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.

 

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I'm well aware people on the 'hoax" side of the argument are all silly and loony and such, but for those skeptics willing to put in a good read, i would highly suggest reading "wagging the moon doggie" by dave mcgowen

davesweb.cnchost.com...

i'll warn you in advance. its a long read. pretty funny, too. hard to say that NONE of his arguments/observations "hold any water".

i'm terrible at forum-ing (new verb!) and don't know how to 'embed' or 'quote' or anything fancy like that.

I just hope you all have open minds, and enjoy a well written article on some of the things that just simply don't add up.

*flame shield up*




posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
werent reflectors placed on the moon by Neil and Buzz?

I mean, you can take a high power laser and have the beam reflected back on earth....so if its a hoax how are you able to PROVE that the reflectors are there? Who put them there? GOD?



There is NO DOUBT that the moon landings happened. You can prove it yourself and many universities and enthusiasts have done so. Take a high power laser and beam it at the coordinates of the reflectors and you can then have the same beam sent back to your receiver array which will measure the laser beam sent back.

This single experiment done countless times should prove to all those who doubt that the moon landings were not a hoax. It really is that cut and dry.




Ringed by footprints, sitting in the moondust, lies a 2-foot wide panel studded with 100 mirrors pointing at Earth: the "lunar laser ranging retroreflector array." Apollo 11 astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong put it there on July 21, 1969, about an hour before the end of their final moonwalk. Thirty-five years later, it's the only Apollo science experiment still running.
science.nasa.gov...

edit on 2-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:45 AM
link   
It always amazes me the without a doubt the most documented closely scrutinized event in human history now has a small group of people who think it was fake. Deapite the fact the Soviet Union would have done anything for even the smallest chance of it being fake. A nation that would have studdied every tiny piece of data for even the smallest oddity. A nation that would track every second of the launch in hopes finding some sort of failure. A nation that had lots of human assets in the US that would have loved to have found something out of sorts. A nation that would have done just about anything to keep the US from such a large PR victory. Depsite things like the rest of the world watching and moon rocks and all that stuff that was left up their people somehow are able to ignore it all. Amazing.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


from my link in my post just above yours:

"According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically - most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon. In December 1966, National Geographic reported that scientists at MIT had been achieving essentially the same result for four years by bouncing a laser off the surface of the Moon. The New York Times added that the Soviets had been doing the same thing since at least 1963."

Not quite 100% cut and dry
read the whole link! check out his high res photos from NASA themselves!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:55 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 



"According to the ‘debunkers,’ the fact that observatories to this day bounce lasers off the alleged targets proves that the Apollo missions succeeded. It is perfectly obvious though that the targets, if there, could have been placed robotically - most likely by the Soviets. It is also possible that there are no laser targets on the Moon.


If they were placed by robots, it would have required a high degree of autonomic control to deploy and align them properly. The Moon has a very low albedo, so it is perfectly obvious whether a laser is bouncing off the dark surface or a polished mirror.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 


similar results as in "light is reflected"....but a laser beam is measurable. You can not get exact results, only similar results. That is expected.

A laser bounced of the surface is FAR less powerful and precise on the return trip when bounced of the moon than one bounced off a mirror.

That is the difference.

The reflectors are there. Even if they were placed there by robotic arms, why then would they not send people since they already landed a robot? Isnt the whole argument that they couldnt land on the moon and so hoaxed it?

If a robot probe can land, WHY wouldnt they send people?

Why lie?


reply to post by DJW001
 


exactly


edit on 2-3-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Just playin a little devil's advocate. I highly suggest you read his whole article, but here are a few more tidbits I like.

"To briefly recap then, in the twenty-first century, utilizing the most cutting-edge modern technology, the best manned spaceship the U.S. can build will only reach an altitude of 200 miles. But in the 1960s, we built a half-dozen of them that flew almost 1,200 times further into space. And then flew back. And they were able to do that despite the fact that the Saturn V rockets that powered the Apollo flights weighed in at a paltry 3,000 tons, about .004% of the size that the principal designer of those very same Saturn rockets had previously said would be required to actually get to the Moon and back (primarily due to the unfathomably large load of fuel that would be required).
To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life.

"Perhaps it’s not surprising then that NASA now takes the position that the original footage has been missing since “sometime in the late 1970s.”
Unfortunately, it isn’t just the video footage that is missing. Also allegedly beamed back from the Moon was voice data, biomedical monitoring data, and telemetry data to monitor the location and mechanical functioning of the spaceship. All of that data, the entire alleged record of the Moon landings, was on the 13,000+ reels that are said to be ‘missing.’ Also missing, according to NASA and its various subcontractors, are the original plans/blueprints for the lunar modules. And for the lunar rovers. And for the entire multi-sectioned Saturn V rockets.
There is, therefore, no way for the modern scientific community to determine whether all of that fancy 1960s technology was even close to being functional or whether it was all for show. Nor is there any way to review the physical record, so to speak, of the alleged flights. We cannot, for example, check the fuel consumption throughout the flights to determine what kind of magic trick NASA used to get the boys there and back with less than 1% of the required fuel. And we will never, it would appear, see the original, first-generation video footage.

You would think that someone at NASA would have thought to preserve such things. No wonder we haven’t given them the money to go back to the Moon; they’d probably just lose it."



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:07 AM
link   
There is a film of a LM type vehicle being tested in the desert southwest descending in Earths gravity. Looked like they were using cables for a rough simulation of lunar gravity. Anyways as the rocket powered vehicle got close to landing the blast deflected back from the desert floor unpredictably and the LM rocked side to side like a baby cradle. Not to mention the visibility went to zero from the blowing sand so there was no way to know if one of those 4 pads was going to end up in the ditch that was being dug by the rocket blast!

That was enough disclosure for me, a lunar landing just seemed too risky to try with a human astronaut for my vote. If they had used a self leveling, descent vehicle with remote controlled robotic systems that could withstand over 10 G's during landing it might have been cost effective for some purposes.

Since the moon split from Earth when they were both still in a near molten state, lunar material is going to be very similar to Earths only without the effects of Earths atmosphere. Not much science needed to understand moon rocks.

Over 90% of the US population believes in a manned lunar landing so what do we gain from threads like this?

Edit:



A 1999 Gallup poll found that a scant 6 percent of Americans doubted the Apollo 11 moon landing happened


But...



Twenty-five percent of respondents to a survey in the British magazine Engineering & Technology said they do not believe humans landed on the moon.


articles.cnn.com...:TECH

Some of that 19% difference is due to the fact that subscribers to engineering periodicals understand the problem involved better and the rest is due to the fact that Brits are taught from an early age how to drink tea and walk around the room at the same time.
edit on 2-3-2013 by Cauliflower because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
reply to post by tadaman
 


regarding why it would be dangerous to send people to the moon:

"As can be seen in NASA’s photos, the egress side of the lunar modules (the side with the ladder and hatch) was usually in the shade (though almost always well lit). What that means is that, after traipsing around in the sun for a spell, the astronauts would have had to step into the shadows to reenter the spacecraft. And when they did so, those spacesuits were apparently smart enough to react instantly and switch over from turbo-charged air conditioning to blast-furnace heating in the blink of an eye. Awesome!

In addition to providing radiation protection that today’s technology is unable to match, and a climate control system that is beyond anything available in the twenty-first century, the magic suits also provided the astronauts with breathable air, which definitely came in handy. What the suits did, in essence, was provide the astronauts with their own little portable, climate-controlled, radiation-protected atmosphere.

Of course, to actually do that (if we’re pretending that it could be done at all), the suits would have had to have been pressurized. And it is perfectly obvious from all the photos that the suits were not, in fact, pressurized, because if they were, the astronauts would have looked like the Michelin Man bouncing around on the surface of the Moon.

The magic suits had to perform one other function as well: they had to serve as head-to-toe body armor. Because the Moon, according to NASA, has a serious problem with drive-by shootings from outer space. Seriously. I’m not making that up. I read it on NASA’s own website.

In the very same NASA post that discusses Moon rocks being constantly bombarded with absurdly high levels of radiation, another curious admission can be found: “meteoroids constantly bombard the Moon.” Our old friend from NASA, David McKay, explains that “Apollo moon rocks are peppered with tiny craters from meteoroid impacts.” NASA then explains that that “could only happen to rocks from a planet with little or no atmosphere … like the Moon.”

“Meteoroids,” NASA continues, “are nearly-microscopic specks of space dust that fly through space at speeds often exceeding 50,000 mph – ten times faster than a speeding bullet. They pack a considerable punch … The tiny space bullets can plow directly into Moon rocks, forming miniature and unmistakable craters.”

According to NASA, every square inch of every exposed surface of every rock allegedly gathered from the surface of the Moon shows this pattern. By extension then, we know that every square inch of the lunar surface is peppered with meteoroid craters. There really is no safe place to hang out. There you are minding your own business lining up your golf shot, and the next thing you know a meteoroid is ripping through your spacesuit at 50,000 mph. That has to sting a little bit.

Actually, what it would do is kill you. Almost instantaneously. Not the projectile itself, which probably wouldn’t be lethal after passing through the spacesuit, but ripping or puncturing your magic suit while on the Moon is certainly something that you would want to avoid. You know that old saw about how “nature abhors a vacuum”? How that applies here is that any penetration in your suit would result in all the air being immediately sucked out. And then your blood would begin to boil. And that can be rather unpleasant.

I guess the Apollo crews really, uhmm, dodged a bullet on that one. Not one of the astronauts was hit, nor any of the lunar modules, nor any of the lunar rovers, nor any of the equipment that was used."

Quite the safety track record we had back then, eh?

I always wondered why we don't have fold-up cars like the rover and personal climate controlled earth suits for exploring volcanoes and other extreme earth environments so many years after we mastered using all this stuff on the moon.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 


What does a stoner from the Canyon know about science and engineering? He clearly knows nothing about radiation and doesn't realize that the pervasive micrometeoroid peppering is the result of billions of years of exposure.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 


While that was well written it is entirely bogus. You can't visually tell if a suit is pressurized. On earth the difference in pressure would make them bloated. With no atmosphere exerting pressure they would not swell.

As far as climate control.....the suits didn't have to switch from blast furnace to air conditioning. They maintained a standard temperature.

As far as micro meteors like the poster before me stated, the moon has had millions of years of exposure. It is not a shooting range where every square inch is covered in machine gun fire rocks.

If space was as terribly hostile as you suggest, no satellite would survive more than a few seconds outside our atmosphere.

The technical details of every piece of technology used is freely available. Weather you can understand it or not doesn't reflect on the fact that it works and is made of technology readily available at the time.

To say it was "magic" is just silly. Every engineer and technician alive today to ever look it over would call foul if it was impossible. That is not the case.

It was sound engineering and good science behind the technology. That means it is repeatable and provable.


Sorry. But that is the reality.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


If you'd like to know what he knows, read the whole article!


I do like his description of the lunar module:

"While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon. And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit! Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage."

davesweb.cnchost.com...

"The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon’s gravity and reach lunar orbit. It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth. It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour."

check the photos out for yourself! they're about halfway down the page. doesn't look something i'd volunteer to go on a 234,000 mile trip in.

Then of course there's this footage

www.youtube.com...

Which also kinda strikes me as being a little...hmmm...how do i put this..... like it belongs in a really old sci-fi flick?

Maybe it's just me, but once again, I wouldn't volunteer to go on such a dangerous, complex mission in one of those things.

If you're bored, read the whole thing sometime. If not, don't!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 


Why do you keep violating T&C by printing lengthy extracts from a self confessed stoner who knows nothing about science or engineering? Because he is completely ignorant, he feels entitled to express his disbelief. It's like pointing a finger at the Wright Brother's plane and saying: "It's just canvas and bailing wire. It can't possibly fly."



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


sorry for the "violations", as I mentioned earlier, the entire article is rather long and it's hard to have a discussion about something without people reading at least some of it, ya know?

So i found little parts that I thought were somewhat relevant to the discussion I wanted to share to see what you all had to say and think about it.

like i said, I'm not the most forum savvy person regarding quoting other sources and such, and i guess we have different definitions of the word "lengthy".

so seeing as how him being a "stoner" and "completely ignorant" and so on and so forth renders everything he could possibly think invalid, lets ignore him and everything he's ever said for now. .

Did you check those photos out? The high res ones from NASA of closeups of the Lunar Module? How bout the video of the last men on the moon?

I can see where you're going with the comparison to the wright brothers plane, the point i'm trying to make isn't that "that it can't possibly fly", more like I don't think that particular plane could fly across an ocean without some significant improvements to it's design.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 



so seeing as how him being a "stoner" and "completely ignorant" and so on and so forth renders everything he could possibly think invalid, lets ignore him and everything he's ever said for now. .


Everything he says is an Argument from Ignorance. Look that up on Wikipedia. He does not understand the basic principles involved, so he rejects everything.


Did you check those photos out? The high res ones from NASA of closeups of the Lunar Module? How bout the video of the last men on the moon?


Which photos are you talking about? Which video?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


the photos i linked to from the post above (2nd page of his article, approx. half way down the page), they were to go along with his description of the module.

the video i posted from youtube of the last men leaving the moon in the lunar module is in the same post.

I like the sparkles and imagine the "hover bikes" sound effect from the Simpsons as it takes off (when ned flanders is really in the closet with wax paper and a comb)

The photos are taken directly from NASA. The video is official NASA footage. You can use your own eyes and decide what you like


Like i said, let's leave him out of it for a little bit, if you're going to reject everything he says without reading the whole thing, that's fine by me!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 



I like the sparkles


The descent stage was covered in metallic foil. What do you think the sparkles could be? (The colors are due to the way a color television camera scans: it essentially has a red, green and blue color wheel. The sparkles change color depending on which phase the color wheel is in.)



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TheDagDa
 


It's quite an interesting read. The only problem is, none of it is based in fact or reality. . . now that I think of it, the entire premise of the moon hoax is "I barely graduated high school so I don't understand the physical principles of space flight, therefore it's fake" Have you ever wondered why the people who believe we went to the moon are engineers, physicists, geologists and so on and so forth whereas the people who believe it was faked are librarians, carpenters, art students (who like to lie to emphasize their point) and religiously fanatic cab drivers with a history of mental instability?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


OHH OHHH I KNOW THIS ONE!!!! They were placed there by multiple robotic missions. There are no plans for these robots, no testimony from people who worked on them. No record of any of the planning of the missions, no records of KGB observations of these missions, and nobody on Earth saw any of these multiple Saturn V launches (they were probably doing groceries or something at the time) that's how you know they happened, because there's zero record of them ever happening, that's how the government works man, open your eyes and stop being a sheeple, Jarrah White explained it all in his video, and he's super smart.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
the extreme radiation, the non-pressurized suits, the 500 degree swing in tempertures from sunlight to shadow, the cardboard taped sides of the lander, the fact that the film shot out the window of the landing showed dust spewing all over, but photos underneath the nozzle after landing show no disturbance. the fact that NASA says that now they have no affective means of shielding humans from the intensive radiation after 25,000 thousand miles out, but fifty years ago they did. armstrong lived to 82 years old, with no radiation poisoning.

c'mon people...deny ignorance



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join