Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

page: 7
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ragsntatters
They could have landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon and got it to plant the flag and set up the reflectors.

The flight data files could have been swapped with the data files from the unmanned mission and everyone at control HQ thinks it's all going well whereas the astronauts are actually chilling on a Stanley Kubrick set.



Really and what about all the pictures they took which are logged and can now be compared with the LRO images!




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Really and what about all the pictures they took which are logged and can now be compared with the LRO images!


The chinese built a whole city, in just a few years ... faking records, and make them look good ... especially when you've had over 40 years to do it, isn't that much of a feat.

For all means, go and build yourself a church ... call it "we who believe in the moonlanding". Go and pray to Allah, or whatever ...

NASA is nothing but a lame organisation, that rarely comes with anything of value ... except when it comes to movies, imagary ... which always are "an artist representation of ...". The only thing that happened after the moonlanding, was that computers improved in graphical components. The next, is communications ... the communications part, is understandable as there is a need to be able to communicate better, clearer and over longer distances, with less power.

However, whenever one looks at shoots from the moonlandings, they look like they're staged. It's like that shot of the Russian astronaut. It was a staged shot ... and so is it with the moonlandings. There is a camera here, for angle A, a camera there, for angle B. And the we my pal and me, taking pictures of each other.

Sorry, for interrupting your dream of being the best of the best of the best of the best ... ala MIB version. But it looks like NASA was more interrested in the publicity, rather than the science part. So, to NASA, that it made the headlines and did it faster than the Russians, was more important than any scientific data involved.

In other words ... NASA is politics.

Still is ... did you read their statement, that the Earth isn't growing. It grows only the thickness of a hair, every year ... so it's insignificant. Insignificant?!?! Do you have any clue, as to how much the earth has grown during it's time, with only a hair every year? What they said was: "Yes, the earth grows ... but it's nothing we need to worry about". Nobody is worried, we're trying to get at the bottom of the scientific facts of how the earth works, we're not interrested in wether you THINK it's insignificant ... the word "insignificant" is a political statement, not a scientific one.

And that is what NASA is, it's POLITICAL entity, that is only working as fantasy front for the government, and not as a scientific element. The technology that is created, within the NASA, are used for other industrial developments, where actual scientific exploration of SPACE, is

INSIGINIFICANT.

This is why the history of NASA, says everything. I'm pretty sure they went to the moon ... with a robot. Probably a better one, than is on mars ... but if they can send some piece of crap to the moon, and have it return ... there is much reason to suspect, when 50 years later ... they're still "dumping" billions of dollars on mars, without any returning data ... except imagery.

We don't need more imagery of dead rocks in space ... we got one, right here, to explore ... much cheaper. With a much quicker "return" on information and knowledge.

edit on 28/8/2012 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


WHO rattled your cage
Just because you have NO understanding of photography and the images looked fake to you doesn't mean they are.

Better robot 40 yrs ago than now


They WENT they LANDED and there is plenty of proof that's what the hoaxers and other morons resent



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 



The chinese built a whole city, in just a few years ... faking records, and make them look good ... especially when you've had over 40 years to do it, isn't that much of a feat.


I have good reason to believe that you have misunderstood something here. Please post a link to the source for this statement.


For all means, go and build yourself a church ... call it "we who believe in the moonlanding". Go and pray to Allah, or whatever ...


Sorry if presenting solid evidence threatens your religion.


NASA is nothing but a lame organisation, that rarely comes with anything of value ... except when it comes to movies, imagary ... which always are "an artist representation of ...". The only thing that happened after the moonlanding, was that computers improved in graphical components. The next, is communications ... the communications part, is understandable as there is a need to be able to communicate better, clearer and over longer distances, with less power.


So what have the Romans ever done for us? If NASA is so lame, please don't use telecommunications, weather satellite data, GPS systems, etc, etc.


However, whenever one looks at shoots from the moonlandings, they look like they're staged. It's like that shot of the Russian astronaut. It was a staged shot ... and so is it with the moonlandings. There is a camera here, for angle A, a camera there, for angle B. And the we my pal and me, taking pictures of each other.


How can you tell if something is not staged? What would that look like?


Sorry, for interrupting your dream of being the best of the best of the best of the best ... ala MIB version. But it looks like NASA was more interrested in the publicity, rather than the science part. So, to NASA, that it made the headlines and did it faster than the Russians, was more important than any scientific data involved.


Sorry if other peoples' accomplishments make you feel inadequate.


In other words ... NASA is politics.


NASA is political. Everything is political.


Still is ... did you read their statement, that the Earth isn't growing. It grows only the thickness of a hair, every year ... so it's insignificant. Insignificant?!?! Do you have any clue, as to how much the earth has grown during it's time, with only a hair every year? What they said was: "Yes, the earth grows ... but it's nothing we need to worry about". Nobody is worried, we're trying to get at the bottom of the scientific facts of how the earth works, we're not interrested in wether you THINK it's insignificant ... the word "insignificant" is a political statement, not a scientific one.


Where did that come from?


And that is what NASA is, it's POLITICAL entity, that is only working as fantasy front for the government, and not as a scientific element. The technology that is created, within the NASA, are used for other industrial developments, where actual scientific exploration of SPACE, is

INSIGINIFICANT.


Erm, garbled though the statement is, it is not far from the truth. NASA has been used to promote national prestige. No-one would argue against that. NASA has also often put engineering before pure science. No-one would debate that, either. One of the greatest arguments for supporting NASA is that it develops technologies that benefit the economy directly or indirectly. Could you explain why you have a problem with that?



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 



The Russians brought back rocks, and they never landed men on the moon.


No, the Soviets brought back dust. The Americans brought back rocks. Great, honking rocks.


Convincing people the lunar landings were faked is akin to changing a persons religious belief.


No. Religious beliefs persist even in the face of facts. All of the facts favor the materiality of the manned lunar landings.


But, the science just does not hold up for the events to have happened as they have been presented. Wow, that really is just like religion...


Before you can make this statement, you must present some facts. Oh, and sorry if space exploration and science threaten your religion.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by krs678
 



I have just one question if some body could enlighten me as to how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated ? I ask this question as its quoted in several documentaries as a significant hurdle in manned space travel outside a 1000miles radius of earth. thanks fa ya time


You could simply use the search function:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I urge all the novices on this thread to read the thread I have linked to. Even the hoax partisans make better arguments than anyone has bothered to make on this thread.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by crawdad1914
 





Please guys look carefully who said there was no shadow..


edit on 27-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)


Still not seeing any shadow in the bottom picture.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Anyhow, here's a nice shot of him in the studio, complete with Photoshop flag and NO SHADOW.

Shame on you NASA.


Shame on you for not using a higher resolution source.

Here's a high res version of AS11-40-5874

Here is a cropped version below. You can make out the thin shadow of the flag pole which I've highlighted, but due to the uneven surface, it's hard to see completely. The shadow of the flag itself would be out of frame due to the low sun angle.



Also, photoshop didn't come around till about 1990 (and was limited to B&W).


Thanks for your efforts in posting this version, but still not seeing a shadow within the yellow shading. I see a tiny partial "something" that might be construed as the expected shadow. Or it might be pareidolia. This particular photo, I still have questions on.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   
I believe that we did land on the moon and returned a few samples of rocks. I also believe that the military missions after Apollo 17 were scrubbed after Apollo 18 (similar to the movie) never returned. Science fiction methinks NOT. Is that a spider on the wall? Naaa!!!



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bjarneorn

NASA is nothing but a lame organisation, that rarely comes with anything of value ... except when it comes to movies, imagary ... which always are "an artist representation of ...". The only thing that happened after the moonlanding, was that computers improved in graphical components. The next, is communications ... the communications part, is understandable as there is a need to be able to communicate better, clearer and over longer distances, with less power.


Heavens above round thousand odd.listen your knowledge of Nasa is poor .

Arent you forgetting the jobs it created over 400 000 jobs just for the programs alone
Space, a feel-good pill for the economy.


Kennedy did his fantastic, stirring speech at Rice University, Houston about the challenge of landing man on the Moon and that the US would step up to the plate and “do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” It was a moment that defined the Space Race, it was a moment that laid the foundations of the Apollo Program and manned spaceflight as we know it.Amen apollo heros.

There’s no better example about how a space programme can influence a nation’s economy, the Apollo missions stimulated economic growth, they generated huge political strength, they created a whole generation of highly skilled engineers, scientists and specialists, they even motivated the educational system, enriching the children of the day. If you ever needed an all-in-one stimulus package, the Apollo Program was it.


OK, so the Apollo missions certainly boosted the US economy, education, quality of workforce and generally engaged the nation..

Like DJW001 has told you if it werent for NASA you wouldn't be using phones laptops etc.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


denver22 speaks part 2 on the benifits and costs: “Space exploration can also serve as a stimulus for children to enter the fields of science and engineering.”

Vernikos on the R.O.I. of space travel: “Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. … Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA.”

Cowing on space expenditures relative to other costs: “Right now, all of America’s human space flight programs cost around $7 billion a year. That’s pennies per person per day. In 2006, according to the USDA, Americans spent more than $154 billion on alcohol. We spend around $10 billion a month in Iraq. And so on.”



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bjarneorn
 


Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted.

Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P.

Pay no attention to bart sibrels/ richard 'dick' to his freinds hoaglands of this world, as they have
not a clue and by the sounds of it neither have you?.

But all is not lost!, all you have to do is research both sides of the coin and 'voila" i guarantee you will
see the big picture.
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: paragraph correction



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by crawdad1914

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by crawdad1914
 





Please guys look carefully who said there was no shadow..


edit on 27-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)


Still not seeing any shadow in the bottom picture.


Look carefully its right there in front of you sir.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by krs678
 



I have just one question if some body could enlighten me as to how nasa managed to send astronauts through the Van Allen radiation belt without them becoming fatally radiated ? I ask this question as its quoted in several documentaries as a significant hurdle in manned space travel outside a 1000miles radius of earth. thanks fa ya time


You could simply use the search function:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I urge all the novices on this thread to read the thread I have linked to. Even the hoax partisans make better arguments than anyone has bothered to make on this thread.


That's right all hoax beliefs covered and DEBUNKED MANY TIMES over in that epic 672 page thread



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Thanks all for your great comments.

Just one thing: Last time checked, this was a conspiracy website. The Moon landings fall into that category.
Yes, this subject has been trawled over again and again. Every member has the right to post what he or she wants to as long as they abide by the rules. If the original poster wants to have his/her say about what they think happened, they are entitled to do so. Pointing out that it has all been done before and that's the end of things is not the way to go chaps. Last time I looked at your above posts, you were contributing to this thread as well.

Just because you "THINK" you are right does not give you the right to be smug and start mouthing off to other members. Everybody has there thoughts on this matter whether right or wrong.

Wake up people, this is a conspiracy website, not a lectern for you to berate the masses.

Let people have there say. If you have Evidence and photographic proof that proves them wrong, post it as a counter argument, just don't say "No no no your wrong, because I watched it on t.v) That defeats the whole point of this website.

Thank you.



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
Thanks all for your great comments.
Just one thing: Last time checked, this was a conspiracy website

No it is a site to deny ignorance.



Pointing out that it has all been done before and that's the end of things is not the way to go chaps.

Pointing out it has been done before and providing a link is polite.




Wake up people, this is a conspiracy website, not a lectern for you to berate the masses.


No it is to deny ignorance.



Let people have there say.


No one is saying they cannot.


If you have Evidence and photographic proof that proves them wrong, post it as a counter argument


We are, have done




posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 





Pointing out it has been done before and providing a link is polite.


Mmmm use the search function buddy, there is 100's

Also thanks for clearing things up and having the last say, it says a lot. You must feel better now?
edit on 28-8-2012 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno
There a literally hundreds of them that point out anomalies such as cross hairs behind objects


They aren't behind objects. It's bright light 'bleeding' over the thin etched crosshairs.


same scenery in different photo's


Well sure. When you land in an area that's surrounded by mountains, they'll appear in multiple photos, even if the photos are taken a few km's apart from one another. How is that a sign of fakery?


Rocks with letters on them?


There was a print of one photo with one rock that had a hair on it, in the shape of a 'C' (the hair was on the print, not the rock itself). There are no other instances of rocks in any other photos with letters on them.


The Moon lander looked like a kid had made it out of paper, foil and 100 mile an hour tape.


I highly recommend you spend some time learning about the Lunar Module. It really is an amazing piece of engineering created by some very bright minds of the time. Don't judge it by the appearance of its outer thermal shielding.


Last and really not least, the odd light sources where it should be completely dark....the rocks in the foreground are, so why not the other objects on the set?


Not sure what you mean here.


Originally posted by r2d246
check this out...


I don't find it convincing. The CG'ed gold visors and flag really stick out badly too. Plus it's one thing to do short little clips, but how about trying to replicate an entire 6 hour EVA or faking 1/6th gravity without any CGI.
edit on 28-8-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Just for Denver22 and all his buddies that feel we have to point out every last little detail prior to having a say:

Here are a "FEW" previous posts by other members on this subject: Remember to use the search function folks, and if it's been said before............never, I repeat never say it again.......Denver22 told us so.












posted on Aug, 28 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaptainBeno

I'm not going to bother posting the amount of photos I have on this subject as I have dome it in lots of other moon hoax threads



Please reconsider posting them and we will help you to try to understand about the fact that
Charlatans like bart sibrel/richie "dick" to his freinds hoagland/bill kaysling/percy/
Can be debunked sir.

What you have to take into account is the moon is not earth.

1 No atmosphere on the moon = no raleigh scaterring light etc.
2 Ergo even in daytime there is no blue sky effect it just is dark.


Except for light that comes directly from the sun, most of the light in the day sky is a result of scattering, which is dominated by a small-particle limit called Rayleigh Scattering. The scattering due to molecule sized particles (as in air) is greater in the forward and backward directions than it is in the lateral direction.[5] Scattering is significant for light at all visible wavelengths, but it is stronger at the shorter (bluer) end of the visible spectrum, meaning that that the scattered light is more blue than its source, the sun. The remaining sunlight, having lost some of its short wavelength components, appears slightly less blue. Scattering also occurs even more strongly in clouds. Individual water droplets exposed to white light will create a set of colored rings. If a cloud is thick enough, scattering from multiple water droplets will wash out the set of colored rings and create a washed out white color.[6] Orange clouds at sunset The sky can turn a multitude of colors such as red, orange, purple and yellow (especially near sunset or sunrise) when the light must pass through a much longer path (or optical depth) through the atmosphere. Scattering effects also partially polarize light from the sky, most pronounced at an angle 90° from the sun. Scattered light from the horizon has traveled through as much as 38 times the atmosphere than has light from the zenith, causing it to lose blue components. The result is a blue gradient — vivid at the zenith, pale near the horizon.[7] Because red light scatters as well if there is enough air in between the source and the observer, these longer wavelengths of light will also scatter significantly, making parts of the sky change color during a sunset. As the amount of atmosphere nears infinity, the scattered light appears more and more white.[8] The sun is not the only object that may appear less blue in atmosphere. Far away clouds or snowy mountaintops will seem yellow as well; that effect is not obvious on clear days, but very pronounced when clouds are covering the line of sight reducing the blue hue from scattered sunlight.[8] At higher altitudes, the sky trends to darker colors, since scattering is reduced due to lower air density; an extreme example is the moon, where there is no atmosphere and no scattering, making the sky on the moon black even when the sun is visible.[9]


This will answer certain questions for you captain.
edit on 28-8-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join