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

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?

Air displacement would be my guess.

reply to post by xxshadowfaxx


yes, the thruster underneath the lander.

OP, look at high over desert shots and look at macro soil shots. If you picked the right images you could do blind tests and the results would "prove" the same thing you are trying to.

Originally posted by Firewater

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?

Air displacement would be my guess.

I'm sorry. I stand corrected. I meant to say "dark matter displacement".

my bad.

Under normal circumstances....!!!!!

How the heck would you know what normal circumstances are on the moon and light and distance recognition ???.... after all we don't know do we... we never got there to find out..... (!)

reply to post by Wonderer2012


The early missions they weren't astronauts, judging by the video they weren't very good actors either!

They might have landed on the moon in the later missions. But I highly doubt it.

st.

reply to post by Wonderer2012


of course we landed on the Moon. that's how we found out it had been inhabited earlier

reply to post by Wonderer2012


No, we went to the moon alright, but the "real" footage could probably not be shown to the general public. So they had to make some public friendly moon footage. I dare you to tell Buzz Aldrin we did'nt go to the moon....

www.huffingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Wonderer2012


there's ALOT of evidence that we didn't land on the moon .. but there's a ALOT of evidence that we did..but, I've failed to see the difference in all the videos and how to determine what was done in a studio & what was not..

and they want me to take it on blind faith..

the biggest one that gets me is, there's no dust on the LM...looks like someone just put it through the car wash; the blast from the engines should have made a massive dust cloud and covered the LM in dust, period. The dust cloud hould have lasted awhile due to the 1/6th gravity, since it's 'very fine dust' and you can see it from the boot print they left behind..

but what do I know.. I hold no degree and ..

I'm just a 5 yr old wielding a machette at ppl LOL...

If all this was fake, why on earth would the States and other countries spend Billions..Sorry I mean Trillions of dollars invested in space ships and all..If it wasn't "real" Would seem like a waste of money if you ask me..So I think they did land on the moon and it was one of mans best accomplishment!!

reply to post by Komodo


Your analogy, while logical on the surface, can't hold water.
Yes the Moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth, but it has NO atmosphere! The dust particles will fall back to the surface as fast as a rock will. Also, with no moisture, there is nothing to trap the dust onto a surface. Its like trying to get baby powder to stick to teflon....

reply to post by miniatus


the most obvious arugment i think there is to prove that the us did indeed land ont he moon... if we didn't then russia would have known and would have blown up our spot. they had spies/informants everywhere then. they have the ability to confirm if we have landed on the moon.

if it was a hoax to 'beat them' why would they allow that???

Did your little experiment.
You're wrong.
Sorry.
Have a nice day

It appears that there were both faked Moon landings and real ones. Jay Wiedner made an excellent documentary called "Kubrick's Odyessy" that details the six year project by Stanley Kubrick, to fake Moon landings. This work was so demanding that Kubrick aged decades, in those six years but distinguished himself as the greatest film maker of all time. For me, the documentary was the linchpin that clearly showed that some fake portrayals did take place. In an interview of a NASA Apollo Moon landing insider, the interviewee was being quite frank and the interviewer finally blurted out "Wow, you guys sure lied about a lot of things" and the response was "No, that's not true, we lied about everything". One definition of gullible is "Believing anything put out by NASA".

reply to post by Wonderer2012



Stating things as 100% when they are clearly not is only going to set yourself up for failure.

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?

That being said, I believe the video in the OP is genuine. I don't see what he/she is referring to, either.
Also, there is no proof that the audio from the video, and the video itself are properly matched. Wasn't there a bit of delay involved?

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

You're not alone in your thinking at all Goofy... I'm completely convinced they 'did both'.

Yes, they went to the moon... yes, they landed and had a stroll about... but no, what people back on Earth were watch was not a 'Live Broadcast' or 'Live Feed' from the astronauts on the Moon, what people were seeing was a pre-recorded footage shot sometime earlier in the Mohave, or Nevada, or wherever... the technology to beam a 'live' signal (from a 'hot' camera all wired up and back to the lunar lander where the 'transmitter' was housed... did any one see this cabling from the camera back to the craft on any footage, cause I'm pretty sure 'wireless' wasn't an option back then!) back to Earth, using a transmitter capable of such an output signal, but at the same time light enough to be housed in and powered from the lander (a massive drain on crucial stored battery charge)... sorry, but something so 'weight critical' as the lander just wouldn't have been able to house such a unit on board. Period.

The solution... pre-record the event, using the best available info on what the crew could realistically expect to contend at each stage of the journey... and then prohibit any of the networks and stations, all clambering all over themselves wanting to cover the event and go 'live' to the Moon's surface for this historic occasion, from hooking into the main NASA Ring-Looped Feed... instead insisting they shoot it 3rd or 4th generation from a decrepit old BW TV screen and broadcast that extremely 'average' picture to the world as proof they accomplished their mission.

Also... you're quite right on the fact that the audio accompanying this clip has no reference markers, clapper boards, hand claps, nothing to prove its sync'ed and slaved to the film in its original state and position, so this is red hearing.

I'm still trying to figure out what the OP thought in this footage was strong enough and irrefutable enough to warrant a '100% Proof' headline tag to his thread to be honest... am still looking to try and see what I've missed. Help?

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?

The firing thrusters would have disturbed the dust.

I can see exactly what the OP is saying, the 400ft up and the on the ground are exactly the same, surely there would have been a change in what the camera / eye line would see, it should have narrowed up but it appreas the same.

Why I don't know but its does not make sense..

If you live in a tower block, look out the window from the top floor and then go down to the first floor in the same line as you were and you won't see the same thing and lets remember the tower block is less than 400ft in most cases.

(UK wise)

Also, the dust being kicked up, surely the same thing happened on Apollo 11, why wasn't there dust on the pads. It seems to displace quite a lot of dust.

Unless we assume it pushed the dust away from the pads?

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

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

100% proof you say?......well done!.....what's your next project?

Heh.
ATS's new slogan should be . . .. ATS: Where "PROOF" means there is none and percentages mean nothing.

Originally posted by Merinda

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?

The firing thrusters would have disturbed the dust.

'zactly: no atmosphere: but the chemical rocket (descent) engine produces hot gasses (from combustion of the the fuel carried onboard).the exhaust blows the dust around but once it quits the gases disperse and the dust falls out at 32fps squared.( acceleration due to gravity).

reply to post by miniatus


Anyone that believes that man did not land on the moon is ignoring the fact that satellite imaging from other countries shows the sites (3rd party verification). Apparently some people see a conspiracy in everything regardless of 'factual information'.