Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof, page 5

Pages: << 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 43 times

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:11 PM by Panic2k11

reply to post by Lord Jules

Well I'm a opposer of the conventional history of the moon landing but how long could they have faked the discovery of the Americas ?

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:22 PM by Imagewerx

reply to post by sparky31

If you met Bart Sibrel under the same circumstances you'd also think "What a total bellend this idiot is" and you'd almost certainly punch him on the jaw as well,I know I would.

Back on topic,re the evidence in the video which I agree 100% with I have another fact to add to the non-fake evidence which explains the VERY poor quality of the original live TV footage.Not only did they not have the technology to fake the whole thing back in 1969,they didn't even have the most basic of TV standard convertors we have today that will do things like convert NTSC to PAL or similar.The slow scan TV they used for Apollo 11 used just 10 frames a second and there was no way at the time to convert this electronically to the normal standard of 50 frames per second that broadcast TV uses.
So they put a TV monitor in a box that was showing the images from the SSTV transmissions from the moon,and in front of that they put a normal TV camera that could output at normal broadcast standard.So what you see on footage like this........

YouTube Link

.......is such poor quality because it's a picture of a picture.Does anyone still believe that with barely the technology to fake a parking ticket as a practical joke,they could convincingly fake 12 men walking on the moon?

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:27 PM by muzzleflash

I don't really believe / disbelieve per se, but I do find a strange anomaly with the logic here.

So how does it make any sense that :

We would have technology to go to and walk on the moon....
But yet we didnt have the tech to fake some photos on a TV screen?

That's pretty laughable when you think about it.

Going to the moon is clearly the more difficult technological hurdle than hoaxing something.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:37 PM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by workingforyou
Just because the technology didn't exist to us doesn't mean they didn't have it. Remember they are always AT LEAST 10 years ahead of us in technology. Recently a picture came out of a nuclear explosion 1 millisecond after detonation that was filmed in the 50's. Did you know they had cameras that could take photos like that in the 50's?

Check what a millisecond is !!

A millisecond (from milli- and second; abbreviation: ms) is a thousandth (1/1,000) of a second.

My DSLR does 1/4000th of a second I can get 1/20000th of a second from a flashgun!

n 1950, Morton Sultanoff, an engineer for the U.S. Army at Aberdeen Proving ground, invented a super high-speed camera that took frames at one-millionth of a second, and was fast enough to record the shock wave of a small explosion

That camera could take 1000 frames during your millisecond

It's called a streak camera.

Streak Cameras

If you think that's fast then what about this!!

Recent advances in the form of image converter devices are able to provide temporal resolutions of less than fifty picoseconds, equivalent to over 20 billion frames per second

These are not cameras you can carry about and look nothing like a camera.

You seem to think all technology comes from the military it doesn't most technology comes from universities & industry a tiny fraction is from the military!!!

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:44 PM by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Ghost375
Dude If you look back at the declassified documents, the military has been about 40 years ahead...
I think it's safe to assume they're still ahead.

No, not really. Much, if not most, military and intelligence technology is developed by the private sector and adapted for military use. The military is only significantly "ahead" in areas for which there is no private sector demand, like nuclear weapons and tanks. As the private sector demand for technologies that were formerly exclusively military has increased (e.g. crypto, imagery), the private sector has matched military capabilities.

edit on 19-1-2013 by FurvusRexCaeli because: quote fix

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 05:57 PM by Imagewerx

reply to post by muzzleflash

Because they HAD to develop the technology to get to the moon,and as they were capable of doing that,why would they also need the technology to fake it?

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 06:06 PM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by wmd_2008

That one looks real. Which mission was that one from?

I remember seeing another one where it seemed to move very slowly and just did not look right.

Oh well, as I said, I think the later missions were genuine and really only question the black and white stuff from that first landing.

And craters talk'n bout flying that thing in for a landing where they did have to run the engine to set her down. There seemed to be no disturbed area around the lander where the rockets should have stirred up the dust.
edit on 19-1-2013 by kawika because: (no reason given)

Three of the lander pads iirc had a probe on them around 5ft long when this touched the solid surface a light in the cabin told the Astronauts to cut the engine!

You can see the probe and fine scores on the surface caused by the blast of the rocket
in this image (when it loads click on image for full size)

This image shows the probe bent up.
You can also see the grove it cut as the lander had lateral movement and did not land
at 90 degrees to the surface. (when it loads click on image for full size)

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 06:08 PM by wmd_2008

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
not that i believe either way.. but I will say this. You do realize that the military and gov technology is vastly superior to the tech that we have on our daily lives.. People say anywhere from 40-60 years ahead of us in tech that is not available and some may never be available to us.. .

In answer to your claim above PEOPLE SAY

That must be in the top ten of conspiracy cliches the military are 40-60 years a head.

Dude If you look back at the declassified documents, the military has been about 40 years ahead...
I think it's safe to assume they're still ahead.

Fact remains we know for sure they were ahead in the past.

Well show a few examples of 40 yrs a head then ?

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 06:29 PM by smurfy

Originally posted by taccj9903

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by taccj9903
I can't say for sure either way but I have always suspected something wasn't right about the whole thing. After I saw this interview I really want to know what is going on. I wonder what Neil Armstrong meant when he told that guy, "you do not deserve to know the answers."

He was obviously offended....

True, but he still could have just swore on the bible and put an end to the conspiracy, at least for the guy asking. Took the 5 grand and donated to his church. But I guess this topic is probably better for another thread, don't want to derail this one.

Why should Armstrong have pandered to an idiot such as Sibrel, who's documentary was poop and far from proving that man did not go to the Moon, actually endorsed that they did. Sibrel was too much of a fart to to realise his expensive Faux pas. Armstrong was being true to himself, and good on him.
Just to add, if you don't agree with what I say, why not actually try to find something out for yourself, instead of leaving it up to the other guy.

edit on 19-1-2013 by smurfy because: Text.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 06:47 PM by jra

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We would have technology to go to and walk on the moon....
But yet we didnt have the tech to fake some photos on a TV screen?

That's pretty laughable when you think about it.

Going to the moon is clearly the more difficult technological hurdle than hoaxing something.

Faking it is harder, if not impossible. How do you fake 1/6th gravity on Earth and make it in a complete vacuum on a very large set? You simply can not do that. It's much easier to simply go to the Moon.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 07:09 PM by broctune

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by muzzleflash
We would have technology to go to and walk on the moon....
But yet we didnt have the tech to fake some photos on a TV screen?

That's pretty laughable when you think about it.

Going to the moon is clearly the more difficult technological hurdle than hoaxing something.

Faking it is harder, if not impossible. How do you fake 1/6th gravity on Earth and make it in a complete vacuum on a very large set? You simply can not do that. It's much easier to simply go to the Moon.

Playing the video of astronauts running in slow motion creates the same visual as no gravity.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 07:15 PM by openminded2011

S&F THANK YOU!

Very factual and rational video. The one other thing that always bothered me with the whole moon hoax thing, is that the Russians were watching us, IE they must have been intercepting our transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface. If we had faked the moon landing I think those pesky Russians would have alerted the world to that fact. Also most people who lived around Central Florida noticed when Saturn V rockets got launched. That's an awfully big fake rocket. I personally witnessed Apollo 17 lift off from my front porch several hundred miles away.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 07:17 PM by samlf3rd

Although I appreciate his point of view his whole basis is that just because he didn't know we had the technology doesn't mean that our gov didn't. I have seen the tapes that literally contradict the whole thing. They use the same hill for 2 different landings? They look exactly the same to me, just different audio. See what no one did have yet the gov had was a tape recorder that could pause/rewind and fast forward. Since the public didn't have those tools at the time perhaps the gov overlooked this feature that mankind wouldn't ever be able to pause and rewind and watch the tape over and over-just once on the news...

YouTube Link

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 07:45 PM by kawika

reply to post by wmd_2008

Nice photos, thanks for posting that.

So, they have the rockets running to soften the landing, not moving straight down but maybe a little sideways. What I was expecting to see is a spot, right under that main thruster, that is a big hole, or a pile of dust. You look at the pics and the surface seems very soft and dusty. Like in the lake, right behind where you tie up the motor boat there is always a big hole in the sand there from the force of the prop blowing the sand around.

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 08:04 PM by exportgoldman

The best video I ever saw of this, which tied all the political, technical and other stuff together is called "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon."

This video also has a jaw dropping piece of footage the producers were mistakenly sent from NASA, of the Apollo crew faking the shot of Earth from halfway to the moon, which is the iconic shot of the space race. This video shows the crew are actually in earth orbit still - why fake that shot unless you can't even make it halfway to the moon?

The whole video is stunning, but for those with short attention spans, just watch this link which is the specific bit of fakery.

Also to note, you can hear in this video the Crew talking to someone which isn't Houston, which is meant to be impossible as the link was meant to be a direct link and no other communication was possible...Hmmmmm...

www.youtube.com...

edit on 19-1-2013 by exportgoldman because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 08:20 PM by jra

Originally posted by broctune
Playing the video of astronauts running in slow motion creates the same visual as no gravity.

That is a ridiculous claim. Firstly there is gravity, 1/6th that of Earth. Secondly, slow motion video can not change the physics of what you're seeing. Please watch this video:

YouTube Link

Originally posted by samlf3rd
I have seen the tapes that literally contradict the whole thing. They use the same hill for 2 different landings? They look exactly the same to me, just different audio.

That wasn't the claim that was being made. It was the same landing, different day, different location.

However... that video footage looks like it was from some old documentary with some HB commenting over it. I have a problem with this. Documentaries don't always use footage accurately. I'd like to see you or someone else go through the actual Apollo 16 video footage and find video from both locations and compare them both. Perhaps the people who made the actual documentary were lazy and didn't use the proper footage. It wouldn't be the first time. To use a documentary and make claims of hoaxing from that is also just as lazy and ignorant. Use the original source material if you're going to attempt to make claims of a hoax.

And I just went and checked for myself. The two clips that were shown in your video (@ 1:06 and 1:57) are indeed from the same EVA at the same location at Stone mountain. Lazy documentary makers, with a lazy HB making erroneous claims based on it and lazy you for not double checking for yourself.

(right-click links and save to your computer)
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...

edit on 19-1-2013 by jra because: added more

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 09:26 PM by immortalreiku

reply to post by ckno1

yes the video is good but the fact still remains. He does not talk about how we got humans to pass through 100s of miles of the van allen radiation belt. You can talk about photos and this and that. Until someone can solve that problem your just talking for the sake of talking. How convenient that the comments are disabled for this video otherwise he would have been lit up by like minded folk. Perpetuating this video just means people are trying to solidify the myth that we walked on the moon. when in fact we didnt

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 09:49 PM by samlf3rd

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by broctune
Playing the video of astronauts running in slow motion creates the same visual as no gravity.

That is a ridiculous claim. Firstly there is gravity, 1/6th that of Earth. Secondly, slow motion video can not change the physics of what you're seeing. Please watch this video:

YouTube Link

Originally posted by samlf3rd
I have seen the tapes that literally contradict the whole thing. They use the same hill for 2 different landings? They look exactly the same to me, just different audio.

That wasn't the claim that was being made. It was the same landing, different day, different location.

However... that video footage looks like it was from some old documentary with some HB commenting over it. I have a problem with this. Documentaries don't always use footage accurately. I'd like to see you or someone else go through the actual Apollo 16 video footage and find video from both locations and compare them both. Perhaps the people who made the actual documentary were lazy and didn't use the proper footage. It wouldn't be the first time. To use a documentary and make claims of hoaxing from that is also just as lazy and ignorant. Use the original source material if you're going to attempt to make claims of a hoax.

And I just went and checked for myself. The two clips that were shown in your video (@ 1:06 and 1:57) are indeed from the same EVA at the same location at Stone mountain. Lazy documentary makers, with a lazy HB making erroneous claims based on it and lazy you for not double checking for yourself.

(right-click links and save to your computer)
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 19-1-2013 by jra because: added more

Oh yes you are right your video explains it all. The lander is in the background of the first one-so how in the hell did they just move the lander? Did you even watch it? How did they "move" the lander in the second video section? Answer that...

reply posted on 19-1-2013 @ 09:58 PM by jra

Originally posted by samlf3rd
Oh yes you are right your video explains it all. The lander is in the background of the first one-so how in the hell did they just move the lander? Did you even watch it? How did they "move" the lander in the second video section? Answer that...