Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 5
67
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 17 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


yup! makes sense now...lol.... my bad?


There must be a vaccum in my head today! The air in there isn't very swift! haha!




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I do agree that nearly all of the particulars brought up can be counter-debunked fairly easily. All it takes is some questioning and looking around to find answers.

My whole issue is that I have trouble trusting anyone these days and so even doubt the most basic assumptions I once held as givens.

I do not believe the Moon landing was a hoax, nor do I believe that it happened either. Both are fallacious faith based beliefs which are impossible to actually determine without extraordinary evidence which is not available to the general public.

You cannot within reason name any government or military agency that has not been misleading or misrepresenting the truth historically, nor can it be argued logically that we should trust their claims without significant investigation and inquisition. NASA doesn't have a spotless record, they haven't told the absolute clear full truth about everything, and to top it off it takes 40 years just to find out they slightly skewed a statement about something seemingly insignificant.

I'll put it this way:
I trust NASA as much as I trust the Internet or any human being.
Can you blame me?
I can hardly trust myself most of the time my assumptions are so strong and solidified.

Perhaps the key in discovering the Moon landing's truth lies in determining the true scale of cosmic radiation around the moon itself. And then I should by hand, do the calculations to determine how much exposure would have hit the astronauts, and then determine the amount of shielding they would have had, and take that into account. And then I should double and triple check it.

This way instead of believing anything, I should follow the facts and the evidence that is clear and logically consistent.

I cannot ever know if they really went there with any absolute certainty, but I should in theory be able to determine mathematically if it is even possible to survive out there based upon the types of radiation shielding available during the period. And 95% + of moon hoax theories do seem to rely heavily upon the killer cosmic radiation aspect, so it makes sense I should focus my attention there in order to unravel a more solid understanding of this entire complex debate.
edit on 17-5-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I'll get started on that little physics project soon, probably throughout the day tomorrow if things work out.

If you know of anyone who has addressed the cosmic radiation issue directly and supplied math calculating the cosmic radiation, shielding modifiers, and end result exposure ratings than please share if you don't mind.

Googling for information is proving difficult so any solid resources you may be aware of that can aid in this would be most appreciated.

I want to take into account every layer of shielding and determine it's effectiveness, which should be easy considering they did this over 50 years ago by hand as well.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Why are a lot of the posts saying this is absolute garbage, blah blah blah, it's all been debunked a hundred times, blah blah blah, this is complex disinformation? Reallllllly?

I just watched this 3 hour documentary, and my thought are this: there is some serious implications in this video that need to be scientifically investigated.

tell me:
why does NASA say they have no reason to investigate these claims, because they are 30 years old?
Why are there shadow anomalies?
Why is there a visible line on the horizon in all footage showing what could be a vertical wall as a back drop?
Why are the perspectives of the cameras angles off? For example, the cameras strapped to their chests are aimed down at the astronauts but the reflection in the visor shows a straight on shot?

how come on footage of astronauts in low earth atmosphere, the reflection of the sun is extremely small, but on the moon the sun appears as a huge glowing ball, indicating a large light source?

why do shadows clearly get longer as the astronauts move toward the (artificial?) light source, when this is not possible under natural lighting.?

What's with the letter "c" on one of the moon rocks?

why are the image crosshairs behind objects?

why are hills and mountains in the background seeming to be reused in different images and videos, with mountain features and craters proven to have been in places they shouldn't be?

how did they get through the van allen radiation belts?

why are video's on the lunar module where astronauts are suppossed to be 200,000km away from earth show blue light pouring in through the windows?

why is there no crater on the moon from the lift off of the lander, when it has been shown rockets on earth that hover above the ground cut a large crater into gypsum rock,

the chemical reaction from the lift off of the LM from the moon should create a red gas, in a vaccuum, this gas would be compressed and spread out over a large and even area, the footage of the lift off is pathetic, even though it is apparently lifting a 2,500 pound module

on apollo 11, the first time man touches down on the moon in the history of man, the astronauts are on the radio and as the LM approaches the moon at a high velocity, there voices remain calm...they are extremely boring considering what is occurring









I could honestly go on forever, I respect the fact that some posters firmly believe the opposite as voiced in the documentary. But c'mon people, there is a lot of anomalies that NEED to be reviewed IN DEPTH so we can end this. If this conspiracy is true, then in my mind, most conspiracy theories are likely true, as this proves how easily people can be fooled by media and authoritative figures like NASA. NASA claims that NO OTHER LIGHTING was taken up for the pictures, but there HAS TO BE artificial lighting in some of the photos, as the documentary proves IMO.

this is an important issue in my mind, but it's laughed at by skeptics for some reason. GIve me a break I'm 26 years old, I have no reason to believe this crap. I can understand people who experienced this on TV, but I have no investment in this and have no reason to believe any of this until I see proof. The motivation for deception exists, the footage to me looks like a set, I see no reason to believe that we've been out of low earth orbit, at least not in the public realm.
edit on 17-5-2012 by 11:11 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


it was too perfect thats my point..as if....shot from earth man...was it that hard for you to figure out my point? or you couldnt google it?....try in yahoo search type in..

"Heineken thinks the lunar module take off from the moon was too perfect taking into consideration previous failures...was it even on the moon?"



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by digital01anarchy
 


There is a way to look at the information without direct access to data or the ability to understand it and come to a valid conclusion.

You look at it from a political viewpoint.

Politically, we absolutely had to make it to the moon and back. President Kennedy is pretty much quoted as saying so.

There is absolutely NO way that they could be assured of a successful mission in the 60's, no matter what they did, but they couldn't afford to screw an attempt up or to not attempt it.

They told this to president Kennedy and he would not accept it. So they came up with something that would have the highest percentage of success and still be believable.


It was in all likelihood faked, regardless of what anybody tries to use convoluted scientific explanations to debunk what is politically obvious... Don't fall for it.

Jaden



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
listen Phage seriously...dont make me look like I am the one on the bad side here...Nasa Space Program was run by NAZI War Criminals which deserved court marshal since the Law is equal to everybody...so the roots are evil...no...i am not on the bad here...also..NO and a big NO..i will never trust like a puppet everything such a plot tries to feed the sheeple....not without questioning and study the information presented which looks suspicious to many of us.

the fact that this is all based on those who drove the Hitler's War Machine forward is already disgusting on its own.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 
You may want to take a look at the Kodak film box made for the Imax shuttle movies. It is my understanding that any less protection of any film pic. or motion from Kodak Eastman would be damaged.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:14 PM
link   
How ridiculous. Anyone can find the latest Moon photos and actually see the landing sites and even the foot tracks of the astronauts. Time for this silly notion to die.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Hey Phage. Excellent link to assembly pictures of Lunar lander. I have never seen pictures of the interior of the lunar lander crew compartment either being assembled, or showing interior prior to or during the mission, either in flight or on the moon. All photos I have seen show the Lem from just the outside?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


I want to take into account every layer of shielding and determine it's effectiveness, which should be easy considering they did this over 50 years ago by hand as well.


Well they probably used slide rules so I guess that could be considered by hand. But I'm not sure it's easy, there are a lot of factors to consider when calculating radiation dosages.

You're right that it takes a little digging but a lot of information is available. Perhaps you might try a FOIA request to NASA for everything they've got about it. In any case, this may be a good jumping off point.
Second Symposium on Protection Against Radiations in Space
edit on 5/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by heineken
 

I understand you think it was too perfect (even though it wasn't perfect). You said that the first time.

I was wondering what your point was about the two others (very much less than perfect). It seems that they were were so poor would not favor your argument.
edit on 5/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

I guess you didn't look for any others?



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by intrptr
 

I guess you didn't look for any others?

I will if you point me there...



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   

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




Phage, I respect your input because you are correct almost all of the time. However, I can't agree with you 100% completely after watching the almost 3 and a half hours of this documentary.

I have never really looked into the moon hoax conspiracy, but have heard about certain aspects as they've been shown on TV or have been briefly touched on in other threads here on ATS. I also have never seen this documentary before, so I decided to go ahead and watch it (after finding the full Part 1).

Yes, alot of the points in the documentary can be sufficiently countered and "debunked", but there are a few points that cannot be easily debunked.

1.) The radiation effects upon the film. Maybe there were ways to minimize the astronauts' exposure to radiation, but the film was far more susceptible. Why are there no visible radiation anomalies in any of the film?

2.) The shadow anomalies. These anomalies are very curious and suspicious altogether.

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.

4.) Astronauts being supported by cables. The scene where the astronaut is on the ground getting samples, and then says "help me up" and he is actually lifted up by no power of his own, or his partner. This scene is unequivocally proof that he was being lifted by a cable.


Most of the above cannot be easily explained. Especially the last point, number 4. And it is that last point alone that makes me suspicious and really question whether we actually did go to the moon or not.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 

I thought I did...images of the naked LM, I mean.
But here's another view of the "tin foil" LM.




posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I am amazed at the learned debunkers who laugh at the moon hoax cognescenti.

If they would read the 500 pages of Dark Moon by Bennett et all they would become informed. While the secret parallel lunar mission scenario is open to debate, the scientific evidence of film emulsion inadequacies, shadows at different angles, infill lighting, the problems with deep space radiation, all add up to the U S pulling a fast one. And that does not even mention the tv documentary on History Channel I think it was years ago that showed a supposed lunar crater passing by outside the window of the lunar lander exactly matched a crater at Area 51.

I'll take a well researched documented book any day over people who just attack without providing their own evidence other than NASA talking heads and astronauts Masons who love to pull off their own hoaxes.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 

1) The film was in metal magazines. The cameras had metal bodies.

2) Only if you ignore the fact that the ground was not level.

3) The scenes don't show you the whole scene.

4) No help? Are you sure? (skip to 2:10 if you wish, but you shouldn't)


edit on 5/17/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I did not see that "hand-to-hand" in the documentary. Thanks for answering my questions. I can now rest in peace.





edit on 17-5-2012 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
S&F

Very interesting Documentary. Nothing too revealing here but none-the-less an interesting and informative watch.
There is something authoritative about the British. Why do you think half the infomercials out there use British spokesmen?
Thanks for sharing. I'm always up for a good "We didn't go to the moon" story.
If they want to end all the speculation they should just go again. End all the questions and go back to the moon already.
But we know they won't do that. Most likely they'd cite budgetary constraints.
Yeah, right.





new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join