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

page: 14
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by eriktheawful
 

Ah, Erik, I do believe you are correct in thinking we have experienced this poster before in another thread under a different name. I thought the very same thing after seeing a couple of their first few posts in this thread. Stating that they are a revisionist was the clencher for me.

Hang in there Erik, you are also correct on the Cold War and the rocket fuels. Just for clarification, here are your links again:

Apollo Lunar Module - Specifications

Lunar Descent Propulsion Systems

Lunar Modual Ascent Propulsion Systems

TRW Inc. Rocket Engines

Ball Aerospace

Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne

Aerozine 50

Dinitrogen Tetroxide



You're incorrect, I've never used this site until one week or so ago.
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Why do you go on at length about artist impressions and stage one saturn V engagement? I didn't put forward either of these two notions.

The lunar exit modules, when engaged for LUNAR EXIT would burn with a deep red thick gas, which should block the camera. In fact there was ZERO fumes emitted on the supposed exit, so did they use a fumeless fuel?

{If argument = X; rebutting 'argument' ≠ X} = straw man.

You're using a strawman rebuttal.
edit on 22-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


I don't believe your as dumb as your trying to make yourself look why do you think I mention the Saturn V when you are making claims about the colour of the rocket exhaust.

Look at the fuel listed for the Saturn V and it's different stages, look at the fuel listed for the Lunar lander stages.

I then posted some external text posted a few years back when people asked questions about the exhaust colour or lack of it on the Moon

YOU claimed it should NOT be transparent YOU were wrong but as usual with people like YOU and other moon hoax proponents when FACTS get shown to you you don't like getting proved WRONG.

Saturn V stage I

Fuel Type RP-1/LOX burn time 150 seconds.

Seeing as this didn't sink in


The first stage of Saturn used 5 F-1 engines. The single-chamber F-1 used liquid oxygen (lox) and RP-1, a kerosene, and was the largest and most powerful single liquid-fuel rocket engine ever built



LOX/Kerosene seem to have very luminous plumes (owing to exhausts rich in >particulates or carbon)


Saturn V stage II

Fuel Type LH2/LOX burn time 360 seconds.

Saturn V stage III

Fuel Type LH2/LOX burn time 165 + 335 seconds 2 burns

Now some video

Stage separation II & III and falling back to Earth



NO red exhaust as claimed as the rocket fuel CONTINUES to burn.

Fuel type for Lander

LEM Descent stage Aerozine 50/N2O4, LEM Ascent Stage Aerozine 50/N2O4

N2O4/UDMH and LOX/Hydrogen both give almost transparent exhaust plumes.

Is that now clear enough for you or will you always need spoon fed!!!



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Oh I don't normally have a problem with someone being critical of history. We all should take a close look at events and not just believe anything, but should rely on historical documents of the time, and if possible on the people that actually lived during the time.

However, Historical Revisionism (negationism) on the other hand, and in this case, which is trying to say that the way the world was during a time that not only I, but hundreds of millions of people that are still alive today and can clearly remember how it was, was not how things were, is just a waste of time with a person like that.

It's the same as if, a person does not believe in a certain part of civil war history. That is fine, and especially if they are saying this because of documented proof, because everyone that lived during that time is now dead.
However, let us say that the person can go back in time and talk to those people before they died, and when they are confirming what the actual historical record says, ignore those people completely to continue on with how you think history really happened during that time.

This poster does not think that there was any real animosity between the USSR and the USA (never mind how we literally came within hours of having a all out nuclear war with them, and the many other events that happened, and also ignoring people who actually lived through these events and can remember quite clearly how it was), it becomes a waste of time to talk to them on that subject. They have made up their mind about something and no amount of evidence or personal testimony will change their minds.

But then, that is how most lunar landing hoax believers are (this is even described in the OP's video towards the end.).



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.

Much easier to try and attack those people that do that, instead of actually bringing physical evidence to the table, isn't it?

Care to refute any of the physical evidence provided by the OP's video, or any brought up by other posters on here?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.

Much easier to try and attack those people that do that, instead of actually bringing physical evidence to the table, isn't it?

Care to refute any of the physical evidence provided by the OP's video, or any brought up by other posters on here?


I will acknowledge ALL that I know and do not know, with total honesty, if you can acknowledge that you DO in fact have a strong emotional attachment to Nasa and the Apollo program.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


No disrespect there big guy... But I can't help but think you're missing some points my man was trying to make...

You ever been watching a movie and one of your fellow spectators sees that one of the characters is headed for trouble... And starts yelling 'helpful' comments at the screen.

And you're thinking "It's a movie and it's scripted."

Dude...It's 'real' life and it's scripted.



That's point one.

Point two is as follows...

Both 'nations' have these public personas and a supposed type of government... One communist and one a democracy... Anyhow, that is the marketing glossy version of the presentation.

The real situation is the two nations are much more alike they you would ever think possible and in fact, have a lot of shared history in common. The bottom line is the Russians are very much kindred spirits to the Americans.

And when you actually get into the trenches of daily life, both countries maintain their control over their respective populaces by a system that can't be viewed as anything but economic slavery/servitude.

A huge part of maintaining control over the riff raff, and that's EXACTLY how the populace of the respective nations is viewed by all echelons of their respective bureaucracies that control the populations down to the tiniest details is thru a hugely exaggerated fear of the outsiders.

George Orwell (1984) laid out the mechanics of such a system all to well... to the point that it is pretty much a blueprint. And Jack London's (The Iron Heel) was a close second...


So keep betraying your blatant xenophobic fears...

And DO keep yelling at the screen...

Some of us are really enjoying the show.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 



Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Exactly Brandon, what a psychologist would refer to as confirmation bias, which leads me onto an example of this...



Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Oh I don't normally have a problem with someone being critical of history. We all should take a close look at events and not just believe anything, but should rely on historical documents of the time, and if possible on the people that actually lived during the time.

However, Historical Revisionism (negationism) on the other hand, and in this case, which is trying to say that the way the world was during a time that not only I, but hundreds of millions of people that are still alive today and can clearly remember how it was, was not how things were, is just a waste of time with a person like that.

It's the same as if, a person does not believe in a certain part of civil war history. That is fine, and especially if they are saying this because of documented proof, because everyone that lived during that time is now dead.
However, let us say that the person can go back in time and talk to those people before they died, and when they are confirming what the actual historical record says, ignore those people completely to continue on with how you think history really happened during that time.

This poster does not think that there was any real animosity between the USSR and the USA (never mind how we literally came within hours of having a all out nuclear war with them, and the many other events that happened, and also ignoring people who actually lived through these events and can remember quite clearly how it was), it becomes a waste of time to talk to them on that subject. They have made up their mind about something and no amount of evidence or personal testimony will change their minds.

But then, that is how most lunar landing hoax believers are (this is even described in the OP's video towards the end.).


Erik - I don't reject any specific events of the 'cold war', however I interpret the motives differently. Put differently, I have issues with the commonly accepted 'causes' rather than the 'effects' themselves.


Originally posted by golemina
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


And when you actually get into the trenches of daily life, both countries maintain their control over their respective populaces by a system that can't be viewed as anything but economic slavery/servitude.

A huge part of maintaining control over the riff raff, and that's EXACTLY how the populace of the respective nations is viewed by all echelons of their respective bureaucracies that control the populations down to the tiniest details is thru a hugely exaggerated fear of the outsiders.

George Orwell (1984) laid out the mechanics of such a system all to well... to the point that it is pretty much a blueprint. And Jack London's (The Iron Heel) was a close second...


So keep betraying your blatant xenophobic fears...

And DO keep yelling at the screen...

Some of us are really enjoying the show.



Yes golemina, I'm glad you understand and use your own critical thinking skills, the other users of this page could do well to pay more attention.

It is illogical to conclude there was any genuine hostility between the parties when one head of state was visiting the other (and vice versa), notwithstanding the Apollo-Soyuz collaboration.

There seems to have been actions made by both parties that would indicate that they did not believe their own propaganda and warnings about the other.

Erik, I think, because, as you put it "I (you) lived through it, I felt it, it was real etc etc..." it may have clouded your partiality on the subject. It is understandable, after-all - the ego of man prohibits him from being truly realistic.


“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” - Mark Twain
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typo
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further typo
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further further further typo



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.



The consensus, can refute ANY Qns put forward?

Curious, I've seen plenty of discrepancies that have not yet been refuted.
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful
Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.

Much easier to try and attack those people that do that, instead of actually bringing physical evidence to the table, isn't it?

Care to refute any of the physical evidence provided by the OP's video, or any brought up by other posters on here?


I will acknowledge ALL that I know and do not know, with total honesty, if you can acknowledge that you DO in fact have a strong emotional attachment to Nasa and the Apollo program.


"Strong, emotional attachment to NASA and the Apollo program" ?

No.

An emotional attachment to it because I watch the landings as a kid, grew up as a space nut, and even today pursue astronomy using my telescopes and camera equipment to take astrophotography as a hobby?

Sure.

Would I deny evidence that can not be refuted that shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landings were fake because I have too much of an emotional attachment to them?

Ludicrous.

I keep a very open mind (I'm a skeptic) but that means I take a seriously look at all the evidence presented before me and ask a lot of questions:
Can it be confirmed?
Can it be repeated?
Is the source reputable and not proven to be faked or hoaxed itself?
Is the evidence presented have a scientific bases (that follows the scientific method), or is it simply conjecture and speculation?

Would I be devistated? Nope. Would I be upset? Sure, it would be very upsetting. But if it is the truth, then it is the truth.

However, again, none of the hoaxer's theories have been proven true at this point. Quite the opposite in fact.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.



The consensus, can refute ANY Qns put forward?

Curious, I've seen plenty of discrepancies that have not yet been refuted.
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


And the only discrepancies that you have put forth are:

Various ones dealing with the video footage of the Apollo 10 mission. However, your source for the discrepancies are based upon a viewing of DVDs that must be purchased by other members in order to view the same video as you. You have not provided are more ready source that is available to all to show what you are talking about.

You put forth that the LM's plume could not be seen. That's been refuted several times due to the composition of the fuel used, and how it reacts in an atmosphere and in a vacuum. Sources have been cited too.

Other than those, you have not offered anything else, but instead claim that there are "plenty of discrepancies", but which, other than those you have cited in this thread, have not listed.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
"Strong, emotional attachment to NASA and the Apollo program" ?

No.

An emotional attachment to it because I watch the landings as a kid, grew up as a space nut, and even today pursue astronomy using my telescopes and camera equipment to take astrophotography as a hobby?

Sure.


You do realize that you both acknowledged and denied that you have an emotional attachment within the space of 3 sentences.

If you expect "the opposition" to be honest, then the least you can do is be honest yourself. That is the problem with this subject, no one is willing to be honest because they feel it might give their "opponents" an edge in the argument.

It is only a common-sense observation that nearly every person who spends an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk the Apollo conspiracy theories has a strong emotional attachment to Nasa and the space program. And it is an easily confirmed fact that our strongest emotional attachments are created during childhood.

Is this a strike against the "no hoax" crusaders?

Yes.

Does it mean that they are incorrect in their conclusions?

Not necessarily.

But all facts should be on the table, yes?



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Yet at the same time, us "old men" are presenting fact, after fact, after fact, with scientific evidence, after scientific evidence, that clearly debunks and refutes anything that any Moon Hoaxer puts out.



The consensus, can refute ANY Qns put forward?

Curious, I've seen plenty of discrepancies that have not yet been refuted.
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


And the only discrepancies that you have put forth are:

Various ones dealing with the video footage of the Apollo 10 mission. However, your source for the discrepancies are based upon a viewing of DVDs that must be purchased by other members in order to view the same video as you. You have not provided are more ready source that is available to all to show what you are talking about.

You put forth that the LM's plume could not be seen. That's been refuted several times due to the composition of the fuel used, and how it reacts in an atmosphere and in a vacuum. Sources have been cited too.

Other than those, you have not offered anything else, but instead claim that there are "plenty of discrepancies", but which, other than those you have cited in this thread, have not listed.


And your wikipedia links are any more credible? I linked you to supposedly unedited OFFICIAL video source.

Would you care to do the same? If not then your grievance is deemed inconsistent.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD

Originally posted by eriktheawful
"Strong, emotional attachment to NASA and the Apollo program" ?

No.

An emotional attachment to it because I watch the landings as a kid, grew up as a space nut, and even today pursue astronomy using my telescopes and camera equipment to take astrophotography as a hobby?

Sure.


You do realize that you both acknowledged and denied that you have an emotional attachment within the space of 3 sentences.

If you expect "the opposition" to be honest, then the least you can do is be honest yourself. That is the problem with this subject, no one is willing to be honest because they feel it might give their "opponents" an edge in the argument.

It is only a common-sense observation that nearly every person who spends an inordinate amount of time trying to debunk the Apollo conspiracy theories has a strong emotional attachment to Nasa and the space program. And it is an easily confirmed fact that our strongest emotional attachments are created during childhood.

Is this a strike against the "no hoax" crusaders?

Yes.

Does it mean that they are incorrect in their conclusions?

Not necessarily.

But all facts should be on the table, yes?


Yet more examples of illogical conclusions and inconsistencies made by Erik.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


'Daddy, everyone KNOWS that telescopes don't shoot lasers'.

Bakatono, any idea what that means?



Yes! It's me again...



If you can take the time to pry your lips off your favorite NASA commemorative plaque... I thought I would demonstrate what an analysis process looks like:

For starters, it's important to understand the basic nature of what a 'web site' REALLY is. It is essentially a file that just basically sits out there somewhere on somebody's server. Sure it might be a 'rich' display with pictures, animated pictures or some specialized canned demos like flash or whatever.

The point is some human put that information into that disc file.

Any semi-unsheltered person at this point would be giving us a big old Duh?

So the contents of the file is going to represent that persons knowledge (or lack thereof
)...

And in the case of your 'source' from 'NASA' this is the worst example of total BS I have EVER seen.

Your quote:



Here's how it works: A laser pulse shoots out of a telescope on Earth, crosses the Earth-moon divide, and hits the array. Because the mirrors are "corner-cube reflectors," they send the pulse straight back where it came from. "It's like hitting a ball into the corner of a squash court," explains Alley. Back on Earth, telescopes intercept the returning pulse--"usually just a single photon," he marvels.


'Telescopes' are strictly receiving/viewing devices. They do NOT emit ANY form of energy.

The coherent beam is emitted by a laser.

Even though it's a 'laser beam' because of the vast distances, something along the lines of 250,000 miles the 'beam' DOES expand. The numbers I've heard are anything from a football field to something like 3 miles wide when it strikes the target.

The point being the 'mirror array' can ONLY return what it captures and this is a miniscule portion of the originating energy.

What's worse is that at this point it is anything BUT a coherent beam.

The 'mirror array' does it's thing... And it is NOT affected by temperature fluctuations.

And the reflected light makes the return trip.

And there is NEVER a really significant return.

The BEST that can get is in the vicinity of 2 lumens (this is an old/primitive rating of the amount of light). Do NOT get hung up on the artificial distinction between visible/not visible 'standards'... that is totally irrelevant.

There is something like 4*pi or ballpark 12 lumens for you typical candle... Crude but approximate.


That part about 'usually just a single photon'... that is TOTAL BS.

We can go into MUCH MORE detail about the equipment capabilities Bakatono, when you ID the gear that is being used.

I REALLY want to see the tech specs on the telescope that shoots laser pulses.

Hurry up Bakatono, I can't wait to get started.



After this we'll go over to this one physics thread and we'll get into the physics of the Sun and how it's not even nuclear. Or there is no such force as 'gravity'...
edit on 23-1-2013 by golemina because: minor edits.




posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by BrandonD
 


You do realize that you are trying to make two things into one thing: Emotional attachment vs Strong Emotional attachment.

One makes someone so blind that they will refuse to acknowledge any actual evidence. A good example of that would be someone who strongly believes in their faith in something, such as a religion.

The other means that something can be very important to someone, but at the same time they will not deny the existence of the evidence put forth to them, and can even accept a different out come.

I did not contradict myself at all. You asked, and I stated the truth: yes I have an emotional attachment to it. No, that attachment is not so strong that I'm willing to turn a blind eye to things even after they have proven.

I know quite a bit about this, as many Moon Hoaxers themselves are of the "strong emotional attachment" type. I've dealt with many other people here on ATS that are also that way about many, many subjects, ranging from UFOs to Planet Nibiru.
edit on 23-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrandonD
There's a very good reason why those who believe 100% everything told to us by Nasa are, by a HUGE margin, old men who watched the moon landing on the television when they were little boys - exactly as our rotund host in this debunking video has himself acknowledged.

The subject means a LOT to them on an emotional level, something they will never acknowledge because emotional attachment clearly compromises a person's objectivity.
edit on 23-1-2013 by BrandonD because: (no reason given)


Well lets see I was a young boy when I watched Apollo 11 -17 but I have no emotional attachment as you put it but when you see every claim made that is supposed to show it was a hoax countered by physical or scientific evidence from , no stars in pictures, wrong shadows, van allen belts etc etc when will people realise that it was harder to fake than do!.

The reason I post on this type of thread is a lot of the claims are to do with photographs/video my hobby for 30+ years has been photography so when I see STUPID claims made by people that don't understand I try to give them a little education.


It's obvious that a couple of people posting here have certain political beliefs regarding governments so the same could be said about their judgement/emotional attachment.

Lets look at 1nquisitive claim that we should see a flame as the lander leaves the Moon , he seems to be avoiding answering my question if he thinks he is still correct.

We have a HUGE thread with regards to that Aussie IDIOT JW over 600 pages with many hoax believers trying to back his claims now when people cant even understand how shadows follow the terrain they land on see example below.



All the arrows put on this picture were supposed to support light from different sources


What chance do you have when people cant even understand something as basic as that, one thing this place has shown me over the last few years is that the education system round the world has gone to pot.

If people don't understand they don't seem to be prepared to even try to learn something they just fall back on the conspiracy cliche handbook.
ie
All official sources are lies
NASA always lies ( that of course changes when NASA announces something they are interested in)
If you support anything from an official source your a disinfo agent
etc etc.

edit on 23-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


1) You have not countered my Wiki sources with anything else. Period.

2) The Wikipedia cites it's sources of the things it lists.

If you don't want to believe what the online wikipedia says, okay.

But then you've not offered any proof in any way, shape or form that the fuel the LM used reacts differently in an atmosphere as compared to a vacuum.

Nor have you offered any proof or cited any sources that the LM used a different fuel.

I can't help that your video sources are only on a product that needs to be bought (careful here. Be very careful here. It's against the TCs to push a product here on ATS).
You didn't even cite what discs and chapters of the video you are talking about (making it very, very hard for anyone else to search online for what you described in your earlier post).

If I, or anyone else in here, go out and look at every piece of Apollo 10 video we can find online, and present it to you, you could always claim that what we show is not the right clips, or that it was edited, or simply not the same video as you saw.

If you wish to pursue an intelligent discussion of that video, I suggest that you find a source for it that is online, that everyone here can view (without having to purchase a product), and tell us that is the same that you are seeing on your DVDs.
THEN we have common ground to work with.

Until then, there is nothing to discuss about those videos since the rest of us may not be able to see it, and you are not allowed to push a product here on ATS.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 




Well lets see I was a young boy when I watched Apollo 11 -17 but I have no emotional attachment as you put it but when you see every claim made that is supposed to show it was a hoax countered by physical or scientific evidence from , no stars in pictures, wrong shadows, van allen belts etc etc when will people realise that it was harder to fake than do!.


Do you have ANY idea exactly how primitive a propulsion system a 'rocket' is?

Okay... Why don't you show us the fuel calculations for taking off from Earth, transitting to the Moon, establishing a Lunar orbit, landing on the Lunar surface, taking off from the Lunar surface, transitting back to the Earth... etc.

Do show us exactly how easy that is...

Show us your work and mark sure you include the revised apogee point.

I always like talking to folks that know SO much more than I do...

edit on 23-1-2013 by golemina because: Minor comment.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
You do realize that you are trying to make two things into one thing: Emotional attachment vs Strong Emotional attachment.


Emotional attachment of any degree can compromise one's ability to assess that subject objectively. That is the point, not the difference between totally abitrary distinctions such as "strong emotional attachment" vs "emotional attachment".

Now that you've acknowledged your emotional attachment, I'll acknowledge my position as I said earlier:

I have an background in computer image manipulation (having worked in a Kodak photo lab digitally restoring old and damaged photographs), and an interest in paranormal/conspiracy related subjects. That's how I first stumbled upon the whole "Apollo hoax" subject.

I found a site that pointed out lighting inconsistencies in the photographs. Having worked very extensively with photos and simulating the lighting conditions of existing photos (ie, making sure that lighting/contrast/saturation/etc are consistent with the existing photo), I recognized the lighting inconsistencies right away. I concluded there was a high probability that the famous Apollo photos we are all familiar with were taken in a studio with artificial lighting, rather than under the conditions that were said to exist on the moon during that first landing.

At first, I jumped to a fairly reasonable inference from this realization: The moon landing must be fake!

However, after being repeatedly and rudely attacked by Nasa supporters, I have given the contrary evidence much consideration and it does seem possible that this extended inference might be incorrect. I'm not an expert on rocket exhaust, radiation, fuel, etc.

But I do know more than the average Joe when it comes to photos.

I still stand by my analysis of the photographs, in my opinion they were taken in a studio with artificial lighting. I have extensive experience in this area, but even inexperienced laymen who look at the photos without a preformed conclusion come away with a LOT of questions.

There are many possibilities here, one of them being that perhaps the photos were taken ahead of time as a sort of insurance policy. If the mission took place as described then it was an EXTREMELY dangerous mission, after all.

Perhaps the photos actually taken on the moon were of such poor quality that they could not be used. Perhaps there are things on the moon that we aren't supposed to see.

Or perhaps the entire mission was staged. I can't make the claim of any of the above conclusions.

All the inferences that follow my conclusion of the faked photos are all "unknowns", as far as I'm concerned.

But I can say that in my opinion those photos were not taken under the lighting conditions that were said to exist on the moon during the first Apollo landing.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join