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.

 

The Video that shows 100% Man DID NOT land on the Moon

page: 15
23
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
the moon landing was filmed in a hollywood studio, enough said.

Well you're convinced so they did their job well enough.



I'm not!, 'post your proof that it was? - enough said....
edit on 6-9-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by karen61057
 


Nothing to be sorry about. I agree with you. But it would be more interesting if aliens were in the picture
maybe because that's what I would like to believe, if that makes sense.

I really hate my phone.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by blah yada

Originally posted by GoOfYFoOt
Why do all of the "moon-landing" conspiritors, just assume that our super-secretive cold-war Govt. would not do both?
Land on the moon, and release fake footage so our "competitors" couldn't use the video in their own endeavors?
Am I the only one that believes it could be both?


edit on 9/3/2012 by GoOfYFoOt because: added text


I've always suspected this. I think they did visit the moon but probably in a very limited capacity, perhaps not even actually landing, though I believe they probably did.



With todays technology we cannot even get a successful high frame rate video from Mars, without great difficulty and numerous mishaps and glitches. Yet in 1969, we could beam a completely unprecedented moonlanding flawlessly to national TV. What gives?


Well "Distance" for one (the moon is in our backyard; mars is two or three blocks over) The 1969 video, was comparatively low resolution Analog video.
I don't see much"difficulty" in receiving curiosity video. Hell we even got a picture of it hanging from its parachute during the 7 minute reentry window.! From an unmanned "mars observer" satelite in orbit! Pretty impressive actually.


It seems highly unlikely, given the Cold War political implications, that the US would risk allowing the world to watch a potentially disastrous feat involving national heroes and the creme de la creme of NASAs astronauts.
"seems" =pure speculaton


I reckon much of the footage was faked, adjusted, collaged and manipulated well ahead of time for a public showcasing of an event that had already happened, and probably in quite different fashion to the story portrayed.

Imagine if Neil Armstrong burned up or suffocated upon setting foot on the moon or there was a crash, the reaction at all levels. Funding would be slashed,jobs lost,political heads would roll, US would look like Icarus to the USSR, national spirit would be drowned. Far too much risk.

Provide a single piece of irrefutable evidence.Otherwise its all"feelings" and pure speculation.You "feel": happy; sad; hot;cold....So what's that got to do with anything?

However laudable it is you can make an argument out of thin air its still just finely crafted "thin air".
And I really"feel" Marissa Tomei is secretly in love with me.... I just KNOW IT.
But it has absolutely no affect on reality.

Arrrgggh; why did I stop back in here today;Sorry..time to step away from the"box".
edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Ok didn't land on the moon on the TV broadcast thats for sure because they didn't know what would be waiting for them up there

First picture on the lower left side you see foodprints half inch deep but under the the lunar modul there is no blast crater


Footprints and no blast crater


And ya no blast crater the lunar dust isn't even disturb underneath the lunar blaster



And out of context HOLLYWOOD stage on Apollo 11







edit on 6-9-2012 by knowneedtoknow because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by knowneedtoknow
And ya no blast crater the lunar dust isn't even disturb underneath the lunar blaster



Maybe you should shun those charlatans, just read down below.


Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle.

When one considers these facts the truth becomes obvious - The exhaust stream was not powerful enough or centralized enough to displace the regolith and blast out a crater. In this Apollo 11 photograph one can see some discoloration and a general lack of dust, which was mostly blown away. After the dust was removed a hard surface was exposed.





A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads.


This thinking draws on our common experience from Earth but, as we all know, the Moon is not Earth. If wind picks up dust on Earth we get billowing clouds that tend to settle all over everything. This occurs because Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere so any dust that was blown by engine exhaust would follow a simple ballistic trajectory and fall immediately back to the surface. The dust would be blown outward away from the LM, thus the lack of dust on the footpads is exactly what we would expect to see.




The astronauts make deep footprints around the landing site, yet the Lunar Module exhaust should have blown the area clean of dust.


The downward traveling exhaust stream would impact the ground and rebound mostly outward and away from the surface. Since there is no atmosphere to interact with, the gas molecules would simply fly off and disperse (see note below). The only dust particles that would be displaced would be those directly impacted by the exhaust gas. Since the exhaust stream was concentrated mostly in the area directly beneath the Lunar Module, this zone would experience the greatest disturbance. The area adjacent to the LM would be largely unaffected by the exhaust stream.

NOTE: On Earth, the exhaust gas would impact and displace air molecules that would, in turn, displace other air molecules and so on. This phenomenon would create a large area of disturbance. Since the Moon has no atmosphere this type of widespread disturbance would be nonexistent.




The Lunar Module weighed about 17 tons, yet the astronauts' feet seem to have made a deeper impression in the lunar dust.


The hoax advocates often quote the weight of the Lunar Module as 16 to 18 tons (weights varied mission to mission). This was the LM's Earth weight when fully fueled and included about 9 tons of descent stage propellant. By the time the LM reached the surface, its weight in lunar gravity was only about 2,700 lbs. With four 37-inch diameter footpads, the load on the surface was about 90 lbs/ft2. Neil Armstrong's fully suited weight on the Moon was 58 lbs. His boots covered an area of about one square foot, giving a load of 58 lbs/ft2. In Armstrong's own words "the LM footpads are only depressed in the surface about 1 or 2 inches". On the other hand, the footprints of the astronauts were depressed only a fraction of an inch, although people often exaggerate their depth.



The lunar surface is predominately composed of materials that fall under the general category of silicates. Silica has a natural tendency to bond with other silica, forming large molecular chains. When a meteoroid impacts the Moon, much of the energy goes into fracturing the surrounding structure causin breaks in the molecular bonds. On Earth, these "exposed" bonds quickly fill with oxygen in a process called oxidation or weathering. On the Moon, with a total lack of oxygen, these bonds have nothing to attach to until an event occurs that aligns the molecules. When an object, such as an astronaut's boot, disturbs lunar dust new molecular bonds aenable the dust to hold its shape, forming an impression of the deforming object. Thus, footprints can form despite the absence of water.
edit on 6-9-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
But mister I seen loads of cartoons and there should be a crater innit. Your science babble is rubbish man, i know the score. i aint goin to fall 4 this rubbish spoonfed me by the man. word.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
Question to you moon hoaxers: Can you read with or without the help of a set of specs?

It is bad enough you wont do research, but when you dont even read my others or your own posts
It is just plain ignorance ..

I have posted and others many times on this thread and others regarding the blast crater etc.
Have you nothing new?

edit on 6-9-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I know I'm a new guy here, but is this still even a controversial subject? I think there might be a tendency for some that might not understand a particular scientific ability to achieve something, to claim it never happened, was a cover-up or conspiracy. I've been around long enough to know that all governments are guilty of covering up something somewhere, but the moon shots? Growing up in east coast Florida I witnessed many a rocket launch over the years, John Young and family lived a few blocks over, we were all huge space exploration fans. It was all very real. I figured by now with all these LRO Photos coming out, ( Enjoy them here ) any doubt would finally be laid to rest.
With the privatization of new space vehicles and future plans for the public to be able to go on space tours one day, NASA is actually asking that if anyone starts making there own trips to the moon, to please not touch 'their stuff'.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012

I could show you two pictures-

1- one from 400 feet up

2- one from when the lunar module has landed and the dust has settled

Both from the same camera.

You would not be able to tell me the difference between the two.



SO then do it.

I did it for myself at the times you mention, and the images are wildly different.

So do it so that we can all ridicule you for being so gullible.

Your claim. Now prove it.....



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I just want to know one thing.

How is it possible that dust can be blown away from the landing space craft, when there is no air or atmosphere on the moon? Am I missing something?



Yes.

The rocket produces the hot gas that is blowing away the dust.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fluffaluffagous

Originally posted by xxshadowfaxx
I just want to know one thing.

How is it possible that dust can be blown away from the landing space craft, when there is no air or atmosphere on the moon? Am I missing something?



Yes.

The rocket produces the hot gas that is blowing away the dust.


xxshadowfaxx Thanks for wasting "Fluffaluffagous's" time; that's been covered already.
Yeah; I know it's 15 pages of claims and disputes.
But We're starting to go around the circle again.....
Next post up :" The van allen belts would fry the astronauts !!!!!!!!!"

Then: "it's impossible to take pictures on the moon!"
edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   
According to the audio the 3:20 mark was about 200 feet up, not 400.

With such a barren and featureless landscape, and low-quality video, I'm not surprised the two images look similar. The image at 4:50 does have slightly more detail which would make sense being closer.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mortimer452
 


Thankyou for writing what has already been written about 20 times in this thread.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Mortimer452
 


double post wtf
edit on 6-9-2012 by Taggart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:03 PM
link   
Once someone shows you where the ground meets the green screen, every picture looks so unbelievably fake.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lonewulph
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


I know I'm a new guy here, but is this still even a controversial subject? I think there might be a tendency for some that might not understand a particular scientific ability to achieve something, to claim it never happened, was a cover-up or conspiracy. I've been around long enough to know that all governments are guilty of covering up something somewhere, but the moon shots? Growing up in east coast Florida I witnessed many a rocket launch over the years, John Young and family lived a few blocks over, we were all huge space exploration fans. It was all very real. I figured by now with all these LRO Photos coming out, ( Enjoy them here ) any doubt would finally be laid to rest.
With the privatization of new space vehicles and future plans for the public to be able to go on space tours one day, NASA is actually asking that if anyone starts making there own trips to the moon, to please not touch 'their stuff'.



Spoken like somebody who's maturity and intelligence serves them well


Stick around and you'll soon see how many deluded numptys believe this moon hoax hogwash. The belief system we are witnessing here is an all-encompassing one, the moon hoax is just a part of it usually. There is a growing trend here on ATS, amongst the newer, younger members, mostly, it is the view that everything is a lie, everything is a conspiracy. Almost all these people refuse to listen to facts, refuse to do real research, have short attention spans, have short memories, are bad at spelling, are rude, are paranoid, listen to Alex Jones, have a warped view on history and science and are generally the bane of rational discourse.

Welcome to ATS.

Seabhac-Rua

edit on 6-9-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equality
Once someone shows you where the ground meets the green screen, every picture looks so unbelievably fake.


Once you realise that green screen was a no go back in the 60's and 70's comments like that make me

Please just a little thinking before posting.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Equality
Once someone shows you where the ground meets the green screen, every picture looks so unbelievably fake.


Once you realise that green screen was a no go back in the 60's and 70's comments like that make me

Please just a little thinking before posting.


Wrong It was being used in the 50's, a number of films had tried various methods in the 40's too.
"one of the first films to use them was the 1958 adaptation of the Ernest Hemingway novella, The Old Man and the Sea, starring Spencer Tracy" - Wiki on Blue screens

edit on 6-9-2012 by Taggart because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I didn't say it didn't excist. It just was useless. Up untill proper cgi came around.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I don't believe that it was a hoax.

However, I do have one question about the camera.

When we see the video we see the astronauts and we can hear them communicating to each other through radio.

So, this is my question about the camera's abilities.

Did it have the capability to have sound? Because, as far as I know, the moon has no air, and sound can only travel in air, as far I know anyway. So that means, the camera could not have picked up those radio communications between the astronauts. Otherwise, how would the camera be able to pick up their communications?

Because, if that camera they use didn't have sound capabilities, then that means there would have to have to have been some editing of the sound that we hear.

But please, don't take this mean I am trying to make an argument for a hoax, I am not. I am just asking about the camera.




top topics



 
23
<< 12  13  14    16 >>

log in

join