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.

 

More Moon fakery

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

spartacus699

xavi1000
I'm still on the fence about landings but i'm sure that these guys didn't go on the Moon.





There is a thing called common sense.These guys look like they came back from funeral , not from greatest human achievment in human history.


I tend to agree. When I'm watching my gut instinct is telling me they're lying, and or they're not sure in what they're saying. Because I suspect what happened is even the astronaught might have actually been told they're going to the moon. But what happened was they did some strange thing at the time of the launch. Like they drugged the astronaughts I'm not sure how it would have all played out, but say you're hi, or drunk or whatever. You're now being told "you're on the moon" or you're going to the moon. And then by the time the drugs wear off you're trying to recall what exactly happened? You're an astronaught, you're mission was a moon landing. You recall what looked like moon scape? You recall a lot of bits a pieces. But for some strange reason it's all foggy. Like as if you were drunk. But everyone contradulating you, telling you great job, you made it etc etc. So you just sort of go along with it. You figure that you must have went. What are you gonna say? "No I'm not sure I went????" "no I'm not an american hero who deserves all this fame and money??".... and only because "you're not sure?". Then maybe you tell someone, or you tell a DR or someone that you're not sure what happened? They tell you "oh don't worry that's normal, because you were sucking back all the oxegyn and it messed with your mind". so you figure....ohhhh okay hmmmm he's a dr so he must be right. And again you just go along with it. a year goes by now the memory is faded even more. Decades go by and now you can barely remember much about it. And now 30 years has gone by and now people are coming out and you're reading about how "you might not have gone?" But you can barely remember any of it now because it's been 30 years!!!!

And if you think I'm joking about this... all you have to do is next time you're at the dentist ask for the oral sedation. It's basically the date rape drug. It turns you into a zombie. You barely know what's going on during the time it's happening. Then you tend to forget most of the time frame when you eventually come to. I'm pretty sure that's what they might have given the astronaughts. Ya it could easily be done!

Anyway that's my theory. And they seem so confused in the press conference that they seem like this would be a natural reaction. Like "what just happened. Did we really go the moon?".


What they are is uncomfortable in front of an audience. You should see the video of the press conference before they went.

The problem with the argument about the press conference is that they produce, and discuss, photo after photo that could only have been taken on the Apollo 11 mission. Photos showing Earth that match both in terms of what the Earth should look like at the time and date the photos were taken and in terms of the weather patterns visible in them. Photographs of the lunar surface from orbit that could only have been taken from lunar orbit. Photographs of the lunar surface from the lunar surface that show details that were only revealed by the LRO 40 years later. I'm not talking Apollo hardware, I'm talking rocks and craters.

And if people actually bothered to watch the whole press conference, instead of just picking that lame old screenshot of them looking a little bored, they would find examples of them all smiling and telling the occasional joke.

Gut instinct proves nothing.

edit on 7-12-2013 by onebigmonkey because: typos and closing sentence




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Here's my thread where rocks and craters are matched between Apollo and LRO photos: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here's also a great comparison thread: forums.randi.org...


To me, this is the most undeniable proof of landings. The hoaxers that claim that LRO images have been faked or doctored are just thrashing around refusing to believe evidence when it stares them in the face.

I wonder if LRO can swing into an even lower orbit and photograph Apollo sites at better resolution and (hopefully) at an oblique angle.
edit on 7-12-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

darkorange

kurthall
reply to post by Komodo
 

We went to the Moon, and there are an awful lot of threads on the topic. As far as a Flag, I would say there is a difference between the moon and a space station. I am sure someone will fill you in.



Yeah, you did. The more time passes by the more ridiculous that statement is. Just think about it, 50 years ago USA went to the Moon? 50!!!! Up till now its a task no nation could undertake, not because no need to, there is always need to be there, but because tech challenges are enourmous. 50 years...Think about that.



Please do fill me in on the pressing need for human beings to be on the moon in the past 50 years.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   

onebigmonkey

spartacus699

xavi1000
I'm still on the fence about landings but i'm sure that these guys didn't go on the Moon.





There is a thing called common sense.These guys look like they came back from funeral , not from greatest human achievment in human history.


I tend to agree. When I'm watching my gut instinct is telling me they're lying, and or they're not sure in what they're saying. Because I suspect what happened is even the astronaught might have actually been told they're going to the moon. But what happened was they did some strange thing at the time of the launch. Like they drugged the astronaughts I'm not sure how it would have all played out, but say you're hi, or drunk or whatever. You're now being told "you're on the moon" or you're going to the moon. And then by the time the drugs wear off you're trying to recall what exactly happened? You're an astronaught, you're mission was a moon landing. You recall what looked like moon scape? You recall a lot of bits a pieces. But for some strange reason it's all foggy. Like as if you were drunk. But everyone contradulating you, telling you great job, you made it etc etc. So you just sort of go along with it. You figure that you must have went. What are you gonna say? "No I'm not sure I went????" "no I'm not an american hero who deserves all this fame and money??".... and only because "you're not sure?". Then maybe you tell someone, or you tell a DR or someone that you're not sure what happened? They tell you "oh don't worry that's normal, because you were sucking back all the oxegyn and it messed with your mind". so you figure....ohhhh okay hmmmm he's a dr so he must be right. And again you just go along with it. a year goes by now the memory is faded even more. Decades go by and now you can barely remember much about it. And now 30 years has gone by and now people are coming out and you're reading about how "you might not have gone?" But you can barely remember any of it now because it's been 30 years!!!!

And if you think I'm joking about this... all you have to do is next time you're at the dentist ask for the oral sedation. It's basically the date rape drug. It turns you into a zombie. You barely know what's going on during the time it's happening. Then you tend to forget most of the time frame when you eventually come to. I'm pretty sure that's what they might have given the astronaughts. Ya it could easily be done!

Anyway that's my theory. And they seem so confused in the press conference that they seem like this would be a natural reaction. Like "what just happened. Did we really go the moon?".


What they are is uncomfortable in front of an audience. You should see the video of the press conference before they went.

The problem with the argument about the press conference is that they produce, and discuss, photo after photo that could only have been taken on the Apollo 11 mission. Photos showing Earth that match both in terms of what the Earth should look like at the time and date the photos were taken and in terms of the weather patterns visible in them. Photographs of the lunar surface from orbit that could only have been taken from lunar orbit. Photographs of the lunar surface from the lunar surface that show details that were only revealed by the LRO 40 years later. I'm not talking Apollo hardware, I'm talking rocks and craters.

And if people actually bothered to watch the whole press conference, instead of just picking that lame old screenshot of them looking a little bored, they would find examples of them all smiling and telling the occasional joke.

Gut instinct proves nothing.

edit on 7-12-2013 by onebigmonkey because: typos and closing sentence


ya a few satalite photos of earth big deal.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


More than a big deal. What the satellite images prove is that every photograph, or video image that features Earth taken by Apollo astronauts could only have been taken at a specific time thanks to the weather patterns that feature on them.

Those specific times tie in exactly with the mission transcripts, as do the positions of the terminator on those images. Lots of the images were transmitted live on TV to Earth and then featured on the next day's newspaper front pages - usually before the satellite images were actually available.

So yes, it's a big deal, because it proves the only thing fake about Apollo are the hoax lies perpetuated by people like Jarrah White.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

onebigmonkey


So yes, it's a big deal, because it proves the only thing fake about Apollo are the hoax lies perpetuated by people like Jarrah White.



Amen to that!

That JW and his ilk are deceitful in their presentations should be the biggest deal there is when talking of the moon hoax farce.

But question the sources of the moon hoax theories and the typical response is:



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

onebigmonkey
reply to post by spartacus699
 


More than a big deal. What the satellite images prove is that every photograph, or video image that features Earth taken by Apollo astronauts could only have been taken at a specific time thanks to the weather patterns that feature on them.

Those specific times tie in exactly with the mission transcripts, as do the positions of the terminator on those images. Lots of the images were transmitted live on TV to Earth and then featured on the next day's newspaper front pages - usually before the satellite images were actually available.

So yes, it's a big deal, because it proves the only thing fake about Apollo are the hoax lies perpetuated by people like Jarrah White.


No, a satelite could have taken the photos you dumb azz. Then then just use a bit of photoshop and zoom out arrrhhh. Anyone with even a slight bit of graphic arts from the day could have easily created the photos. And what's with all the photos??? They have so many photos that they realized that they would have to have every astronoaugh taking a photo every second of every moment they were on the moon to get that many photos? And how would the film withstand the heat, cold and radiation? It's impossible.



posted on Dec, 8 2013 @ 11:42 PM
link   
Comments please:

1: The waving flag? Yes it has been covered but no real explanation....so go ahead.



2: No blast area under lander? Not even a little bit. Plus no dirt on feet.



3: Multiple light sources.



4: Reflections of "objects"....ahem, I mean stage lighting.



5: The infamous "C" rock........why indeed?



6: Disappearing crosses.....dear dear me NASA. Plus...many more



7: My favorite......multiple same background shots......what? Did you run out of "space" in the studio?



8: Lets all make one! I've got some tin foil!!



Notice how this photo has almost HD like qualities? Strange? huh considering it was apparently taken on the moon? All other photos seem to be so grainy?

Plus an un-imaginary amount of videos (from nasa) depicting other things that happened on "the moon"


This is just for starters

edit on 9-12-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Going to work but one example to start with.

This was first posted by Zaphod58

img104.imageshack.us...

Shadows going different directions here on Earth same light source as the Moon ie the Sun.

All your post will show is YOUR total lack of knowledge on the subject and photography/imaging in general.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Blowback
 


You scream dis info agent
ATS needs dis en fectant



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:24 AM
link   

spartacus699


No, a satelite could have taken the photos you dumb azz. Then then just use a bit of photoshop and zoom out arrrhhh. Anyone with even a slight bit of graphic arts from the day could have easily created the photos. And what's with all the photos??? They have so many photos that they realized that they would have to have every astronoaugh taking a photo every second of every moment they were on the moon to get that many photos? And how would the film withstand the heat, cold and radiation? It's impossible.


Ok, first thing: there were no satellites taking colour photos at the time. There were only 2 satellites that had whole Earth coverage at the time, and they only had coverage of specific spots because they were geostationary. The other images were obtained by low Earth orbit satellites that took 24 hours to cover the entire surface and the images had to be stuck together - most od the Apollo photographs were taken before that could happen. I suggest you read a book or two - I have, it makes all the difference

Second thing: Photoshop? Really? I suggest you go back and look at the history of computer graphics and software and see how dumb that statement is. How would that work for live TV? I have lots of original material with those photos in that pre-date digital editing, so I know they weren't photoshopped.

Third thing: los of photos. Yes. If they'd taken none you'd have been bitching as well. Most of the mission photos were taken with an auto-shutter in orbit getting coverage of the surface. There were three people with cameras. I've taken more photos over a weekend at a wedding than in the EVAs for Apollo 11 and 12 combined.

The film would withstand the temperature range and radiation because the cameras were designed for it. The entire Lunar Orbiter series that got the first detailed lunar photographs took pictures on film, developed them in space and transmitted them back to Earth with relatively few problems. If you think it's not technically possible you need to produce some numbers to prove that.

FInally, save the abuse for kindergarten.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

CaptainBeno
Comments please:

1: The waving flag? Yes it has been covered but no real explanation....so go ahead.



Yes, it's been covered by a real explanation: they aren't waving. There is motion consistent with no atmosphere when it is being put in the ground, and there is movement when it is brushed by an astronaut. It is not waving in a breeze.



2: No blast area under lander? Not even a little bit. Plus no dirt on feet.


Not true, there is a blast crater, it was commented on at the time. Why would there be dirt on the feet when the blast is blowing all the dust away and the dust is not billowing around because there is no atmosphere?




3: Multiple light sources.


Multiple light sources means multiple shadows - where are they? Do some reading on photography to see how you would get divergent shadows like that.




4: Reflections of "objects"....ahem, I mean stage lighting.


A stage light that isn't emitting any light? It's not a light, you just wish it was.




5: The infamous "C" rock........why indeed?


Infamous because it isn't a 'C' - try zooming on it. Plenty of photos around that don't have it in.




6: Disappearing crosses.....dear dear me NASA. Plus...many more


Caused by flaring of the white material in the image, which you;d be able to tell if you hadn't picked a lame poor quality copy of a scan.



7: My favorite......multiple same background shots......what? Did you run out of "space" in the studio?


The moon is big, very big, and when you have things very far away they don't change much when you move towards them.




8: Lets all make one! I've got some tin foil!!



Aaah the old 'roll your eyes and make imaginary quotation marks argument - massively convincing. And it isn't tin foil and underneath the tin foil is the LEM structure.



Notice how this photo has almost HD like qualities? Strange? huh considering it was apparently taken on the moon? All other photos seem to be so grainy?


Because the website you got them from is using crappy copies. High resolution copies exist for all of them. Why would being on the moon make for poor photos? They had the best cameras going. Things also deteriorate when you zoom and crop and only use a bit of a photo.



Plus an un-imaginary amount of videos (from nasa) depicting other things that happened on "the moon"


Videos that show low gravity and zero atmosphere conditions in long uncut scenes, videos from live TV broadcasts that feature Earth and her exactly correct weather patterns. Videos featuring small rocks and craters that are only now visible in LRO images and weren't known about before.



This is just for starters

edit on 9-12-2013 by CaptainBeno because: (no reason given)


No, I reckon all you have is stuff you''ve copied and pasted from elsewhere, none of which stands up to the slightest scrutiny.



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:10 AM
link   

CaptainBeno
Comments please:

1: The waving flag? Yes it has been covered but no real explanation....so go ahead.

The astronauts twisted the flag pole into the ground, and those twisting motions left that wavy pattern. The flag is held afloat by the horizontal bar at the top.


3: Multiple light sources.

Trick of the perspective.


5: The infamous "C" rock........why indeed?

A piece of lint merely got into a copy of a photograph. The original doesn't show the "C": www.hq.nasa.gov...


6: Disappearing crosses.....

The bright light "bleeds" over those crosses. www.clavius.org...


7: My favorite......multiple same background shots......what? Did you run out of "space" in the studio?

The mountains in the background are many miles away. (Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, those mountains look like they're nearby) So going to different locations around the Lunar Module and taking pictures would not make the background look much different.


8: Notice how this photo has almost HD like qualities? Strange? huh considering it was apparently taken on the moon? All other photos seem to be so grainy?

The grainy photos are old scans and media reproductions. The photos themselves were taken using 70mm film (that's twice the resolution of the regular 35mm film) and professional Hasselblad cameras (which are so good and expensive that most people have never heard of them). The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal has these photos scanned at high-res. next.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
what's funny is they new when they faked it it wouldn't have to be prefect because they knew most people are too stupid to know enough to figure it out. And even when they did they'd still be met with the brainwashed masses who would do the defence for them



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

onebigmonkey

spartacus699


No, a satelite could have taken the photos you dumb azz. Then then just use a bit of photoshop and zoom out arrrhhh. Anyone with even a slight bit of graphic arts from the day could have easily created the photos. And what's with all the photos??? They have so many photos that they realized that they would have to have every astronoaugh taking a photo every second of every moment they were on the moon to get that many photos? And how would the film withstand the heat, cold and radiation? It's impossible.


Ok, first thing: there were no satellites taking colour photos at the time. There were only 2 satellites that had whole Earth coverage at the time, and they only had coverage of specific spots because they were geostationary. The other images were obtained by low Earth orbit satellites that took 24 hours to cover the entire surface and the images had to be stuck together - most od the Apollo photographs were taken before that could happen. I suggest you read a book or two - I have, it makes all the difference

Second thing: Photoshop? Really? I suggest you go back and look at the history of computer graphics and software and see how dumb that statement is. How would that work for live TV? I have lots of original material with those photos in that pre-date digital editing, so I know they weren't photoshopped.

Third thing: los of photos. Yes. If they'd taken none you'd have been bitching as well. Most of the mission photos were taken with an auto-shutter in orbit getting coverage of the surface. There were three people with cameras. I've taken more photos over a weekend at a wedding than in the EVAs for Apollo 11 and 12 combined.

The film would withstand the temperature range and radiation because the cameras were designed for it. The entire Lunar Orbiter series that got the first detailed lunar photographs took pictures on film, developed them in space and transmitted them back to Earth with relatively few problems. If you think it's not technically possible you need to produce some numbers to prove that.

FInally, save the abuse for kindergarten.


they could turn black n white into color by then. I said "graphic arts" didn't i. The camers used film, they couldn't hold so much film I doubt. Appollo 17 they were on the moon for 1320 minutes. They took 1986 photos, so more than 1 per minute of every waking moment they were supposedly on there? I doubt it. the us and russians had already sent unmanned missions to the moon. They could have taken the photos at that time.

wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org...

Unmanned landings[edit]

The Soviet Union performed the first hard (unpowered) Moon landing in 1959 with the Luna 2 spacecraft, a feat the U.S. duplicated in 1962 with Ranger 4. Since then, twelve Soviet and U.S. spacecraft have used braking rockets to make soft landings and perform scientific operations on the lunar surface, between 1966 and 1976.[citation needed]
===========================================
===========================================
The USSR accomplished the first soft landings and took the first pictures from the lunar surface on the Luna 9 and Luna 13 missions. (hello!)
==========================================
==========================================
The U.S. followed with five unmanned Surveyor soft landings.
The Soviet Union achieved the first unmanned lunar soil sample return with the Luna 16 probe on September 24, 1970. This was followed by Luna 20 and Luna 24 in 1972 and 1976. The Luna 17 and Luna 21 were successful unmanned rover missions.
Two unmanned landing missions were unsuccessful: Luna 23 landed successfully, but its scientific equipment then failed. The U.S. Surveyor 4, lost all radio contact only moments before its landing.
edit on 9-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   

spartacus699
what's funny is they new when they faked it it wouldn't have to be prefect because they knew most people are too stupid to know enough to figure it out. And even when they did they'd still be met with the brainwashed masses who would do the defence for them


even at the time people were questioning the landings i remember my grandfather going on about a number being on a rock that he noticed .

and a story on a.t.s. about a australian woman seeing a coke tin /or bottle in one shot but you are right about how stupid the masses are 9-11 proved that to me -see my thread on that one spartacus tptb arrogence is shocking



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   

geobro

spartacus699
what's funny is they new when they faked it it wouldn't have to be prefect because they knew most people are too stupid to know enough to figure it out. And even when they did they'd still be met with the brainwashed masses who would do the defence for them


even at the time people were questioning the landings i remember my grandfather going on about a number being on a rock that he noticed .

and a story on a.t.s. about a australian woman seeing a coke tin /or bottle in one shot but you are right about how stupid the masses are 9-11 proved that to me -see my thread on that one spartacus tptb arrogence is shocking


Ya but we were all that dumb too! (ya I'll check for that thread). Like for myself I didn't know jack until I started doing some research in 2011 and also started listening to Alex Jones. Then slowly very slowly I started to piece a lot of the BS together. Like that was only 2 years ago now! Before that I too was a totally naive brainwashed six oclock news sheeple! aaahhhhh. So ya it's sad. Even now I'm no saying I know it all, not even close, but I know enough to realize that most of what tptb tell you to believe is all BS or has some hidden agenda behind it. ahhhh



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spartacus699
 


that is why i like a.t.s there are so many brainy people that come to this site that i learn off and up until 2007 i was one of the television is truth crowd as well now i never watch it



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
I do believe there is a moon conspiracy, but it's not this one..

As far as the flags... Easy, it was made in the USA!



posted on Dec, 9 2013 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by CaptainBeno
 


Yet again another littany of pure ignorance.

It's like a merry go round.

I advise you go read a book, any book will do, try something easy to start with.

.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join