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: 19
67
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by A-Dub
 

A- dub your most welcome, yes the reflectors !.
I mentioned it a few times, but you will get ignored as the moon hoaxers will not answer .

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
This is all driving me nuts.....
Looking at all evidence available to me, I believe we did go to the MOON !!
But what is frustrating to me, is the rise in Fact v's Opinion.
Clearly some people make statements, opinions or questions without reading the whole thread.
One can clearly see that some ATS members take time and effort to research and produce evidence which then share with us all. This can then be dismissed, mocked or over powered by someones opinion or arrogance.
I now more often than not come away from reading some threads more confused than when I started reading....
Which is a shame, as for the past couple of years I have found ATS to be a great pool of true information, but now as said above, or the petty arguments instead of discussion is more confusing than enlightening !!!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
Occam's Razor.

Think about how many people who would have had to be "in on it". Even if you argue that "most" people who worked on the project (in the thousands when you consider the government contractors) "thought" they were working on the real thing, the sheer number of people that would still have to coordinate the hoax (Astronauts, cameramen, studio workers, production designers, those coordinating the capsule's return in the ocean, shall I continue?) - someone would have talked by now.
Yes, the missions were EXTREMELY dangerous. Some parts of the lunar module were as thin as aluminum foil. Even a tiny object could have taken out the craft or the astronauts.
And NASA has admitted that part of the reason that the Shuttle was shelved is that it was designed with the assumption that some loss of life was acceptable. They are going back to the drawing boards to make safer craft. Private industry finally getting involved will accelerate this process. But it's like 911. If someone really wants to believe in a conspiracy, they will no matter the evidence.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jazzguy
i love this documentary. its one of the ones that started my passionate hate affair with nasa lol.

The best part of this documentary is that I'm finished watching it and I never have to again. What kind of downers did these guys take before getting in front of the camera. They had ME falling half asleep with their monotone delivery.

Wow - the Russians were in on the hoax, too - because the films they released were edited. Shocker that the Soviets would edit film before sending it out to the world. Honestly people don't waste your time.While I believe we went to the moon, there are some compelling sites I've come across claiming it was a hoax and they are far more entertaining than this documentary.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by thegagefather
Edit: I didn't post "part 1" because it's only 6 minutes long...

Actually, Part 1 is over 2 hours long and is here:


Google Video Link


3.) The flag waving in the wind where there's supposed to be no wind. There are scenes where nobody is touching the flag, yet it is moving. Very curious and suspicious.



It doesn't really "wave" in the wind. It's upright because there is a horizontal pole that keeps it open. Wouldn't "they" be able to control wind on a sound stage?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by flashtrum
Occam's Razor.

Think about how many people who would have had to be "in on it". Even if you argue that "most" people who worked on the project (in the thousands when you consider the government contractors) "thought" they were working on the real thing, the sheer number of people that would still have to coordinate the hoax (Astronauts, cameramen, studio workers, production designers, those coordinating the capsule's return in the ocean, shall I continue?) - someone would have talked by now.


Now heres a man who talks some sense

Flashtrum i said this on another thread but they will not listen they cannot accept the reality of it.
The moon hoaxers do not understand that two a few people cannot keep a secret let alone thousands of people.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I would like to add some things to this discussion. I did not watch the video but I have found information from two other sources that are the basis for my research. But there are a thousand hints as to what NASA has been doing, if we use logic and weed out the stories that don't agree, we can at least establish some pillars of what NASA really is up to.

In the book Dark Mission, Richard Hoagland shows many of the pieces that NASA has kept hidden from us along with showing us some evidence that is bizarre and almost unexplainable if we adhere to the popular view of it. Hoagland finds only in the background of the Apollo moon pictures hundreds of dots that line up structurally, along with a few prisms appearing in the space photos where nothing should be there to create a prism effect. Unable to explain the prism effect Hoagland theorizes that the moon has "crystal towers" that have been kept hidden from us. We can't know if the moon has crystal towers, but a more better explanation of these 2 odd features has been arrived at recently since the publication of Hoagland's book.

Jay Weidner has released two of three films that tell of the exploits of Stanley Kubrick. He theorizes that Kubrick filmed the Apollo mission at the same time and using the techniques he pioneered for the movie 2001:a Space Odyssey. Before green screens had been invented Kubrick had to set large glass curtain behind his set that he could project a background onto. Weidner claims that the symetrical dots in the background of the Apollo pictures when the gain is turned up are pieces of this large glass curtain that were sewn together. The unexplainable prisms that Hoagland discovered in Apollo moon pictures is claimed to be one of these sheets of glass, where one of the thousands of pieces of glass within it was shifted to an extreme angle and reflected a prism of the light beaming upon it. At the end of the original release of Kubrick's 2001, in the credits was listed many government groups that were thanked for their help on the film. Newer releases of the film had these struck from the list of credits.


I can't see a more plain or simple explanation than that NASA had dealings with Kubrick and helped him fake the Apollo landing in order to "win" the space race against Russia at the time. . NASA doesn't want us to know about their cooperation in the movie 2001. Weidner shows a line on every picture of the moon landing and in clips from the movie 2001 to show where the set ended and the background that they imposed over a glass curtain began. It is entirely possible that NASA has gone to the moon, but not in those rickety old space ships they drag out and parade in front of the public. Most likely NASA has been used to fund black budget missions for the US government under the guise of being a space program. Also by their connections with Disney (such as Wernher von Braun), we can assume they also want to use "movie magic" to keep us looking in the wrong direction and believing the official story they feed us. Good luck!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by denver22

Originally posted by flashtrum
Occam's Razor.

Think about how many people who would have had to be "in on it". Even if you argue that "most" people who worked on the project (in the thousands when you consider the government contractors) "thought" they were working on the real thing, the sheer number of people that would still have to coordinate the hoax (Astronauts, cameramen, studio workers, production designers, those coordinating the capsule's return in the ocean, shall I continue?) - someone would have talked by now.


Now heres a man who talks some sense

Flashtrum i said this on another thread but they will not listen they cannot accept the reality of it.
The moon hoaxers do not understand that two a few people cannot keep a secret let alone thousands of people.


Of course you can't expect that many people not to come forward with this great secret. But if you compartmentalize the work and tell every group a different lie at each different level. Or if that perfect strategy somehow failed you could just tell everyone the same lie and back it up with doctored evidence, paid witnesses, and general propaganda in movies, shows, and news. Like Hitler said, "Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." After this you can just let the masses decry anyone who states the unpopular opinion as being a dissenter, crazy, or even a possible terrorist threat!



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by A-Dub
While some of the moon landing hoax arguments are intriguing, theres a few things I cant get over.

Nobody pays attention to this, but unless they were really good at messing with the film speed (doesnt seem so) you can go to 20:20 in the OP's video and watch the sand as he kicks it around, it floats in the air longer then it does on earth and settles down differently, would be hard to hoax.


You are right, that sand looks like it was kicked and falls at 20-30% slower that it is supposed to. This does defy the laws of nature on earth...unless the camera speed was adjusted. Settles differently? No, it just gives you more time to watch it fall, which you have never had due to the laws of gravity affecting your narrow perception.

I would rather these forums be under-moderated than over-censored. Please try to ignore these naysayers that have no contribution to our discussion other than their uninformed opinion.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Richard hoagland is a liar and has been caught out, he even tried to have his friend comitted which failed and his friend talked about a few things. Also richie hoagland is homeless has no money now ,just thought i would tell you in case you did not know.peace.

Id say it was a bit of a payback what happened to richard for what he did to his friend gary also making family homeless while he tried to have his friend committed, so he could carry on being the good little charlatan that he is and stop his friend from spilling the beans , nice try hoagie are you comfortable in your mates scooby doo camper van asking your friend to set up a pay pal for the sheeple to get you back on your feet to seduce the masses with your BS once again.

shame on you hoagie

P.S i am gonna spread the word to my fellow man who does not allready know that you are a cheat a fraud .

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


Of course, anyone can see that Hoagland's theories have been falling apart for years now. That doesn't mean his research and discoveries were faked. Often the government or secret groups will find someone who they think they can control either by money, by information, or by the person simply being an idiot and willing to jump through the hoops you set in front of them. Then in order to discredit that piece of information, all they have to do is discredit the individual that they themselves put into the light. It is entirely likely that this information was broached by Hoagland intentionally and at the behest of the government to put a spin on the story that will send you looking into the endless morass they have created and believing in something like crystal towers on the moon. Instead we should be looking at the bigger picture by assembling all the smaller information and seeing what resonates with the other pieces.
edit on 21-5-2012 by vv3vv3vv because: added a line to help explain



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Reflectors? The LRRR's? I don't believe that these were installed during Apollo 11. I admit it is only conjecture, but my opinions are based on a wealth of research. If you think this is proof of the Apollo 11 moon landing, then show me something that attempts to prove that these were set up shortly after Apollo 11 and before Apollo 12. It is possible that later moon missions could have set this up. Another possibility is that an unmanned moon mission set this device up as Russia did. Contenders say that a probe like this could not have been built in secrecy, but under project paperclip America had a whole team of scientists that could only speak German living in watchful camps where their families were kept as collateral even if they could find somebody to tell. Deep underground military bases are not something from a conspiracy theorist's wild imagination, they are real solutions founded by our government to protect and keep secret the things they find important. There could be a whole team of researchers that have never even seen the light of day and are forced to create these secret projects. This is entirely possible and not beyond the morality of the super rich elites that are losing control over us each day. Just as crashing a plane into our own building would generate countless benefits for anyone involved in the military or wishing to create foreign prejudice as a tool to leverage people into doing whatever the government tells them.

This is still just the official story given and does not prove anything more than the fact that we have technology able to place a small object on the surface of the moon. It does not prove that an object was placed on the moon at the time of Apollo 11.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv Another possibility is that an unmanned moon mission set this device up as Russia did. Contenders say that a probe like this could not have been built in secrecy


That old chestnut



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I dont believe that it is possible to send someone to the moon using primitive 1960`s technology.Using todays technology we still cant manage to even build a space shuttle that doesnt blow up.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
I dont believe that it is possible to send someone to the moon using primitive 1960`s technology.Using todays technology we still cant manage to even build a space shuttle that doesnt blow up.


So by that silly reasoning Concorde never existed, as today we cannot build a supersonic passenger plane....



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Tardacus
I dont believe that it is possible to send someone to the moon using primitive 1960`s technology.Using todays technology we still cant manage to even build a space shuttle that doesnt blow up.


So by that silly reasoning Concorde never existed, as today we cannot build a supersonic passenger plane....


US tried to build supersonic passenger plane and failed miserably: en.wikipedia.org...
Hollywood and the media also were not able to deliver the hoax in time, as they were still tired with the Apollo program.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 



US tried to build supersonic passenger plane and failed miserably: en.wikipedia.org...
Hollywood and the media also were not able to deliver the hoax in time, as they were still tired with the Apollo program.


The US didn't fail miserably; it stopped because there was a very small market for a supersonic passenger jet, and Concorde filled it. The US usually makes its decisions based on money, remember? Are you implying that supersonic planes are a hoax, too?



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
Hey how about the obviously staged moon buggy photo where there is NO track marks infront or behind its wheels. Like it had been dropped into place for effect. these things will never go away no matter what anyone says. its all just a bit too fishy.
edit on 22-5-2012 by Elvis Hendrix because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Elvis Hendrix
 



Hey how about the obviously staged moon buggy photo where there is NO track marks infront or behind its wheels. Like it had been dropped into place for effect. these things will never go away no matter what anyone says. its a a bit too fishy.


Please post the photo in question. These things don't go away because hoaxies refuse to accept the obvious explanations.



posted on May, 22 2012 @ 09:32 AM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join