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.

 

Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

page: 11
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I'm going to ask you a question that I ask to every Apollo hoax believer.

How did they fake the 1/6th gravity (for everything and not just the astronauts) as well as the vacuum environment?

No one has been able to answer that question. Perhaps you can?

You also make the claim that one could make a fake movie of it for relatively little money. If so, then why couldn't Michael Bay do it with Transformers 3, which had a budget of $195 million? If you haven't seen the movie, it starts off showing the Apollo 11 traveling to the Moon (minus an LM.. oops!). They weren't able to fake the 1/6th gravity nor the vacuum environment. I have yet to see any movie successfully pull it off convincingly.

And speaking of convincing. Your attempt to fake LRV tracks on the lunar surface was not convincing at all.




posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
so the events went something like this:

1 On earth they made it look like a real project.
2 They launched the rocket but the astronauts where not in it.
3 They pulled them out last minute.
4 They maybe even had the moon orbitor part of the rocket blast toward the moon
5 Now when they got to the moon they started playing the movie they had filmed.
6 The moon footage of them orbiting the moon was footage they took on earlier robot rover missions between the US and Russia
7 Then the landing and others was either or starting at the work recorded at the studio or again the rover scenes shot from earlier missions.
8 Then the moon walk was footage shot from the studio.
9 when they recovered the capsol later on from the ocean that has been stagged with the astronuats put in it.

I'm not saying I know exactly but this is a rough sketch of how it might have played out. So of course everything from earth looked real. Just certain scenes in the video where from the studio. The astronauts where either just orbiting the earth and or didn't even go up.


With regard to your points 2 & 3, I think the Apollo astronauts really launched to LEO and spent the entire mission in space. The easiest part to hoax would be the radio transmissions on the journey to/from the moon.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


The NASA one has it as well.

go to 0:19 and look at the feather.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


That seems to be one of the easier things to do. Film the activity at extremely high speed, say 500 fps, then play it back at 41% of the original terrestrial G speed. With a frame rate that high, you could shop anything. Make anything move just as you wanted it to. Easy as space pie really.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


So i have read your entire OP and watched all of the videos and am wondering something.

When are you going to stop the speculation, quit making up your own alternate history and start providing actual proof to back up your claims.

I also love the whole plethora of YOUTUBE videos you claim as definitive proof of moon landing fakery.

You had a video titled "Buzz Aldrin admits moon landing is fake" yet all he talks about is the difficulty of the mission and the enormous pressure put on the astronauts in order to complete the mission. All that helps prove is the opposite of your claims.

The other video I enjoyed is the one moon landing of the craft touching down on the lunar surface with a person doing a voice-over talking about the different aspects of the film that seem to show that it was filmed on Earth.
What an ignoramus! The guy is clearly not a professional video analyst.

Again I will repeat, nothing in this entire thread is fact except for the UN-refutable truth that the moon landings did in fact happen and the only reason we haven't been back there is because of lack of funding due to interest in other space endeavors!

Quit making things up and presenting them as evidence! You would never win a court case like that.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Regardless of the actual facts, there are some people who just WANT to believe that it was a hoax.
It's almost like a religious belief, no matter how many times you debunk them they'll stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes.
"How dare you tell me I'm wrong!".
It's a very unfortunate trait of humans.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246


YOu got to be kidding me! That's like 1920 hollywood special effects. In the 60's they already could produce 2001 a space Oddassy in the 70's they could already do Starwars. But yet they can't make a hammer and a feather fall at the same speed, are you nuts? Like you got movies right? Like get real.


Please come back down to planet earth son nut's lmao get real lmfao sir/mam
I sum you guys up with this message:


Imagine the difficulty in fabricating the Lunar missions of the 1960's and then trying to keep the truth a secret. There were thousands of people involved in the missions and millions watched the events live on television. How could so many people be taken in? How could NASA ensure the silence of all those involved? Surely someone would have leaked the secret. It would only take one disgruntled NASA employee to go to the press and the whole thing would have been exposed. And given the amount of planning involved, such a leak could have happened months or years before the missions were supposed to take place. Yet there were no leaks and the missions were carried out as planned. The U.S.S.R (who watched everything in the U.S.) did not cry "FRAUD"--and they would most certainly have said something if they thought the missions were faked. It seems difficult to believe that the entire Lunar program was produced in the studio. There are many different types of conspiracy theories, ranging from the Lunar hoax theory to the government cover up of UFO's. Such theories offer evidence that looks, on the surface, to be reasonable. However, a little digging can usually reveal holes in the theory and inadequacies in the evidence. It is quite revealing that conspiracy theorists never take an unbiased approach in presenting their theories. They never consider alternatives or entertain objections to their claims. They speak in an authoritative fashion and present their views as accepted scientific research. But as rational human beings, we should not let ourselves be convinced so easily. We should always look for alternative explanations and then weigh the probabilities. If the conspiracy claim is supported well by the evidence, then we have reason to take it seriously. If, on the other hand, it turns out to be more likely that the conspiracy claim is false, we can enjoy strengthened confidence in our current view. Of course we went to the Moon The conspiracy theorist has put forward evidence to show that the Lunar missions were part of an elaborate hoax. This evidence has included photographic anomalies, and physical phenomena such as radiation levels in space and the movement of objects on the moon. Much of the conspiracy theorist's evidence is compelling when first looked at. However, a little research shows that the evidence relies on a misunderstanding of the Lunar environment. For each piece of evidence presented in this article, I have offered an alternative explanation that is in keeping with what we know about the Lunar environment. These alternatives do not show that the conspiracy theory is false, but they do show that the evidence is far from convincing. Considering the fact that the conspiracy theorist's evidence is not convincing, and considering the immense difficulty in staging such an elaborate hoax and keeping it a secret, we are justified in holding the belief that NASA sent people to the moon.




Mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon", and a scene from "Apollo 13" used the sound-stage and harness setup, it is clearly seen from those films that when dust rose did not quickly settle (some dust briefly formed clouds). In the film footage from the Apollo missions, dust kicked-up by the astronauts' boots and the wheels of the Moon rovers rose quite high (due to the lunar gravity), and settled quickly to the ground in an uninterrupted parabolic arc (due to there being no air to uphold the dust). Even if there had been a sound stage for hoax Moon landings that had had the air pumped-out, the dust would have reached nowhere near the height and trajectory as the dust shown in the Apollo film footage because of Earth gravity.

Explain why during the Apollo 15 mission, David Scott did an experiment by dropping a hammer and a falcon feather at the same time. Both fell at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time. This proved that he was in a vacuum.

You havent thought this through r2d2r explain and i want you only to explain why you think
it was filmed in a studio? explain how you think it was done...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Can you show me one moon video where they do a 360 pan with the camera? And or can you show me one video where they point the camera up into space? Like I could be wrong, who knows


Your knowledge of the hassleblad cameras and apollo is very poor. you are wrong we all knows
that the cameras were fixed to the chest...yes the chest.

P.S keep it real ive just woken up...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by jra
 


That seems to be one of the easier things to do. Film the activity at extremely high speed, say 500 fps, then play it back at 41% of the original terrestrial G speed. With a frame rate that high, you could shop anything. Make anything move just as you wanted it to. Easy as space pie really.


Welcome back doc, sock puppet 75 arent you bored yet?



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by renegadeloser
 


Astrology? You do realize that astrology is trying to tell your future by the stars right?


Astrology consists of a number of belief systems which hold that there is a relationship between astronomical phenomena and events in the human world. In the West, astrology most often consists of a system of horoscopes that claim to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict future events in their life based on the positions of the sun, moon, and other planetary objects at the time of their birth. Many cultures have attached importance to astronomical events, and the Indians, Chinese, and Mayans developed elaborate systems for predicting terrestrial events from celestial observations.

en.wikipedia.org...


And no, you wouldn't see different stars in different places from the moon or from mars. It's called parallax, and you have to move a huge distance for the stars to radically change positions. You might want to read up on it. The only way that you could tell if you were on Mars by looking at the stars is with special instruments, and the parallax would only be slightly different from there than from Earth.
edit on 10/2/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
Look I could be way off base here.

Magic wires....same as used in magic shows....


They are called antennas your whole argument is debunk and a waste of my time again.

This is surely the most silly claim out there and easy to debunk watch r2d2


edit on 2-10-2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
and the parallax would only be slightly different from there than from Earth.[


Also the earth is not stationary, it orbits the sun....



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by jra
 


That seems to be one of the easier things to do. Film the activity at extremely high speed, say 500 fps, then play it back at 41% of the original terrestrial G speed. With a frame rate that high, you could shop anything. Make anything move just as you wanted it to. Easy as space pie really.


500fps! I wonder how many movies are shot at that frame rate? You would slow things down by doing that, but seriously, we are talking about a moon landing.

And the original post had absolutely no PROOF that the moon landing was faked, only some speculations on whether it even COULD have been faked. 360degree panoramas were taken btw.

I would think someone would have found proof by now if the moon landing was faked, especially considering the number of people who watch and study the evidence...

The only conspiracy minded thing about the moon landing that I know about is the fact that the original tapes have gone missing. How would someone misplace something that important? -They were probably stolen by someone (to be sold for some collector for millions), but I would have expected NASA to be very strict about the original Apollo tapes.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 04:59 AM
link   
What I believe is this:

They went to the moon, but wanted to feed the public with amazing images to satisfy their imaginations and let them "see" that they'd really done it.

Without pictures it's just someone standing there saying "hey, we went to the moon".

Otherwise the Russians or anyone else could have just said - you didn't really go.

So I think they shot fake footage to fill in the gaps for the lack of good quality real footage from the moon.

I mean, there they are the astronauts with a camera fastened to their chest - how could they possibly come up with any meaningful images? You'd have most of the photos chopping off peoples heads, lop sided, etc.

But they're all great - so I think the propaganda department made some of the films and did some of the photos on a set to make sure the people of the world had some amazing images to look at.

I think other photos etc are really from the moon.
edit on 2-10-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Pardon?
 


I think there is some truth to what you say here to be fair to your side.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by salainen
 


500 fps is overkill for most situations, but the more pictures you have per second, the better the job you can do. Say the rover is to go 7 mph. Then you have it drive 7 x 2.45 mph, 17.15 mph. Shoot that at 100 fps and then play it back at 40. Now the rover rolls at 7 mph and the rooster spray fals at a speed commensurate with 1/6 G. Simple.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by salainen
And the original post had absolutely no PROOF that the moon landing was faked, only some speculations on whether it even COULD have been faked.


Or more exactly, speculation that it could have been faked with modern 2012 computer graphics technology.
Nobody yet has attempted to do a fake recreation using 1969 technology.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
You can do the feather and hammer drop in earth G. This is an old problem with a half dozen good old solutions. Film at 100 fps. Drop the hammer and feather made of steel. If the "feather" twirls or rotates, drop it again and again until it doesn't. Play back at 40 fps. Simple.



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
Shoot that at 100 fps and then play it back at 40. Now the rover rolls at 7 mph and the rooster spray fals at a speed commensurate with 1/6 G. Simple.


Not simple.
As has been explained several times, dust in a vacuum does not behave the same way as dust in our atmosphere.

On the moon, all of it just fell back in a ballistic manner.
But here on earth...



posted on Oct, 2 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by r2d246
 


I'm going to ask you a question that I ask to every Apollo hoax believer.

How did they fake the 1/6th gravity (for everything and not just the astronauts) as well as the vacuum environment?

No one has been able to answer that question. Perhaps you can?

You also make the claim that one could make a fake movie of it for relatively little money. If so, then why couldn't Michael Bay do it with Transformers 3, which had a budget of $195 million? If you haven't seen the movie, it starts off showing the Apollo 11 traveling to the Moon (minus an LM.. oops!). They weren't able to fake the 1/6th gravity nor the vacuum environment. I have yet to see any movie successfully pull it off convincingly.

And speaking of convincing. Your attempt to fake LRV tracks on the lunar surface was not convincing at all.


YOUR JOKING! YOU DON'T WATCH MOVIES???? You've never seen a movie have you? In the 70's they the special effects capability to do starwars. Imitating gravity is like 1920's hollywood special effects.

How did they do these:

Before the moon landings.... Released in 1968 they could do this....


edit on 2-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join