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.

 

New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 18
73
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by jimmyx
i always like the "debunkers" who say, that due to the rocket blasts on decent, it blew away all the dust from the landing leg pods, and that is why there is no dust on the feet of the landing legs....but....looking at nasa photos...there are boots prints (in this supposedly blown away dust) around the landing leg pods. big fail


As requested dust on pad



Next!


I'm fairly impartial in this thread, having no real axe to grind.

But, the tiny amount of dust on that image of the pad is VERY close to those multiple boot prints...it's not beyond the realms of believability that the dust was kicked on the pad..what about the other three pads? Any images of those with dust on them, but NOT near boot prints only a couple of cm's away?

I've seen images from other Apollo missions with the lander pads so dust free, after such a violent descent in an airless and low gravity environment, that a clean room technician would be impressed with how gleaming and clean they are.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Oh yes there is look along the red strokes increased size for your poor eyesight hope that helps they are faint but they are there!!!


Wow, calm down. The "rays" you're talking about are not at all similar to every single other photograph of the sun ever taken. True photographs of the sun have rays physically connected to and extending out from the center source of sunlight. You are never able to make out a clear, spherical shape from them.
edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by KAOStheory
 





Why does no one consider that maybe we did go but the video was faked?


That's what I believe. The studio photos were neccessary as lighting conditions on the Moon are so bad that they could not take a decent color photo to impress the public. That's why Kubrick was brought in. He even got them to put the gold foil on, it does absolutely nothing but it makes for more impressive pictures. Also, they needed to be able to switch to a studio shot just incase something they didn't want us to see turned up at the Lunar site.
The photos that were taken on the Moon required a lot of processing before they were released to the public, some done during development of the film, and then on their IBM System/360 mainframes.
Where I might differ in my views to you though is that after reading some of the mission reports I don't think they could have ever got to the Moon without help. All NASA had to to was get them into orbit, and then some 'friends' took over to make sure those piece of junk space craft got to the Moon. And back. That of course would mean believing that the rumoured acquisition of advanced space technology or vehicles from the Germans, or maybe 'crashed' UFOs, by an Above Top Secret level of the Navy, was in fact real.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by hidden0
Umm...I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble here, but if nobody ever has visited the moon, then who put these mirrors there?

Mirrors On Moon

These mirrors exist - and you can personally prove it.

This is a clip from Big Bang Theory (I occasionally watch the show), skip to 1 minute 50 seconds.


Given the correct equipment, you can provide yourself absolute proof that somebody put that mirror there....why not the people who claim they did it?


The Russians have mirrors there too. Did they go to the moon?
Moon Mirrors



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by DEV1L79
...
Also you ignored when I asked how they cannot take pictures of the place the moon landing were done, when they can take photos of the mirrors and they can take very good photos of surface of the moon with a high powered telescope.


You asked this on page 5, yet on page 2 there was a post that gave this information...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

also a simple google search turned up the same set.


here's one to start you off. It's Apollo 14 though, does that count?



I asked devil to produce even a single one of these mysterious high powered telescope pictures. The LRO images are not taken with a high powered telescope



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fr3bzY
LOL who are you trying to bull# mate
if the SUN/any lightsource is lighting the lander FROM BEHIND...you need one hell of a strong light to ALSO light the front of the lander

hahaha you must love your job man...


Pop quiz... photographers use what cheap method of reducing hard shadows? What does the moon surface do the sun light hitting it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
The Russians were our biggest rivals at that time and would have loved to prove to the rest of the world that the Americans moon landing was fake. Show where all the Russians proved where the American moon landing was a hoax. The Russians tracked our transmissions all they way to the moon and back. Their instruments could judge the distance of the transmissions by simple triangulation.

So, if you can show me where they have shown all those radio transmissions that were transmitted from the orbiter and from the moon lander was not from outer space then you would have something. Trust me even if the U.S. government stopped all information that the Russians tried to relay to the American people about the moon landing being a hoax it would still exist somewhere and would have surfaced by now.

Also they would have shown where the pictures were fake too, if anyone has/had the tech and the agenda to do so it would be the Russians.

But guess what? All we get is silence from the Russians even to this day. You know why? Because we went to the moon boy! Don't be a hater! LOL

The burden of proof is on the proclaimer. The OP has made a claim but has yet to prove one iota of anything.


-Alien



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?


simple answer to that is that they didn't fake it.


Simple answer is that they did. There is no proof that the moon landings were real. None of the evidence given stands up to scrutiny, but there is a LOT of evidence to the contrary. A LOT. Anyone who believes in the moon landings takes them on faith.


That's a pretty broad statement. I would say that a LOT of the debunking evidence does not stand up to scrutiny.


Originally posted by WWu777
Here are two shocking facts that will make you scratch your head:

– Fact: Did you know that since the Apollo Moon Missions in 1969-72, which sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, NO ONE has ever gone 400 miles above the Earth? Even the Space Shuttle missions have gone below that and remained well under 400 miles.



Basically you are saying because we did not do it recently, that we cannot do it. But what about other possible reasons such as budget priorities? Other missions deemed more useful? Lack of public interest? Are you really that unwilling to entertain an opposing viewpoint that you'll overlook the most obvious counter-arguments?


Originally posted by WWu777
Today, NASA does not have the technology to go higher than 400 miles above Earth, and has indirectly admitted it in a number of ways, by their actions and words. In a press release, NASA stated that the Van Allen Radiation Belts that surround the Earth are too dangerous to send humans through and is trying to figure out how to solve this problem. See here: www.reuters.com...


We just went to Mars so we have the technology to go beyond 400 miles. Were those manned missions? No but again, if your claim is that we cannot do it because we are not currently doing it, then your reasoning is clearly flawed. The Reuters article you posted was discussing the dangers of cosmic radiation during long-term space flight lasting months, not the risk specifically due to the Van Allen belts which are transited within hours. Exposure times matter and exposure times going to Mars is much greater than going to the moon.


Originally posted by WWu777
This doesn’t make any sense given that none of the astronauts on the six Apollo missions allegedly passed the radiation belts with no problem and no sickness! What this means is that incredibly, NASA was able to send men 600 times farther in 1969 than it can today! How inexplicable is that? Have you ever heard of technology going backward by such an extreme magnitude?! It’s totally illogical and nonsensical.


Did you know that the incidence of cataracts of the men who went to the moon is significantly higher than the general population?


Originally posted by WWu777
– Fact: Did you know that so far, 14 astronauts have died in Space Shuttle missions that were 200 miles above the Earth, yet during the Apollo program NASA allegedly sent astronauts 240,000 miles to the moon and back six times, with no loss of life? In other words: 200 miles = 14 casualties, 240,000 miles = 0 casualties. Do you buy that? Can you fathom the enormous difference between 200 and 240,000 and how big of a stretch that is?


Why so focused on distance when it is widely understood that take-off and landing on space missions (and normal everyday flights) is the most dangerous time statistically? Why conviently exclude the Apollo 1 mission in this argument and yet use it below to make a counter-argument? The fact that it did not get off the ground is arbitrary. You are implying that the Apollo program was flawless. Regardless of how far the rocket and obiter was from the earth, they were attempting a space mission and they died doing it. Also there were two fatal accidents with the shuttles which obviously contain a lot more people versus one fatal accident in Apollo plus a very nearly fatal accident with Apollo 13 (both of which contained fewer people). Sorry but this does not leave me with the scratchy head feeling.

edit on 28-11-2012 by ThreadTrekker because: Shorten post



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Fr3bzY
LOL who are you trying to bull# mate
if the SUN/any lightsource is lighting the lander FROM BEHIND...you need one hell of a strong light to ALSO light the front of the lander

hahaha you must love your job man...


Pop quiz... photographers use what cheap method of reducing hard shadows? What does the moon surface do the sun light hitting it.


Apparently moondust does not reflect enough light to do that.

This is interesting, if you're interested:

www.youtube.com...

Watch what happens when we shoot photographs of shadowed objects on an asphelt surface. We know that the moon has an average albedo of 0.07. According to the American Concrete Pavement Association, this is within the vicinity of the albedo of asphelt - which makes it the perfect surface material for testing the lunar reflectivity.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
continued...


Originally posted by WWu777
What’s more, NASA could not even keep astronauts safe on Earth. During a test simulation on the launch pad for Apollo One in 1967, three astronauts died during a fire that engulfed the capsule and somehow locked them inside, which was never explained and seemed to be the result of foul play. Whatever the case, if NASA couldn’t even keep astronauts safe on Earth during a test simulation inside a stationary capsule that wasn’t even moving, then how could it keep them safe 240,000 miles away on the moon during a real mission?


Only time in history where technology went backward by an extreme magnitude


So let me see if I understand, if a 747 were to have an accident while on the ground, then how in the world is it possible for other 747s to safely log THOUSANDS of miles? They could not keep those poor passengers safe even on the ground and we are expected to believe that somehow these jets are going to be capable of travelling so many miles from where they started from? And land safely too?



Originally posted by WWu777
Now if all that doesn’t sound absurd to you and make you scratch your head, nothing will. So if you buy the Apollo story, you’d have to buy that the Apollo Moon Landings were the first and only historical event in which technology actually went BACKWARD! In history, when technological feats are accomplished, they get better, faster and more efficient in subsequent years. For example, when the Wright Brothers invented the airplane, every year after that planes got better and better. When Charles Lindberg made the first transatlantic flight in 1927, it was soon repeated afterward. And when cell phones came into the market, they got better and better thereon.

However, after the Apollo missions from 1969 to 1972, it all went backward. We never went back again and neither did any other country. It was very strange. At least the Soviets should have followed soon after, especially since their space technology was ahead of ours. Yet none have even tried. What does that tell you? As they say, actions speak louder than words.

If the Apollo missions were authentic, by now, there should be daily flights to the moon and moon bases. All this would be so if the moon landings were consistent with the rest of world history.


Evidently you believe that the Apollo missions to the moon were superior in every way to the missions we are doing now. On the face of it, it makes sense due to the human element involved but again I have to bring up money or the budget. What was the NASA budget then and now? Do you think it makes any difference? Should manned missions be the only priority? And what would all those flights to the moon bases be doing and who would be the ones to profit and who would bear the costs?



Originally posted by WWu777
The simple logic here is that if NASA can't go to the moon today after 40 years of technological advancements, then it certainly couldn't have in 1969, plain and simple.


Your statement is not using simple logic, it's using flawed logic, that's the problem. We did go to the moon and we can go again -- if there is political will and the budget to do it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Is it possible we're in the process of conquering the moon?

I guess the obvious answer to why we'd fake the moon landing photography is one of two reasons. One, we've only orbited the moon, but wanted videos showing us walking on the moon. Two, we've been to the moon, but don't want to make the photographic record public for some reason.

Since this is AboveTopSecret after all, let's shoot for the moon, as it were, with a not so simple answer. Could the answer lay in video games like Halo and movies like Prometheus? That is in mainstream multimedia that talk about ancient technologies of an ancient people.

Let's say we go up to the moon, like you and I, as tourists, we go to the moon in our lifetimes. We stumble across some ancient technology. We'll think the forerunners or the prometheans left it on the moon. But, maybe not.

Maybe when we, us humans, got to the moon, in 1969, which by the way was about 25 years after we created the atomic bomb. Maybe when we got to the moon, sort of like when we got to North America, we came with guns. Europeans had been to North America before Columbus. But we didn't make a big deal out of if until we came with overwhelming firepower and took over.

Maybe we didn't have a strong interest in going to the moon until we had he technology to conquer it, i.e. atomic bombs. Then, if we are conquering the moon, then we have to do two things first, for propaganda purposes. 1. Make some videos showing the moon is lifeless. 2. Plant the seed in people's brains, that if we do find technology on the moon, later on, that it is really ancient, from some long time ago, far away people, that just happened to stop by the moon once and left stuff there.

I seem to recall analysts used to mention that the U.S. and U.S.S.R combined have produced enough nukes to obliterate the surface of a planet. These are the same two countries that acknowledge having various pieces of hardware sitting on the moon currently.

Ah, AboveTopSecret, such an entertaining website.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Well go out and see how the moon shines. It's plenty enough.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Riposte
 


Well go out and see how the moon shines. It's plenty enough.


Uhm, he takes actual photographs on a surface with the same albedo as the moon. Like, real science, not just speculation by looking up in the sky.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
I'm not goint to watch another video from a known hoaxer and a liar. He has been busted too many times and has 0 credibility. You can measure the moons reflectiveness yourself.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I'm not goint to watch another video from a known hoaxer and a liar. He has been busted too many times and has 0 credibility. You can measure the moons reflectiveness yourself.


Ok, you have no credibility and have been busted too many times on this forum for me to believe a word you say. Therefore I reject your argument and will not look at any evidence you present.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
nice fail. I didn't present any evidence. I presented that you go and get the evidence yourself.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
nice fail. I didn't present any evidence. I presented that you go and get the evidence yourself.


Yeah it was pure rhetoric. You didn't get it? Your argument is a logical fallacy, i.e., attacking the messenger.

Anyway, I already have the evidence of the moon's reflectivity, it has an albedo of 0.07. It's not enough to light up the lander in a photograph, unless the exposure time is greater than 20 seconds.

And you're telling me I should just look up in the sky, and ignore the fact that someone has taken photographs on a surface with the same albedo as the moon.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Well prove it takes 20 seconds exposure. Make sure to use a reflector the size of moon surface



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


I am not at all afraid to let go of stuff, believe me, I have been studying conspiracy stuff since the 80's. There was no Internet with Alex Jones back then, just books by Antony Sutton. He couldn't even get his books on Skull and Bones printed in the USA, he had to go to Canada, because no one here would publish them.
This one I am not buying and never did.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well prove it takes 20 seconds exposure. Make sure to use a reflector the size of moon surface


Uhm, I just did? It's in the video.



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join