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.

 

"Moon Landing is a Hoax" Believers, Explain This.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by flexy123

Originally posted by LightSpeedDriver

Originally posted by flexy123
There is a video, showing Apollo 15 Astronaut (David Scott) doing a simple scientific experiment, demonstrating the lack of atmosphere on Moon. He drops a hammer and a feather, at the same time.

Both things fall to the ground simultaneously.

If the moon landing was hoaxed, as some people believe, how was this achieved?

edit on 11-8-2012 by flexy123 because: (no reason given)


Oh that's an easy one, they use a feather made of metal.


ok that was funny


Typical believers reaction to explanations. It was all just a set of tricks, nothing else. No man has ever walked on the moon, unless someone committed a suicide.


edit on 15-8-2012 by Ove38 because: text fix




posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
No man has ever walked on the moon, unless someone committed a suicide.
You mean you think they could get to the moon, but they couldn't get back?

I don't understand your reasoning.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Ove38
No man has ever walked on the moon, unless someone committed a suicide.
You mean you think they could get to the moon, but they couldn't get back?

I don't understand your reasoning.


It's obviously possible to land a robotic spacecraft on the moon, why not have a man on board ? If he would survive the trip or the landing is another question, far less return to earth, dead or alive.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Funny that all the professionals on the field disagree. Only the internet coocoos think astronauts would die. So you have some evidence that would change history or are you just spouting nonsense? I'm betting on the latter.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
It's obviously possible to land a robotic spacecraft on the moon, why not have a man on board ? If he would survive the trip or the landing is another question, far less return to earth, dead or alive.
Thanks for clarifying. So what do you think would prevent him from returning to Earth? If you believe a robotic mission could get the man to the moon, why couldn't the robotic mission also return the man to Earth? I don't understand why you think the robotics could work in one direction but not the other direction?

(by the way, even the Apollo 11 landing was supposed to be largely automated, which I guess you could call "robotic" to use your expression. However, when Neil Armstrong saw the rough terrain at the landing location the computer was heading toward, he decided to take manual control and change the landing location, and very dramatically, nearly depleted all the fuel reserves in the process).
edit on 15-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by hankjr
 



Great point flex 123, but do you ever think it is going to end one way or the other? I honestly can't make my mind up any more, hoax or real landings.


Why do I doubt that?



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Originally posted by Semicollegiate

The only proof of the moon landing is the way everybody in the media says it is the truth. Bad sign.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
And people wonder why conspiracy theorists are often ridiculed, and rarely taken seriously.


Yea people who sing along with

"You're the top!," sang Porter in one of his signature tunes. "You're the Great Houdini! You're the top!
You are Mussolini!"

reason.com...


The lyrics are particularly significant because they offer a snapshot as to what was highly prized in the mid-1930s, and demonstrate Porter's rhyming ability.


en.wikipedia.org...'re_the_Top

edit on 15-8-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I apologize if someone else answered this and if so, then I agree. If a hoax then it had to be in a vacuum chamber.



posted on Aug, 15 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
I apologize if someone else answered this and if so, then I agree. If a hoax then it had to be in a vacuum chamber.


...on the moon...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by hankjr
Then my buddies turned this thing thing up which left me stupefied and in stunned silence. So I argued well and they came back all the more effectively.

Stunned why? What does Apollo have to do with the shuttles?
On Apollo it wasn't co-ed and they were doing a lot of roughing it. It was kind of crude but it worked.

The Apollo fecal-collection system consists of the fecal-collection assembly (FCA) on the CM and the defecation-collection device (DCD) on the LM. The design and operation of the DCD are similar to the design and operation of the FCA. The FCA provides a method of collecting, inactivating, and stowing feces for 14-day missions with a minimum of crewman effort. The FCA consists of an inner fecal/emesis bag, a germicide pouch, an outer fecal bag, and a wrapper.




Nothing has proved more effective than the current system, which has proved adequate for all flights, although the crewmen have expressed dislike for it.
Well yeah. I guess so.
www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 12:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by chrisforrest
I couldn't resist the notion that the Gemini and Apollo astronauts couldn't have done what they claimed because they really had no way to take a good poop.
You get an "O" for originality in stating an objection I haven't heard before. At least it's not the old flag waving, shadows aren't right, crosshairs and Van Allen belt stuff that's been debunked many times already.

Waste in Space

A frequent question about space flight involves human waste. For urine collection, the Apollo command and service module was equipped with a hose that led, through a valve, to outer space. After the condom-like attachment on the end of the hose was rolled on, the astronauts had to time the opening of the valve just so. Too soon, and the vacuum of space would begin pulling -- and the equipment would jab at their private parts, making it hard to urinate. Too late, and some of the urine would escape into the cabin, floating around in golden spheroids. When the device was properly used, the urine would be sucked into space, and freeze instantly into iridescent drops of ice. When asked "What's the most beautiful sight you saw in space?" one astronaut answered, "Urine dump at sunset."

As for the solid waste, the equipment resembled, in author Andrew Chaikin's words, "a top hat with an adhesive coating on the brim. Each bag had a kind of finger-shaped pocket built into the side of it." After fixing the sticky side to your bum and doing your business, the finger pocket was used to direct the waste away from your body -- after all, without gravity, the waste wouldn't fall. Then, a blue germicide had to be sealed into the bag and kneaded into the waste to fully mix the contents. To help matters, NASA developed special food that would produce as little waste as possible.
I can see how that might be inconvenient or a little messy perhaps, but I fail to see how it wouldn't have worked.

What specifically are your objections to this? I know engineering, so there's no need to spare technical descriptions on my account.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 05:14 AM
link   
reply to post by chrisforrest
 


Wirklich? Das ist ein erstaunliches Geschichte! Bitte, mehr erklären!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
Originally posted by BrokenCircles
reply to post by Semicollegiate
 


Originally posted by Semicollegiate

The only proof of the moon landing is the way everybody in the media says it is the truth. Bad sign.

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
And people wonder why conspiracy theorists are often ridiculed, and rarely taken seriously.


Yea people who sing along with

"You're the top!," sang Porter in one of his signature tunes. "You're the Great Houdini! You're the top!
You are Mussolini!"

reason.com...


The lyrics are particularly significant because they offer a snapshot as to what was highly prized in the mid-1930s, and demonstrate Porter's rhyming ability.


en.wikipedia.org...'re_the_Top

edit on 15-8-2012 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)
uuummmm. Huh?
I have no clue what the hell any of that is.



My only guess is that it must be an extreme case of Drunken-Posting.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by BrokenCircles
 


It's what Moon hoaxers resort to - talking randomly when they can't respond to criticism
)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by flexy123
 


lol

The feather was lined with lead?



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
uuummmm. Huh?
I have no clue what the hell any of that is.


You've never heard of Cole Porter or Mussolini?

Did you finish high school?

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I have a lot of reason for believing the moon missions were probably faked, for me the main one though is how fake the pictures look. Especially the video of the lander descending, it looks like a cheap model being lowered on a string. Then I found a video of how disney had a large model of the moon surface that you could use to fake shots of orbiting the moon, and I'm convinced that's what we saw. I have never been able to find that video again though.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Semicollegiate

You've never heard of Cole Porter or Mussolini?

Did you finish high school?

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

I don't care who he is. This pointless conversation doesn't make your first statement appear any less ignorant. Keep on spouting out as much gibberish as you want, but I'm not even gonna bother reading your next reply.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join