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: 30
105
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I think the first time anyone hears "they didn't actually go to the moon", and sees the evidence, it's like this shock goes threw your system. Like for someone whos' not into CT"s they get this feeling like they've been violated or lied to. Like then in a moment they quickly either go into cognitive disonence where they believe regardless of the evidence. or they snap out of the lie and realize the truth, that the evidence all makes sense, that they didn't actually go, and they basically just pierced the first hole in the vale of this fake reality they've been given. Then eventually if they find out enough intel they break threw that vale to a large degree and they can now see the outside. That's when it's almost like an "awakening" from the hypnotic state they had been in before. As they start to realize how they've been brainwashed and manipulated there whole life by tptb.

so my point is some people rather go into cognative disonence. The reason again is that if they peirce that hole and looking that would be the start of there awakening. Instead they choose to keep there eyes closed and not look at "real life". They'd have to face the lies they've been told all there life. All the lies they've gotten comfortable with. The idea of waking up becomes very scary to some. It's like hearing about God. A lot of people can't face that reality. They're too afraid of what that might mean for them if they had to acknowledge reality.

edit on 15-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Anyone with a basic understanding of physics can tell you this thing didn't get any further than the studio!


Please explain the basic physics as to how the LM outer thermal covering has anything to do with the performance and abilities of the vehicle. Thanks in advance.
edit on 15-10-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)



Please explain how every lunar backdrop can be identified on Mauna Kea in Google Earth?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 

I haven't seen any exact matches but lots of mountains look like other mountains.
So what?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I don't think this exercise is for you Phage.

The backdrops are exactly the same. Get on to Google Earth ASAP and get it altered!



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 

I thought this was an open forum. I didn't know you could select who responds.

Oh, I'll have the elevation models in Google Earth changed right away.


jra

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Please explain how every lunar backdrop can be identified on Mauna Kea in Google Earth?


I can't, as I don't believe every (or any) lunar "background" can be identified on Mauna Kea. Apollo's 11, 12 and 14 didn't have mountains near there landing sites. Apollo's 15, 16 and 17 had very different mountains surrounding each of there landing sites. I don't find those tiny little thumbnail images terribly convincing. Go look at some actual topographical maps and compare the mountains that way, to see if there is a match.

Now answer my question please:

Explain the basic physics as to how the LM outer thermal covering has anything to do with the performance and abilities of the vehicle.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by explosion
 



Obviously it's now clear there was a fraud. No reason to rewrite this and not comment as to why the inappropriate insertion of such an asinine comment would be justified. Barbree, Benedict, or another could be responsible for the writing itself. Pretty embarassing and leaves no doubt with respect to the question of fraud and guilt.


Please explain.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Your post would make sense if there would be actually even a single piece of evidence that hasn't been debunked to hell already. When you see the "evidence" presented by the HB advocates and scam artist and then completely ignore the explanations you're by definition embracing ignorance. Something we kinda don't like on this site.
edit on 15/10/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by explosion
 


You missed something explosion, either that or you are ten steps ahead of the rest of us, and i am beginning to think the latter. Are you who i think you are? Anyway, from chapter 18 of the 1994 version of the Moon Shot book in reference to the alleged Apollo 12 lightning strike,

"Someone in the VIP guest area cried out in shock, " My God, what's happening to the Saturn V?"

And then 17 years later from chapter 20 of the doctored 2011 version, Barbree has changed things to,

"Reporters at the Press Site yelled, "What happened?"

The rest of this section in both versions was the same, identical. VERY INTENTIONALLY "someone in the VIP" 1994 version was changed to the more objectively important "reporters at the press site".for the 2011 version.

Those familiar with this episode, the Apollo 12 lightning strike are aware not a single reporter gave a first person account of the ship being hit by lightning. this finding here in the two versions of the Shepard and Slayton book
is subtle, though groundbreaking and quite literally sensational. It is proof of hoax and of Barbree as a participant. Magnificent stuff.
edit on 15-10-2012 by yellowfish because: 1994



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
I think the first time anyone hears "they didn't actually go to the moon", and sees the evidence, it's like this shock goes threw your system.


I think whenever anyone sees the HB's "evidence" and realizes it's based either on a complete misunderstanding of the laws of physics, or outright lies,. it's pretty obvious why the history books say what they do. If you could please explain why nobody's been able to offer any proof of a hoax in over 40 years, I think that would be a great starting point.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by yellowfish
 


Really strong post there yellowfish. Nice job!

For those without the books, here is the 1994 Moon Shot version of the quote yellowfish referenced in full. From the 1994 book's chapter 18;

"Soggy observers could not see the rising Saturn V through the clouds. But suddenly the assembled thousands were surprised and alarmed when lightning flashed from the overcast into the launch complex area. Someone in the VIP guest area cried out, "My God, what's happening to the Saturn V?"

Then, the 2011 altered version goes like this, and I quote from chapter 20,

"Soggy observers could not see the rising Saturn V through the clouds. But suddenly the assembled thousands were surprised and alarmed when lightning flashed from the overcast into the launch complex area. Reporters at the Press Site yelled, "What happened?"

Same exact thing except for the last sentence, and oh what a difference does changing that sentence make in terms of what it tells us about the hoax.

Of course both of these silly versions betray the lie of Apollo 12. It never was hit by lightning as the launch officers at Cape Kannedy themselves testified. Here is a recording of the Apollo 12 post launch press conference. Listen carefully as Stafford himself says he saw no lightning strike, nor did anyone else in the firing room.













A planted reporter raises the question of a lightning strike, and Jack King's calling on that reporter in particular betrays the famous PAO as a participant in the hoax himself. Quite a revelation, Jack King a confirmed hoax participant, unequivically confirmed so.

And back to the main point, there of course was no need to change the last sentence of the 1994 paragraph quoted above. How could Barbree possibly learn this weird fact in that 17 year period time, that it was a group of reporters crying out as opposed to a lone VIP? The whole thing is beyond ridiculous. Quite a hoax, and confirmed so. Can't possibly read this nonsense any other way.

edit on 15-10-2012 by hankypanky because: apollo 12

edit on 15-10-2012 by hankypanky because: apollo 11 change to 12



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Show me one convincing item that couldn't easily be faked in a movie studio? Or couldn't have been done via a robot mission?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 


Go watch the documentaries on youtube about it. Which of the 1000's of piece should we start with? How about the mission 100 billion?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


How about anything that shows that they are actually in 1/6th of gravity and in a vacuum? If you want specific ones try the rover ones or the pendulum video. That's just one. How about the fact that the photographs match exactly with the terrain as confirmed by later missions? I literally could go on and on. Can you try to post even a single piece that hasn't been debunked to hell or are you going to preach that "there's so many blehblah..."?



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by PsykoOps
 
Show me one convincing item that couldn't easily be faked in a movie studio? Or couldn't have been done via a robot mission?

One irrefutable piece of evidence is the accidental Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum.



Another irrefutable demonstration of the Moon landings is the Apollo 16 sample bag being tossed. It begins at 1:25



Both of these conclusively show it either happened on the Earth's moon, or on some other celestial body that has 1/6th the gravity of Earth. It cannot be replicated on Earth or any other planet unless it has a specific gravity of 1.63 m/sec/sec. You can find a complete discussion on this thread abovetopsecrete.com



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by yellowfish
 



Are you who i think you are?


Yes!!! It's you!!!! You're ever so brilliant, Patrick.



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jiajia
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Any room for an old high school physics prof. in this argument?

If they wanted to prove the landings by way of photography, they would have sent an orbiter or lander even to take halfway decent photos.

I am with rolf. These buzzes are jerking our chain.

Hoping to hear from Catherine again on the lens flare issue.



A physics prof at high school ? Glad I didn't attend that one then!!!

LRO target map link.

LRO Target Map

Here is a link on how to use it!

How to Use above

Now prof
a large proportion of the Moon is now photographed at 50cm/pixel and if you really were a physics prof you would have some idea how good that is and it shows your statement re Moon images is BS just hope your bosses see your posts you wouldn't be a physics prof for long thats for certain!



posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Want to comment on this then posted a few pages back !



Top as Apollo 17 left the Moon, bottom LRO picture even the tracks match almost 40 yrs between the pictures.

NASA documented the landing sites with the distance of craters equipment etc this can be compared with LRO images like the picture above.
edit on 15-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



These tracks were actually made by the Russian LUNAKHOD 2 rover you can see the oval reflector on the first image.






The Soviets worked together with the U.S to cover the failure of the Lunar landing mission.

wanderingspace.net...


edit on 15-10-2012 by rolfharriss because: extra info


Well only an idiot could believe that because the top part of the image is a STILL from the DAC film camera as Apollo 17 left the Moon please just stick to singing and painting rolf



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join