Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 18
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Arr diddums, so no one is taking an interest in a conspiracy that no one believes in....

Sadly the super debunk bores are trying their best to ruin this great site, hopefully it won't work.

I'm all for skeptics and seeing both sides using facts and logic, it's what makes ATS so great, but you, agent smith, phage etc, have absolutely no interest in conspiracies whatsoever.

All your threads/posts are only to debunk, you all never at any point take part in discussing a theory without pouring scorn over fellow posters because we have the cheek to believe in something that you think know is wrong. You know what? Who cares.

I come here to be entertained, because I used to enjoy these threads, sadly according to you lot, it shouldn't be allowed.

I now wait for your star ridden reply. In fact please please don't bother.

And we never went to the moon, so there...




posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


the court recognizes thesneakoid

present exhibit A please



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I don't really know what you want me to exhibit syrinx. I dont really know what I can produce that doesn't get a reply that is dripping with contempt.

I did raise a question about the same terrain that was meant to be in different locations from the doc paper moon.
But as per usual I got a incredulous rant in return. So why bother?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 


It appears that some Moon landings were faked and others were real. Jay Wiedner has done an excellent documentary "Kubrick's Odyssey", that conclusively shows how the 6 years Stanley Kubrick spent on the project, aged him decades and showed him to be the greatest movie maker of all times. This is a must see for everyone. I was watching an interview of an Apollo Moon landing insider and at one point the interviewer burst out "Gee, you guys sure lied about a lot" and the response was "That's not true, we lied about everything".



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:01 PM
link   
My thoughts at this moment in time are yes we really did, but I can see why others think we didn't and if I did more research I would probably think the same...

I think yes but I have not done the hours and hours of research into proving they did not...

One thing gets to me though, the people who think it is ok to hurt a person for having a view...if someone can prove through hours of research that something did or didn't happen...why hurt them mentally or emotionally so your view seems like the right one...

If I decide to research this issue I'll stick my evidence up, but like I say at this moment in time I think we did go to the moon...

What I did see though which was funny was one of the astronauts smack a guy in the mouth for saying they didn't which was a great moment...better than the video of them landing on the moon



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I don't really know what you want me to exhibit syrinx. I dont really know what I can produce that doesn't get a reply that is dripping with contempt.

I did raise a question about the same terrain that was meant to be in different locations from the doc paper moon.
But as per usual I got a incredulous rant in return. So why bother?


No you did not. I explained that clearly to you and you ignored it. How do you expect to be taken seriously when you seem to be living in conspiracy LALA land?

I'll tell you why I bother. I have my interests in conspiracies too, as do many other people on here whom you would label a debunker. However what is the point in debating childish and ignorant claims when it has been proven over and over that they hold no water, explain that to me please?

This subject is a dead horse, and the whole idea that we should entertain the fake landing theories simply because they are a 'conspiracy' is ludicrous.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:24 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Again with the angry "ridiculous conspiracy" response
You didn't answer my question. All I asked was, how come the same location comes up twice, when they are meant to be somewhere else? You gave me your explanation. So if its true, do you have all of the unedited footage to see what you said did happen?

If you have and it's true, then the topic is done...:



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


This subject is a dead horse, and the whole idea that we should entertain the fake landing theories simply because they are a 'conspiracy' is ludicrous.



So, in that case, in your opinion, what conspiracies are allowed? Are like, werewolves, remote viewing, inner earth theories still ok?

I'm confused...


jra

posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
All I asked was, how come the same location comes up twice, when they are meant to be somewhere else?


Which location comes up twice? Is this the "same backgrounds, different locations" claim?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
The only people doing the homework and answering all you moon hoaxers posts are us.
Also you guys keep going on about radiation being an impossibilty when it has been posted
umpteen times already that it was not , by myself and others..

Try having a shot at debunking our claims instead of dodging them..

P.S please read the posts..



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 


As far as I'm concerned any theory whose claims hold water.

It should not take a rational sane person long to see the moon hoax claims are rubbish and concocted by charlatans. No witnesses(out of over 400,000 who worked on Apollo), zero evidence and proof of hoax claimers lying is enough to satisfy me.

Maybe you should take out some time and read through the threads already on ATS concerning the moon hoax.

And again I advise you to research the originators of the hoax theories, and their motives.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Yeh, I just wanted to watch all the footage so I could see the other astronaut walk up over the crest and pick the equipment up on the way, which is the probable explanation.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



Arr diddums, so no one is taking an interest in a conspiracy that no one believes in....


Wrong. The "Authorship Question" has engaged some of the finest literary, legal and historical minds. Even to understand the problem and take the contra side requires a great deal of specialized knowledge about performance practice, literary style, 16th and 17th century censorship law and printing techniques. Never mind unwrapping obscure allusions that were "topical" 400 years ago. On the other hand, the Moon Hoax requires very little actual knowledge. In fact, the less one understands physics, engineering, photography and other subjects that should be common knowledge, the more likely one is to agree with the "theory" based on pure gut reaction.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


You didn't answer my question.



Maybe you can explain the hammer feather drop.
If you drop a hammer and a feather what happens sir?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
reply to post by jra
 


Yeh, I just wanted to watch all the footage so I could see the other astronaut walk up over the crest and pick the equipment up on the way, which is the probable explanation.


I read a book by an author called Jack Laurence, a CBS news reporter during the Vietnam conflict, about his experiences during that war. In the book he gives a good account of how they spliced and edited film footage for the reports they were sending back to the US by courier for airing. Continuity of the piece completely depends on the technician who actually does the cutting and taping together of the rolls of film. They try to make the shots roll into each other and record the voice over afterwards. It is easy to see in the clip we're talking about that whoever edited the footage done so in a manner they deemed best for continuity's sake.

And anyway, Collier says the rover is on the hill at 1:42 when, as we all know the camera was on the rover. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Collier is lying here, why is that?

(Laurence's book is called 'The Cat From Hue')
edit on 3-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


No, you complained that your highbrow Shakespeare conspiracy wasn't getting much coverage. Maybe it's because you have to be "specialised" in various subjects to fully comprehend it? Before you can even investigate it?

But let's face it, its not as mainstream or as potentially huge as the lunar hoax...

Still don't get what's wrong with a topic on the MLH, on a website that is largely conspiracy based?



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 



Still don't get what's wrong with a topic on the MLH, on a website that is largely conspiracy based?



There's nothing wrong with it. I enjoy a challenge. Unfortunately, Moon Hoax believers with really good arguments are rarer and rarer.
edit on 3-9-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by thesneakiod
 

You seem to be talking about Stone Mountain. As pointed out, it isn't the LRV in the video, the camera is mounted on the LRV. Collier is an idiot (and, apparently, a liar). The two clips are sequential.

The first clip (with the "rover") was taken at 144:46 (mission time).
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

For some reason Collier didn't want to show you the clip where the "rover" is picked up. A few minutes later.

Voice transcript here:
www.jsc.nasa.gov...
edit on 9/3/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


This whole "same scenery" meme was discussed at length on another thread. Apparently, an outside contractor edited a documentary in a less than accurate way. Footage from a single EVA was cut up and incorporated into the film in such a way that it appeared to be two separate EVAs, allowing Collier to proclaim an "anomaly." The reason I haven't responded officially yet is because I am still hunting through thousands of pages of "Moon Hoax" posts to find the exact information.



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Well the clips (and transcript) are posted above.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join