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

page: 33
43
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Now, as for the O/P material, ie. the video - it is merely anecdotal and hearsay, he does not validate, cite, or even elaborate on his so called 'proof'.


Well you could do the math yourself. You can start here and here.


You're totally missing the point: the O/P does not validate, cite, or even elaborate.


What specificially doesn't he validate, cite or even elaborate? Point out exactly what.
He gives all the exact figures, he could not make it anymore clear. Literally.




posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Why do you insist on re-posting that blatant lie about Apollo astronauts giving moon rocks to the Dutch government when it's been debunked for years? It's nothing but shoddy journalism using misleading headlines to attract readers. Simple task for you: The Apollo astronauts were bigger than the Beatles in 1969 so them showing up and giving the Dutch government a moon rock would have been guaranteed to have been front page news on every Dutch newspaper. All you need to do is present one single photograph or one single news article from that time that shows this event having happened . . . you won't be able to because it never did.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The NASA version of events *isn't* really standing up to the scientific and forensic investigation, is it?

I think you're misusing the terms scientific and forensic in this context.

Comparing two possible theories that satisfy all the variables:

1. We did go to the moon, and that's what the historical and physical evidence represents.
2. We did not go to the moon, and that's what the historical and physical evidence represents.

It seems science is overwhelming in leaning towards number 1 given it's the only theory which actually remains consistent.

Theory number 2 changes every twenty or so minutes, and still hasn't found any 'silver bullet' evidence to give it credibility.


We know that event footage has been faked by others - both the titanic and the san francisco earthquake saw fake footage being presented as bona fide news.

People fake things =/= moon landing is faked

If you ask me about something I know about, I'll answer it. The film damage I don't find that compelling. We've had physical film in space before and since for longer periods of time and it has survived. Cameras survive next to volcanoes scarily enough.

Also the camera models and equipment were well documented. Go do an experiment, prove NASA wrong, become famous.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


You should most likely start a new thread since this thread itself is about the OP's video showing how we went to the moon.

You've stated several times now that you think we did go to the moon, but that we are being lied to about it. That doesn't fit in this thread, and would be better off having you start a new thread, presenting evidence as to why you believe that we did go to the moon, but were lied about it.

However, I would not use the Fake Holland Moon Rock as one of your pieces of evidence, since that has been debunked quite well here on ATS:

Dutch Moon Rock Proven Fake


In his August 28, 2009 Associated Press story appearing in the Brisbane Times, Toby Sterling recounted how a spokesman for the Dutch National Museum, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, acknowledged on August 26, 2009, "that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by"…Apollo 11… "US astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.."… "The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it.[70] The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration.[71] "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.[72] The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.[


Neither NASA, nor the US Astronauts gave that rock to anyone. It was a US ambassador.

All 135 Apollo Moon Rocks that were handed out to nations were very small and massed at 1.1 grams. This fake rock massed 89 grams! It was also glued to a piece of cardboard.

The official Apollo Moon Rocks were encased in plastic globes.

The actual real Apollo moon Rocks are safe at the National Museum in Holland and are still there.

Here's the original story. Make sure you read ALL of it:

USA Today Fake Moon Rock 2009



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The NASA version of events *isn't* really standing up to the scientific and forensic investigation, is it?

I think you're misusing the terms scientific and forensic in this context.

Comparing two possible theories that satisfy all the variables:

1. We did go to the moon, and that's what the historical and physical evidence represents.
2. We did not go to the moon, and that's what the historical and physical evidence represents.

It seems science is overwhelming in leaning towards number 1 given it's the only theory which actually remains consistent.

Theory number 2 changes every twenty or so minutes, and still hasn't found any 'silver bullet' evidence to give it credibility.


We know that event footage has been faked by others - both the titanic and the san francisco earthquake saw fake footage being presented as bona fide news.

People fake things =/= moon landing is faked

If you ask me about something I know about, I'll answer it. The film damage I don't find that compelling. We've had physical film in space before and since for longer periods of time and it has survived. Cameras survive next to volcanoes scarily enough.

Also the camera models and equipment were well documented. Go do an experiment, prove NASA wrong, become famous.


I don't think we didn't go to the moon, however I think we haven't been presented with an accurate version of events. I'm pretty sure I made that clear.

I never said previous fakes necessitates always a fake, merely that it's been done before - an argument against "why would they want to fake it?" platitudes.

Below is not aimed at yourself (pinke) specifically:

I do know the meaning of the terms scientific and evidence.

Like it or not NASA presented petrified wood as moon rocks...NASA lied, and also the 'Mythbusters' et al forays into debunkings only inadvertently end up proving you can recreate moon visuals on earth, which is I think, food for thought.
edit on 16-3-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


You should most likely start a new thread since this thread itself is about the OP's video showing how we went to the moon.

You've stated several times now that you think we did go to the moon, but that we are being lied to about it. That doesn't fit in this thread, and would be better off having you start a new thread, presenting evidence as to why you believe that we did go to the moon, but were lied about it.

However, I would not use the Fake Holland Moon Rock as one of your pieces of evidence, since that has been debunked quite well here on ATS:

Dutch Moon Rock Proven Fake


In his August 28, 2009 Associated Press story appearing in the Brisbane Times, Toby Sterling recounted how a spokesman for the Dutch National Museum, Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, acknowledged on August 26, 2009, "that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by"…Apollo 11… "US astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood.."… "The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on October 9, 1969 from then-US ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their ‘Giant Leap’ goodwill tour after the first moon landing." The museum acknowledged that though they did vet the moon rock they failed to double check it.[70] The museum was under the incorrect belief that this moon rock was one of the 135 Apollo 11 moon rocks that were presented to the nations of the world by the Nixon Administration.[71] "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.[72] The genuine Apollo 11 moon rock given to the Dutch is in the inventory of a different museum in the Netherlands, which is, in fact, one of the very few countries where the location of both the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 gift rocks is known.[


Neither NASA, nor the US Astronauts gave that rock to anyone. It was a US ambassador.

All 135 Apollo Moon Rocks that were handed out to nations were very small and massed at 1.1 grams. This fake rock massed 89 grams! It was also glued to a piece of cardboard.

The official Apollo Moon Rocks were encased in plastic globes.

The actual real Apollo moon Rocks are safe at the National Museum in Holland and are still there.

Here's the original story. Make sure you read ALL of it:

USA Today Fake Moon Rock 2009


I hate to break it to you, but the O/P proved nothing - it's just an unidentified man giving his opinions, without citations and links, I may add.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Like it or not NASA presented petrified wood as moon rocks...NASA lied


Please provide your sources that the Rijksmuseum is in any way owned by NASA and therefore are the ones responsible for presenting a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock. The first time you post it, you can get away with claiming ignorance to the facts surrounding the "dutch moon rock" but when you repeat it after people have shown you that you were incorrect in your original statement, you are now just lying.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Like it or not NASA presented petrified wood as moon rocks...NASA lied


Please provide your sources that the Rijksmuseum is in any way owned by NASA and therefore are the ones responsible for presenting a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock. The first time you post it, you can get away with claiming ignorance to the facts surrounding the "dutch moon rock" but when you repeat it after people have shown you that you were incorrect in your original statement, you are now just lying.


I never said the Rijksmuseum is owned by NASA. What on earth are you blabbering about?

Why are you guys hell bent on proving that government agencies don't lie? It's completely unrealistic and naive. People lie. Some of the evidence suggests deception, some does not, hinting at a partial deception.
edit on 16-3-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
I never said the Rijksmuseum is owned by NASA. What on earth are you blabbering about?


You linked to a story in which the Rijksmuseum mistakenly presented a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock, you then followed it up by the unproven claim that it was NASA that made the claim. I made the logical conclusion that you were under the impression that the Rijksmuseum was under NASA's control. Either that or you're just arbitrarily assigning the Rijksmuseum claim to NASA. If I made the wrong conclusion please clarify what you meant by your previous claim that NASA presented petrified wood as a moon rock.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
I never said the Rijksmuseum is owned by NASA. What on earth are you blabbering about?


You linked to a story in which the Rijksmuseum mistakenly presented a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock, you then followed it up by the unproven claim that it was NASA that made the claim. I made the logical conclusion that you were under the impression that the Rijksmuseum was under NASA's control. Either that or you're just arbitrarily assigning the Rijksmuseum claim to NASA. If I made the wrong conclusion please clarify what you meant by your previous claim that NASA presented petrified wood as a moon rock.


I'm sorry, you're being Orwellian.


jra

posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The NASA version of events *isn't* really standing up to the scientific and forensic investigation, is it?


It most certainly is last I checked. Where have you seen that it isn't? I've seen plenty of HB's questioning it, but never successfully disproving any of it.


We know they've lied to us at least once
fake moon rocks


If you did the slightest bit of research you would find out that:
-This was a private gift from the US Ambassador to the former Netherlands PM.
-No one ever got Lunar rocks as personal gifts.
-NASA didn't hand out Lunar rocks to other Countries until after all the Apollo missions were done, in 1972.
-This particular event happened in 1969.
-The samples NASA gave out were small. From .05g to 1.1g and encased in a clear acrylic.
-The petrified wood was 98g and not encased in anything.

The idea that this is some sort of evidence against NASA doesn't make sense at all. Seeing as how NASA has nothing to do with it.


I personally think the early Apollo visuals were faked prior to the moon landing simply to negate the risk of

1. some tragedy hitting the astronauts live on air in front of the whole world (I think in this event we'd be led to believe it was successful - look into 'surrogate astronaut' theory, it's a rabbit hole)

2. or even simply to negate the risk of failed transmissions/damaged film.


Early Apollo being what? Apollo's 7 - 10? What exactly was faked and how was it faked? Why do you feel that NASA or the Astronauts would be averse to risk? Look at the history of that era and the kinds of things test pilots did.



posted on Mar, 16 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Like it or not NASA presented petrified wood as moon rocks...NASA lied


Please provide your sources that the Rijksmuseum is in any way owned by NASA and therefore are the ones responsible for presenting a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock. The first time you post it, you can get away with claiming ignorance to the facts surrounding the "dutch moon rock" but when you repeat it after people have shown you that you were incorrect in your original statement, you are now just lying.


I never said the Rijksmuseum is owned by NASA. What on earth are you blabbering about?

Why are you guys hell bent on proving that government agencies don't lie? It's completely unrealistic and naive. People lie. Some of the evidence suggests deception, some does not, hinting at a partial deception.
edit on 16-3-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling


It's because you are making claims that are not true.

Regardless of whether or not I think a government agency lies or not, by stating false facts, you in turn are actually lying.

It's been stated several times, but I will try once more, in bold:

Neither NASA nor US astronauts presented that "moon" rock. The 89 gram piece of rock that was glued to be piece of card board was given by a US ambassador. The OFFICIAL moon rocks, that mass at only 1.1 grams and were encased in plastic had ALREADY been presented to Holland before this incident happened. They are still there safe and the NATIONAL MUSEUM. Not the Rijksmuseum.

Now, to continue to insist that this 89 gram hunk of rock was given by NASA or US astronauts is LYING on your part.

Understand?

The OP in this thread is a video that is about video footage and playback, and using slow motion playback to fake 1/6 gravity.

It is not about moon rocks. It is not about "yes we went there but I think they are lying about something."

Those are different subjects and are off topic from this thread.

Start a new thread on those topics and present your evidence. Continued discussion of it here only derails the thread and takes it off topic.



posted on Mar, 18 2013 @ 08:05 AM
link   
On topic about moon rocks, I don't know if everyone knows there is (or was) a moon rock on display at the Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. which you can put your hand in and rub. Like the Buddha's tummy or the blarney stone or something. Rubbing the moon for good luck, or for the counting-coup ("I Rubbed the moon, dude!") or just for the mental exercise of touching what was a piece of the moon for billions of years.



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ItDepends
 


Jarrah White took this so - called expert apart! Hope this guy loses that stooooopid beret



posted on Mar, 28 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by nomickeyshere
 


If he was picked apart by proven liar and fraud Jarrah White, then he's almost certainly correct in all his points. If you'd like to read a thread about all of Jarrah's lies and idiocy and see a large portion of his videos exposed for the fertilizer they are, it can be found here www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 28-3-2013 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
The arguments presented in the video have too many logical flaws. It's not that the moon landings did not happen, but this video is absolutely not defacto proof that we went there.

For example, one big logical flaw is that the videos we see are slow motion versions of the originals. No, they need not be slow motion videos. The astronauts in the videos walk and move in normal speeds. There is no slow motion involved.

Another logical flaw is that NASA would have made amateur mistakes like having more than one lightsource and hence multiple shadows. No, they wouldn't. If they had faked it, they wouldn't use multiple lightsources. They are not that stupid.

Despite these flaws, the presentation in the video is top notch. Good pacing, nice sound, the guy speaks clearly and with a good accent...9/10 for effort from me.



posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
No, they need not be slow motion videos. The astronauts in the videos walk and move in normal speeds. There is no slow motion involved.


The Apollo footage shows 1/6th gravity. So while the astronauts move normally, when they hop it takes slightly longer for them to touchdown again; and they hop so high, so far, and for so long that it wouldn't be possible in the earth's gravity with their heavy spacesuits.

So either it did take place on the Moon, or the footage had to be slowed down (which brings us to all the issues highlited in the video and in this thread).

I'll post again a favourite video of mine; see if this can be recreated in earth's gravity (would have to be in a huge vacuum chamber because there is no billowing of dust) and using slow motion...







top topics



 
43
<< 30  31  32   >>

log in

join