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.

 

Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 10
44
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
Once again it's been shown that trying to put moon hoaxers on the correct path is a futile affair.

With all respect to the video and the dude, who provides some valid points in a calm manner, this is not The Definite Proof that would make the hoaxers shut up forever. They have plenty more cards up their sleeves. Even when completely cornered, they stick the fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la, or start moving goal posts so fast you won't keep up with them.

I liked the video, and I have learned something new from it. But I'll say what I said a few times before: it might be better if we just stop trying to prove that the moon landings were real, and let the moon hoax lose its steam. There's just not much point in investing a lot of time and energy into proving the obvious to those who refuse to see it. Like the guy in the video said, there are more important and immediate issues to deal with, such as what the USA are doing to the world (and to its own people).


Futile because some critics raise valid points that the Apollo faith contingent honestly can't rebuke.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Futile because some critics raise valid points that the Apollo faith contingent honestly can't rebuke.

What points?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wildespace
Once again it's been shown that trying to put moon hoaxers on the correct path is a futile affair.

With all respect to the video and the dude, who provides some valid points in a calm manner, this is not The Definite Proof that would make the hoaxers shut up forever. They have plenty more cards up their sleeves. Even when completely cornered, they stick the fingers in their ears and sing la-la-la, or start moving goal posts so fast you won't keep up with them.

I liked the video, and I have learned something new from it. But I'll say what I said a few times before: it might be better if we just stop trying to prove that the moon landings were real, and let the moon hoax lose its steam. There's just not much point in investing a lot of time and energy into proving the obvious to those who refuse to see it. Like the guy in the video said, there are more important and immediate issues to deal with, such as what the USA are doing to the world (and to its own people).


Futile because some critics raise valid points that the Apollo faith contingent honestly can't rebuke.


Could you provide the points that can not be rebuked please?

Thanks in advance.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
This thought just hit me (probably shows how dense I really am), but if the moon landings (notice the plural- there were more than one) were faked, then this has to be the best kept secret ever. I mean, how many people would be involved in the planning and production of this? Then over the years nobody would have to ever spill the beans and keep this secret to their grave. Then think about all the glory this brought the U.S.A. Now if this were a hoax, I would think that the damage that a hoax would do would be worse than the benefit of going to the moon.

I understand the folks who think this is a hoax, but one thing I don't understand: Why? Why fake it? Were we in a race with the Russians to see who could fake it first? Maybe the Chinese are planning on faking it when they "go to the moon" in the next decade or whatever it is they have planned.

All this talk about "Faking It" has me craving some craving some Mango! LOL If you get what I'm talking about there I'll give you a STAR!



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by chrome413
 

Roughly 400,000 people were involved with every Apollo mission if that's what you mean?



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


Sorry, I should have clarified my point - I was not referring to the O/P video specifically, rather I was stating that there are some discrepancies that have not been:

A.addressed at all by NASA

B.duly considered by "I believe everything, 100%, of what NASA says, word for word" contingent.

Like my earlier disclaimer states, unless we have all been at the moon on every supposed landing we cannot personally corroborate the validity of any statements, made by NASA or otherwise.

I simply want to use my critical thinking and analyse any supposed data that ANYBODY puts forward to me. I don't see why NASA should get special dispensation in this department.
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: misspelling



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


NASA gets special dispensation? On this internet?

NASA could take a photo of a perfectly ordinary tree and five minutes later the 'never a straight answer' crowd would come along and ask what they're hiding and why they couldn't take another photo of the tree five years later.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I remember the computer game we had in the 80's. Really primitive luner lander simulator. It was actually very difficult to land the thing.

Always end up using too much thruster or too little.

End up crashing into the surface (too fast), or running out of fuel (too slow).

Also saw video of a lander they flew in the desert on earth. Looked really hard to control.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 



Hi Erik, please see my reply above, I think it applies to your post too, can't be bothered typing twice!

However I will add to this since you ask for elaboration, well, one such example are the Apollo 10 video/audio anomolis...again, please see my earlier post in this thread.




edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


The logical implication of your statement is that because A,B,C all question said data then D should be precluded from doing so. Since when did consensus dictate truth (moreover, lack of truth)?
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by wildespace
 


Sorry, I should have clarified my point - I was not referring to the O/P video specifically, rather I was stating that there are some discrepancies that have not been:

A.addressed at all by NASA

B.duly considered by "I believe everything, 100%, of what NASA says, word for word" contingent.

Like my earlier disclaimer states, unless we have all been at the moon on every supposed landing we cannot personally corroborate the validity of any statements, made by NASA or otherwise.

I simply want to use my critical thinking and analyse any supposed data that ANYBODY puts forward to me. I don't see why NASA should get special dispensation in this department.
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: misspelling


Discrepancies that you have have not pointed out.

Even though you have been asked.

Twice.

Instead, you have deflected (classic tactic).

Again: would you care to list the discrepancies that:

A) NASA has never addressed.

and

B) That, according to you, certain people take on faith.

By the way: as per your logic of: none of us have been to the moon, there for no one can prove, etc, etc, etc.

I propose that you do not exist. You are not who you say you are, and no mater how many times you say you have something (even to the point of posting a picture or video) that it still proves nothing, because none of us have been to your house and met you.

As per your logic.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 


It's curious that the lunar exit module gave off zero fumes/smoke, as seen by on board cameras (if at all the footage is genuine).

Technically, we should have been able to see that smoke cloud from earth!



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


1. I clearly pointed out that I have made an earlier post re: Apollo 10 discrepancies, and you have chosen to ignore it. Itself a classic diversionary tactic may I add.




you've been asked twice to list your discrepancies


And for the second time, I highlighted certain discrepancies above, earlier today, if you're too lazy to click 'see previous pages' then that is your prerogative, but don't say I haven't provided you with your answer. And BTW the list I provided earlier is merely an hors d'oeuvre.
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

I propose that you do not exist. You are not who you say you are, and no mater how many times you say you have something (even to the point of posting a picture or video) that it still proves nothing, because none of us have been to your house and met you.

As per your logic.



Yes, that's exactly my point. Only personal corroboration can deliver truth.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


1. I clearly pointed out that I have made an earlier post re: Apollo 10 discrepancies, and you have chosen to ignore it. Itself a classic diversionary tactic may I add.




you've been asked twice to list your discrepancies


And for the second time, I highlighted certain discrepancies above, earlier today, if you're too lazy to click 'see previous pages' then that is your prerogative, but don't say I haven't provided you with your answer. And BTW the list I provided earlier is merely an hors d'oeuvre.
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification


1) We crossed posted (if you are familiar with posting on forums on the internet, this happens a lot, in which one person replies to someone's post, and by the time they post it, the original poster has posted something else. Take a look at the time stamps of the posts).

2) I'll get back to you on your points, especially since I now have to hunt down the video and transmissions for Apollo 10 that you are talking about.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Yup - NASA never went to the moon !

How can anyone with a grade one education BELIEVE that NASA
never went to the moon..?

I say a grade one education for a reason -

A child would ask if NASA hoaxed a moon landing -
"How did America know that in the future history of planet Earth that
no one would ever send a probe or a substitute robotic mission let alone
an actual manned lunar landing..?"

Imagine the conclusion that the U.S.A. would face.
The world would ostrisize them probably placing sanctions against a country that
would propogate a lie to the world.
Not to mention at the time the civilians of U.S.A. would rise against it's Government.

But of course, only a grade schooler would simplify this logic.

This would get real ugly real fast!

See the little anagram spinning around sticking his tongue out

You've just been MOONED!!!



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:06 PM
link   


all those people involved in a cover up?
reply to post by chrome413
 


NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.

Plus, most of the vast numbers spoke of are comprised wholly of outside contractors/production-assembly.

Finally, notwithstanding the fact that NASA was highly incentivised to 'secure' future employment, in a way similar to most unions/government departments.




what incentive was there to fake it?


If you have to ask that then I guess we're not going to get very far with this debate. There are a million and one reasons, some obvious and some more subtle, as to why faking (or at least partially misrepresenting certain 'data') would be more desirable than full disclosure.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


1. I clearly pointed out that I have made an earlier post re: Apollo 10 discrepancies, and you have chosen to ignore it. Itself a classic diversionary tactic may I add.




you've been asked twice to list your discrepancies


And for the second time, I highlighted certain discrepancies above, earlier today, if you're too lazy to click 'see previous pages' then that is your prerogative, but don't say I haven't provided you with your answer. And BTW the list I provided earlier is merely an hors d'oeuvre.
edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification


1) We crossed posted (if you are familiar with posting on forums on the internet, this happens a lot, in which one person replies to someone's post, and by the time they post it, the original poster has posted something else. Take a look at the time stamps of the posts).

2) I'll get back to you on your points, especially since I now have to hunt down the video and transmissions for Apollo 10 that you are talking about.



No sweat Erik. You may come across my earlier DISCLAIMER too, which clarifys my position on the Apollo missions. Long story short I acknowledge we may/may not have been to the moon, but in the interest of transparency I see it as only critical to pick apart and analyse 'data' and try never to take things at face value.

I'm like yourself in that regard- neither a total debunker nor an avid conspiracist, merely a very picky believer


edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


jra

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
It's curious that the lunar exit module gave off zero fumes/smoke, as seen by on board cameras (if at all the footage is genuine).

Technically, we should have been able to see that smoke cloud from earth!


You do understand that rocket exhaust works and looks different in the vacuum of space vs an atmospheric environment, right? The type of rocket propellent also plays a role as well.


Originally posted by 1nquisitive
NASA is so decompartmentalised that even individual compartments are decompartmemalised. It's left hand does not know what the right is doing.


Firstly, I think you mean compartmentalization. Decompartmentalized is the opposite of what you are trying to say.

I'd like to see the slightest shred of evidence for NASA being compartmentalized however. Because I don't believe a program as big as Apollo could ever be put together in such a fashion. The Apollo program had to be very open between all the companies and organizations working on it. Communication and major program management was key for being successful. So if you could provide some evidence, that would be nice. Everything I see about how the program was run and managed says otherwise.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
For the non believers of the moon hoax the only two last points to investigate imo are
- the foot prints left on the moon (and all the material) (back in 2008? a u.s satellite took pics of the foot prints)
- the radio antennas (or dishes ? ) to communicate with earth

As far i'm concerned the original video broadcast on tv is not the real deal rather a recreation to entertain the u.s taxpayer.

I say they sent bots there ...or monkeys aha




top topics



 
44
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join