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.

 

Neil Armstrong dead at age 82 - report

page: 11
63
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by felix4567
reply to post by LucidDreamer85
 


I am one of those guys that believes Apollo was a hoodwink, but done with the best of intentions. Apollo and the American effort that pretended to land on the moon was an essential part of cold war defense. I suspect Armstrong may have written some things down about what was done and what he did. It only makes sense. At some point, the hoodwink aspect of Apollo is going to come out. What NASA really did and why. I suspect Armstrong and some of the other astronauts, but especially Armstrong, have prepared something to protect their legacy. Defend their actions and the hoodwink in general. Now there must be some kind of mechanism to see to it that this is not published until the hoodwink is opened up and has become public knowledge, or perhaps it's scheduled to be opened up in say 2025.

It is funny that Michael J got more attention than Neil. Of course the MJ thing had this medical mistake element to it all, but perhaps the Armstrong's thing did too. I suspect that the Armstrong death is being downplayed so the HBs don't go nuts and make a mockery of everything. I guess technically I am an HB as I know the landings could not have been real. But what could we do? This was all essential and Armstrong's role in it all was unbelievable. I admire him so much for being able to pull that off the way he did. An unflagging performance if there ever was one.



I have a question? If Apollo was a hoax, why did they "pretend" to land on the moon six times?

You seem like a nice guy, but I feel that people who think the landings were faked have some kind of psychological dysfunction going on especially if they show some signs of intelligence.

Most people I've met who're open to the landings having been faked have only looked at the issue in a superficial manner, maybe watched a couple of bogus youtube videos or heard it from some "conspiracy guy"(we all know one). These people can be convinced by a persuasive argument and are really like leaves blowing in the wind, they don't really give it much thought, and that's their prerogative.

For the people who are smart enough to do some real research, and still after that find the landings to be faked, well I'm sorry, but from my perspective those guys kinda worry me, like at the end of 'Planet Of The Apes' that last scene when Charlton Heston sees the remains of the Statue Of Liberty on the beach....."you maniacs!!"




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by phoenixwinchester
 


I see your point. I don't agree with it all the same.

You have your reasons to believe whatever you want, I'm not saying that what information about Apollo we have in the public domain is the whole truth, that there has never been stuff kept quiet.

What I'm saying is this: the evidence for vs the evidence against us landing there(the moon) is ridiculously disproportionate, anybody can see that. I've yet to see one piece of hoax evidence stand up to scrutiny(I'm not interested in debating that here and now). The so called hoax evidence is poor at best. And like I posted earlier the majority of HB's are poorly informed about a great deal concerning the Apollo program.

I don't wish to insult anyone but, I stand by what I say, if you have studied the information and still believe that we didn't land on the moon, I think you've a screw loose, sorry.

You say the astronauts were "incredibly good actors"? I think that's nuts, idiotic in fact. They were test pilots, and some of the best. These guys were incredibly individualistic, bull headed, intelligent, alpha male types, who refused to back down, they all had lost colleagues in what was considered to be one of the most dangerous jobs in the military, test flying, yet they still determinedly pursued and excelled at their careers. These are not ordinary people, there is a very rare mindset involved with this caliber of individual......and you say they were actors? Actors?????? How you make that assertion baffles me.

I'm sorry I just can't take you seriously.

Edit: I'll add this, I've never heard of any HB's researching and validating the motives of the originators of the moon hoax theories, people whom hardly could be called credible for a start. That always gets swept under the rug.



edit on 27-8-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
so my question is simple......why don't we see any stars in sky in any of the video's they took on the moon???


Oh dear god, not this again... Well I have even simpler question for you. Why cant you see stars when you go out during the daytime? Think about it before you even attempt to answer.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


oh yes this again lol. it will never end as some people refuse to take initiative and learn things. So instead they turn a really nice thread mourning the passing of an american icon into a moon hoax thread. wonderful isn't it?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by r2d246
so my question is simple......why don't we see any stars in sky in any of the video's they took on the moon???


Oh dear god, not this again... Well I have even simpler question for you. Why cant you see stars when you go out during the daytime? Think about it before you even attempt to answer.


But the moon has no atmosphere???? and no I'm not gonna somehow learn how to be hoodwinked by satans helpers.
edit on 28-8-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
So lets just take the stars. what's the answer to that?

That's one of many questions that need to be answered properly.



This claim is one I hear frequently, and is one of the easiest to refute. The answer is very simple: they are too faint. The Apollo photos are of brightly lit objects on the surface of the Moon, for which fast exposure settings were required. The fast exposures simply did not allow enough starlight into the camera to record an image on the film. For the same reason, images of Earth taken from orbit also lack stars. The stars are there; they just don't appear in the pictures. The hoax advocates often argue that stars should be visible, and some of their claims are valid, however they fail to recognize the difference between "seeing" stars and "photographing" stars. The astronauts could have recorded star images in their photos by increasing exposures, but they were not there to take star pictures. The purpose of the photos was to record the astronauts' activities on the surface of the Moon.

Bill Kaysing claims that NASA has perpetrated the lie that stars cannot be seen in space to validate the lack of stars in the Apollo photos. This assertion a lie..

You can' t see any stars in photographs taken from the Apollo missions because they were all taken in broad daylight. As any photographer will tell you, a camera can only cope with a narrow range of brightnesses, so that the aperture setting and shutter speed are very important if a photograph is not to be over- or under-exposed for given lighting conditions. In this age of automatic point-and-click digital cameras that adjust these settings automatically, we tend to forget that one fact. And of course, even though the stars are much brighter and steadier in space, without atmospheric scattering, they're still extremely faint compared to the sun. A camera with settings sensitive enough to photograph the stars would be blinded by a candle. It's no wonder that in the broad harsh daylight conditions of the moon, no stars can be seen in photographs. They're there of course, but almost completely underexposed!

It is the moon not the earth son.

Also try to do some research into cameras used on the moon how they work.
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

And why is the camera ALWAYS LEVEL. They can't point it up into the night sky and show some stars or space or anything but just a level shot ALWAYS AGAINST THE HORIZON? Get real!!! They can't point the camera upward or it will reveal something.



They were fixed to thier chests, not getting at you but you really need to shun those
charlatans and research the facts against witchdoctor claims.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by denver22
 


I understand what you're saying. But that's what many of the anti-moon landing crowd are doing. They are asking basic questions. And simply looking for basic explanations.


Here is a basic answer :

The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

neil R.I.P

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
We have landed on the Moon, several times.

Simple.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
[SNIP]

Mod Edit: Removed post addressed to previously banned member. Don't feed the trolls.
edit on 28-8-2012 by Gemwolf because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:30 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
The fact that the passing of this accomplished man is being seized upon by Moon Hoax propagandists as a springboard for their ignorant ranting says much about the origins of their hatred. Sheer envy. Neil Armstrong was a brilliant student, courageous combat pilot, skilled aviator and pioneering astronaut. He accomplished more in any one phase in his long career than all of the haters have in their entire lives. What's more, he was an extremely modest man, who stayed away from the limelight and did not boast. This self effacement seems to drive a certain type of individual insane with rage. Having no accomplishments of their own they seek to feel better about themselves by tearing others down. They do not even have my pity, as they are making no attempt to better their own situation.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by r2d246
so my question is simple......why don't we see any stars in sky in any of the video's they took on the moon???


Oh dear god, not this again... Well I have even simpler question for you. Why cant you see stars when you go out during the daytime? Think about it before you even attempt to answer.


But the moon has no atmosphere???? and no I'm not gonna somehow learn how to be hoodwinked by satans helpers.


What does athmosphere have to do with anything? Does it magically prevent starlight from showing? Does it go away during the night when you can see stars?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadowland8
It's sad that I've barely seen any recognition of this in mainstream media. I saw one channel mention him for < 5 seconds.


Well what do you expect? Snookie had a baby!


Who has time for the death of an American hero?



new topics




 
63
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join