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.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 10
67
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by blaenau2000
 

Armstrong clearly says that they could not see stars when they were on the surface. I don't know what you mean when you say he didn't remember.

Please see the edit to my prior post.

edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Being a skeptic is not only our right, it is our duty. And moonlanding does smell fishy.
Do I believe they went to the moon. No. Why? If American engineering had a capacity to create such engineering marvel, we would see a lot a similar complexity engineering being done in adjacent industries were the expertise would have seeped into. We would have American engineeered car platforms, transmissions, industrial robots, wristwatches, etc. Americans would vomit towards a Russian proposal of RD-180 engine and would proudly create their own engines with whatever thrust necessary.
Now to the fishy part. Not in particular order.
The old obsolete no-stars issue. Blah, blah, sun was shining so brightly. yet there is a legit question. How about being in orbit, and being on far side of the moon in complete blackness of space noone of astronauts ever were tempted by magnificent brightness of stars as to film or photograph them. Was it prohibited to use Hasselblad from lunar orbit? How about photographing the edge of light once approaching the lighted side of the moon? Wasn`t really the thin crescent of bright growing lunar circumference of any interest to be filmed or phtographed? it would simply show how stars disappear as the bright light takes over the camera exposure. How about walking on the moon behind huge rocks or mountains where astronauts were in complete shadow enjoying no atmospehre, 7% albedo , yet unable to see or photograph stars in any settings available.
The old good moon videos. Grainy of course, they could buy Swedish phtocameras, yet noone could provide high quality videocameras, so they had to use zenith. Patriots, you know. Of course they were so limited, they could never turn around cameras anfd film the whole scene around. They could film high jumps, but again, in conditions when something was blocking the view of their feet. Always!
Lunar excursion module. A brilliant vehicle. Noone ever even needed to report back to Houston or even check battery readings, as coldness of space and solar heat had no effect on it. of course it was also of no interest to film or photograph how the excursion module or lunar jeep was unfolded from the capsule. Not interesting at all.
Lunar landing module. No crater, oh the ground was pure rock probably. Right , yet 2 feet away from th module we could see deep imprints of astronauts feet, clearly implying regolith originalis sand. Oh, they switched the engines off a couple of seconds before landing. Oh, so a vehicle of mass of equivalent 2 tons on earth , similar to a dropping an SUV, could be simply switched off right before landing. Not that they cared of the impact, or not that there was any expensive equipment that could be under risk by hard landing. They also didn`t have instructions when exactly to switch it off, so Neil simply pulled the plug when he felt like it. Right. While videos clearly show that he instructs to shut the engine off right after the touchdown. Not that this contradiction is significant or anything. Should I continue?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The most famous case of "wrong end of the stick"; Faked Moon Landing Conspiracies.

Yes, some NASA photos have been withheld, or edited, and yes, NASA had "misplaced" the original full Apollo 11 tapes.

It's regarding potential inadvertent UFO disclosure. The various US government agencies were well aware of the ET UFO presence on Earth, Project Blue Book among numerous other studies. Going to the unvisited outer space Earth satellite, broadcasting pivotal moments live to the entire world. Is Apollo 11 going to be destroyed? Are the crew going to be abducted? Will there be activity on the Moon that the entire viewing global audience will see?

More than a few people would've have sleepless nights. But as astronauts like Buzz Aldrin will tell you, it appears they were present in observing the proceedings, but kept their distance...most of the time.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Advancedboy
 


How about photographing the edge of light once approaching the lighted side of the moon? Wasn`t really the thin crescent of bright growing lunar circumference of any interest to be filmed or phtographed?

It was. They did.


it would simply show how stars disappear as the bright light takes over the camera exposure.

You don't understand how it works, if the exposure settings are not correct for recording stars, stars won't be recorded. It doesn't matter how bright or dim the other light is.


How about walking on the moon behind huge rocks or mountains where astronauts were in complete shadow enjoying no atmospehre, 7% albedo , yet unable to see or photograph stars in any settings available.

It takes a while for eyes to adapt from very bright light to darkness but it was not "complete shadow" any more that it's "complete shadow" when you stand in the shade of a boulder on Earth. Light is reflected into the shadow from the surrounding areas.


Grainy of course, they could buy Swedish phtocameras, yet noone could provide high quality videocameras, so they had to use zenith. so they had to use zenith. Patriots, you know

They used the best quality videocameras available. You haven't seen the 16mm films? Um...Hasselblad? You know the still cameras they used? They were not made in the US.


No crater, oh the ground was pure rock probably.

Yup, with a coating of dust which was blown away by the landing rocket under the landers.


Oh, they switched the engines off a couple of seconds before landing.

Nope.


Should I continue?

You've demonstrated enough ignorance as it is.

edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   

reply to post by GaryN
 


Following insertion into Earth orbit, there was quite a bit of debris floating around
the cabin. This contamination consisted of small screws, fasteners, ends trimmed from wiring,
and general trash. The quantity of this cabin debris remained constant throughout the
mission.

Then the vacuum cleaner failed in an attempt to suck up the trash. You'd think the contractors could have given the thing a good vacuuming before delivery. The astronauts were amazingly lucky that none of that trash gummed up the works of such delicate and intricate craft.


Way to tempt fate. I never heard that before. Sittin on screws, breathing wire strippings, given 'em fits for sure. Oh, and we try to provide links to our source and use off site bracket code for material, i.e., [ex ]####[/ex ]. Just for be-damned protocol.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by blaenau2000
 

Armstrong clearly says that they could not see stars when they were on the surface. I don't know what you mean when you say he didn't remember.

Please see the edit to my prior post.

edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Armstrong does say he saw nothing but states he cant remember if he saw stars while filming the solar corona, Collins chips in there with "I dont remember seeing any." But further research does suggest they saw plenty of stars.

Extract from his later released book Michael Collins: “Carrying The Fire: An Astronaut’s Journeys”

"Outside my window I can see stars — and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon’s presence is defined solely by the absence of stars. To compare the sensation with something terrestrial, perhaps being alone in a skiff in the middle of the pacific ocean on a pitch-black night would most nearly approximate my situation. In a skiff, one would see bright stars above and black sea below; I see the same stars, minus the twinkling of course, and absolutely nothing below."

Armstrong also sees plenty of stars as confirmed in the Apollo 11 transcripts -

"Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's—the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth. But all the way here, we have only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. "

Transcripts



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
 


i can sumarise it :

the same old lies , ignorance , missrepresentation , pop psychology , psuedo science and tawddle that goes into all moon hoax ` arguments `


Don't judge before you have seen it mate.

Its this type of preconceived judgement, that is just absolutely absurd. Have a look at it first ffs, before just jumping on the ridicule bandwagon.

vvv


It the same old BS seen a 100x before on here and all over the net!! Or is your memory going



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Qwenn
 


Bam, Qwenn hit the nail on the head. People love to have people that they believe are credible, which online usually doesn't take much, and just go by their opinion. There are only a handful of people who will actually watch the majority of the video, and then there are those who will not watch it because they don't want to spend the time doing so, or because someone posts something along the lines of "nothing to see here," just because they don't believe it.

This documentary is actually one of the best, if not the best film on the subject. I personally do not buy into the moon landing hoax, but I am willing to be entertained with new ideas, and will consider them, and this is how everyone should think. There are things I have made my mind up about, and as of yet still post those beliefs, but one should not take this as far as avoiding any new evidence or points of view on the matter. Take chemtrails for instance. I think it is a load of crap, but I usually read any decent thread on them, just to see if any new evidence is presented.

I can honestly say that this video raises viable questions, and there is no one on the forums that can honestly say they know everything there is to know regarding the subject. Great video, so thanks for posting. Take care everybody.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminnaughty
So the moon landings were done during the 11 yr cycle. At the peak of it? Yet those photos were so clear, without any radiation damage. Using unprotected cameras? Plus they detonated a nuke there and caused another belt, like the Van Allen belt?. Its a good documentary and Im not sure about all the info. But it does throw into doubt their claim, of NASA landing on the moon as they said.




Heres is a typical image from a hoax site/believer/youtube wackjob!!!!



Here is the actual image from the camera even HOAX believers MUST be able to see the diffrerence.



The hoax sites take the enhanced images and say that they are the actual pictures and claim they are to good, they have to F N LIE



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Personally I don't know - I know someone who did but I was young and never thought to ask. What I do know is that many many people question the ability of the spacesuits themselves to withstand the moon walk and not cook the astronauts with radiation of freeze them.

You see in Joe Kittengers jump of just a few years earlier even sub orbit this was a huge issue, even today 50 years later they are still having issues just surviving at 120,000 feet for the stratos jump.

There are alot of good questions that have been asked and given the atmosphere at that time it does make sense that we would make it or fake it so I dunno.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by blaenau2000
 

Yes, on the nightside of the Moon they reportedly were able to see more stars than they could at any other time of the mission. That would be when there was neither sunlight (including the glow of the corona) nor "Earthshine" affecting the viewing.

At the time mentioned in the press conference (while photographing the solar corona) they were leaving the dayside. It was not until after that they comment on seeing the sky "full of stars". I remember when I saw a total solar eclipse. I could clearly see the corona but only a few bright stars, nothing like what is visible at night. Let's not forget the factor of darkness adaptation.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Some people claim that it would be irrelevant if the stars were included in the lunar phtographies or not, because the phtographies from the moon would look exactly the same like from the earth. he he.Right. But there is one tiny, miniscule, puuuuny problem. Stars are static. planets aren`t. And if they faked the lunar phtography of stars, it would be done at earlier time than their supposedly trip. And woolala, the locations of venus and Jupiter would have mismatch in their starfield. Or at least it would give NASA additional headaches to calculate their actual location at the supposedly lunar excursions.Using available programs such as Celestia today we can easily calculate location of each planet even in past. All we need is a tiny divergence, and the house of cards collapses. That is why NASA didn`t risk inserting `expensive` stars in their phtos. So the lack of stars is not courtesy of NASA, it`s convenience of NASA
And Phage, the way you answered , is similar to mass negligence and says more about you than my ignorance.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Advancedboy
 

Would you care to address any of my statements?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by DoctorMobius
If the moan landing were a hoax the Russians would have been quite vocal about it by now, instead of congratulating NASA for it.

Are you Russian?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 

I don't see anything peeling off.


Try harder: heroicrelics.org...


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
 


Here is an ascent stage being delivered for final assembly.

www.ehartwell.com...


It is went as far as to vacuum chambers: www.spacepatches.nl...
and then landed on NASA moon: heroicrelics.org...



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
So the lack of stars is not courtesy of NASA,


No, it is a courtesy of you not understanding anything about film cameras and light



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
This is a terrible documentary!

Only retards and people incapable of research willing to accept the next conspiracy without looking into it themselves would believe this crap.

DEBUNKED.




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by mellisamouse
reply to post by denver22
 


Ummmm, so a feather weighs the same as a hammer on the moon, but the astronauts are so "light" they kinda float????

Makes no logical sense to me....


Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass

A (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory
by galileo all them years ago.


Does it prove moon landings to you?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Qwenn


It took 5 years in filming and research, not just a knock-up job.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Qwenn because: spelling


If that were really true, this ridiculous film would not have been released, because they would have instead proven that the moon landings were not hoaxed.

It is obvious that they cherry picked and even lied about details to fit their agenda.

This is surely a crapumentary.
edit on 5-18-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Advancedboy
So the lack of stars is not courtesy of NASA, it`s convenience of NASA
And Phage, the way you answered , is similar to mass negligence and says more about you than my ignorance.

I guess you don't want to address my statements. Got it.

They built and launched full scale (but dummy) Saturn V stacks in full view of thousands. Huge sound stages with backdrops. Used rear screen and front screen projections. Somehow simulated a low gravity environment. All kinds of stuff.

But they couldn't be bothered to use a planetarium to recreate a perfect night sky for any location, date, and time in order to make the illusion complete.
chriswondra.com...

And you busted the whole thing wide open.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join