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

page: 5
73
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 

So that would make it even less possible. If the real speed would be higher the astronaut would have to be sprinting like Bolt in that suit on that terrain.
Also what you suppose they'd do? Transport HD cameras back through time. They worked with what they had at the time. To demand more is just pure ignorance.
edit on 27/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by hidden0

Originally posted by DEV1L79
Not true, they could have easily been put there by an unamaned mission.


Okay - I've shown my sources, and my reasoning...lets hear yours now. How did they place a mirror like that with an unmanned mission? I'm not saying it is impossible - just that if you believe this, you must have thought about it to some degree. Or are you simply just immediately refuting my new hypothesis without even vetting it?

How did the unmanned mission for placing the mirrors on the moon go?

ETA - Forgot, mines not a hypothesis. My new angle of proof, I should say.
edit on 27-11-2012 by hidden0 because: correction
I couldn't really go into detail about how they would have put the mirrors on the moon but I do know this is possible because of other missions that have been done. 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.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by drivebricker
 

People have reasons to lie about all sorts of stuff. One thing that does not lie are the mirrors that are up there and the foot prints surrounding them....



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 

Show me even a single one of these alledged pictures taken with a high powered telescope that shows anything, mirrors, apollos. Anything will do.
edit on 27/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 

I ignored your question because I tend to focus on simple things. Like you said yourself: If we can find one single irrefutable piece of evidence that we did land on the moon, we can forget about all this nonsensical movie editing and acting drama crap.

If we can focus on the mirrors, and the footprints surrounding them, and the fact we could all prove and see with our own eyes the results of a laser beam test on those mirrors...we indeed went to the moon.

Case closed for me, and I don't have to worry about whether it was filmed or what not.. hell, they may have filmed it and you are all correct about the images. I still know we have put humans on the moon.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by drivebricker
 


You're a page late. Someone already overlayed the images, and showed that they weren't taken in the same place. The background hills don't line up perfectly, which proves they are different angles.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by DEV1L79
 

So that would make it even less possible. If the real speed would be higher the astronaut would have to be sprinting like Bolt in that suit on that terrain.
Also what you suppose they'd do? Transport HD cameras back through time. They worked with what they had at the time. To demand more is just pure ignorance.
edit on 27/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)
Actually it was almost 1970, they had excellent video cameras back then. They would have been able to afford the very best camera equipment, here is an original 1970s video.


And here is the moon video.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

Originally posted by smurfy
I looked at that link of yours and I wonder how they concluded that the flags would be bleached white.



For forty-odd years, the flags have been exposed to the full fury of the Moon's environment – alternating 14 days of searing sunlight and 100° C heat with 14 days of numbing-cold -150° C darkness. But even more damaging is the intense ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the pure unfiltered sunlight on the cloth (modal) from which the Apollo flags were made. Even on Earth, the colors of a cloth flag flown in bright sunlight for many years will eventually fade and need to be replaced. So it is likely that these symbols of American achievement have been rendered blank, bleached white by the UV radiation of unfiltered sunlight on the lunar surface. Some of them may even have begun to physically disintegrate under the intense flux.


Yes I read that, but it is not what I was getting at, and not actually conclusive, but just "likely" I really would like them to put more thought into it, rather than speculating, as if it didn't really matter. The Apollo 11 flag fell down for instance in the Sea of tranquility one of the darker areas of the Moon, and so it is not 'likely' to be affected in exactly the same way as any of the other flags. I just think the flags are an experiment lost unless they go back and see exactly what has happened over the many years. BTW, they might just be studying the little piece of polythene on Mars now for the 'intense flux' but I don't hear much about that.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0nZ
The rover tires were made out of a mesh so moon dust would fall back to where the tracks should be, ...


So how do you explain the pictures that actually have tracks left on the surface then?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


You do realise that the other one of those cameras has to withstand space and transmit images to earth? Bit different from filming on the street corner.

Also waiting for that "telescope" picture.
edit on 27/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79

Originally posted by hidden0

Originally posted by DEV1L79
Not true, they could have easily been put there by an unamaned mission.


Okay - I've shown my sources, and my reasoning...lets hear yours now. How did they place a mirror like that with an unmanned mission? I'm not saying it is impossible - just that if you believe this, you must have thought about it to some degree. Or are you simply just immediately refuting my new hypothesis without even vetting it?

How did the unmanned mission for placing the mirrors on the moon go?

ETA - Forgot, mines not a hypothesis. My new angle of proof, I should say.
edit on 27-11-2012 by hidden0 because: correction
I couldn't really go into detail about how they would have put the mirrors on the moon but I do know this is possible because of other missions that have been done. 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.


I'm still awaiting a better defense than "I couldn't really go into the detail about how they would have put the mirrors on the moon..." because I CAN go into detail about how they did it. It is well documented. YOU are the one providing straw man claims here.

Oh, and in case you really couldn't just ask yourself this and research it a bit... let me google it for you: Can we use a telescope to see the lunar lander? First result explains it in plain english.
edit on 27-11-2012 by hidden0 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
This might be a good time to consider the relationship between the Apollo mission science fiction moon hoax and the 9/11 terror hoax. Stanley Kubrick Productions was the sole designer of the Apollo moon mission in the spirit of his sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey." That elaborate sci-fi exercise emboldened those responsible for 9/11 to follow their lead - of course, using Stanley Kubrick as the producer director.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregorian
 


So let me see if I've got this right. Stanley Kubrick directed 9/11? Two years after he died?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Gregorian
 


So let me see if I've got this right. Stanley Kubrick directed 9/11? Two years after he died?


WRONG .................read the post ...............SK was hired to do the Moon Hoax...........as a result the PTB knew how easy it would be to pull off the hoax that was 9/11. The moon hoax via SK laid the groundwork for the more elaborate hoax that was 9/11.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gregorian
This might be a good time to consider the relationship between the Apollo mission science fiction moon hoax and the 9/11 terror hoax. Stanley Kubrick Productions was the sole designer of the Apollo moon mission in the spirit of his sci-fi film "2001: A Space Odyssey." That elaborate sci-fi exercise emboldened those responsible for 9/11 to follow their lead - of course, using Stanley Kubrick as the producer director.
edit on 27-11-2012 by Gregorian because: (no reason given)


Then how did they "of course" use him as the producer and director?



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Gregorian
 


Even if this is the case...the facts I've highlighted in this thread are definitive proof that mankind has been on our satellite. Stanley Kubrick? Okay, whatever...still went to the moon.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Severin
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 

Ok, I've got no real interest in this one way or the other, but I did play about a bit with the pics.



This shows them superimposed and you can clearly see that the hill line changes so it is a different angle, but you can see that the hilltop on the left remains in the same place, and also the beginning part of the hill to the right is in the same place.

The second picture is a bit weirder.



I changed around the exposure and contrast and to me it looks like the foreground was pasted onto the original background shot. I can see a pretty damn straight line/join.


Thank You for doing this ! See.. I knew my suggestions would turn up something interesting. It certainly looks to me like THIS can be a smoking gun. These Moon LEM pics (well, one or both) had to be faked. No doubt about it in my mind. I just needed someone to help me prove it.

Severin did this for me by request in response to my posts here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Read these to see why I requested it to prove the theory.
edit on 27-11-2012 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by drivebricker
 


You're a page late. Someone already overlayed the images, and showed that they weren't taken in the same place. The background hills don't line up perfectly, which proves they are different angles.


Yes, slightly different angles but the size and scale of the background images do still match. We should still be able to see the LEM in the second picture, I have no doubt of that.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:28 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?


Why would a PERSON be required to deploy a mirror?

I'd think a robotic system would be preferred.



posted on Nov, 27 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


I don't quite understand what you mean here? The footage about shoes was shot on film first off. Are you saying that it was shot on the same equipment as the moon missions? I can tell you with certainty that the shoe footage wasn't transmitted a quarter million miles from the moon to the earth. Secondly, the video cameras on the moon were filming in the harshest of lighting conditions...One key light, the SUN! There were no reflectors or fill lights, just one giant KEY light. This renders your argument plain silly in my books!





new topics
top topics
 
73
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join