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

Originally posted by tigercat1971
I just don't get people like you who will trawl old moon pictures searching for something to satisfy your inane quest and beliefs to redicule an astonishing accomplishment.

Do you always spend this much time on topics you consider "inane"?

If something is "inane' to me, I wouldn't waste my valuable time on it.

reply to post by mcx1942


looks like a rock

I think it's obvious that they did go to the moon, I think it is also obvious that there is substantial evidence that the pictures, mission plan and circumstances surrounding the trip or trips has been highly edited and covered up. One can only speculate why of course but it could be they found something they shouldn't of up there or they already knew something was there before they went and it could just be that they had tech far superior to what was said to available at the time and they did there best to conceal that for national security reasons.

For now, it's all just conjecture and speculation but as foolish as I think some of the claims are that we didn't go I can't understand how the skeptics can continue to turn a blind eye to all the inconsistencies of the pictures, accounts and blatant photo manipulation that exists.

reply to post by Helious


i do love seeing a full moon by the way

reply to post by wmd_2008


So they carried it 50 yards from the LEM?
Is that what you are suggesting because frankly that doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure I can see astronauts carrying this thing either.
Anyone know what the weight of the LRV would be on the moon?

What originally got me to wondering if they faked the landings was when they showed the LEM landing and dust was flying everywhere from the retro rocket on the bottom yet when they landed there is no blast pattern showing anything of the kind. Surely such a rocket would disturb the lunar surface in some fashion, wouldn't it?

Let me try to answer some of the questions about this hoax.

1. Why didn't the Russians blow the whistle and expose this hoax?
In the late 1960s the Russians were in bad shape economically. We were feeding half their population with millions of tons of corn and grain each year. They were also benefiting with the illegal imports of US technology such as IBM computers. They were 20 years behind us in technology and we looked the other way. I heard at the time at the famous IBM 360 computers were programmed in Russian! Another issue was that they needed a billion dollar loan so they could build the largest truck factory in the world to be built by Ford. Their own trucks were junk and they needed good American trucks for their economy.
If they started to attack our so called moon landings , we could cause them a lot of problems.

2. The Nixon administration was the most corrupt in US history. He lied everyday he was in office and finally was forced to resign avoid be tried in the Senate. The Apollo fraud could easily take place with him as president.

3.the main evidence that there was fraud was the absence of a crater under the 50,000 pound thrust LEM landing rocket. Instead under the engine bells there is just smooth dust with the astronauts' footprints seen the dust. I once wrote to NASA about this problem and they said that the lunar dust was like water. The engines blasted a crater but the dust came back fill it back up. Just of type of explanation that could come from the Nixon administration.

Originally posted by Mike215
Let me try to answer some of the questions about this hoax.
3.the main evidence that there was fraud was the absence of a crater under the 50,000 pound thrust LEM landing rocket.

As the LEM did not have a 50,000 pound thrust engine, what are you babbling about? Its engine had:

9,982 lbf (44,400 N) at full throttle; throttle range of 1,050 lbf (4,700 N) to 6,800 lbf (30,000 N)

If you want to learn about the LEM, read this www.prism.gatech.edu...

Apollo DID land on the moon, and they also FAKED the landing for TV. They had to fake the landing after they discovered someone got to the moon first, and it wasn't humans. Now. back in the day this happened they couldn't just blab that they discovered traces of alien's on the moon, remember the war of the worlds broadcast? way to many nutters to just come out with the truth. Personally i think they did the right thing by staging a landing, but now all these years later i think they should tell everyone the truth. No wonder Neil Armstrong became a virtual recluse after the moon landing, poor guy had to live with what he saw and probably couldn't get to grips with it, God rest his soul.

So they did go to the moon, and they did fake one as well, so, get over it OP

No, i don't have proof of this, its just what i believe.

reply to post by jrtallent


Your statement might make sense if the moon photos weren't in colour. Have you ever actually seen any of the THOUSANDS of them? I know the hoax crowd likes to lie, but seriously, this is going too far.

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

So they carried it 50 yards from the LEM?
Is that what you are suggesting because frankly that doesn't make much sense.
I'm not sure I can see astronauts carrying this thing either.
Anyone know what the weight of the LRV would be on the moon?

I don't think anyone's implying they carried it the full distance, more that they just turned it around on the spot instead of doing a 3 point turn, and it's lunar weight would have been about 75lbs

What originally got me to wondering if they faked the landings was when they showed the LEM landing and dust was flying everywhere from the retro rocket on the bottom yet when they landed there is no blast pattern showing anything of the kind. Surely such a rocket would disturb the lunar surface in some fashion, wouldn't it?

edit on 28-11-2012 by Asktheanimals because: added comment

What some people don't realize is that it wasn't a vertical landing, it was actually moving laterally at touchdown so the force of the engine wasn't concentrated over a specific area for an extended period. Also the surface of the moon is more or less solid (few inches of loose and then "bedrock") so it would take a fair amount of force for a crater to form. A simple comparison would be a helicopter on earth. At takeoff a helicopter will produce a lot more downward force than a lunar lander and it doesn't leave a crater, even when taking off from a field.

reply to post by Mike215

1. Why didn't the Russians blow the whistle and expose this hoax? In the late 1960s the Russians were in bad shape economically. We were feeding half their population with millions of tons of corn and grain each year. They were also benefiting with the illegal imports of US technology such as IBM computers. They were 20 years behind us in technology and we looked the other way. I heard at the time at the famous IBM 360 computers were programmed in Russian! Another issue was that they needed a billion dollar loan so they could build the largest truck factory in the world to be built by Ford. Their own trucks were junk and they needed good American trucks for their economy. If they started to attack our so called moon landings , we could cause them a lot of problems.

And 40 odd years later you think they would still be keeping quiet about it?........not a prayer they would!

We've been close to all out nuclear war with Russia, if they had a chance to knock the worlds number one super power of it's pedestal and humiliate it in front of the rest of the world, they would have done it then.....and they would do it now.

reply to post by litterbaux


I completely agree. I'm saying the Russians sent man and satellite first. I also don't believe the moon landings were a hoax.

Originally posted by DEV1L79
[ It is like they are scared to admit it and hold on to their safety blanket tirelessly trying to come up with silly explanations to disrepute each bit of evidence explaining them away with some scientific nonesense.

I get sick and tired of these constant allegations.

If someone was "scared" about the truth why would they ever be on a site like this in the first place?

If you research this subject with an open mind (and I'm talking about the details both on earth and in space) you have to eventually come to the conclusion that faked moon landings were far more implausible then the truth.

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?

They had no choice, it wasn't feasible to successfully get to the moon and back but they were losing the space race to the Russians. Geopolitically speaking, the next milestone had to be from America or we risked looking like idiots.

When sputnik was successfully launched, there was a firestorm about what we could do to counter that, then when the soviets were the first to put a man into space, it was decided that we had to be the first to the moon.

Jaden

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by Mike215

 

1. Why didn't the Russians blow the whistle and expose this hoax? In the late 1960s the Russians were in bad shape economically. We were feeding half their population with millions of tons of corn and grain each year. They were also benefiting with the illegal imports of US technology such as IBM computers. They were 20 years behind us in technology and we looked the other way. I heard at the time at the famous IBM 360 computers were programmed in Russian! Another issue was that they needed a billion dollar loan so they could build the largest truck factory in the world to be built by Ford. Their own trucks were junk and they needed good American trucks for their economy. If they started to attack our so called moon landings , we could cause them a lot of problems.

And 40 odd years later you think they would still be keeping quiet about it?........not a prayer they would!

We've been close to all out nuclear war with Russia, if they had a chance to knock the worlds number one super power of it's pedestal and humiliate it in front of the rest of the world, they would have done it then.....and they would do it now.

Exactly, if they could prove it they would. There is no way that the general public would believe anything that the soviets said, because it's been accepted as fact and without absolutely undeniable evidence, no one will step forward with the credibility necessary.

Jaden

Originally posted by Undeadlady
Apollo DID land on the moon, and they also FAKED the landing for TV. They had to fake the landing after they discovered someone got to the moon first, and it wasn't humans. Now. back in the day this happened they couldn't just blab that they discovered traces of alien's on the moon, remember the war of the worlds broadcast? way to many nutters to just come out with the truth. Personally i think they did the right thing by staging a landing, but now all these years later i think they should tell everyone the truth. No wonder Neil Armstrong became a virtual recluse after the moon landing, poor guy had to live with what he saw and probably couldn't get to grips with it, God rest his soul.

So they did go to the moon, and they did fake one as well, so, get over it OP

No, i don't have proof of this, its just what i believe.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...

LUNA: The Alien base on the far side of the Moon. It was seen and filmed by the Apollo astronauts. A base, a mining operation using very large machines, and the very large alien craft described in sighting reports as mother ships exist there. - Milton Cooper

www.syti.net...

A certain professor, who wished to remain anonymous, was engaged in a discussion with Neil Armstrong during a NASA symposium.

Professor: >>What REALLY happened out there with Apollo 11?>It was incredible, of course we had always known there was a possibility, the fact is, we were warned off! (by the Aliens). There was never any question then of a space station or a moon city.>How do you mean "warned off"?

Armstrong: >>I can't go into details, except to say that their ships were far superior to ours both in size and technology - Boy, were they big! and menacing! No, there is no question of a space station.>But NASA had other missions after Apollo 11?>Naturally - NASA was committed at that time, and couldn't risk panic on Earth. But it really was a quick scoop and back again.Hey, this is ours!

reply to post by mee30


Sorry mee30, its been a helluva day ha. Just getting time to respond to you, and this thread is now 20 pages long...wow..

Anyways, I did get a chance to watch the video. I must concede to you on this one, that is just amazing. One, that mythbusters overlooked this idea (they have done this in the past with Tesla's resonance disaster machine, I even e-mailed them about it...no response), and two that it looks legit. I believe that the film NASA has provided has, for some odd reason, been slowed down....strange, and thank you for showing me this.

As for contacting Laura Cayon - I managed to stop in her office today, but she was on her way out. Didn't even get a chance to ask her if she read my e-mail This experiment of detecting the mirrors on the moon may take some time...Mainly because I am so busy. I will keep you informed though (added you to my friends list) and when the time comes, I will start a thread concerning only the mirrors and their validity. This will be fun!

reply to post by WWu777


You know when a lunar lander is first placed on the moon it wouldn't have any tracks around it as it wouldn't have been driven yet. Can you prove that those photos of the lunar lander simply weren't taken right after the lander was placed on the moon as opposed to after it was driven around thus that is why there is no tracks. Or is that line of logic just too rational to follow?

reply to post by Masterjaden

Exactly, if they could prove it they would. There is no way that the general public would believe anything that the soviets said, because it's been accepted as fact and without absolutely undeniable evidence, no one will step forward with the credibility necessary.

So you are saying there is no definite proof that we didn't go to the moon?........well at least we agree on that!

I wonder why people keep claiming to have "smoking gun evidence" and "absolute 100% proof" that we didn't go to the moon?

Maybe the Ruskies would be better off getting their evidence from ATS......we have definitive proof of every conspiracy theory here.......apparently

reply to post by WWu777


Oh and lots of things can cause visual anomalies on an old camera, especially an old film camera that wasn't perfected and is working in zero atmosphere. I'm not going to say the "spot light" photo of Buzz isn't the original but I'm also not going to delude myself into believing there is actually a spot light on him. I would wager a number of things could have caused such a bright spot to appear....if it was a spot light then it wouldn't be hitting the camera like that anyway and you be able to see an outline from a concentrated beam of light on the ground, which you can't. There are things that could be used to defuse the light to make it look better but seriously why is this even up for debate. They put reflectors on the moon so that people couldn't do exactly what you are doing. It's actually possible for other people to prove that their have been persons on the moon merely through the use of a lasers by reflecting a laser off the moon back to earth and that is only possible because we placed reflectors on the moon. How are you going to try and delude yourself into disproving that? Their are scientists all around the world that could easily prove you wrong and I would wager that if you knew what you were doing you could do the same.