but:

it won't make any difference.
the :"Oh yeahs" have settled in.
They'll say you saw it,we built it, it launched,: So what!

it came back,unloaded rocks: BUT: we didn't "inhale" ( i.e.land on the moon)!
these astronauts were hand picked distinguished,decorated military officers . I realize that doesn't mean much to the "video game set" civilians arguing with Hoagland videos as evidence and a weak uninspired public school version of a science education...
Perhaps some day convincingly detailed third party photographs will become available: they'll still be mocked as photoshopped",,,
Or "even better
"photochopped"(sic)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Yeah I know that US has that retarted registering system
It's not necessary thought. If you wanna sue someone it'll help.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
this just came out today. Photos of the moon landing

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


I have done a little research but not a whole lot on the Moon landings. In my experience and research I have found that we have probably been to the Moon WAY WAY more times than we are lead to believe. I think that we have specific reasons for going to the Moon so many times and keeping it covert.

We all know about the Apollo 11,12 + missions, and yes we know their PUBLIC missions and agendas, but their private covert mission could be something else that only a select few know.

I have to conclude that the Moon landings are not a hoax, but a cover up to something greater.





new topics
top topics
 
109
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join