It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon hoax

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:41 AM
Then you'll see, that it is not the moon that bends, it is only yourself.....There is no moon

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 03:49 AM
Im still open minded on the moon hoax because I havn't looked into it enough. One thing I do think is that people have to much faith that the politicians at the time are truthful people.

Its just my opinion but I think they would have had a fake video of the moon landing just incase they didn't get it right. Weather or not that is the video we have seen or at least some of it, Im not sure.

But politicians are politicians and no matter if it was the 50's 60's 70's 80's or any time. they have and do lie to us and will for as long as they can get away with it.

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

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 04:00 AM

Originally posted by VoidHawk
but the fuel used should have produced a large purple cloud when they landed, and should have left a huge area stained purple. Even the guys who designed the engines want to know why the purple stain and the purple cloud are missing.

Care to how us exactly where the engineers that designed the engines made that claim?

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by ThePeopleParty
Im still open minded on the moon hoax because I havn't looked into it enough. One thing I do think is that people have to much faith that the politicians at the time are truthful people....
....But politicians are politicians and no matter if it was the 50's 60's 70's 80's or any time. they have and do lie to us and will for as long as they can get away with it.

The following is offered in good humour, like over a nice Pale Ale and a game of Cricket with a good jukebox in the corner and a potty mouthed, postgrad Barmaid who says her name is "Kandi with a k" but is working in theoretical physics.

On duty, she wears a pair of daisy dukes especially for wiping down the tables and serves big pours (because she knows how to make tips)

So there we are, 3 rounds in. Triple 20, double 16 and a... 4

After a long sip of malted barley and hopped yumminess, and a quick and discrete ogle of "Kandi with a k's" girl groove, I say...

"You know Mr. "ThePeopleParty", or whatever your real name is....Coming from somebody with a bearded (Radicalized/ post White Album) Lennon for an Avatar, your comment is a bit disappointing to me personally. I know the times have changed but there was a time when identifieng as a Lennon fan was a strong counterculture statement. (kinda like the Che Guevara hats and shirts today but less contrived for profit)

You realise you are referencing the same generation of twenty something's that rebelled against accepted social convention when there really were deadly serious potential consequences to their actions.

The American people defied a dozen firmly rooted generations of segregation in the deep south to force open the last real obstacles to racial equality braving beatings, dog attacks, arrests, real police brutality and sometimes murder.

The youth were drafted and sent to Indochina where ultimately 58,000 died and hundreds of thousands more returned both physically and mentally maimed for life.

They broke with the nationalistic patriotism of their peers and family by burning their draft cards and voicing their disagreement en masse, nationwide over what they considered an unjust war. In the end, they forced the might of the U.S. Government to end U.S. direct military involvement in S.E. and accept a resolution that put peace before total Victory that resulted in the loss of both all of Vietnam and Cambodia to a Communist enemy.

When they grew dissatisfied with the Democratic leaderships actions and direction, they made sure their voices were heard right outside the doors of the DNC in 1968 Chicago, again at the cost of their own blood in what was coined by some as a police riot.

When the secret bombings of Cambodia were made public they organised in the hundreds of thousands to what they saw as an escalation of a war they were being told was finally nearing an end. They struck from their jobs and schools nationwide and tore down the campus ROTC buildings nationwide. They were beaten by a police force who represented the end of the old guard and in one of the most terrible moments in our nations modern history they were shot and murdered by their own uniformed countrymen while exercising their inalienable right to assemble and protest on their own campus.

They exposed 22 years of lies spanning 4 Presidents by publishing the most closely held secrets of their Governments agenda on the front page of the New York times and subsequently those involved were charged and tried with the death penalty offence of treason.

They publicly exposed the some of the most damning accusations in history for a sitting President and held him accountable for his actions and through their efforts forced a mid second term President to resign his office.

Etc.... Etc...

A bit oversimplified but I'm sure you get my point. On reflection, do you still believe the group in question had such blind faith?

Sorry about the Tangent but everything I have said is the truth. For the record, I disagree with much of the above (I voted for Ronald Raaaay-gun and see Henry Kissenger as one of the true political geniuses in modern history. )
) however, I respect their opinions and applaud there resolve.

The irony that these same people are now the system is a fact and a lesson that seems lost on many. Love them or hate them, the youth of the 60's enacted substantial change.

In retrospect, the list above makes the recent OWS protests, even in all of their confused, self righteous and unwarranted egotism, look a bit silly and historically un-noteworthy.

People will still remember the turmoil of the 1960's by events like the National Guard/Student massacre at Kent State or the scandal of the Pentagon Papers 200 years from now
I wonder if the same can be said of the gallant(:roll
eviction from Zucotti park or the girl who refused a lawful police order to get back on the sidewalk while shoving a camera phone in the cops facing and screaming that she knew her rights. Will history remember that poignant moment when she was finally maced then given a water bottle to flush her eyes by the same cop before being told to move on?
The Horror,The Horror...

Enjoy the tunes, they are appropriate for the post and I hear a couple were favourites of Lennon's

Lastly, just for ATS Member ThePeopleParty

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

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

posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:38 PM
Oops, Double post.

Mods please delete.
edit on 6-9-2012 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 01:57 PM
reply to post by thesneakiod

Not true! You are wrong!

New SMOKING GUN I found in Apollo photo! You can clearly see a WHITE CLOTH CANVAS placed over the dirt!

In many moon photos, you can see a distinct line between the foreground and backdrop, which consists of different textures, and indicates that the background is ARTIFICIAL, as in a movie set. Here is a clear example:

IMPORTANT! Here is a much larger version that I want you to open in a new window and look at closely, because it contains a BIG NEW SMOKING GUN! View this image at its original size, and notice that behind the astronaut the edge of a WHITE CLOTH SHEET can be seen placed over the dirt! This is a MUST SEE smoking gun that I discovered but don't see mentioned on any other sites yet!

Buzz Aldrin spotlight photo a smoking gun blunder

The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing in the spotlight is a giveaway in that he is being lit up in a spotlight from alleged sunlight while the ground around him is in darkness! How can the sun put a spotlight around a particular person like a stagehand pointing a spotlight on an actor or singer on stage?! This was obviously a major screw up, and NASA was reckless for thinking that no one would notice or that they could get away with it. In fact, it was such a blunder that NASA even tried to cover it up by brightening the rest of the surface in subsequent versions of it. Why would they do that if they had nothing to hide?

Here is the original version of it by NASA, which was released to newspapers in 1969:

Here is the edited version with the surface brightened up for the Lunar Surface Journal:

Apollo defenders can’t explain this at all, so they’ve resorted to deception by claiming that the edited version is the original. But Jarrah White proved unequivocally that the spotlight version is the original one by showing newspaper clippings from 1969 which showed that one in his YouTube video “Moonfaker: Posing for Portrait”.

Sun image on moon turns out to be light bulb in enhanced image

Here is another smoking gun that will make Apollo believers feel foolish and embarrassed. An Apollo image of the alleged sun from the moon’s surface turned out to be a big light bulb upon image enhancement! See images and enhancement below:

Lunar rover with no tire tracks on either side

In possibly yet another slip up by NASA are images of the 65 million dollar lunar rovers seen with no tire tracks on either end of it! Was it lowered down from above? It would seem that whoever directed this must have been in a rush on a tight schedule.


Are you Apollo believers slapping your heads in embarrassment now? lol

posted on Dec, 23 2012 @ 08:46 AM

Why would you go out and hire all those people to support those moon missions.
Hire engineers, technicians, scientists etc.
Go through the motions of testing all the equipment, training thousands of people to do a job.

Why do you think?

Because no one would have believed it to be real otherwise. They were thorough. Would you believe a moon landing took place, if they hadn't done that? Besides, they already had lots of people in payroll, and they had to make everything look impeccable and believable. Why even ask something like this?

If they really did go to the moon, how did they get through the deadly Van Allen Belts alive? Why didn't the film burn (and freeze) when they were on the moon? Do you know the temperatures up there? Why didn't we ever see the astronauts REALLY jump very, very high? Why were they 100% in slow motion, when low gravity simply slows your jumps, not your hand movements/etc.?

Why are NASA etc. saying that it will take many more years until they can even learn how to land on the moon and lift off again, using rockets - when the moon landings are supposed to have done just that? Why are they now having SO MUCH TROUBLE trying to go back, and talking about how dangerous the radiation belts are? Why not just use the 1969 tech? What does NASA have to learn or build?

No, those tin cans without any proper shielding were never further than low Earth orbit, from which they faked a lot of the TV transmissions. And of course those goofy transmissions were helped by studio footage etc.

Why does the same background appear in the photos with different foreground (a physical impossibility in their situation)?

Why can you see wires in some videos? Why does the guy who stumbles and 'falls', never fully fall, but looks like he's suspended by wires?

I could add a lot of questions to this list, but maybe you can answer those first, now that I answered your -one- (and quite self-explanatory) question.

Your question almost doesn't even make sense - why WOULDN'T they have done just that? That's a much better question, which I hope you can answer.

edit on 23-12-2012 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in