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.

 

Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 22
105
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I have to admit that this is one conspiracy theory that leaves me laughing. The idea that the Moon landings were faked. I have posted to people who believe it to be a hoax before and every single supposed proof of it being faked can be disproved.

The funniest of things is...where do these people think that these Giant Saturn V rockets were going or went to after they were launched?


They went into Earth orbit.


...and were observed to leave Earth orbit and go to the Moon:
Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions
Apollo missions tracked by independent parties
(Note the references to amateur astronomers' sightings of Apollo published in "Sky and Telescope" magazine)


Originally posted by FoosM


Even the Soviets...who would have LOVED to decry the lunar landings as fakes...were not so stupid as to attempt to discredit them as it was very easy for any country with a Radar Telescope to follow the travel of the Lunar Orbiter and Lander all the way to the Moon and back.


Wrong, they cant even do it today.


Now THAT is just plain silly!
Encyclopedia Astronautica: Soviet Space Tracking Systems
EARS AND EYES OF SPACE: Russia's command and control network
Мы «видели», как американцы садились на Луну...


Мы «видели», как американцы садились на Луну...
For the objective monitoring of the U.S. Secretary of the CPSU Program Dmitry Ustinov, who oversaw the country's defense industry, at the end of 1967 instructed the chief engineer RISDE (while SRI-885) MS Ryazan Radio Engineering to develop a specific test set with which could receive signals from the U.S. spacecraft program "Apollo", overflying the moon and landed on its surface.


Furthermore, if the Soviets couldn't track spacecraft at lunar distances, explain how they returned Luna-3 images of the far side of the Moon in 1959!
Soviet Moon Images


Originally posted by FoosM


Anyone with a Radio array of recievers could easily pin point the position of these craft and we had tracking stations in several countries around the globe including Australia.


All NASA, therefore not independent.


Again, wrong to the point of silliness.
Мы «видели», как американцы садились на Луну...
Jodrell Bank: Signals from the Eagle Lander
Tracking Apollo-17 from Florida
Lunar Eavsdropping in Louisville, Kentucky


Originally posted by FoosM


A special Reflective Mirror was left at the landing site so NASA and anyone else with this capability could bounce a Laser beam off it to determine Lunar distance fom Earth.


Dont need reflectors to bounce lasers off the moon,..


...but you do need them to get highly precise, highly localized returns with low-power lasers.


Originally posted by FoosM
dont need people to put reflectors on the moon.


Make up your mind: Were they not needed, or were they placed by probes? You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass, aren't you? Besides, If we could soft-land reflectors on the Moon, then why couln't we use Saturn Vs to land manned spacecraft there?


Originally posted by FoosM


The Hubble Space Telescope was able to take pictures of several of the lander assemblies that were left on the Moon as the Lander seperated from them on return to Earth. Split Infinity


No, not true.


Correct.
Can you see the Flag on the Moon with a Telescope?




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 

No, it is not a perfected thought or, short story as you put it, just one that came to mind years ago. The main focus of it was that it would make sense for them to have a backup plan in case it was needed for whatever reason. Fake footage and whatnot. Something to show if anything went wrong or, to add substance to the news.

The US is good at propaganda. Is it difficult to consider that they could have been engaged in it concerning the moon landing? It makes sense, at least to me, that they would have fake material to iinject into the mission footage as it was unfolding. The possibility is there whether you agree or not.

I believe we did go to the moon. I do not believe that all of the footage and pictures are from the moon or space. Unusual variables have led me to this conclusion.



edit on 14-1-2012 by Sagittarian69 because: stuff



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sagittarian69
reply to post by Illustronic
 

I believe we did go to the moon. I do not believe that all of the footage and pictures are from the moon or space. Unusual variables have led me to this conclusion.


I think they make medicine for that now.



Seriously... We went to the moon, but faked the evidence? That is hard turn for the reasoning mind to make.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Frira because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


The thing that Apollo CTist alway (and I mean alway) overlook is that governments don't build spacecraft, people do - talented & motivated technicians and engineers who have been hired to do the coolest engineering project of all time. Faking it not only wasn't an option to them, it wasn't even a consideration.

You cannot point to one person in the entire Apollo saga - from James Webb down through Wernher Von Braun and Neil Armstrong to the most junior bolt-turner - who would not be derisive and offended by the suggestion that they fake it.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


Did Carter have backup fake footage for the failed hostage rescue attempt from Iran?

Was Peril Harbor really just a film to enter WWII? Was 'The Bomb' a fake and if it was were they filming fake footage of it working?

Was the Cuban Missile Crisis staged?

Were the Watergate tapes fake?

Is Elvis still alive?

How about the Panama Canal? Is it really fake just to piss off the French?

Did Lindbergh really make it across the Atlantic all by himself, or did we again just want to piss off the French? Maybe just to keep his kid safe, oh, my bad.

No, because if faked they would be proven fake, with less people who cared, and not the whole world.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


It makes sense, at least to me, that they would have fake material to iinject into the mission footage as it was unfolding. The possibility is there whether you agree or not.

On the surface of reasoning, your scenario makes sense. However, once you begin adding all the variables into the equation, it loses ground:

First; Apollo 1 - If NASA ever needed a contingency plan, it was here. NASA got raked over the coals for this tragedy. There are those who think that NASA killed their own astronauts to protect their cover of building ICBMs - LINK. This is ludicrous, of course, the Saturn V was too big and slow and nukes based in orbit were not an advantage.

Three men died in the Apollo 1 accident. There was a huge, well publicized investigation and many safety issues were adopted because of this.

What better way further their evil agenda than to cause a huge congressional investigation of their management? The Apollo 1 tragedy put NASA back at least a year, and cast the agency in an unfavorable light. If NASA wanted to kill a few malcontent astronauts, wouldn't it be wiser (and easier) just to sabotage one of their training jets? LINK
There is a great discussion on this if you continue to read the link.

Second, Apollo 13 - Here is a place where a contingency plan would have been useful. The premise CT's use for contingency plans that I have seen so far, say that NASA wanted to look superior. They wanted to "show up" the Russians and beat them to the moon. The Russians hid their mistakes and deaths from the public. WIKI But NASA was very open with their program. They even used live TV. Apollo 13 did however, show the ingenuity and determination of the men and women that make up the NASA program from the top Administrator to the layman working for a sub contractor. A testament to the American Way.

Third, Apollo 12 - What do you do when lightning strikes your space craft?


Apollo 12 launched on schedule from Kennedy Space Center, during a rainstorm. It was the first rocket launch attended by an incumbent US president, Richard Nixon. Thirty-six-and-a-half seconds after lift-off, the vehicle triggered a lightning discharge through itself and down to the earth through the Saturn's ionized plume. Protective circuits on the fuel cells in the service module falsely detected overloads and took all three fuel cells offline, along with much of the CSM instrumentation. A second strike at 52 seconds after launch knocked out the "8-ball" attitude indicator. The telemetry stream at Mission Control was garbled. However, the Saturn V continued to fly correctly; the strikes had not affected the Saturn V's Instrument Unit. WIKI
WOW, The president came to watch. Who more to impress than the very man that holds your lively hood in the palm of his hand. If your trying to be perfect this is definitely a good time for a contingency plan. If NASA could fake moon landings, they could make sure this launch looked good. But no, NASA's openness proves once again the ingenuity, intelligence, and down right fortitude of the American people. Up standing people, the everyday Joe who takes pride in his work and does his best, through rigorous training, avoided a failed launch and possible tragic accident.


Aaron made a call: "Try SCE to aux". This switched the SCE to a backup power supply. The switch was fairly obscure and neither the Flight Director, CAPCOM, nor Commander Conrad immediately recognized it. Lunar module pilot Alan Bean, flying in the right seat as the CSM systems engineer, remembered the SCE switch from a training incident a year earlier when the same failure had been simulated. Aaron's quick thinking and Bean's memory saved what could have been an aborted mission. Bean put the fuel cells back on line, and with telemetry restored, the launch continued successfully.WIKI again



I don't know about you, but I think real life proves to be better than any fake contingency plan.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Nice reference to the Apollo 12 lightning strike(lighting generation?). Because it was the ingenious mind(s) of the crew that got the systems back 'on-line', instead of just going crazy and yelling, "We're gonna DIE!".

Lightning became a huge concern after this point and especially for the whole Space Shuttle program, because unlike the Saturn V Apollos, had no defense whatsoever should lightning strike a SPace Shuttle. Simplistic evidence of this is the high lightning rod on the launch pads.

Back to Apollo 12, truly a fascinating episode in human space travel. I almost started a discussion thread on that very incident.

Did Apollo 12 create the lightning, that went all the way down to the launch pad on the ground? Or was Apollo 12 just a carrier? Interesting to research further into this.

BTW, Kudos on a nice post Gibborium!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Just to "add" to your very impressive post here on ATS....might I suggest any and all who are interested seek out and buy, borrow or steal the DVD series From the Earth to the Moon

Produced by Tom Hanks, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer.

It is a penultimate run-down of the Apollo Program, in an entertaining format. "Docu-style" at times.....but ALL of it is historically accurate.


It was an "HBO" production.....here is the HBO trailer promoting the mini-series:




"From the Earth to the Moon Featurette, Part 1"



Part 2:



Part 3:




Part 4:




Part 5:




"We Heve Cleared The Tower....."



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 

Had staged footage on hand for whatever reason they felt necessary. How is it hard to wrap your mind around that possibility?
What, the government undertook one of the biggest risks in American history and had no backup plan? Maybe they were afraid the cameras would not work too well on the moon. Numerous possibilities. I am amazed no one would ever consider this.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Well since you posted it here I don't have to do anything except hit your links and RealPlayer downloader automatically puts the series on my computer, all I have to do is approve. I saw this on one of those Discovery channels, because I can come home for lunch every day from work a mile away.


Thanks Proud Bird.

reply to post by Sagittarian69
 

Footages are training exorcizes, part of the reason the American got it right, and the Russians didn’t, and BTW weren’t even close.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I never said it was faked. I simply state that the possibility is there that some of the footage was not authentic. Call it a backup plan, fluff for the masses, propaganda but, I find it hard to believe it is all genuine from some of the material I have seen.

And, it would not take very many people to put together some footage, and with proper planning, to insert into the news reels. Never called it fact simply a possibility.

Like the news guy reporting the hurricane in a foreign country. Instead of traveling there he does his report in the studio in front of a green screen with props in order to make us think he is actually there. Actually reporting it as if he is in the middle of it.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Thanks for the kudos. I posted because it just seems such a reach to have the idea that NASA faked anything to cover up some kind of failure, incident, or anomaly. When you do the research and realize just how extensive the space program is and the number of people and the amount of resources are involved, how could it be faked. Why would you fake any of it.

It has been thrown out there by some CTs that only a few of the top people were in on the fakery/deception. I don't buy that if for only one fact, the technology was in place to do it. The studies were made, the concepts proven, the materials tested. Men and women actually built the equipment, from the smallest element, a bolt/screw, to the most intricate, space suits/(insert just any system here). It was all done and actually ready to put man into space and onto the moon, why fake it?

I know the Van Allen belt argument will now be brought up. But even that has been debunked umpteen times. In my opinion, it is either due to ignorance, or a dire need to be the center of attention that causes CTer's to hold onto this fallacy of faked moon landings. Ignorance can be solved with education. A need to be the center of attention requires much more.

There is no doubt what so ever in my mind that Americans have seen and participated in one of the most historical and awesome feats ever accomplished by mankind, stepping foot on another planet/moon. Hooray for mankind, hooray for American!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sagittarian69
reply to post by Frira
 

Had staged footage on hand for whatever reason they felt necessary. How is it hard to wrap your mind around that possibility?


Fairly hard... 'cause I'm sane.



What, the government undertook one of the biggest risks in American history and had no backup plan? Maybe they were afraid the cameras would not work too well on the moon. Numerous possibilities. I am amazed no one would ever consider this.


Lots of people consider it-- only knowledge and reason keeps getting in the way.

Now-- show me evidence of what you claim and you will begin to see the problem you face.

Now consider that the back-up plan already existed-- the unused Nixon speech. Now consider Apollo 13-- and while most of the world was rather certain the men would die-- the public was kept informed throughout the crisis.

And on those two, alone, your theory "burned down, fell over, and then sank into the swamp." My day for Monty Python allusions...




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 

For life and death issues, there were back up plans. Call it triple redundancy. Systems had back ups and the backups had backups. But to fake something because a camera didn't work, NO, because it happened on Apollo 12 (those poor guys, agian). The TV camera which "Bean carried to the place near the lunar module where it was to be set up, he inadvertently pointed it directly into the Sun, destroying the SEC tube. Television coverage of this mission was thus terminated almost immediately." WIKI



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sagittarian69
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I never said it was faked. I simply state that the possibility is there that some of the footage was not authentic. Call it a backup plan, fluff for the masses, propaganda but, I find it hard to believe it is all genuine from some of the material I have seen.


I would be interested in any footage or any other thing that you feel is not authentic. Maybe we can clear up any misconceptions that cause you to think this. I am sincere and would really like to help.
edit on 1/14/2012 by Gibborium because: clarification



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
But even that has been debunked umpteen times. In my opinion, it is either due to ignorance, or a dire need to be the center of attention that causes CTer's to hold onto this fallacy of faked moon landings.


I have noticed an increased tendency in our culture (or else, have simply faced the ugly truth) that once someone makes a foolish statement, most are willing to defend it, make excuses, or somehow attempt to justify it rather than say, "I had not thought it through."

I wonder what damage it does to reasoning skills if one holds a series of erroneously held beliefs which cannot be reconciled, one to another. Perhaps one might become pathological-- like Sibel seems to be or has become? To be honest, I suspect Sibel is a high functioning autistic-- but if not, he clearly has pathological behaviors. Either way, he is hardly the model figure upon which to hitch one's wagon.

Do we just ignore the fact that he stalks astronauts at grocery stores? That he carries a floppy Bible and waves it while yelling about oaths in public settings? His family, if he has any, is failing him-- as are his co-workers in the film crew.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
I have noticed an increased tendency in our culture (or else, have simply faced the ugly truth) that once someone makes a foolish statement, most are willing to defend it, make excuses, or somehow attempt to justify it rather than say, "I had not thought it through."

I wonder what damage it does to reasoning skills if one holds a series of erroneously held beliefs which cannot be reconciled, one to another.


I have this very same concern for our kids today. They are being taught that there is no absolute truth. That everyone is a winner, there are no losers. I think this allows people to continue in their own thoughts in spite of the actual truth being displayed blatantly in front of their own eyes. As an example and to put this thought back onto the OP, it was debunked on page one of this thread, yet here we are on page 22 and I haven't seen the OPer for quite a few pages.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


The proponents of fakery focus more on the why, which we all know is an intangible, their best angle because that can't be proven, only supposed. Unless they have some metaphysical abilities to read minds, if so, they can earn a cool million dollars in the James Randi million dollar challenge. When they prove that is accomplished I will change my mind about their supposed powers. Some try to propose the science wasn't as advanced then, or computers were needed instead of slide rules and human integrity. Yet we hear nothing but accolades for the idea that Arabs invented Algebra, thought they did little with this supposed invention. There are also some that credit the Germans but I thought it was, again, an American in Massachusetts that launched the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926. In fact that's why so many educational facilities are named Goddard, and not Von Braun.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Gibborium
 

There are also some that credit the Germans but I thought it was, again, an American in Massachusetts that launched the first liquid fueled rocket in 1926. In fact that's why so many educational facilities are named Goddard, and not Von Braun.


This^
The American people are being told everyday that humanity is stupid. Look at drivel like the Transformers movies-where it's claimed that without finding giant robots from space-we wouldn't have developed microchips and spaceflight. Television tells youth that the government is out to lie about EVERYTHING, and the sooner they're in on the secret, the more 'intelligent' and 'well informed' they are.

Robbert Goddard invented all of the basics of modern rocketry, with no help from the US government. He died soon after seeing the remnants of V-2 rockets that the armed forces allowed him to see- how shattered he must have been to see his dream perverted for war, yet vindicated that all of the pieces fit.

"Don't you know about your own rocket pioneer? Dr. Goddard was ahead of us all."- Dr. Von Braun

A reproduction of his first liquid fueled rocket:



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 02:32 AM
link   
I find it hard to believe during the entire length of the video they had no convincing audio. All you hear is them discussing setting up the lighting. Which is something every video broadcast has to deal with, especially back then. The light in the cabin was creating a glare on the window. To get a good shot they had to get rid of unwanted light. This video is full of baseless statements.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join