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: 25
73
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by conar
 


They wouldn't have been labelled conspiracy theorists if they had provided proof with their claims, something the USSR would have had no trouble doing, something the moon hoax crowd hasn't been able to do in over 40 years, mostly because it doesn't exist.


Family picture astronaut Charles Duke left on the Moon.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

With a tiny little research, its easy to see moon landing was faked.
Research how hard it is to make flexible gloves, for example.
Look for back-screen projection on the apollo pictures.
etc etc


edit on 29-11-2012 by conar because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Making the gloves flexible while under pressure was a challenge yes, but hardly impossible, or are you saying all manned space flight was faked since they use the same gloves? Is the ISS which is visible from earth fake? Is the Hubble fake? As for back screen projection it only works for a static camera and would have been instantly seen as fake in the hours of footage with a moving camera. Also, what does Charlie Duke's family photo have to do with anything?
edit on 29-11-2012 by captainpudding because: edited to coincide with conar's edit



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 


even with the most obvious back-screen projection, you will not face the fact that it's back screen projection...

Apollo 17...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 15
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Apollo 14...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

The gloves I have some links too, forgot where I put them atm.
There is a guy that want to test the actual Apollo glove in a vacuum, but is denied by NASA.
Also, they have very hard time to make gloves today, almost 50 years later...

And there is other stuff that you will deny have any indication that the moon landing was faked, so why waste my time



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


So you post a bunch of pictures without saying what you think is wrong with them and then say you have proof about the gloves but you just can't provide it? You're doing very little to support your cause. Also I'm think it's pretty faulty logic that because NASA won't let some schmuck off the street do tests on multi-million dollar equipment, it is somehow evidence of fakery.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by yorkshirelad
have added footprints in order to back up your argument. That is dishonest.


Really? You are claiming he's doctored the picture? That's disgusting man.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin


Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by Fr3bzY
 

Divergent shadows are due to perspective and show the unevenness of the terrain they fall on, nothing more.

Explain this photo, more than one light source?:



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


Yeah. The light appears to be coming from way left on the first pole and from way right with the last pole. Despite all the poles being level in height and seemingly on level ground. I say this photo was doctored too.


Holy crap! I'm speechless.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by conar
reply to post by captainpudding
 


even with the most obvious back-screen projection, you will not face the fact that it's back screen projection...

Apollo 17...



Okay apollo 17 was fake yeah? How then did pictures of the earth taken from the faked moon landing match with actual weather conditions on earth at the time? Unless they were on the moon in the first place?
edit on 29-11-2012 by delusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
I read throught the AULIS online site.

Here is a good argument that isn't easily explained away.

AULIS Website



Total minutes on the Moon amounted to 4834 minutes.
Total number of photographs taken was 5771 photos.


No way this is possible.
edit on 29-11-2012 by froglette because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Here are some smoking gun photos I found that will make you slap your forehead in embarrassment. You will probably be too embarrassed to speak after this. Take a good hard look at these photos. This will be the clincher that will change your mind if you are on the fence or an Apollo believer.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...



Im getting a SWOT warning from this site.
Is it safe?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
The picture here,

davesweb.cnchost.com... clearly shows the rover in motion. It shows Moondust falling back out of the mesh wheels, it shows some vestige of tracks. What else would you have it do, a pirouette?


One thing that caught my attention as soon as looked at the photo was the helmet.
Where the gold glass of the helmet meet the white top piece, there is a black shadding, and it is in a straight line not matching the curve of the helmet, zooming into it that area, in the top left hand conner of the of that black shading, you can see the shadded area is overlapping what looks like it should a white part of the helmet. Almost like they bruched out a reflection they didn't want you too see.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:08 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!!!



The moon has no atmosphere, and the temperature difference between areas in shade and areas illuminated by the sun is more than 250 degrees C (almost 500 degrees fahrenheit)! No astronaut could have survived a walk on the moon.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Say what you will about the MSM news but it doesn't prominently feature idiocy like this on a regular basis.

Deny Ignorance.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
65 million dollars!? For. . .that?

Good lord.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by froglette
 


Why don't you think that's possible? They took pictures of everything they did, sometimes even in rapid succession like while doing panoramas.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

The moon has no atmosphere, and the temperature difference between areas in shade and areas illuminated by the sun is more than 250 degrees C (almost 500 degrees fahrenheit)! No astronaut could have survived a walk on the moon.


You're forgetting two very important facts:
1) all missions were done during early lunar morning so at no point did they experience the max or min temperatures.
2) A vacuum is a terrible conductor of heat (it's why the best coffee mugs have a vacuum layer between an inner and outer shell)

All you need to do to counteract heat in a vacuum is to use reflective material (like the bright white of a space suit) You'd also have to stay in shadow for a very long time to radiate out enough heat to cause problems. Since the temperature in earth orbit is about identical in extremes do you then also believe that all EVA's ever performed are fakes as well?



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Simply explain an alternate, plausible explanation as to how 800+ lbs of moon rocks got here, and you have a case for your moon hoax. Otherwise, you will always be on the wrong side of the fence, if you believe we have not walked on the moon.

It's that simple, and any other theory is trumped by that one fact.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Way to stay on topic ATS


No wonder none of the conspiracies ever get proven.



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by charlyv
 


Save your breath, they'll either say they were made in a lab (without ever explaining how). Say they were brought back by multiple, super secret robotic missions wherein nobody saw the launch of several Saturn V's and wherein they can provide zero evidence of anyone who worked on these missions, plans for any of the hardware, or how these missions were pulled off. Finally you may get someone (who from then on will be known as galactic emperor of idiots) who brings up that piece of petrified wood in a dutch art gallery.
edit on 29-11-2012 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by charlyv
 


Save your breath, they'll either say they were made in a lab (without ever explaining how). Say they were brought back by multiple, super secret robotic missions wherein nobody saw the launch of several Saturn V's and wherein they can provide zero evidence of anyone who worked on these missions, plans for any of the hardware, or how these missions were pulled off. Finally you may get someone (who from then on will be known as galactic emperor of idiots) who brings up that piece of petrified wood in a dutch art gallery.
edit on 29-11-2012 by captainpudding because: typo


Yes, and I would be expecting just those kind of crazy comebacks. One thing about those rocks, they are pitted with micro-meteorite craters on the sides that were exposed to space. No way on Earth that could happen here, literally, since meteoroids that size can never make it to the ground at the cosmic velocity it took to create the pitting.
edit on 29-11-2012 by charlyv because: spelling where caught



posted on Nov, 29 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   
The answer is obvious, all the scientists in all the countries that examined the rocks were all in on the hoax



new topics

top topics



 
73
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join