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: 5
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
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...


"dustcloud": particles suspended in an atmosphere(gas or fluid) of some sort. No atmosphere/ no reason for the particles to hang off the surface.

Nobody wants YOU to take anything on"blind faith".You can believe in unicorns if you want to but;There certainly isn't "ALOT" of credible "evidence" They never went.Emphasis on the word "credible". All the so called faked"photography"evidence can be explained by anybody with experience in film cameras.

Except for pages upon pages here from people who never think past third grade science.and call youtube "100% evidence."

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
I'm a pilot and the O P's case is the first thing I noticed...scale is all off......3500 feet was really 90 feet in my estimation, or so so....good eye....these are the details we should look for in investigating a story....how are the details told.....


edit....he plopped it down in the crater.....
edit on 3-9-2012 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh ...coolest of names


Also, one cannot help but wonder, where the hell did all the dust dissapear to ? If that landed on a similar plain in earths gravity one would expect a cloud of dust, but to have that craft thrusting away in such minimal gravity would have to created a cloud of dust just hanging in the (zero) air no ?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Think you know everything about our moon?

Then what say ye about the following videos....

www.disclose.tv...

www.ebaumsworld.com...

www.metacafe.com...

www.metacafe.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by miniatus
Not more of this, please.

There's plenty of evidence that man landed on the moon.. all of the theories spewed forth so far have been nonsense and usually quite silly.

The physical evidence of the moon landing is still observable .. it's been spotted by Russia and China, the whole moon flight was monitored by countries all over the world.. trying to say it didn't happen is just complete and utterly ridiculous.


I agree, having watched it growing up. We landed on the moon several times. They would NEVER do it today with that technology. The safety case could not be made. It was 50/50 they would return safely. Today's world, that wouldn't fly (excuse the pun).



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:46 AM
link   
At this point in time does it really matter if they did or did'nt? If in fact they did, it explains the billions poured into NASA. If they did not NASA would be a small agency of failure. So whether they did or did not.( They did) so the massive amount of money we have pissed away in space would be explained away. I have never beleived we went to the moon. It's my opinion, just like an arse hole, we all have one.

It just stands to reason that if in fact we did land on the moon, why did we stop? Why did we go to the shuttle program that keep us in low earth orbit. why not keep exploreing the moon? I can't imagine it was cost, not with the billions we spent in space on the shuttles and skylab and the space station. Hell by now we could have had a colony with scientist's and maybe some real breakthroughs in all fields of endeavor.

If TPTB can pull off something on the scale of 911, then what makes one think they could not pull off some fakery with the moon landings. And why did Russia just stop and made zero attempt to getting there? It seems to me that Russia would have went just to prove or dis-prove we went. Just a show to keep us looking up, while the real world around us crumbles. If there's things that can change the way mankind conducts our business, it's right here on tera-firma. Not on the moon or out in the outer space. Right here on our little blue ball of life. So much $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ pissed away in space. For what?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChristianJihad

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
I'm a pilot and the O P's case is the first thing I noticed...scale is all off......3500 feet was really 90 feet in my estimation, or so so....good eye....these are the details we should look for in investigating a story....how are the details told.....


edit....he plopped it down in the crater.....
edit on 3-9-2012 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh ...coolest of names


Also, one cannot help but wonder, where the hell did all the dust dissapear to ? If that landed on a similar plain in earths gravity one would expect a cloud of dust, but to have that craft thrusting away in such minimal gravity would have to created a cloud of dust just hanging in the (zero) air no ?

You're forgetting Newton's first law of motion. That dust once it's moving will continue on an arced trajectory until the moons gravity brought back down to moon some distance away. None of the dust would "hang" in the air/vacuum and none of it would end up on the landers landing pads. OK well some might on the inner edge but it would be minimal and would assume dust was continuously been blasted away during landing. If all the dust was balsted awy even half a second before landing then there would be no dust becasue it would flown a few metres away. NO dust can curve back in a vacuum, well not when comparing the gravity (mass) of the moon to the gravity (mass) of the lander.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


What reason would the government have to lie about a moon landing? Granted, I don't trust our government but I believe we did land on the moon.

I wonder if things just look different in space than they do here on earth....who knows, maybe the differences in gravity and atmosphere change the way some things might appear to us. We only know earth don't forget



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt
 


tHE ONE QUESTION i HAVE is we could land with the greatest of ease on the moon, but the best we could do is an uncontrolled splashdown on earth. We were more familliar with Earth's enviroment.
The other thing is we supposedly knew nothing about the moon's gravitational forces, it is amazing that we knew to with in a few %fuel window, the proper rate of decent, air friction, and amount of thrust needed.
Impossible that we got it all right with no errors from the 1st try?
Not one landing mishap........



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wonderer2012
Of all the footage that questions whether man landed on the moon, it is the landing footage. The following is the approach and landing of Apollo 12-



EDIT- straight to the chase as it were-

Pause the video at two points-

1- 3:20 into the video. Pause it and look at the detail. This is approx 400 feet up.

2- 4:50 into the video. Pause it and look at the detail. This is after the module has landed and the dust has settled.

Ask yourself, what difference do you see- could you even tell which image was which if I just showed you those two pictures without telling you which one was which?

The answer is no.


Under normal circumstances, if you come in to land, you would surely be able to tell the difference from when you were 400 feet above the surface and when you were on it- it's just obvious yet the moon landing footage defies this logic.
edit on 3-9-2012 by Wonderer2012 because: (no reason given)



Well at that point 3.26 they say 200 ft so YOU got that wrong and as the surface of the Moon is covered in craters of all sizes of course it will look similar



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by SophieTish
 


I'm not sure you can take two topics of debate from the past and equate them with one possibility of the future.
What exactly do they have in common?

Ron Paul 20??.....



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by GBP/JPY
I'm a pilot and the O P's case is the first thing I noticed...scale is all off......3500 feet was really 90 feet in my estimation, or so so....good eye....these are the details we should look for in investigating a story....how are the details told.....


edit....he plopped it down in the crater.....
edit on 3-9-2012 by GBP/JPY because: Yahuweh ...coolest of names


If you are a pilot and if you are an airline pilot please let me know which one so I don't fly with them


It's filmed with the DAC camera now camera lenses effect how objects look here is a good example.

2 pictures taken with different lenses the statute is pictured to look approx same size in both but look at the church in the background.






Now do you think the building MOVED closer in the second picture

All these BS theories about man not going to the Moon have been debunked hundreds of times on here.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I will ask a question that had a relation to this post.
How did they know before landing on the moon that it's gravity will be less so they will not need a huge rockets to make them take off again after landing on the moon?
The space ship that landed on the moon when it begin to take off did not have huge rockets.
So the question again ...
How come did they know that the gravity there is less than earth?!
Before they landed on the moon?!
I want an answer.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
This is the first time i`ve seen a video of an actual landing and it just confirms my suspicions that i had after looking at photos of the landers on the moon.

In the photos i have seen of the landers on the moon there isn`t a speck of dust on the landing pads, the pads are sitting on top of the 'soil" they aren`t the least bit buried, there aren`t even any berms touching the pads.
This video shows massive amounts of moon "soil' being blown around,how did all that blowing moon dust and "soil" manage to settle back down to the surface of the moon and yet mysteriously manage to not get any on the landers pads?

a comparable example would be:
Take a leaf blower to the beach and stand on the sand. point the leaf blower at your feet and turn it on, now turn the leaf blower off and wait for the sand to settle. now tell me, is there any sand on your shoes?
edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by eagle33
I will ask a question that had a relation to this post.
How did they know before landing on the moon that it's gravity will be less so they will not need a huge rockets to make them take off again after landing on the moon?
The space ship that landed on the moon when it begin to take off did not have huge rockets.
So the question again ...
How come did they know that the gravity there is less than earth?!
Before they landed on the moon?!
I want an answer.


I'm no garbage man, but it seems to me that gravity is a force equated to mass. Because we had the ability to determine the size of the moon, we could do the calculations, and get a pretty good idea of the amount of gravity. I'm sure that the composition of the moon itself, played a part as well, but wouldn't they plan for worst case scenario in this respect?



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


Watch at 1:15......the video literally skips to a NEW SHOT.....what! ?

Not saying anything for sure but that caught my attention.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
www.dailymail.co.uk...

We landed on the moon!!! This conspiracy theory is sooooooo old and boring now! Let it go, man! Let it go!!! Move on!!!



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonderer2012
 


The video does look pretty legit though after watching it.

It's never going to be one or the other. As in, it's neither we did or we didn't go to the moon, but that we DID go to the moon and only about 5% of the information surrounding the whole operation was told to us.

What they probably found, would prove almost everything we've been told was a lie.

Not even alien stuff, but that Man is much older than we are told.



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by yorkshirelad
 


except for one thing, there is some gravity on the moon enough gravity in fact that it caused the flag to droop just like it droops here on earth but that same amount of gravity isnt enough to pull rocks back down on top of the landers pads?

you can`t have it both ways,the explainations some debunkers give to debunk one moon landing conspiracy only serve to support another moon landing conspiracy.A debunking explaination must be broad enough to debunk all moon landing conspiracies or it doesn`t work to debunk any of them.

dust and small pebbles would travel a long way before settling back to the surface. larger pebbles and rocks would travel less far. even larger ones would travel very little before settling back down.The chances that no rocks or debris settled onto one of the landers pads is probably impossible, and yet it apparently thats exactly what happened on all of the moon landing missions.not a single rock,pebble,dust or other debris on any of the pads during any of the missions.



edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus
a comparable example would be:
Take a leaf blower to the beach and stand on the sand. point the leaf blower at your feet and turn it on, now turn the leaf blower off and wait for the sand to settle. now tell me, is there any sand on your shoes?


No. If I blow my leafes on the moon.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join