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.

 

Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

page: 39
57
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by Gibborium
 


gib mate has blocular allways held these notions? im new to this site only been on here a few weeks i think we will never get some evidence will we from him?
Have you taken the time to closely examine the moon hoax photographic evidence that i linked to a few posts earlier? its very compelling proof,imo,here it is again,for those who may have missed it...

Moon Landing Hoax:The Photographic Evidence > forum.davidicke.com...


edit on 3-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 



edit on 4-4-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Yes I have looked at the link you posted. David Icke is a goofball. He has been debunked and none of his "evidence" holds any water.

Icke tries to prove the moon landings are a hoax by showing a picture of Apollo 17's LM with rover tracks in the foreground. He states "it seems to show the LRV rover vehicle still packaged..." He then compares it to a picture of Apollo 16's rover and attempts to show that it is different. However, if you look at the original photos, you will see the description denotes on AS17-140-21370 that this picture was taken after the deployment of the rover during EVA 3.

Ickes proof:




Here is the actual setting. AS17-140-21370HR is a picture of the LM after the rover has been unpacked and was taken during a pan sequence on EVA 3. The tracks are visible in the foreground. EVA 3 was well into the moon landing.



Compare that to this picture AS16-107-17436HR of the Apollo 16 LM and rover .



The tray the rover is packed on looks the same to me in both of these pictures. Yet David Icke wants the reader to believe Apollo 17's rover has not been unpacked. You be the judge. The original photos are found HERE and HERE on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal

This is just one sample of David Icke's moon hoax ilk.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Ahhh yes.. Illusions... go back to your early research... all of you... magic and illusions... to factions.. do you remember yet? Do you... no, yes.. basics is right.. simple is bliss.. remember..



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 
Your shallow opinion of david icke has nothing to do with the moon hoax evidence...

And heres another person who agrees with me and offers lots of proof and evidence and he even thinks that stanley kubrick directed the moon walks on a sound stage in a hanger in area 51,just like i said and i thought and wrote those things before i even read this link and he also mentions the impenetrable by humans van allen belt and how new high tech movie making abilities will be used to fake the eventual astronauts landings and walking on mars ...

We never went to the Moon (No, really.) > www.thespacereview.com...

edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 
In two of the photos you posted above,the 2nd and 3rd,i can clearly and obviously see where the mockup lunar surface meets,joins and trys to blend into the painted to (almost) look the same background, just like so many hollywood movies use to do that were filmed on sound stages in the past...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula
 


[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]
I dont think any humans walked on the moon and as far as what do i think is on the moon,i'm not sure what you mean? nasa has probably fired un-manned rockets that crashed onto the moon and they may have even sent un-manned rockets there that then parachuted robotic objects down onto the moons surface,but no humans flew to the moon,walked upon its surface or flew back in 1969-72...

I think the moon is an annunaki death star,a space battleship and perhaps its even what we call noahs ark,built in orbit around mars,as that planets biosphere was dying off and its atmosphere was fading away and the craters and surface scars on the moon may have been the result of some ancient interstellar war fought long ago,which is now all but forgotten and that ancient war may have even destroyed an entire planet or moon,remnants of which we call the asteroid belt...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


Thats more or less wot gibbo is saying, icke trys to show you one of the moon missions then makes wild claim about the tracks, well the people who had these photos done exactly wot you claim and that is the backgrounds are tampered with........but only to to fool you into thinking that they are of the same god damn mission..... and that the "rover was not unpacked etc", when it was clear that these are two "seperate" missions.im a bit tired i cannot remember the guys name but he had the photos wich were tampered with ill try and remember tommorro unless someone else can think of it. because i aint looking now.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula
 


[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]
I dont think any humans walked on the moon and as far as what do i think is on the moon,i'm not sure what you mean? nasa has probably fired un-manned rockets that crashed onto the moon and they may have even sent un-manned rockets there that then parachuted robotic objects down onto the moons surface,but no humans flew to the moon,walked upon its surface or flew back in 1969-72...

I think the moon is an annunaki death star,a space battleship and perhaps its even what we call noahs ark,built in orbit around mars,as that planets biosphere was dying off and its atmosphere was fading away and the craters and surface scars on the moon may have been the result of some ancient interstellar war fought long ago,which is now all but forgotten and that ancient war may have even destroyed an entire planet or moon,remnants of which we call the asteroid belt...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


didnt you state it is too cold to get to the moon.. you expect something at a freezing temperature which makes things super brittle, to be able to land on the moon intact?

also i dont know about you, but i have no idea what purpose parachutes have on the moon. do you even know how parachutes work?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
The whole notion of going to the moon with our technology that we had in the '60s is nothing short of ludicrous..



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 



The whole notion of going to the moon with our technology that we had in the '60s is nothing short of ludicrous..


It would be as ridiculous as someone crossing the Atlantic Ocean with the technology they had in 1492. How did Columbus cross the ocean without diesel engines, radiotelephones and GPS navigation? Impossible, right?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Nonchalant
 



The whole notion of going to the moon with our technology that we had in the '60s is nothing short of ludicrous..


It would be as ridiculous as someone crossing the Atlantic Ocean with the technology they had in 1492. How did Columbus cross the ocean without diesel engines, radiotelephones and GPS navigation? Impossible, right?


I have to tell you DJ....... The notion of going to the moon in 1969 with that technology is kind of absurd. 10 years ago, there was a good argument about that being a silly statement but I think as we are now realizing how difficult real space travel is, it raises some questions.

Those questions in general are more about in my mind why haven't we duplicated those missions at ANY point in the here and now..... There is no good reason to answer this question. There are things you can come up with to back your ideals but that doesn't make them a good reason.

There is so much evidence of tampering, falsehoods and inconsistencies that is hard to believe even when confronted with "mainstream" facts....... I think that those "facts" are in fact starting to become under such an amount of scrutiny that they are becoming a little less reliable as "fact" and starting to serve as the the very basis of the "conspiracy".



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



I have to tell you DJ....... The notion of going to the moon in 1969 with that technology is kind of absurd. 10 years ago, there was a good argument about that being a silly statement but I think as we are now realizing how difficult real space travel is, it raises some questions.


The engineers who designed and built the hardware for Apollo realized how difficult space travel was. They overcame the obstacles. Here is an example of their primitive technology:




Those questions in general are more about in my mind why haven't we duplicated those missions at ANY point in the here and now..... There is no good reason to answer this question. There are things you can come up with to back your ideals but that doesn't make them a good reason.


Do you know how much one of those puppies cost? Do I have to spell it out for you?


There is so much evidence of tampering, falsehoods and inconsistencies that is hard to believe even when confronted with "mainstream" facts....... I think that those "facts" are in fact starting to become under such an amount of scrutiny that they are becoming a little less reliable as "fact" and starting to serve as the the very basis of the "conspiracy".


Perhaps in your own mind. No Moon Hoax theorist has ever presented any credible evidence to support their case. They rely upon the ignorance of people who have a negative view of human abilities. It is necessary not to understand how shadows are cast, how photography works, elementary physics like the difference between weight and mass... then top it off with a willingness to accept outright lies and fantasies without confirming the sources or veracity, and you get the Moon Hoax Conspiracy. You are welcome to present any evidence you feel compelling, but you know already that it will not hold up.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:18 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Don't fool yourself into thinking I'm a redneck who refuses science or technological advancement. I have grown up and survived some of the worst things you could probably every think of and those experiences have given me the ability to "wake up" and see things for what they are. I have an uncanny ability for common sense. Something the average American no longer possesses.

I, believe it or not am a graduate and a science major and with that said, considering all aspects of the situation I can not realistically convince myself that we "landed" on the moon in 69. In fact, it is so laughable to me, I just can't believe sometimes that there are actually people who believe we could of done it.

Ill grant you that I was a fire science graduate and while I'm ok with math I am not "real good" and have always had to work at it although I can do it. I just have come at it a thousand ways and from my perspective...... There realistically is just no fing way.......... Not any at all, so much so that it kind of makes me chuckle.....



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious
 



I have to tell you DJ....... The notion of going to the moon in 1969 with that technology is kind of absurd. 10 years ago, there was a good argument about that being a silly statement but I think as we are now realizing how difficult real space travel is, it raises some questions.


The engineers who designed and built the hardware for Apollo realized how difficult space travel was. They overcame the obstacles. Here is an example of their primitive technology:




Those questions in general are more about in my mind why haven't we duplicated those missions at ANY point in the here and now..... There is no good reason to answer this question. There are things you can come up with to back your ideals but that doesn't make them a good reason.


Do you know how much one of those puppies cost? Do I have to spell it out for you?


There is so much evidence of tampering, falsehoods and inconsistencies that is hard to believe even when confronted with "mainstream" facts....... I think that those "facts" are in fact starting to become under such an amount of scrutiny that they are becoming a little less reliable as "fact" and starting to serve as the the very basis of the "conspiracy".


Perhaps in your own mind. No Moon Hoax theorist has ever presented any credible evidence to support their case. They rely upon the ignorance of people who have a negative view of human abilities. It is necessary not to understand how shadows are cast, how photography works, elementary physics like the difference between weight and mass... then top it off with a willingness to accept outright lies and fantasies without confirming the sources or veracity, and you get the Moon Hoax Conspiracy. You are welcome to present any evidence you feel compelling, but you know already that it will not hold up.


But.... It's not the evidence of tampering and hoaxing from the conspiracy group, its the hoaxing and tampering from NASA........ You been under a rock or something?

No, none of my opinions lie within my own mind, they lye withing the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the globe that are starting to realize that we have been lied to for a very long time and it's gotten to a point that has become ridiculous and insulting and it will be soon time to come clean.

I like you DJ, alot actually but your argument is a losing one and you will soon realize this, that said, I will always respect you and Ill even go a step further and say that I kind of like you, much like me, you always have your eye towards the sky and it makes you smile, I think we just see different things. History will decide which of us is right or wrong, we won't be able to dictate that to eachother.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



I, believe it or not am a graduate and a science major and with that said, considering all aspects of the situation I can not realistically convince myself that we "landed" on the moon in 69. In fact, it is so laughable to me, I just can't believe sometimes that there are actually people who believe we could of done it.


What aspects, specifically, do you find laughabl?. You talk about the "technology of the time" as though it were stone knives and bear skin. Clearly, you were not yet born, or you would realize that all of the technology you take for granted was invented during that time; in fact, there have been no notable technological advances in half a century. Thanks to the space program's size and weight concerns, solid state technology was miniaturized and made inexpensive enough for the mass market, but the computers and telecommunications that dazzle people these days are simply variations on what was done in the 1960's.


Ill grant you that I was a fire science graduate and while I'm ok with math I am not "real good" and have always had to work at it although I can do it. I just have come at it a thousand ways and from my perspective...... There realistically is just no fing way.......... Not any at all, so much so that it kind of makes me chuckle.....


If you're not real good at math, I submit that you're not in a position to know what is "realistic." If you feel the need to disparage others' accomplishments in order to feel better about yourself, you may want to work harder at achieving your own "impossible" goals.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



But.... It's not the evidence of tampering and hoaxing from the conspiracy group, its the hoaxing and tampering from NASA........ You been under a rock or something?


I have never seen any such "evidence" that stands up to critical examination... or even common sense.


No, none of my opinions lie within my own mind, they lye withing the minds of hundreds of millions of people across the globe that are starting to realize that we have been lied to for a very long time and it's gotten to a point that has become ridiculous and insulting and it will be soon time to come clean.


Hundreds of millions? I'm quite sure this is a wild exaggeration. Once you get it in your head that the truth is a lie, there can never be any "coming clean."


I like you DJ, alot actually but your argument is a losing one and you will soon realize this, that said, I will always respect you and Ill even go a step further and say that I kind of like you, much like me, you always have your eye towards the sky and it makes you smile, I think we just see different things. History will decide which of us is right or wrong, we won't be able to dictate that to eachother.


Thank you; I respect your opinions and civility. As for history deciding, it already has. The question is: how long will it take you to realize that history, at least in this case, is not lying?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Helious
 



I, believe it or not am a graduate and a science major and with that said, considering all aspects of the situation I can not realistically convince myself that we "landed" on the moon in 69. In fact, it is so laughable to me, I just can't believe sometimes that there are actually people who believe we could of done it.


What aspects, specifically, do you find laughabl?. You talk about the "technology of the time" as though it were stone knives and bear skin. Clearly, you were not yet born, or you would realize that all of the technology you take for granted was invented during that time; in fact, there have been no notable technological advances in half a century. Thanks to the space program's size and weight concerns, solid state technology was miniaturized and made inexpensive enough for the mass market, but the computers and telecommunications that dazzle people these days are simply variations on what was done in the 1960's.

For Gods sake man, they were wearing space suites that were hand stitched........... Come on.....


Ill grant you that I was a fire science graduate and while I'm ok with math I am not "real good" and have always had to work at it although I can do it. I just have come at it a thousand ways and from my perspective...... There realistically is just no fing way.......... Not any at all, so much so that it kind of makes me chuckle.....


If you're not real good at math, I submit that you're not in a position to know what is "realistic." If you feel the need to disparage others' accomplishments in order to feel better about yourself, you may want to work harder at achieving your own "impossible" goals.


I'm alot better at math then anything they had in 69, in fact I bet I can calculate equations twice as fast as the "computer" they used on that mission.

There are so many things we still have no clue about when it comes to the moon, there are gravitational anomalous spot all over that would destroy any planned mission such as the one from 69. There are other gravity factors that we didn't know exist in 69 that would play on trajectory and telemetry.

Landing a spacecraft that amounts to a wire frame with tinfoil on it with hand sewn uniforms taking that kind of pictures and that amount of data all with the the power of a calculator on the first try with resounding success and presentation goes against the very fabric of Occam's Razor..... Does it not?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 


I don't know, lets follow a couple paths.

First liquid fueled rocket (LFR), March 16, 1926.
First LFR to reach space, June 13, 1944.
First LFR to reach orbit, October 4, 1957.
First spacecraft to reach earth escape velocity, January 2, 1959, (Luna 1), lunar flyby (missed the moon).
First US spacecraft to reach earth escape velocity, March 3, 1959. (Pioneer 4), lunar flyby, missed the moon.
First spacecraft to reach the moon, September 12, 1959, (Luna 2), lunar impact, crashed on the moon.
First successful moon landing, February 3, 1966 using the "hard landing" technique, Luna 9, no photos.
Surveyor 1 (June 1966) was the first American spacecraft to achieve soft landing on the Moon.
After launching on December 21, 1968, Apollo 8 took three days to travel to the Moon, it safely retuned its crew back to earth.
July 20, 1969, at 20:17:39 UTC Apollo 11 safely landed men on the moon.

All seems to be a reasonable progression to me, especially if one considers;
First, special relativity was published in 1905, and the final form of general relativity was published in 1916.
Ernest Rutherford, is widely credited with first "splitting the atom" in 1917 in a nuclear reaction between nitrogen and alpha particles, in which he also discovered (and named) the proton. This led to the first experiment to split the nucleus in a fully controlled manner, performed by two students working under his direction, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, in 1932.
Trinity Nuclear Test conducted by the United States Army on July 16, 1945 was the first nuclear bomb detonation.


Apparently figuring out controlled particle physics progressed more rapidly and earlier than rocket science.

So what's so hard to believe?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join