Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo Fakery? What's your opinion?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SpearMint
 


theres no doubt robots can & were sent to the moon..

the question is ..

was it the dog & pony show told to the world

in technology to comical to believe..

or did they go under a different unknown type of craft?




posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by SpearMint
 


That's like telling me my car doesn't leave imprints as deep as my boots when driving through a mud field, because my car didn't bounce. That hardly makes any sense, don't you agree ? Of course it will leave far deeper trails than my boots.


It's no where near as heavy as a car and the conditions are no where near the same, including gravity and the surface. A rover gliding along would not leave prints as deep as a human bouncing (with smaller points of contact too).



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman
reply to post by SpearMint
 


theres no doubt robots can & were sent to the moon..

the question is ..

was it the dog & pony show told to the world

in technology to comical to believe..

or did they go under a different unknown type of craft?


Nothing in particular, since you are attempting to bring different values together in two sentences



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   
watching that james bond clip, (diamonds are forever, 1971) it seems that even back then they thought something was fishy.

where there's smoke there's fire.

but what really pisses me off are shows like mythbusters and the idiots that host that show and people like them that instantly attack anybody who dares question if the u.s. went to the moon.

fact is, if you didn't work for nasa during the apollo missions, you don't know squat.

even mission control could have been deceived and false telemetry fed into their consoles.

maybe they did go to the moon, but couldn't land. maybe it was too dangerous or technically impossible without great risk to actually land. as i would imagine so with 60's technology.

they could have just orbited the moon and come back. and a pre-recorded film of a fake moon landing shown to the public.

do you know the implications of losing or stranding buzz aldrin and neil armstrong on the moon to die a horrible and slow death.

the end of nasa, the end of president johnson, the end of the space program and extreme failure, embarrassment and weakness in front of the world and its greatest enemy, the ussr.

a time when nuclear war was a real possibility and not msm fear mongering and when such a failure might have emboldened the ussr to launch first and america's aura of invincibility and technological superiority shattered.

would you take that chance, or show a few grainy frames of some footage shot in a studio;

and to keep kennedy's promise until the tech was advanced enough to lesson risk and a failure wouldn't have such a dangerous and profound impact on the security and existence of the united states.

i've seen the apollo lunar module at the smithsonian, and my first impression was i wouldn't go into space in that thing, let alone the moon. it looked like it was made in some ones garage. and it didn't even look water proof, let alone able to withstand the extreme pressures and environment of the moon.

the russians were probably kicking themselves for not thinking of that first.



edit on 22-10-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


and it didn't even look water proof, let alone able to withstand the extreme pressures and environment of the moon.
Looks can be decieving. Especially when the actual structure of the craft is covered by insulating foil and you don't even know that. Especially when you don't understand that there are no extreme pressures on the Moon.


the russians were probably kicking themselves for not thinking of that first.
Then why didn't they bust the US? They were closely monitoring the entire program. If anyone could have cried foul it was the Soviets.
edit on 10/22/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
You moon hoaxers make me sick. The government wants you to believe they are fake for the very fact they don't want you to believe there is life on other planets. So, in turn they continue to feed you this BS and you are none the wiser. Plus it would be a good defense point to put up some kind of weapon on the moon, to shoot down satellites.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


do you know the implications of losing or stranding buzz aldrin and neil armstrong on the moon to die a horrible and slow death. the end of nasa, the end of president johnson, the end of the space program and extreme failure, embarrassment and weakness in front of the world and its greatest enemy, the ussr.


Aldrin and Armstrong knew the dangers and were still willing to go. They are/were test pilots, cut from a different cloth. They were willing to take a risk and face the chance of death if it meant the opportunity test new innovations and technology for the advancement of mankind.

We did lose people in the Apollo program. Apollo 1 caught fire and burned because they were using 100% oxygen in the command module and three men paid the ultimate price with their lives. They were Command Pilot Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee. If anything would have stopped the Apollo program, this was it. However, NASA made major changes in protocol and design and brought in more stringent safety measures.

There was no reason to fake the Moon landings. The equipment was designed and built to do the job, and the men were willing to take the risks. This is how the USA became a great nation through people like these that were willing to risk everything to explore new lands and discover new things.



posted on Oct, 22 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by johngrissom
 


Please, explain what advantage would there be to weaponize the Moon. Seems to me, the Moon is too far away to be a first strike vantage point. And the cost of getting equipment placed and maintained would be astronomical - pun intended.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by r2d246
 


R2, do you honestly think I could be bothered giving you, what is it? 7 or 8 science lessons??

Dude seriously, every question you asked has a solid answer rooted in sound scientific fact.

And for chrissakes, I for one know you wouldn't believe any of it because you are a hoax believer my friend, no amount of reasonable discourse would convince you of anything other than the almighty TPTB, or whoever you worship, faked it.

I'm posting on here to provide an argumentative rebuttal to your, and others, stance that the landings were faked, I am not here to enlighten you to basic things you should know about science and spacetravel if you are going to engage in a debate about those subjects.

Do some research outside of the lunatic fringe buddy.

Regards seabhac.


edit on 22-10-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


No you're wrong, I'm not one of those. If I get enough evidence showing it's legit then I'd be convinced. For example I don't believe in big foot. The facts dont' add up. I mean they've never even found 1 carcas, or no hunter has ever shot one. Like that's a complete fake. They fine ultra engagered animals easier.

so again I'm just saying I go by facts. From what I can tell:

..................this looks like a movie set.


..................It's in perfect timing with stanley kubricks movie production of 2001 a space oddassy,


..................It would save them billions by not actually landing


..................It would save lives in case of an accident


..................They never went back, nor did any other country, nor did they rent or sell the technology to anyone


..................Some say the space race was on the table, I don't buy that but it's another plausible reason



..................They wanted to make JFK's deadline of 10 years



..................They had hollywood's refined special effects which seem to appear quite clearly in the videos' taken


..................They never point the camera anywhere but one scene that allows to not expose the film crew


..................Then there's the van allen belt. Limited rad's my azz. You think they'd be able to function and complete a full mission while having radiation sickness?


..................The computer power wasn't strong enough yet at that point. They claim they used a 2k cpu on the craft. Like get real.

..................Any facts are coming from TPTB who are liars, killers, theives and the most evil people on the face of the earth. They'd love that 100 billion of tax payer money. It's not that different than the banker bail outs of recent times. Just another excuse at a money grab. The classic MO of TPTB. Theft with some excuse as to why.


But you got me thinking, okay I'll look at some more stuff and try and weigh more of the evidence. There's obviously a lot of evidence proving they had much of the technology. But I've show my reasons. No one has shown me anything other than the classic brainwashing they give you in grade school about how they went to the moon and you're suppose to believe everything TPTB tell you to believe, regardless of the evidence.

here's the other factor people aren't understanding. TPTB are evil people. they don't care about human accomplishments. If anything what might have happened is they had the technology to go. but then TPTB figured out that this could be a major breakthrew for the common man so they kyboshed the deal. Shot it in a hollywood studio, pocketed the excess money, and then scrapped the project.

And scrapped it specifically to keep the common man down, and under there control. Maybe they reasoned that this would end up turning into a space tourist thing, it would turn into all kinds of inspiration and exploration for people and they didn't want that. It could means people would get to uppidy and start thinking outside the box.

Instead what they wanted as just a hero story. A story that they could turn off when they were done writing it. A story that would inspire but not get people to uppidy. And that's exactly what seemed to happen.



edit on 23-10-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitruvian

Any belief that we actually went to the moon will taint all further research and he/she will never get to the truth..........


Actually the precise opposite is true. The basic concept of science is to analyse the evidence and then draw conclusions NOT to take a specific stance, such as "we did nto go to the moon" and then look for evidence for this. This is a blind alley.

Just because photos were faked or "photoshopped" does NOT mean that the contrary position is correct.

There are several reasons why the photos could have been faked. In no particular order, for example...

1. The cameras did not work. What an embarrassment if the Hasselblads always broke down in zero atmosphire or jammed. So, they reshot what happened.

2. Cold War needs for good publicity outweighed the supply of photos.

3. As it was in the midst of the Cold War, the astronauts were actually there to mount nukes covertly on the moon, knowing that the USSR could never stop them or destroy them.giving a basic massive advantage in any nuclear exchange. Remember, the main driving engine for the Apollo mission, the Saturn V rocket was actually developed to deliver massive nukes all the way into Siberia and the Apollo mission actually helped to mask much of the cost of this programme.

4. They met ET's on the Moon.

5. A discovery too outrageous and devastating to release was made ...eg,, the Thai religion got it right all along...the world is actually a flat disk, mounted on three monumental elephants who stand on the back of a turtle that flies through space.

6. The astronauts were actually building a secret base on the Moon for the elite, knowing that the Earth is, for certain, doomed.

7. Zero gravity makes astronauts so horny that they kept engaging in gay sex. In the 1960's this would have made the real footage totally unacceptable to be shown.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Considering the looming deadline and the immense pressures of not screwing up during the Cold War and losing face, I can completely see them having movie-studio shots all ready to go to show a credulous world, just in case. Just in case the Van Allen belt was an issue, a meteorite hit the thing at some point, the landing didn't go well, the getting off the moon part didn't go well, and a thousand other issues. They could even have had stand-ins all ready to show to an adoring public who had returned 'safe and sound'. No way the USA of that era would have allowed such a public embarrassment if disaster struck.

There's something about the background scenes, those mountains and the lunar sky that's always bothered me. The resolution is just wrong and there's always a demarcation in light tones and blurriness where the horizontal meets the vertical. And I don't care how much glare is coming off the sun, you mean there was never a planet looming overhead, or the Milky Way, and as they oddly and self-consciously remarked at the press conference afterwards, they never saw any stars? Really??? You're on the F'in MOON, and you don't look up and try to see the heavens? The entire GALAXY is overhead, and you somehow miss it?? How perfectly incurious is that, for the ultimate explorer?



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246


..................The computer power wasn't strong enough yet at that point. They claim they used a 2k cpu on the craft. Like get real.


This is NOT TRUE.

My school was one of the first in the UK to own a computer in 1977. It was 16k. One kid was able to design a chess programme that even allowed the machine to learn from its mistakes. How was this possible? Simple, there is a BIG COVER-UP that has been going on in plain sight. Computers today do NO need this volume of processing power to drive the softwre that you have. The fact is that the EXTRA power is eaten by crud in your machine such as spyware, Microsoft junk designed to bomb out competitor's software, and glitches designed to make sure that you a re dependent on Microsoft or Dell for service contracts that cost you big bucks. And it is all badly written eating vast prairies of processing power by the slapdash programmers of today's world.

In a virus-free world with honest computer programmers such as the inspired people, prepared to write programmes just for the dude in the street's benefit utterly selflessly, you actually need very little processing power.


.
edit on 23-10-2012 by georgemoseleylander because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
I believe it was real, there is no real reason to fake it, and the Russians would NEVER admit to the US winning the Cold War, they wanted to get to the moon so badly. If the Americans faked it, the Russians instantly would have known, and would have used that without a problem to embarrass America. That being said, the Russians and I believe the Chinese were both tracking the whole thing, and they both confirmed that the moon landing happened. America may have had its own reasoning to try to cover it up, but Russia nor China have any reason to, nor would they even want to. Embarrassing America is a better deal for both.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 





..................They never went back, nor did any other country, nor did they rent or sell the technology to anyone



The reason for no one going back is because, (this is a theory by the way, but it explains why no one went back) the theory is that there are ETs all over the Moon just sitting there, witch leads to there being a base on the dark side of the moon. It has to be something along the lines. Otherwise, Russia, China, UK, anyone would have went to the moon. Ok, US did fake it, so what? Then a different country will just go.
edit on 23-10-2012 by TehSlenderMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TehSlenderMan

The reason for no one going back is because, (this is a theory by the way, but it explains why no one went back) the theory is that there are ETs all over the Moon


Not et's, but nazi's. There is a good documentary on them www.imdb.com...



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 03:08 AM
link   
At the top of every page on ATS there is a little slogan.

It reads,

Deny ignorance.

Something that is severely overlooked and outright ignored.

Deny ignorance, it might make you look intelligent.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

My answers to you in bold

..................this looks like a movie set.

Funny many other HB say it was filmed in the desert states of the USA you cant both be right!

..................It's in perfect timing with stanley kubricks movie production of 2001 a space oddassy,

Then why did Kubrick get so many things wrong in 2001?

..................It would save them billions by not actually landing

Well they were being watched so they couldn't risk not going!

..................It would save lives in case of an accident

There were accidents and people did die


..................They never went back, nor did any other country, nor did they rent or sell the technology to anyone

They didn't go just once so they DID go back


..................Some say the space race was on the table, I don't buy that but it's another plausible reason

Tell that to the Russians!

..................They wanted to make JFK's deadline of 10 years

They did well done!!

..................They had hollywood's refined special effects which seem to appear quite clearly in the videos' taken

This was 1969 special effects were not the same as today!!!

..................They never point the camera anywhere but one scene that allows to not expose the film crew

Funny they made some panorama shots!!!

..................Then there's the van allen belt. Limited rad's my azz. You think they'd be able to function and complete a full mission while having radiation sickness?

So you are a radiation expert ? Funny Van Allen himself said they could make it, I think he knows a lot more that YOU!

..................The computer power wasn't strong enough yet at that point. They claim they used a 2k cpu on the craft. Like get real.

The hard stuff was all done on Earth mission control ring any bells with YOU!!!!


Just in case a pic below!!!!


..................Any facts are coming from TPTB who are liars, killers, theives and the most evil people on the face of the earth. They'd love that 100 billion of tax payer money. It's not that different than the banker bail outs of recent times. Just another excuse at a money grab. The classic MO of TPTB. Theft with some excuse as to why.

THE CLASSIC CONSPIRACY CLICHE!!!!!

But you got me thinking, okay I'll look at some more stuff and try and weigh more of the evidence. There's obviously a lot of evidence proving they had much of the technology. But I've show my reasons. No one has shown me anything other than the classic brainwashing they give you in grade school about how they went to the moon and you're suppose to believe everything TPTB tell you to believe, regardless of the evidence.


All the landing sites are well documented by the pictures taken at the locations objects/distances were recorded these can be compared with the LRO shots of the landing sites,

Many small rocks craters seen in the Astronauts pictures can be seen in the LRO shots! taken 40 years apart!

They went they landed deal with it
edit on 23-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 


If you provide the neccessary data such as mass and surface, I will calculate how much pressure in g / cm² was applid through boots and tires. That's 5th grade mathematics. I doubt you did the calculation, though.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


"i've seen the apollo lunar module at the smithsonian, and my first impression was i wouldn't go into space in that thing, let alone the moon. it looked like it was made in some ones garage. and it didn't even look water proof, let alone able to withstand the extreme pressures and environment of the "

Are you talking about the lander, or the spacecraft? The lander was indeed fragile, Buzz Aldrin has remarked on that, "We had to be careful with anything sharp edged, you could potentially poke a hole through the lander walls."
It just shows you how much courage they had, never mind Armstrong nearly being killed in testing the prototype machine on Earth.



posted on Oct, 23 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by hellobruce
 


LOL, I LOVED THAT MOVIE
Excellent movie, the plot was just, I'm not even sure how to describe it, and the comedy in it was just excellent.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join