Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 12:26 AM
link   

***Attention***



In the spirit of research and debate - please keep all posts in line with the posting guidelines of ATS. We do not need 80 posts saying "On noez, not this again". They don't address the topic, nor do they add to the discussion. If you've nothing better to offer - then I advice simply saying the words out loud and then moving on.

The OP has every right to state his beliefs, just as everyone else has a right to debate those beliefs. But please stay on topic and relevant while doing so.

Thank you!

Hefficide
ATS Member and Moderator




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Merlin Lawndart
 


I don't have the time to watch the entire video. Please extract the most compelling argument and state it in your own words. If you wish, you may simply indicate a time signature.
You said in your thread "Please understand: the purpose of this thread is to prove that the landings were a hoax, not that the landings were real." now when anyone says anything your jumping straight on it. So this thread is just nothing but a piece of crud.

I thought it was a good idea to gather all the evidence together without people coming in crying "Not Faked My Government Wouldn't Lie To Me" so uneducated people can see that the moon landings were a hoax and we can move on.

But the Illuminati puppet who started this thread no matter what you say is just going to keep saying "show me stone cut evidence or it isn't real" knowing full well that we cannot get hold of secret government documents. Yet at the same time, using science to disprove every obvious piece of evidence that it was fakes, with silly comments like.

"we can't take pictures of the moon landing area or the flag as a telescope couldn't see it" Bull

"The flag waves because of a vacuum on the moon, mythbusters says so" Bull

"light appears differently on the moon" Bull one light source will always be the same no matter what.

"The stars don't show because the astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up." Bull

The only camera equipment they could use is what they had at the time that is why the video is so bad" Bull.

It was almost 1970 This is a short video from 1970 using a camera then.



The Moon Landing video.



This is a video of Buzz Aldrin running past the flag it is a rarely seen video and debunkers try to avoid it. Because there is no air or wind on the moon when you run by a flag there will be no wake wind, and on this video as Buzz runs by the flag (that he is no where near so doesn't touch it) the flag starts to flutter for at least 10 seconds from the ripples of wind which would be impossible on the moon.

edit on 28-11-2012 by DEV1L79 because: ...



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


Ahhh..YouTube videos..such great scientific evidence...


You lose when all you have is YouTube videos. In order for your delusions to work,,,,the entire world would have to be on it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
8 Hoaxes and a failed one in the middle of those. If you were going to fake it you'd fake one to beat the Russian and be done with it. I think your hoax has been hoaxed.... apart from many obvious signs that you can't comprehend.

Ha ha ha ha ha




posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79
and on this video as Buzz runs by the flag (that he is no where near so doesn't touch it)


Except of course that video does show him touching the flag.... another hoaxer claim is shown not to be true! But no sorprises there.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
A suggestion to those presenting evidence for a hoax - when you present an anomoly or something that looks odd or whatever, please also say what you think explains that anamoly in a way that proves it happened on earth. In other words, what was happening for that discrepancy to be produced, in your minds?

Too much of the argument is someone finding something they think looks odd and that's it - it's just, this looks odd, so the whole thing was faked.
You also have to explain that oddness in a terrestial setting. Follow it through.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by kerazeesicko
 


All you need for a delusion is a person, and someone the person believes to be of higher understanding. Someone who is an authoritative figure very often fits the role of one with higher understanding. That is why governments are able to use propaganda with such proficiency. This is also the reason why so many conspiracy "nuts" are people who do not trust their government.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



All you need for a delusion is a person, and someone the person believes to be of higher understanding. Someone who is an authoritative figure very often fits the role of one with higher understanding. That is why governments are able to use propaganda with such proficiency. This is also the reason why so many conspiracy "nuts" are people who do not trust their government.


The problem with contra-factual propaganda is that it is self defeating. If Hitler claimed that Stalingrad fell in a matter of hours, people would begin to wonder why Moscow was not under siege. Look at the embarrassment that the Bush administrations' claims of "mobile biological warfare labs" has caused.

Delusions cause the holder to fall out of step with reality, and their pseudo-authority must tell more and more elaborate lies to explain why their beliefs are not confirmed by the progress of events. In the case of the Moon Landing Hoax, none of the proponents can explain adequately why the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China did not denounce the hoax. None can explain why Richard Nixon chose to end the program, rather than continue it to fully milk it for propaganda value. If the Moon Landings were a hoax, why didn't the US go on to hoax a Mars Landing in the 1980s, as NASA seemed to want?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 



You said in your thread "Please understand: the purpose of this thread is to prove that the landings were a hoax, not that the landings were real." now when anyone says anything your jumping straight on it. So this thread is just nothing but a piece of crud.


Posting someone else's video is not saying anything. I want you to express your opinion in words so that we can discuss it.


I thought it was a good idea to gather all the evidence together without people coming in crying "Not Faked My Government Wouldn't Lie To Me" so uneducated people can see that the moon landings were a hoax and we can move on.


Believe me, no-one is going to say that!


But the Illuminati puppet who started this thread no matter what you say is just going to keep saying "show me stone cut evidence or it isn't real" knowing full well that we cannot get hold of secret government documents. Yet at the same time, using science to disprove every obvious piece of evidence that it was fakes, with silly comments like.


Please refrain from personal attacks, they weaken your case. It would be great if you could get secret government documents. Have you contacted WiliLeaks? If the Moon Landing Hoax is real, there must be thousands of guilt ridden engineers and scientists flooding them with information. Send Julian an e-mail.


"we can't take pictures of the moon landing area or the flag as a telescope couldn't see it" Bull


Bull? How large of a telescope would you need to resolve the landing sites to your satisfaction? Indeed, what sort of detail would you require before you would stop saying "That's still too small to tell?"


"The flag waves because of a vacuum on the moon, mythbusters says so" Bull


I must admit, I'm not even sure what you're talking about.


"light appears differently on the moon" Bull one light source will always be the same no matter what.


No-one ever said that light appears differently on the Moon.


"The stars don't show because the astronauts were on the Moon in bright sunlight and the lunar surface itself reflects light. So do things like the astronauts' white suits and the gold foil on the Lunar Module. Therefore, the camera settings were for a brightly-lit area and so the stars were too faint to show up." Bull


Why is that bull? Stars are very dim, and require long exposures. Brightly lit objects require shorter exposures to keep from blooming or washing out. If this is a serious issue for you, we can discuss the photographic process in detail later.


The only camera equipment they could use is what they had at the time that is why the video is so bad" Bull.

It was almost 1970 This is a short video from 1970 using a camera then.


The video you posted was recorded onto tape directly from the camera. The bandwidth was virtually unlimited. The video images from the Moon had to be transmitted from the camera to a receiver 240,000 miles away. This limited signal strength and bandwidth. If the images were too clear and detailed, you would no doubt argue that this clarity was "proof" that it was not transmitted over 240,000 miles, wouldn't you?



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



All you need for a delusion is a person, and someone the person believes to be of higher understanding. Someone who is an authoritative figure very often fits the role of one with higher understanding. That is why governments are able to use propaganda with such proficiency. This is also the reason why so many conspiracy "nuts" are people who do not trust their government.


The problem with contra-factual propaganda is that it is self defeating. If Hitler claimed that Stalingrad fell in a matter of hours, people would begin to wonder why Moscow was not under siege. Look at the embarrassment that the Bush administrations' claims of "mobile biological warfare labs" has caused.

Delusions cause the holder to fall out of step with reality, and their pseudo-authority must tell more and more elaborate lies to explain why their beliefs are not confirmed by the progress of events. In the case of the Moon Landing Hoax, none of the proponents can explain adequately why the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China did not denounce the hoax. None can explain why Richard Nixon chose to end the program, rather than continue it to fully milk it for propaganda value. If the Moon Landings were a hoax, why didn't the US go on to hoax a Mars Landing in the 1980s, as NASA seemed to want?


In related news, There are hamsters on Mars and JFK was shot by bigfoot. Give me a break


If the U.S faked even ONE of the moon landings, the KGB would have been all over it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


Thanks, Pinke. If this thread goes beyond ten pages I will try to index it as it goes along.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DEV1L79


"we can't take pictures of the moon landing area or the flag as a telescope couldn't see it" Bull


Well I posted this in the other thread, so it's not much trouble to post it again, even though it probably wont satisfy...



But also, could you (or anyone disputing the reality of the landings) specify which mission is in doubt, and which isn't, so they can be ticked off the list of suspect missions and we can focus on the juicy ones?
Some believe all of them were faked, and some just the first one, but they will still use a percieved discrepancy from the later missions as proof of general fakery, perhaps forgetting that they don't actually doubt that mission took place. It's a bit messy.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 05:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



I would like to submit into evidence:
front screen projection


There are numerous problems with front screen projection. For one thing, it requires that the camera remain in a fixed position. The films and TV pictures show a great deal of zooming and panning. Another problem is that the astronauts were wearing very reflective white suits with mirrored visors. Anything that was projected onto them would reflect nearly as well as off the screen in the background. Finally, the backgrounds were mostly black. You cannot project black. The ambient lighting would cause the screens to wash out grey.


radiation



The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners. The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. The command module's inner structure was an aluminum "sandwich" consisting of a welded aluminium inner skin, a thermally bonded honeycomb core, and a thin aluminium "face sheet". The steel honeycomb core and outer face sheets were thermally bonded to the inner skin.

In fact, the astronauts' overall exposure was dominated by solar particles once outside the earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[23]



Your own source. (Why should I put any more work into this than you have?)


more radiation


Cosmic rays are a hazard on Earth, too. Did you know that a trans-Atlantic flight exposes you to as much radiation as a chest X-ray? With radiation, it is all a matter of exposure. Cosmic radiation, although highly energetic, is random and infrequent. This means that the body has ample time to repair any damage. The trip to the Moon does not last so long that the cumulative effects of the exposure could overwhelm the body's ability to heal itself. A trip to Mars might be another matter.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 





You talking about this incident?


Although that incident was also covered in the movie, it was not the one i was referring too. The one that convinced me where when they where inside some building and there where at least 2 astronauts and this sequence comes later. You really should watch it to understand.

And no, i do not believe there is any good reason for abstaining to swear on the bible if they actually DID go to the moon, especially when there is 5k attached, as well as the opportunity of shutting up most of the moon hoax-believers all in one fell swoop. Yet not ONE of the astronauts have ever done it, might they fear God even more than they fear the Government?
edit on 28-11-2012 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 



Although that incident was also covered in the movie, it was not the one i was referring too. The one that convinced me where when they where inside some building and there where at least 2 astronauts and this sequence comes later. You really should watch it to understand.


If you are going to tell someone to watch something, at least post a link.


And no, i do not believe there is any good reason for abstaining to swear on the bible if they actually DID go to the moon, especially when there is 5k attached, as well as the opportunity of shutting up most of the moon hoax-believers all in one fell swoop. Yet not ONE of the astronauts have ever done it, might they fear God even more than they fear the Government?


The religious nuts are already accusing them of being liars. If they deigned to swear on a bible, the religious nuts would then accuse them of being blasphemers as well!



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by NeoVain
 



Although that incident was also covered in the movie, it was not the one i was referring too. The one that convinced me where when they where inside some building and there where at least 2 astronauts and this sequence comes later. You really should watch it to understand.


If you are going to tell someone to watch something, at least post a link.


And no, i do not believe there is any good reason for abstaining to swear on the bible if they actually DID go to the moon, especially when there is 5k attached, as well as the opportunity of shutting up most of the moon hoax-believers all in one fell swoop. Yet not ONE of the astronauts have ever done it, might they fear God even more than they fear the Government?


The religious nuts are already accusing them of being liars. If they deigned to swear on a bible, the religious nuts would then accuse them of being blasphemers as well!


The link is already posted earlier in the thread, i was talking about the movie that you wouldn´t watch since you "didn´t have the time" or somesuch.

The rest of your reply is pure conjecture, i fear.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


A well perpetrated delusion can be self-defeating, but it is not a requisite. Moreover, anyone who wants to believe, will.

To the question of why have no other governments tried to blow the whistle:
First, we must assume the most powerful nations are sovereign. If they aren't; if they are actually controlled by their greed and the wealthiest in the world, then they gain nothing by ousting the hoaxers.

Also, space programs are a good expenditure. It dazzles the masses while given “they” an excuse to be up there secretly [snip].

Assuming they're sovereign:
If they did not have sufficient evidence, that the US could not explain away, they would look foolish to their countrymen, and a propaganda whistle blowing battle would ensue, and a battle with no victor is not a battle worth fighting. Also, the threat of using the information they have is better than actually using it and having fallback from it.

In short: the cost is not worth it.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by NeoVain
 



The link is already posted earlier in the thread, i was talking about the movie that you wouldn´t watch since you "didn´t have the time" or somesuch.


There have been several videos presented in this thread. Which one are you referring to and why do you find it compelling evidence that the pictures in question were staged inside?


The rest of your reply is pure conjecture, i fear.


As is your assertion that the astronauts did not humor a crank by swearing on a bible is evidence that they were lying.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 



In short: the cost is not worth it.


On the contrary, if they knew for a fact that it was faked, it would cost them nothing. All they would need to do is present the facts in the court of public opinion. When later missions to the Moon proved that Apollo was a hoax, they would be completely vindicated.



posted on Nov, 28 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Due, perhaps, to media coverage of the anniversary of Apollo 17, the last of the crewed missions to the Moon, there has been a marked increase in threads alleging that the lunar landings were an elaborate hoax. Here is a sampling of the currently active threads:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This does not include the plethora of threads about the alleged "historic discovery" that NASA plans to announce next week which all seem to devolve into the usual Never A Straight Answer rhetoric. Rather than read exactly the same thing across multiple threads, it seems to me to be a good idea to bring it all together into a single unified thread.

Here's the challenge: please present your best, incontrovertible evidence that the lunar landings were a hoax. Documentation. Eyewitness accounts. Physical evidence. Try your best to persuade the space enthusiasts of ATS that everything they know is wrong.

Please understand: the purpose of this thread is to prove that the landings were a hoax, not that the landings were real. The Apollo program is one of the best documented series of events in human history. There are primary and secondary sources. Photographic evidence. Physical and even archaeological evidence. Eye-witness testimony by living people. The lunar landings far exceed any half-way reasonable standard of historical proof. Provide a similar body of evidence that they never really happened. Should be easy, right?

Now-- give it your best shot.


I'm kinda jumping in late.

To me, it makes no sense debate the "evidence". There are always discrepancies in understanding the evidence. Always some different explanation. Always another side. As with 9/11.

Damn the evidence. Since 1969. looking at the evidence has gotten us where? Well, to the point were believer believe, and skeptics don't. To some there is irrefutable evidence for a hoax, and to defenders, this evidence is laughable or explainable.

As far as the objective truth...we have not made too much progress. We are still in no way closer. Perhaps some think that we are. That the truth is really in front of us. But as long as there is a big chunk of population that thinks hoax, obviously the truth is not so "sound" for all of us.

Why is it that? Why do you have some certain percentage of "dumb" people, who scream hoax? Because you lack real, concrete evidence that you did it?

Now...what is real, concrete evidence ? Well...for me...It would be:

1. real live close up today's photos of the landing site with all the expected instruments there..primarily the rovers.

2. ability to reproduce the event

- judging from historic record and today's "news" - we are unable to reproduce this trip, for a number of reasons, even if some of them are very valid. This makes me suspicious. In the real world, when one makes a discovery or a progress in some field is made, the scientific community expects from the scientist to provide the how-to and to be able to reproduce the event/discovery...otherwise it would be considered invalid or a hoax. Inability of man to come even close to a feat like that, 40 years later, with a much more advanced tech, is something that puts me on my guard.

Since neither of the two are available, even today....I will be cautiously on the fence. Something stinks...I can't put my finger on it. Grissom's death is also a suspect in my book...but I don't wanna go there in this thread.





new topics
top topics
 
21
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join