It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:21 AM
reply to post by johnlear

Here John, this is cropped from the photo JRA posted. It's the piece of rectangular metal tubing on the left that was being pointed out.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 06:33 AM
Ive got to admit the photo`s look convincing to me .. maybe there is more to this moon hoax conspiracy than I originally thought ...


posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 08:34 AM
thank you everyone for your input, I was shocked at first it but now it may be a "perspective thing" I'm still not 100% certain but I do feel better having heard more theories on this. It would be nice if we had clear Photo's from the same angles as the TV broadcast, but that is wishful thinking.

Also, thank you Mr Lear for getting in touch with Mr Twietmeyer, I have read many of his articles in the past and he does make valid points, I as a humble member of very little standing would never be able to get a response, it would be nice if he was able to join us in this debate.

I appreciate all the help and input from all of you

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:01 AM
As Ted Twietmeyer say's, we probably went to the moon but the Apollo 11 "live broadcast" in 1969 was a fake. I tend to agree here.

There is no doubt that we landed on the Moon, but as to why the so called live broadcast was faked is something of a mystery. Did they land on a 'Moon base' manned by black projects personnel who helped in some way in the landing? Or were ET spacecraft all over the landing area forcing NASA to show pre-recorded video footage taken here?

This implies that NASA was privy to alien presence on the Moon and taken the necessary precautions.

This, needless to say, seems as far fetched as a faked Moon landing! But what is the truth? Will we ever get to know?

[edit on 27-12-2007 by mikesingh]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:20 AM
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

Thank you for the enlargement. I still fail to see a smoking gun here. To me, it seems that it is a shifting of perspective that causes this. I can see no reason to overturn the call on the field, and Mr. Twietmyer is charged with his first time out.

Seriously, I just don't see anything here that spells drastic difference. And trust me, much like Mike, I think there's a lot more to the story than what we're told. I just don't think this is going to be anything to "break" it.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:44 AM
Look, I really was on the moon! We went there. I was that fourth guy that nobody really talks about. The one who took the photo that John Lear referenced. Some people said I died, or that I was a secret space agency astronaut. Not true. I was legit. Also, I was the guy running around picking up debris. Sometimes you see me at the very edge of some "live" video footage. MikeSingh was there, too. Only he got stuck cleaning the anti-grav toilets. Hey, somebody had to do it. Plus, his skin condition is proof. We was there. All of us. We ain't lying 'bout nothin'.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:44 AM
ok I tried to get two of the photos with the same angle on them, the best I could find was one that was close to 180° notice the yellow arrows, granted the black and white photo is NOT the best but you can see a gap on the color photo that "appears" to not be in the B&W. (however the red arrow may be at the termination point of the "thin"ladder) This is my own assumption of what is the crux of the matter. I do NOT at anytime state this as "fact" but the "appearance" of "fact".

[edit on 27-12-2007 by thedigirati]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:51 AM
In this photo that Zorgon posted, we can clearly see both the 4" rail AND the thin ladder stringer (in fact you can even see the ends of the rungs on the thin stringer). So Ted Twietmeyer's arguement that the ladder stringers are thick in one photo and thin in another can be totally refuted by this photo.

So what about the distance from the bottom of the ladder to the Moon's surface? It's impossible to tell the distance between the bottom of the surface of the Moon is from the below photo. The blue arrow is poiting to a spot several feet away from the LEM. The shadows we see as the top of the LEM are also several feet away from the ladder. without seeing the footpad, it is next to ipossible to gauge the distance from the ladder to the surface:

In the below photo of Aldrin (also posted by Zorgon, we can see that the end of the ladder is about waist high (maybe stomach high -- its a little hard to tell since Aldrin is slumped over and is bending his knees). Notice the bottom of the ladder is about even with the top of that horizontal strut connected to the leg of the LEM.

If you watch the the below video (from which the black-and-white still was taken) which shows Armstrong on the ladder then hopping down to the footpad, you will see that the bottom of the ladder (which is even with the horizontal strut I mentioned before) is about stomach or waist high on Armstrong. On the below video, he hops down of the footpad at abou the :28 second mark:

(if you cant get the video working, here is the link):
Armstrong Youtube

By the way, on the above video you can clearly see Armstrong is holding a thin ladder rail...that thicker peice of tubing is clearly seen between the ladder rail and the LEM. Did Ted Twietmeyer even watch this video before making his claims? I would think if he saw this (which is a very famous video that has been seen by millions of people), then he couldn't have made the claims that he did, because this video refutes thos claims. It seem to me that Ted Twietmeyer's assertions about the ladder having different rails and being different lengths can easily be debunked.

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:56 AM
Some remarks of me.

First, in my opinion is the leg of the lunar module in figure two, with the red end white arrows," target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

not the same leg as you see in the foreground of figure 1 here below." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

If you watch closely you see that it is in fact the left leg in de background behind the leg in the foreground you see in figure 1.

So, also the leg in this figure 2a" target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
is not the leg you see in the foreground in figure two.

So you can’t compare the shock absorbers correctly this way, because you can’t see the shock absorbers of the left leg in de background behind the leg you see in the foreground in figure 1.

Then the following, where is the dust all over the place on the lunar module?
During the landing there must be a big cloud of dust produced, but I see not even one particle on the leg or wherever.
And where the blast of the engine meats the ground during the landing you expect a pretty big hole in the ground, but that’s also not the case as far as I see it.

Then, what is wrong with this three men, look at the expression on their faces.
Are these the men who makes for many the impossible possible, landing and walking on the Moon.
They must feel like Hero’s amongst Hero’s.
Why did they look as if they where going for the rest of their lives to prison?

Is it because they where really never on the moon in the first place, and sit there as victims of a big false flag operation, or did they see and experienced things that shattered there vision of reality, and where not allowed to ever talk about it with no one on this earth as long as they live?

Watch the same men before the unbelievable attempt to walk on the Moon.
The look at their faces are full of self-confidence, eager and ready to accomplish their mission.

What in this Universe good change that so drastically?

[edit on 27/12/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 27/12/07 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 27/12/07 by spacevisitor]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:25 AM
reply to post by ignorant_ape

Sir, can you reference that a bit more clearly, I didn't see the link that shows that information, thank you

Zorgon could you also reference your photos please as well?

I am not trying to be disrespectful to ANYONE, I would just like to allay my OWN personal fears, thanks again everyone

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by thedigirati
reply to post by ignorant_ape

Sir, can you reference that a bit more clearly, I didn't see the link that shows that information, thank you

Strange! If what i_a is saying is correct (That the two images are from Apollo 11 AND Apollo 15), then what the heck is all this about? I thought all images posted here are from Apollo 11? Or am I missing something here?

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:28 AM
Well I think the Rense article found no real discrepancies--and it's especially sloppy that the different foil pic has a lunar rover parked off in the background, so it's obvious at a glance it's not even the same mission.

However, I've found a very glaring discrepancy in looking over the photos at the official NASA Apollo 11 greatest hits image gallery, specifically this photo supposedly of the Apollo 11 LEM, described by NASA as "AS11-44-6598
Lunar module inspection after undocking" with an AS11 catalog number.

Now look at these photos from the mission on the Moon: here, and photos number AS11-40-5866 to 5868 here (sorry you can't link to them directly).

All the photos of the LEM on the Moon show the vertical trapezoidal panel over the hatch to be black with a metal ring in the center; on the supposed inspection photo taken after undocking, the panel is metallic grey.

At least part of the photo record is falsified.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 12:21 PM
I was quite impressive with the "smoking gun" until I continued reading this thread, lol. It really does like like that metal beam or whatever it is, especially on the higher quality picture.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:02 PM
reply to post by thedigirati

Spare me with this revisionist garbage. I suggest you look at proper history and all of the evidence of the moon landing. There is simply too much evidence, reports, and testimony to prove that it was real.

It is simply anti-american to suggest that America lied about the moon landing.

Why do you try to slander the name of a great country and its lead in technological progress?

How could you deny the risks that those astronaughts took? They risked their lives going on those missions. These brave individuals took a 222,000 mile journey across a vaccume of space, risking it all so that mankind could expand beyond the reaches of our globe, and all you have to say is that they are liars? They set a new paradigm, and all you can do is say it is a lie?

These people risked the travel to another celestial body, and all you can say is that it never happened? Spare me! What nonsense! There is too much proof. You moonlanding revisionist are doing nothing but slandering the name of the Astronauts and their families. You must be some kind of tecnophobe who is scared of technology. I bet you don't even own technology.

How do you account for all of the testimony of the NASA engineers? The employees involved with it? How do you account for the testimony of the astronauts? How do you account for the testimony of their familes? Of the American people who SAW the rockets launch? The Astronauts were on the Moon for god's sake!


I suggest you speak to some astronauts! When they sit there and tell you how beautiful the earth rise is, or how it feels to be in 1/6 the earths gravity. You sicken me. Have you ever been involved in the aerospace industry? You sound like you are barely 20 years old. I saw this on TV!

Have you ever eaten a bagel in China, or witnessed a sunset in the middle of nowhere? Have you ever eaten a mango on a park bench?

How do you account for all of them? What about the NASA budget? What about the video? What about the reports? What about the money?

Tell me, because I demand proof. You are showing nothing but baseless claims!

Tell me the basis on why you are being a moonlanding revisionist and slandering the name of history!

...I'd really like to know.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:20 PM

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by benign.psychosis

action is what action is, the past is not reality, what you think is real is the past

it is action that is reality

( boy did that feel REAL good )

Clarification for the confused

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:34 PM
I believe the simplest answer is probably correct and that answer would be NASA is not very organized and they got the pictures from different landings mixed up. Perhaps the folder which supposedly contains pictures of Apollo 11 may actually have a few photos from other missions thrown in there by accident. I could easily see NASA labeling the photo's incorrectly thus getting filed wrong. However, I know nothing regarding this issue so I am probably entirely incorrect.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:37 PM

Originally posted by spacevisitor
...Then the following, where is the dust all over the place on the lunar module?
During the landing there must be a big cloud of dust produced, but I see not even one particle on the leg or wherever.
And where the blast of the engine meats the ground during the landing you expect a pretty big hole in the ground, but that’s also not the case as far as I see it....

There would be no hole in the ground. The lunar dust at the Apollo 11 site is not a very thick -- maybe 1 or 2 inches. Under that dust is a hard surface. So the LM engines, which can be throttled back to 1000 lbf (4.5 kN) would not be powerful enough to gouge a hole in the hard surface during the final stages of landing.

The dust that WAS pushed out of the way would not create a cloud around the LEM, because for a cloud to be created there would need to be a thick atmosphere. For the engine to create a cloud, the dust would need to be suspended in the air -- and since there is no air, there is no supension of dust.

So where did the dust go? Without an atmoshere to allow for suspension of the dust, it just blew away in a perfect balastic path -- meaning that the dust was mostly blow sideways, then settled down by the pull of gravity. Some dust probably did riccochet upward off of the hard surface due to the thruster, but even that dust would fall to the surface -- it could not hang in the air like dust on Earth does, since there is no air.

So why isn't there any dust on the footpads? Because the engines were shut off while the LEM was still about 5 feet above the surface. This is because the thruster bell hangs so low under the LEM (almost as far as the LEM's legs) that NASA wanted to be sure the engines were off before landing in case the bottom of the thruster came in contact with a mound or something under the LEM. That would be a bad thing if the engine were still running.

Therefore, the thruster was stopped, the dust settled, then the LEM landed, its last 5 feet of descent was made without thrusters.

That's why there is no dust on the LEM.

By the way, that's what those 'contact probes' were that stuck out from the bottom of the foot pads (the long thin rods). when those probes contacted the surface, the astronauts would get a signal, and they knew to turn off the thruster.

....and to answer your question about the serious mood of the Astronauts in that press conference photo: Well, since this conference was a coulpe of weeks after they returned to Earth, I supposed they got over their initial giddyness and got back to the serious business of being an astronaut. These people are professionals, and I expect them to act as such. I do expect them to be happy and giddy right after they came back, but not almost three weeks later. I have seen other photos from that press conference in which the astronauts were smiling and even laughing, however there were momoents that they took time to say some serious things. I think it would be very strange if an astronaut answered a serious question while he was laughing or smiling -- don't you?

Plus, it is true that these guys felt a little uncomfortable and overwelmed with all of the attention they were getting, but I find that completely understandable. I would feel overwelmed also. This uncomfortableness regarding all of the attention they had received probably added to the fact that these guys were not the best public speakers at that moment.

By the way, here are pictures of them on the day they came back...they look pretty happy to me.

EDIT: I'm sorry for going off topic...I'm back on topic with my next post.

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by IvanZana

Thank you IvanZana

That's what I was referring. Since the footpad is not visible in the video still, one cannot determine the distance from the ladder to the surface.

I see the ladder in the video stopping at the horizontal strut, which is completely consistent withthe color still camera pictures.

This smoking gun has fired blanks.

posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 01:45 PM
Yes, there is an obvious discrepancy in the ladder design. This "difference" could have been a number of things but, nevertheless, from the photo's there is a difference......

In the photo above, we are looking at the RIGHT side of the ladder

In the photo above, we are looking at the LEFT side of the ladder.

Could this be the cause of the difference? Could the ladder design be such that the RIGHT side of the ladder is different than the LEFT side?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in