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.
originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
I'm with Bill Clinton, most likely it was a hoax (My Life). I have looked at skeptics' evidence, and there is nothing there to disprove the moon landings (that I can tell anyway)- but I wouldn't expect anything less from Kubrick (and $25 billion). My main reason for skepticism is just the idea that we sent 7 missions to the moon (let's face it, that's an incredible distance) - all made it back with no one dead (including the 13 miracle) - 45 years ago, where nobody has come anywhere close since. We've seen the video of Armstrong crashing the test lander - is there any video of NASA actually getting that piece of junk to work? Then when I see the melancholy return presser, later on the cryptic statements of Aldrin, and how Armstrong became a recluse, it makes me raise an eyebrow. I have no evidence to suggest Apollo was a hoax, but hoax seems more plausible than sending and returning 20+ men to the moon. I think the movie "Interstellar" was right, the Russians were far more advanced in space travel than we were, so we had to make it seem like we had caught and passed them, hence the hoax.
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: charlyv
I hope you're ready to explain the "Dutch Moon Rock", because someone is going to post about it. The hoax crowd can't choose one thing because then that thing gets picked apart and it's over. They'll come in, post multiple, decades debunked crap and then ignore all responses and claim victory. It's called the "White Noise" method.
originally posted by: Ove38
originally posted by: Xtrozero
"There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon."
No way ? What about a previous unmanned missions to the moon ?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: Ove38
originally posted by: Xtrozero
"There is no way NASA would have created that back ground without it actually being the real moon."
No way ? What about a previous unmanned missions to the moon ?
I don't think any were mobile to take pictures from different angles. My point is the back grounds in these pictures are the moon, no doubt.
originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: Ove38
Not even when the people in the photographs were observed taking off in a great big rocket and then made nice live TV broadcasts from the moon showing them taking the photographs with the surface details in?
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Batousai
Interesting hypothesis, but do you have any kind of proof to back it up? Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny may be real, but until I see evidence stating otherwise I'm going to stick to my assumptions that they are not.
They want you to place your faith in what they call science instead of the truth. Because if they can get you to believe in science that you cannot verify with your own two eyes then they can manipulate your mind and mold it like clay in their hands.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Batousai
Science is not faith based, it is experience based. A decent education used to include laboratory courses in which students got to learn the basics of physics, chemistry, and biology by doing. Apparently, this is no longer the case because people come on here and argue that the lunar landing are a hoax because they don't understand how shadows work, they don't understand why a camera set to expose a sunlit scene properly won't record stars, they don't understand the difference between weight and momentum... it's frightening.
As for how I know the lunar landings were real? I know people who worked on the project; they certainly believe it was real. I've met some of the astronauts who made the voyage, and they have far more integrity than any of the deniers. I've even had the opportunity to examine some regolith in person, and I can assure you: it did not come from Earth.
originally posted by: Batousai
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Batousai
Interesting hypothesis, but do you have any kind of proof to back it up? Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny may be real, but until I see evidence stating otherwise I'm going to stick to my assumptions that they are not.
Proof...I didn't say I have proof. I have "evidence" that I choose to place my faith in. Just like you choose to place your faith in "evidence".
Where is your proof? Have you flown up in a rocket ship to look and see for yourself? I think not.
So in actuality you are placing your faith in what your government is telling you.
It's all a matter of faith. I place my faith in the bible you place your faith in the government text books end of story.
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Batousai
Ok then. I'll rephrase my question: Interesting hypothesis, but do you have any kind of EVIDENCE to back it up? Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny may be real, but until I see evidence stating otherwise I'm going to stick to my assumptions that they are not.