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: 22
73
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I find it amusing that people believe the U.S. government was sophisticated enough to allegedly pull off the most complex hoax in history but then turned around and released all sorts of supposedly incriminating photos and continues to make them available to the public after forty years.




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   

edit on 28-11-2012 by douggie60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by thetiler
Too many legit whistleblowers,


Who are the "legit" whistleblowers?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yes I love lro images. Another nail on the HB coffin. They just dismiss them thought because they can't explain them.

Whups, sorry dude, I think I must have got you confused with someone who was denying the proof of a landing. Urrgh, nevermind.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Again I ask this question:

If the moon landing is all a farce, is everyone that's able to bounce a laser off the moon also in on it? If they are, I'd like to be too so I can get free funding for ~40 years.

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
This photo doesn't need to be enhanced. It has a bright light/globe in the centre of the spotlight-impersonating sun. With the "sun" so large, with no atmosphere diffusing the light, we still manage to see an incredible amount of detail on the ground. It's so Truman show.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I would also like note that you can see the rovers tracks in the first image.

How come you can see the Rovers tracks here, but not in the images OP linked? It literally looks like the rover was dropped in place.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Its kinda sad what happened to this thread, kinda proves how easily people make assumptions - someone posts a picture circling a white blob asking "IS THIS what you're talking about?" - Then people somehow in their heads decide that what he said was "THIS IS what you're takling about."

I've looked through the whole thing and it seems like only about 4 people even figured out which part of the photograph was being referred to by the information in the OP.. everything else has been completely off topic.

Look at the picture - there are 3 bands of ground in different shades of white/grey - foreground, midground, background. The midground is the proposed canvas sheet.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by cartesia
only about 4 people even figured out which part of the photograph was being referred to by the information in the OP..


That is because the op refused to show what he was talking about!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
The US apparently planned to blow up the Moon with a nuclear bomb during the Cold War to show their strength. This was reported by a British paper.

Source


Military officials, however, reportedly abandoned the idea, which would have taken place in 1959, because of fears that it would have an adverse effect on the Earth should the explosion fail.


Well, thank your very much.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
I haven't looked at all your links because I wished you had posted pics. I have no idea how I should navigate those pages to get to what you want to show us.

So I finally do see a pic,, you direct linked to.
So they brightened the moon picture? Big deal what does it prove besides a brightening tool used in photo editing which is normal to do for a publication. It looks like entire picture was lightened not just parts.

I will look at rest of what you posted as long as the pics are easy to find and read other posts, but fior now that is my response to buzz pic on moon surface
edit on 29-11-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Well obviously I lied about reading all the posts. This thread is too long.

The rover no tire tracks pics have not embarrassed me and frankly I'm on the fence anyways. This though has done the opposite of what you wanted your thread to achieve. If this is how silly the picking apart is. I'm more apt to believe its well ... Silly. I'm sorry but I'm just being honest.

The rover pics of no tracks. Firstly I'm ignorant and don't know what the lunar surface is like. I rarely look at this topic. I'm going to assume its not a sandy or moist surface and the temperature would play a role.
This Picture is it possible the rover was parked just atop a bump or hill. And so behind it is not shown because it was on a steeper grade?
ETA
THe weight of the vehicle and whatever the tires are made of would also determine how tracks are made.
edit on 29-11-2012 by violet because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
don't see the dust here (actual nasa photos)
www.hq.nasa.gov...

or here
www.hq.nasa.gov...

for all of you looking for strange inconsistancies....and even more strange similarities, in the different apollo missions..here is the official nasa apollo photo site
www.apolloarchive.com...


It is just amazing how we have so many people who are true experts in how moon dust settles. I see what looks like a thin film in the pad, but then I do not have a clue as to how moon dust reacts on the moon.

Is anyone really going to add this to their smoking gun pile?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Here's the best video I've seen yet that proves we went to the moon. www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by BluFenix
 

The Russians also have a laser on the moon and they never landed there



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by musashi9
reply to post by BluFenix
 

The Russians also have a laser on the moon and they never landed there




NO one has a LASER on the Moon


You can't even get the simplest facts right!

There are Laser REFLECTORS on the Moon.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


I would also like note that you can see the rovers tracks in the first image.

How come you can see the Rovers tracks here, but not in the images OP linked? It literally looks like the rover was dropped in place.


Well it has been shown that HB sites have ALTERED pictures to suit their agenda!



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
I honestly have not bothered to read through all posts of this thread but there are a few things I'd like to add my 2 cents as well, even if that comes to a few bucks with all the others


All of the external quotes will be taken out of this source that the OP links.


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?

Many people happen to have a car accident or a breakdown a few miles around their very home. Very few of the long travelers have an accident or a breakdown on their long trips. This is probably because actually, people prepare better for longer trips.


If the Apollo missions were authentic, then by now, there should be daily flights to the moon as well as moon bases.

There are no daily trips to the south pole, north pole or Mount Everest yet. Those trips were however great achievements when they were done the first few times.


6. Identical backdrops with different foregrounds and vanishing LEM Here are two images with the same identical backdrop with totally different foregrounds, as you can see. In one of them, you can see the LEM, but not in the other, which is an oddity since the LEM never moved after allegedly landing on the moon.
davesweb.cnchost.com...
davesweb.cnchost.com...

I see a very similar background, indeed. But not the same. It is easy for me to notice that the 2 pictures are taken at a different angle and from a different distance to that background. Absolutely nothing strange here.


Due to there being no atmosphere on the moon to provide convection for heating and cooling, on the daylight side, which all Apollo missions landed on, temperatures are at 250 Fahrenheit and in the shade drop drastically to 250 below zero. Yet the astronauts had no sufficient cooling system, especially with the batteries they had, which were comparable to that of a car. Since the moon atmosphere is in a vacuum, they could not use air convection to cool off. So they would have needed a lot of power to radiate heat away from them, which would have drained what precious battery power they had.

I call this shooting into your own foot. Since, indeed, there is no atmosphere, thus no convection of heat, all it takes is an insulation. Their suits are white and reflective for that very reason: reflect the light (thus the heat) sent from the sun. They don't need to protect from the "cold" outside, there is no such thing as cold. In the shade, there is no heat being brought to them, which doesn't mean that they cool down, because their suit is insulating them. Basic physics.


Since the command module with Michael Collins in it was orbiting the moon at 4000mph, how did the LEM dock with it for the journey home? The odds of that succeeding seem astronomically small. No human pilot could navigate a dock with an object moving at 4000mph. If they had missed, they would have been lost forever. NASA has never explained this.

Yet this is done over and over again, for many years now, with the ISS. Impossible? 4000mph is nothing, and not impressive at all. If 2 objects are on the same orbit and moving at 4000mph for one, 3999.9mph for the second, they are surely not going fast relative to each other.


Furthermore, the excuse given by NASA paid apologists, such as Phil Plait of BadAstronomy.com, about the Hubble Telescope, the world’s most powerful, not being powerful enough to see the Apollo artifacts left on the surface of the moon, simply doesn't hold water, and sounds more like a convenient copout excuse.

This is however totally exact, and again basic physics. You won't be able to see blood cells with a telescope even if you could point it exactly where you wanted to, because it is not an instrument designed to do that. Hubble is not designed to spot small objects at a short distance. It is designed to spot huge objects at a tremendously bigger distance.


Why can you hear the astronauts voices as the lunar lander descended? Its roaring thrusters at high decibels should have made their voices inaudible.

They had a thing called... a microphone. Believe it or not. How do you think Formula 1 pilots talk to their engineers while roaring their engines in open air right next to them?

(.../...)
edit on 29-11-2012 by SpookyVince because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
And you wonder why people laugh at conspiracy theorists and call us all fruitcakes.

I give up, from now on I'm going to believe everything they tell us just so I don't have to be associated with numbskullery like this anymore.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:33 AM
link   
(.../...)


How is it that the LEM was unstable in Earth's atmosphere and kept crashing to the ground during tests, yet worked flawlessly on the moon's surface? You can see video footage of it crashing on Earth just before Neil Armstrong ejects to safety.

I call that gravity, and it should be combined to another thing called friction.


Anyone can draw grey lines, even with a pencil. And anyone with the cheapest photo editing program can create dots and pixels on an image. You can even do it in the free Paint program that comes with Microsoft Windows.

Correct. I highly doubt, however, that they were running MS Windows in 1969.


Now, some in the UFO research community have argued that mankind did go to the moon, but found alien artifacts there, or something else they could not show the public, and so had to fake the videos and photos. This is often used as a “backup explanation” to explain the Apollo fakeries, yet still maintain the pride of America having made it to the moon.

And why couldn't it be that they actually did go to the moon, not to find there alien artefacts or anything of the sort, but with the help of aliens? What if that would be a reason for not getting back there?

[Edited to add:]
I have obviously not spent a lot of time on this one, and I will admit that there are definitely shadowy areas. However, a huge majority of all things that people find to be smelly are indeed very easily explained. Yet there remains a bunch of people who will look for, and find, their very own smoking gun.

Usually, the simplest explanation is the best one. Assuming, from the very start, that it must be a fraud and from that assumption trying to find the evidence to corroborate what you think, will usually result in finding these evidence. Assuming from the very start that it is what it is claimed to be and testing it against possible fails is another way of doing. In this case, we have an obvious example of the first working principles.
edit on 29-11-2012 by SpookyVince because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join