Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by mazzroth
Ok this is what more than likely happened with the moon landing, the Yanks were positive of getting there and back even through the Val Allens Radiation belt but they were not confident with Hasselblads ability to video the event so they had a contingency plan. This plan involved switching over to a remote desert location and uploading the feeds so the event wasn't marred by poor playback or completely whited out images spoiling the event.

The reasoning behind this ? well with an event so important with the Russians so close to landing rovers on the moon within months they had to have top notch footage which could not be guaranteed, so some big nob made the call to just run with the hoax footage and hence the problems with lighting and numbered rocks which are definitely questionable. These errors out weighed having gone on holidays and not having good snaps to prove it.

This would cover just about everything that sums up the "Moon Landing Conspiracy" I would think.



Nope. Firstly there are no "problems with lighting and numbered rocks" all this has been demonstrated beyond any doubt countless times to be errors, misinterpretations and in some cases deliberate lies by hoax theorists.

Secondly if you think the footage was only way it was proven to the Russians that men walked on the moon then you need to do some learning about the Apollo space program.




Ok, FINE...I dont have my reason!





posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
baysinger single handedly destroys the hoax thoery. the besty part is he is a citizen


Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.[41] Recordings made by Baysinger share certain characteristics with recordings made at Bochum Observatory by Heinz Kaminski (see above), in that both Kaminski's and Baysinger's recordings do not include the capsule communicator in Houston and the associated Quindar tones heard in NASA audio and seen on NASA Apollo 11 transcripts. Kaminski and Baysinger could only hear the transmissions from the Moon, and not transmissions to the Moon from the earth.[35][42]


shocking actual real proof with facts and stuff !!!!

baysinger article blowing the hoax out of the water


I asked Baysinger whether he found anything that NASA edited out – comments about things going wrong, the astronauts being loose with their language, or exclamations about meeting aliens! He said no – absolutely everything was transmitted to the public on TV. In fact he said, “that was kind of disappointing”. Part of the idea of this project was to hear the unedited “real story”, and it turned out there was nothing edited out.[iv] Indeed, Rutherford’s story (click here for hi-resolution version which you can read) makes no mention of hearing anything unusual.


edit on 30-9-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


I know.

As if the Russians would say "Well Boris, what do you think of this business of the Americans landing on the moon?" (Boris) "Sir, I have seen the film and it looks real"

I mean come on.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by buster2010
What's really amazing about us faking the moon landings is how we are able to get the Russians, Chinese and various other nations in on it. What about the moon rocks that were tested in at Curtin University of Technology in Bentley, Australia. Or the photos taken by the Japanese lunar probe SELENE. How did the Retroreflectors get placed there? Those are the mirrors that are used to measure the moon's distance from earth. Please work on your Photoshop because that attempt you made was laughable.


To get them in on it, if we did, we use diplomatic talks. They have real moon rocks that made it to earth from deep impacts happening on the moon sending up moon rock into space that ends up on earth. What photos by Jap probe? Retrorelectors were either not there or photoshopped in. Mirrors could be from lunar rover missions in the past. The attempt was no laughable considering it took 10 minutes on a home PC. Given money and time I could easily do what they produced.


800lbs of moon rocks and samples! recovered as meorites ?
airandspace.si.edu...
Please give it a rest.You're killing me...


The Laser retro reflectors are still "pinged" today to measure the distance to the moon by various observatories.

Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.


Sign up for EXPRESS SCIENCE NEWS delivery
The round-trip travel time pinpoints the moon's distance with staggering precision: better than a few centimeters out of 385,000 km, typically.

Targeting the mirrors and catching their faint reflections is a challenge, but astronomers have been doing it for 35 years. A key observing site is the McDonald Observatory in Texas where a 0.7 meter telescope regularly pings reflectors in the Sea of Tranquility (Apollo 11), at Fra Mauro (Apollo 14) and Hadley Rille (Apollo 15), and, sometimes, in the Sea of Serenity. There's a set of mirrors there onboard the parked Soviet Lunokhud 2 moon rover--maybe the coolest-looking robot ever built.

In this way, for decades, researchers have carefully traced the moon's orbit, and they've learned some remarkable things, among them:

more at:
science.nasa.gov...

edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
Wow. If there was any argument to convince me that the moon landings were faked, this wasn't it.

I really wish I could convey how deadpan my voice is when I said and typed that out. I can't wait to read the next moon landing hoax topic that'll be posted in half an hour.

Again, totally deadpan.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE
Will this Insanity ever end?
Your entire case is built on the so called "evidence" that you can conceive of it being a hoax?


Thats it?

Thousands of respected scientists; engineers; and contractors; are perfectly keeping to a perfect lie.

But some yob on youtube's got it all figured out!

Did you catch the Mitchell& Webb comedy sketch video posted above?
If you have to actually build a Vehicle assembly building( A structure so big it has its own weather); an entire launch complex AND and successfully build and launch a Saturn 5 for the public to witness ...
Where's this massive $ savings come in again??????

I trust you've learned something here today..,
edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: spelling.
edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 30-9-2012 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)


You mean the fact that counter intelligence is live and well in the G20? Yes I learned that. They always make a joke out of everything that's been debunked to try and save face.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   
What happened with Google Lunar X event? Were any pictures taken? I cant seem to find any.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I wish there was a popcorn smiley for my mind is already made and I'm really just here for the hilarious theatrics.

This topic is a tricky one. I personally feel that NASA is either hiding the real space technology(as to keep it secret from other countries) or is just a front for some other space program. I have to think that way because the other theory is just downright depressing.
What if they never went?

If that was truly the case then I could somewhat understand why NASA would lie. I suppose they would lie so that the dream of going into space would not die. So that all of the hours of research would be worth something.

Hopefully there is some kind of secret space agency hellbent on advancing the human race. NASA doesn't strike me as that group. Especially since they claim that a manned Mars mission would need an entirely new spacecraft...
we can't use the same one that we used to go to the moon 40 years ago?

The other day I saw Prometheus which was an excellent movie set in the year 2094. Does anyone else notice how far these future realities are being set? I mean when I was younger I would see movies with a future setting of 2015 or 2020...Well we're coming up on 2013 and not much has changed[at least in the way of Space Exploration]. I wonder are the ptb keeping the advanced technology for themselves? Or maybe there is no advanced technology. Maybe we should just be happy with the pretty Mars pictures that we get and have been getting for about 8 years now. Wonderful.
edit on 30-9-2012 by iamusic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by snowen20
 


I know.

As if the Russians would say "Well Boris, what do you think of this business of the Americans landing on the moon?" (Boris) "Sir, I have seen the film and it looks real"

I mean come on.



I agree, though I guess from my perspective it was more of a "Get the people of the US to rally behind it" kind of thing.. At that point everyone in other countries starts paying attention to the most popular kid in class so to speak.
With the media spin they would put on it and potential naysayers being thrown under the bus or worse, being completely ignored in light of the whole scenario. If enough people get behind something false or otherwise, they become an unstoppable force. Then you just ignore or demonize people who oppose it and make them look stupid for even questioning it. It works in other avenues of politics and what not, so I guess by my reasoning that's how I come to such conclusions.

I accept that I may be WAY off though. I'm completely open to the idea its 100% legit as well.

ETA: I know that if it was fake the Russians new all to well it was. The Russians seem to know everything the US was doing in those days or so it seems.
edit on 30-9-2012 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamusic


we can't use the same one that we used to go to the moon 40 years ago?





....and your point is what exactly?

Have you ever seen the Apollo command module?

For the sake of being clear here, I take it you understand(roughly) the distances and logistics involved in a one-way, let alone a round trip to Mars?

Would you expect them to use the same technology?



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:25 PM
link   


This is my moon hoax lol



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


You bet the Russians had very close eyes on the Apollo program.

As for 'naysayers' in the 60's, I would say they never existed, why would anybody question the authenticity of the moon landings back then? They had no reason to. In my opinion, and further proof of the reality of the landings, the whole question mark over the Apollo missions is a relatively modern phenomenon fueled by youtube videos, pseudo science, widespread ignorance, lying charlatans and paranoid fantasy. The 400.000 people who worked on the Apollo program would never have guessed that 40 years after they had made their accomplishments some idiot with more computing power at his fingertips than they ever had would pose the knuckle-headed question "why can't we see stars?"



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


You made the same mistake as r2d246 in his mock up: scale. The distances you have the tracks going are hundreds of miles and the lander in the size of a small town.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by snowen20
 


You bet the Russians had very close eyes on the Apollo program.

As for 'naysayers' in the 60's, I would say they never existed, why would anybody question the authenticity of the moon landings back then? They had no reason to. In my opinion, and further proof of the reality of the landings, the whole question mark over the Apollo missions is a relatively modern phenomenon fueled by youtube videos, pseudo science, widespread ignorance, lying charlatans and paranoid fantasy. The 400.000 people who worked on the Apollo program would never have guessed that 40 years after they had made their accomplishments some idiot with more computing power at his fingertips than they ever had would pose the knuckle-headed question "why can't we see stars?"



Honestly, to me the whole concept of a fake moon landing is somewhere up there with the idea that there are huge skyscrapers and other prehistoric relics dotting the landscape; yet they are cleverly hidden behind a shroud who knows what. Admittedly the moon landing hoax is, I suppose, moderately easier to believe, but not much more.

I would say when Hoaxing , false flag operations, or anything that is classified as deliberate " physical" skulduggery takes place, it's usually obvious at the onset. Your comment about no naysayers being present at the time couldn't be more on target IMO. I have never heard of such a thing until recently..Via youtube of course.


But after 40 plus years more info would be available if indeed hoaxed.
edit on 30-9-2012 by snowen20 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by snowen20
 


Well as for there being stuff(not ours) up there? There's actually more anecdotal evidence of that than there is of the landings being faked, there are actual people who have come forward and testified to having seen orbiter photos of artificial structures on the moon, whereas nobody has ever come forward and said the landings didn't happen.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by snowen20
 


Well as for there being stuff(not ours) up there? There's actually more anecdotal evidence of that than there is of the landings being faked, there are actual people who have come forward and testified to having seen orbiter photos of artificial structures on the moon, whereas nobody has ever come forward and said the landings didn't happen.


Good GOD dude, you just creeped me out, Seriously.... I need to get out of my internet cave and start prowling the internet savannah more.
Moon structures, anecdotal or otherwise are in my opinion infinity cooler than the idea of a freaking moon hoax.
Thanks for the concept you have pulled my head out of my butt twice already in one thread.. A record best for any ATS'er so far.


Though I'm sure someone else will come behind me and ridicule me for being interested in or investigating further.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowen20
Moon structures, anecdotal or otherwise are in my opinion infinity cooler than the idea of a freaking moon hoax.


Yeah, welcome to the garbage bin of conspiracy theories. From ALL such theories, the "structures on the moon/mars" theories are IMO the dumbest, worst researched and argued. The internet is full of claims about "structures", all it takes is usually JPEG/pixel artifacts with the rest classic cases of pareidolia...add "reputable" (lol) people like Hoagland etc. and you have the bottom of really, really bad pseudo-science.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by RealSpoke
 


You made the same mistake as r2d246 in his mock up: scale. The distances you have the tracks going are hundreds of miles and the lander in the size of a small town.


lol, well an artist working for NASA wouldn't have that problem as they'd make sure everything was mathematically perfect.

Not that I believe in the moon hoax, I was just trying to say what r2d246 said about photoshop really wasn't impossible.



posted on Sep, 30 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager.


I don't buy ONE BIT that someone is working for NASA for a decade while being skeptical of their missions as being "real". Sorry, I don't buy this. Try harder.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join