Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 44
105
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by onewithall
Hello ATS!

This is my first thread (besides my intro), I did a search and couldn't find this on here yet (if it is, I apologize).

Anyway, I just found this video on a random blog. It shows footage taken by the Apollo 11 astronauts from inside the spacecraft as they film different shots of "Earth" from a _ Well, they're actually in space, but they aren't as far away from the Earth as they say. Watch the video, there is great narration. Very interesting stuff, indeed.

So what do you guys think? This is the first video I've ever seen that makes me believe some of the moon landing hoax conspiracies.



much love,
OnewithAll
edit on 10-1-2012 by onewithall because: changed the title


Unfortunately, I don't think I've met a single person who's changed their opinion regarding this subject.

People are generally foam-at-the-mouth fanatics for one side or the other.

I personally acknowledge there are a lot of questionable things about the mission, but I couldn't say that I KNOW the answer one way or the other. If the absolute truth ever comes out one way or the other, I won't lose any sleep over it.




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


What would you say are the questionable aspects of the missions? From what i've seen they've all be pretty straightforward. Go to moon, beat Russians, everybody cheers.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by BrandonD
 


What would you say are the questionable aspects of the missions? From what i've seen they've all be pretty straightforward. Go to moon, beat Russians, everybody cheers.


I hesitate to get into a debate or anything, because I'm come to realize that this possible conspiracy suffers from the same problem that almost all possible conspiracies suffer from, which I guess I'd call the merry-go-round effect.

I'll try to illustrate with an analogous scenario:

You suspect your girlfriend is cheating on you.

A) She gets a phone call and leaves the room. Nothing really suspicious about that in itself, there are any number of mundane reasons why this would occur.

B) She says she's staying at work late for several days in a row. Nothing really suspicious about that in itself, there are any number of mundane reasons why this would occur.

C) She seems more distant that her usual self lately. Nothing really suspicious about that in itself, there are any number of mundane reasons why this would occur.

What happens in the debates is that people jump on the merry-go-round, debating A then debating B then debating C. Whereas, my point of view is that from looking at the scenario as a whole, trying to take all the information into account, something about it seems fishy and suspect.

And yet at the same time, those who think everything is normal and people are being overly paranoid, they have a good point as well.

One may think that Apollo is open-and-shut one way or another. Almost EVERYONE does. However, I think that if one looks at the above example one can perhaps see both sides of a story.



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 

Your example of a girl friend is full of circumstantial evidence where the "Space Race" and the Moon landings are based on empirical evidence.

The science is valid. The equipment was manufactured. The astronauts were thoroughly trained. The rockets went up. The CM and LM with the astronauts went to the Moon and landed and then took off and returned to Earth safely. The data for all this is recorded and has been archived through transcribed data tapes, photo and movie film record, audio recordings, live continuous recorded TV broadcasts, eye witness testimony of professional and amateur observers, budget allocations, spending records, vendors and contract companies that produced everything from food to sanitary devices to nuts and bolts to fuel, to . . . almost infinity. It all combines together to prove that the Moon landings did happen.

What hoaxers have is well when you stand back and look at . . . it just makes me think it couldn't happen because there are some things that just don't look like what I expect them to look like. The OP video has been proven to be embellished and untrue:

Phage's post
SplitInfinity's post

Open your mind and do the science. It is provable and repeatable (in fact it was repeated over and over).



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I've seen this on a few places.
Always makes me think



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by BrandonD
 

Your example of a girl friend is full of circumstantial evidence where the "Space Race" and the Moon landings are based on empirical evidence.


Think whatever you like. There are christians who consider their beliefs to be based in science.

Words do not equal reality. If one can grasp even a fragment of the significance of that statement, then they can understand what I mean.
edit on 30-1-2013 by BrandonD because: grammatical



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD


Think whatever you like. There are christians who consider their beliefs to be based in science.

Words do not equal reality. If one can grasp even a fragment of the significance of that statement, then they can understand what I mean.
edit on 30-1-2013 by BrandonD because: grammatical


Above NOT real science that's for sure, the amount of work to fake not one but six landings would be more difficult than doing it, the amount of EVIDENCE against a fake is overwhelming , the one ace up the sleeve the hoax believers always had up until the LRO was launched was that no pictures could be taken of the landing sites.

Now not only thanks to the LRO can we so those sites in detail very small objects rocks,craters changes in terrain can be compared with the pictures taken on the surface by the Astronauts so do you want to explain that!


jra

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
The evidence is simple scientifc fact...


And yet not a single scientist anywhere around the world for over the past 40 years has had any issue with the Apollo missions and radiation.


You need to educate yourself about the Van Allen belts...


And you need to educate yourself on how much radiation the astronauts were really exposed to.


The radiation level in some of the Van Allen belts regularly reaches 2000 REM, or more!!!
Not only that, but the belts can be thousands of miles deep. At Earth Escape Velocity it would take a spacecraft 2 hours to pass through the most deadly zone.


I guess it's a good thing they didn't go through the densest parts...




It is simply not possible to build a rocket with sufficient power to lift a heavily shielded spacecraft into Orbit, let alone to the Moon.


I guess it's a good thing you don't need lead to minimize one's exposure to the type of radiation they encountered. In fact lead could do more harm than good. Look up "Bremsstrahlung".

You still have not provided any evidence against the Apollo missions. You've just told me that radiation is bad in space. And yes, depending on what's happening, the radiation levels can get bad, but they are always changing. It's not like the Sun is blasting out CME's every 5 minutes.

Have you ever looked up how much and what type of radiation the Apollo astronauts actually had to deal with? What types of shielding they used? etc...

Might I suggest some reading material for you:
www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

The evidence is simple scientifc fact...You need to educate yourself about the Van Allen belts and how they operate in a similar way to the magnatron in a microwave oven.


You need to dig a bit deeper!!!


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Do you want to educate him after all the belts are named after him



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You quite literally just did. Please elaborate on what non-radiation problem you're talking about?


Let me remind you of what you wrote: "he'll just say radiation and leave it at that."
Obviously I didn't JUST say "radiation", I gave a full and frank explanation of why it makes it currently impossible for manned flights to travel outside of Low Earth Orbit.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:13 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by BrandonD
 

Your example of a girl friend is full of circumstantial evidence where the "Space Race" and the Moon landings are based on empirical evidence.

The science is valid. The equipment was manufactured. The astronauts were thoroughly trained. The rockets went up.


So far you are correct.


The CM and LM with the astronauts went to the Moon and landed and then took off and returned to Earth safely..


Now you are wrong.


The data for all this is recorded and has been archived through transcribed data tapes, photo and movie film record.


Photo and film records that have been proved to be faked!


audio recordings, live continuous recorded TV broadcasts.


There were no live TV broadcasts!...NASA publicy acknowledges that they used a huge bank of video/audio recorders to form a delay line so that the live footage was not broadcast till at least 15 minutes after it was first recieved...This was done to edit out anything that would expose it as a hoax.
.


, eye witness testimony of professional and amateur observers.


Who were all paid NASA stooges.


budget allocations


Extremely suspicious budget allocations...$150 million was the budget for the LM alone (dont forget that was back in the sixties so that would the equivalent of several billion Dollars now), but if you have ever seen it up close it's patently obvious it couldn't have cost more than a few thousand dollars to make! The rest was syphoned off to pay for black projects.


spending records


Which, as any good accountant will tell you, are very easy to falsify!


, vendors and contract companies that produced everything from food to sanitary devices to nuts and bolts to fuel, to . . . almost infinity. It all combines together to prove that the Moon landings did happen.


Quite the opposite!



Open your mind and do the science. It is provable and repeatable (in fact it was repeated over and over).


If landing on the Moon is so easy and so repeatable why hasn't anyone been back there?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

The evidence is simple scientifc fact...You need to educate yourself about the Van Allen belts and how they operate in a similar way to the magnatron in a microwave oven.


You need to dig a bit deeper!!!


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Do you want to educate him after all the belts are named after him


And how do you know he wasn't paid to say that by NASA? Never underestimate the power of money to hide the truth.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

The evidence is simple scientifc fact...You need to educate yourself about the Van Allen belts and how they operate in a similar way to the magnatron in a microwave oven.


You need to dig a bit deeper!!!


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Do you want to educate him after all the belts are named after him


And how do you know he wasn't paid to say that by NASA? Never underestimate the power of money to hide the truth.


What number is that from the conspiracy cliche handbook



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Photo and film records that have been proved to be faked!



Well since photography has been a hobby of mine for a long long time care to show me what your proof is!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


All fun and nice words you have. Care to provide some actual evidence?
Also you do realize that they did go back several times?



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
The evidence is simple scientifc fact...




And yet not a single scientist anywhere around the world for over the past 40 years has had any issue with the Apollo missions and radiation.


Because, like you they are very gullible and have swallowed the hoax as fact, hook, line and sinker!


You need to educate yourself about the Van Allen belts...


And you need to educate yourself on how much radiation the astronauts were really exposed to.


The radiation level in some of the Van Allen belts regularly reaches 2000 REM, or more!!!
Not only that, but the belts can be thousands of miles deep. At Earth Escape Velocity it would take a spacecraft 2 hours to pass through the most deadly zone.


I guess it's a good thing they didn't go through the densest parts...




It is simply not possible to build a rocket with sufficient power to lift a heavily shielded spacecraft into Orbit, let alone to the Moon.


I guess it's a good thing you don't need lead to minimize one's exposure to the type of radiation they encountered. In fact lead could do more harm than good. Look up "Bremsstrahlung".

You still have not provided any evidence against the Apollo missions. You've just told me that radiation is bad in space. And yes, depending on what's happening, the radiation levels can get bad, but they are always changing. It's not like the Sun is blasting out CME's every 5 minutes.

No, but on average there are 3 CME's every day so its not as if they only happen once a year!

Have you ever looked up how much and what type of radiation the Apollo astronauts actually had to deal with? What types of shielding they used? etc...

Of course I have...I have been researching this stuff for decades.

Might I suggest some reading material for you:
www.clavius.org...
www.clavius.org...


Thanks, they back up what I have been saying. Here is an enlightening link for you to read...Particularly take note what Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center has to say.

science.nasa.gov...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Thanks, they back up what I have been saying. Here is an enlightening link for you to read...Particularly take note what Francis Cucinotta, NASA's radiation health officer at the Johnson Space Center has to say.


Good thing there were no CMEs during the flights, then.



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Photo and film records that have been proved to be faked!



Well since photography has been a hobby of mine for a long long time care to show me what your proof is!!!



I'm supprised you haven't come across any proof already!
Have a look at this video which will educate you on where to see the proof of a hoax in NASA photos:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Have a look at this video which will educate you on where to see the proof of a hoax in NASA photos:


Could you specify which of these specious claims you find worthy of further consideration? Argumentum ad Youtubem is viewed as laziness in these parts.





top topics
 
105
<< 41  42  43    45  46  47 >>

log in

join