How many ATS members still believe in the Moon landings?

I am persuaded by the preponderance of evidence that we landed on the moon, yes. I am also persuaded by the preponderance of evidence that NASA does not offer tantalizing hints of something non-mundane going on in extraterrestrial imagery, only to then fake the entirety of the rest of their imagery. Because that seems both contradictory and unnecessary to me. If one is true, the other makes no sense.

"Oops, we accidentally revealed signs of ETI on Mars... but we're covering up absolutely everything else successfully, and many of our images are actually entirely contrived and not real. But those Mars ETI images we accidentally let slip through are totally real, and we need to do a better job of fooling everyone," makes no intuitive logical sense to me.

And amateur astronomy would seem to preclude many of the conspiracy theories surrounding national and international space programs. Some of these things simply cannot be concealed or faked because there are so many ordinary people all over the world able to independently verify or deny their reality. Visually, directly.

As for everything else, I'm not qualified to hold an opinion. And I could always be wrong.

Peace.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: Ove38

And this is somehow proof of Kubrick's involvement in Apollo because...?

Graphic Films made films for NASA 's Apollo project. Graphic Films sent storyboards to Stanley Kubrick. NASA came to watch the film Stanley Kubrick and Graphic Films had made for the Apollo project at MGM-British studios in Borehamwood, London.

a reply to: Ove38

No.

What you are doing here is posting photographs of NASA personnel with Stanley Kubrick.

This is not a secret.

What you are not demonstrating is how this translates to the delusional fiction that Kubrick was involved in Apollo, or that NASA contacted Kubrick to solicit his involvement in even the tiniest capacity.

By the time the photograph you posted was taken NASA had already put probes on the moon and put men into space. They did not need Kubrick for anything. Kubrick in fact needed NASA, because even while they were building models for the moon images in 2001 NASA was getting new photographs from Lunar Orbiter that were better quality than the stuff he had.

Here's Arthur C Clarke's recollection of the "NASA" visit:

bibliotecascienaga.unimagdalena.edu.co...

September 25. Visitors from NASA-Dr. George Mueller, Associate Administrator, and "Deke" Slayton (Director of Flight Crew Operations). Gave them the Grand Tour- they were quite impressed. George made several useful suggestions and asked wistfully if he could have the model of Discovery for his office when we'd finished with it. Deke was later reported to have said: "Stanley, I'm afraid you've been conned by a used capsule salesman." An improbable story-I suspect the fine Italian hand of Roger Caras, Stanley's vice-president i/c promotion.

That's it. That's all there is.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

That year Harry Lange from NASA and director Con Pederson from Graphic Films came from USA to work with Stanley Kubrick and Arthur Clark at MGM-British studios in Borehamwood, London.

Why would a special effects company like Graphic films make lifelike lunar landers ? have you thought of that ? and why would they take pictures of lifelike lunar landers with a Hasselblad camera ?

nzpetesmatteshot.blogspot.hr...

Apollo Hasselblad camera


lifelike lunar lander


Apollo Hasselblad camera magazine, left in lifelike lunar lander

originally posted by: ImLeon
a reply to: DJW001

How many ATS members still believe in the Moon landings?

If anyone in this day and age really believes this flimsy piece of # went to the moon...punch your self in the face...really hard...wake up!

Look at the difference in the two space craft. One is made of metal the other is made of cardboard and left over wrapping paper.

and white painted wood ?

a reply to: Ove38

Ok? NASA never uses equipment models for display, development, training, and publicity? You really have no concept of using inexpensive models for design development and training?

a reply to: Ove38

You never answered which of the six manned moon landings were faked? Or the three additional manned trips to the moon for lunar orbit were faked?

a reply to: Ove38

Does the waxwork figures of the royal family at Madame Toussaud's prove that the queen does not exist?

a reply to: DJW001

Please explain what a Apollo 11 Lunar Surface 70 mm double perforated film magazine, modified with a silver metal exterior to repel the solar rays that could easily overheat and destroy this sensitive equipment on the lunar surface, is doing in this picture on earth ?

What do you think it was used for ? Could it possibly be, to take pictures of the dismantled lunar lander (LM) with a Apollo 11 Hasselblad 500 EL camera on earth ?

a reply to: Ove38

I don't understand the question.

a reply to: Ove38

The answer is exactly the same one you were given before when you asked it, which you do on average every two years.

a reply to: Ove38

Careful now, your dishonesty is showing. You know full well what that LM is, because you've been told.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ove38

I don't understand the question.

You will figure it out. While you're at it, please explain why the "scotch" tape used on the dismantled lunar lander (LM) is exactly the same as the tape used in this picture www.lpi.usra.edu...

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Just explain what a Apollo 11 Lunar Surface 70 mm double perforated film magazine, modified with a silver metal exterior to repel the solar rays that could easily overheat and destroy this sensitive equipment on the lunar surface, is doing in this picture on earth ?

I believe they went to the moon.
Now if some don't believe it, I certainly don't think that makes one an idiot.

None of us, not even our good man Oberg,who knows way more than I do,
still doesn't entirely know what was experienced by the Astronauts.

However I do NOT believe the public were privy to ALL relevant radio transmissions
between Houston and the Astronauts. I don't mean medical channel
navigational transmissions I mean general "Hey look at that " type
of communication. I'm not sure we got all of those.
Some slipped through like music being heard etc.
And still Genuinely weird things happened.
Does that mean alien craft visited them on the ridge
of that crater? Nope not one bit . Because they'd be "Hardly worth
mentioning" .

originally posted by: Ove38
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Just explain what a Apollo 11 Lunar Surface 70 mm double perforated film magazine, modified with a silver metal exterior to repel the solar rays that could easily overheat and destroy this sensitive equipment on the lunar surface, is doing in this picture on earth ?

Please explain why it shouldn't be. It's part of a museum exhibit.

a reply to: DJW001

So it's a fake lunar surface film magazine in a fake lunar module ? Now why would they make such good fakes ? Even the "scotch" tape used on the dismantled lunar lander (LM) is exactly the same as the tape used in this picture www.lpi.usra.edu... that is supposed to be the real lunar lander (LM)

Why is it not possible to tell the difference between the "real" and the fake stuff in the Apollo program, also known as Project Apollo ?

a reply to: Ove38

Who said they were fake?

a reply to: Ove38

You're making even less sense than usual.

a reply to: Ove38

Still never answered which of the nine manned trips to the moon were fake? Or out of the nine trips, which six manned moon landings were fake?