"New"evidence proves apollo was Hoax

Why do you take screenshots of those RealVideo files at 200%? That's bad quality and is too grainy to make anything out at all.

Plus I highly doubt they'd keep the electronics inside the spacesuit when they were decommissioned. That's like not removing the electronics from the YF-23 in a private museum.

okay.. this is too much. I am busting a gut laughing at this person who is getting all of his theories disproven and doesn't know what is fact from fiction. Times like these you should read the italisised words in my sig, which difine's Occum's razor.

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate

Maybe you should translate for the uni lingual here on ATS

Very fitting

kf your own qoutes from the vesuvius site are detrimental to your argument-how can you actually believe that you have some how explained the glares away with that statement/quote?
****************************************************
xar -
please dont accept the images as all there is --go to the links labeled puppets and more puppets--which will take you to official nasa videos that dont take long to dl and demonstrate the glares being debated-also maybe you could explain the anomalous movement that everyone here is avoiding like the plague
*****************************************************
jeh please elaborate on how the glares and movement were rationally disproved-id love to hear your perspective

Originally posted by Sunofone
kf your own qoutes from the vesuvius site are detrimental to your argument-how can you actually believe that you have some how explained the glares away with that statement/quote?
****************************************************

Oh? How so? It seems to me that the NASA page undisputable had the word ANTENNA in it. *shakes head* Vanguard even posted the clearest pic shown here so far and there is na antenna clearly visible on the suits pack.

As for the glares, well, if you had read the quote I gave you about the description of the antenna, it might have been a littl obvious. It is a PARABOLIC ANTENNA 1 FOOT LONG RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE! NASA's site confirms this. Of course there would be a glare from the sun off a flat metallic surface



[edit on 4/11/05 by Kidfinger]

I just looked at them then.

I see nothing suspicious. The part where he fell down - How'd he get up? Easily. With the moon's low gravity, you only need a small force to push you up, and momentum does the rest.

It's just like in water. The astronauts even trained in their spacesuits underwater, because it mimicked the moon's gravity.

Originally posted by Sunofone
jeh please elaborate on how the glares and movement were rationally disproved-id love to hear your perspective

I did, but you went off on your rant, so obviosuly did not bother to read it

Yes, those are antenna.. you see flashes from them reflecting the sun's light. you can also at certain points see a dark line when it the back ground is brighter. Also other more high quality pictures show the anntenna.

Also when the guy goes down, he is looking for an object. before coming up you see he bends his arms and you head and audible grunt as he pushes himself up. Due to the 1/12 gravity he is able to get to his knees, and his momentum brings him to his feat.

One of the worries with the moon missions was the bulky suits and the astronauts not being able to recover from a fall. As you can see he wasn't able to do it until he used all of his stregnth to push himself up with his arms.. I might suggest going to a nearby pool and adjust your boancy so you sink with about 50 pounds of wieght and then try to push off to right yoru self. same effect and can be duplicated yourself with proper equipment.

Another thing to note, due to the clarity of vaccum there was very little dispersion of light that you would normally see on earth. SO instead we only get a "Flash" as the suns light is reflected into the camera. Which further proves it was on the moon, as well as does his "getting up"

Now.... with your little rant...
[qupte]man this type of naivety really burns me -cant you see i am one of the few people that is fighting to preserve and expose the purpose of their death and ensure it will not be in vain- those guys were probably going to blow the whistle and were used to send a powerful message to anyone considering dissent in an evil twisted plan of deciet

Now instead of trying to prvoe the moon landing was a hoax, wouldn't your time and energy be better served by proving that Ed, Gus, and Rodger were about to "blow the whistle" and what they were going to "blow the whistle on" better serve your purpose? Why not cover all the deaths during the period and prove that they wer all about to blow the whistle?

* Ed Givens (car accident)
* Ted Freeman (T-38 crash)
* C. C. Williams (T-38 accident)
* Elliott See and Charlie Bassett (T-38 accident)
* Virgil "Gus" Grissom (supposedly an outspoken critic of the Space Program) (Apollo 1 fire)
* Ed White (Apollo 1 fire)
* Roger Chaffee (Apollo 1 fire)
* X-15 pilot Mike Adams (the only X-15 pilot killed during the X-15 flight test program - not a NASA astronaut, but had flown X-15 above 50 miles).
* Robert Lawrence, scheduled to be an Air Force Manned Orbiting Laboratory pilot who died in a jet crash shortly after reporting for duty to that (later cancelled) program.
* NASA worker Thomas Baron (claimed to be a coverup of a 500 page report on the Apollo 1 accident).
* Lee Gelvani claims to have almost convinced James Irwin, an Apollo 15 astronaut whom Gelvani referred to as an "informant", to confess about a cover-up having occurred. Irwin was supposedly going to ring Kaysing about it; however he died of a heart attack before any such telephone call occurred.

Spacecraft testing and flying high performance jet aircraft can be dangerous, and that all but one of the astronaut deaths (Irwin's) were directly related to their rather hazardous job. given that many tens (or hundreds) of thousands of individuals, often with US Air Force-related careers, were involved in the Apollo program, it is perhaps unsurprising that some individuals have died in the intervening decades.

Lunar Lasr Ranging Experiments is a good page with lots of links about the retroreflectors left by MANNED missions, and especially the Apollo 15 one that could have only been placed by a MANNED mission

Atsronomic observations of Apollo Missons has some great resources about the photographs taken by numerous domestic and foriegn observatories. I agree some of these photographs are about as good as your blurry "behind the curtain" shots. Bu the fact so many did observations of the missions, adn the fact it appeared in a Major Astronomy magazine makes the hoax very implausible.

the fact taht only 3% of americas belived the moon ladning was a hoax, and taht all the scientists invovled have consistantly disprove the hoax, put you in such a small minority that you are nothing but a drop in the ocean trying to prove a point that has no support except in false assumptions, bad conjector, and hubris.

btw the phrase below in my sig translated to english from latin is: "Plurality should not be posited without necessity" or usually now stated "Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."

[edit on 4/11/2005 by Jehosephat]

I can't believe this...WE WENT TO THE MOON ,WALKED ON IT ,THEN CAME BACK.

End of story.

Originally posted by GEORGE
I can't believe this...WE WENT TO THE MOON ,WALKED ON IT ,THEN CAME BACK.

End of story.

Trouble is, you can also say that about anything, true or false...

Jehose-until you realize that there have never been antenna positioned protruding upwards from the top of the pack you will never realize the gravity of the evidence being presented--the vesuvius quote that mentioned an antenna on the tops of the packs also mention their description -a rectangular foot long "block" --i followed by including images from that webpage as well as others all showing the suit in detail--someone else tried to post images that only collaborate the fact that there are indeed attachments at the tops of the packs "that should not be there"--here is another image with the glare on the wire connecting to the pack as well as many feet above --

sunofone, would you be kind enough to directly address this post,

Atsronomic observations of Apollo Missons has some great resources about the photographs taken by numerous domestic and foriegn observatories. I agree some of these photographs are about as good as your blurry "behind the curtain" shots. Bu the fact so many did observations of the missions, and the fact it appeared in a Major Astronomy magazine makes the hoax very implausible.


thanks !

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
sunofone, would you be kind enough to directly address this post,

Atsronomic observations of Apollo Missons has some great resources about the photographs taken by numerous domestic and foriegn observatories. I agree some of these photographs are about as good as your blurry "behind the curtain" shots. Bu the fact so many did observations of the missions, and the fact it appeared in a Major Astronomy magazine makes the hoax very implausible.


thanks !

please detail the types of photographs(location of camera and suggested location of the object being photographed) your are implying so many obsevatories captured and the sites that they can be viewed--i do accept magazines as a decent reference of recorded data but at the same time every major publication has been used at some point to push propaganda and to think of those sources as uncorruptable would be a bit naive

you're a slippery target sunofone, I'll try to explain myself as clearly as possible.........

how do you explain in the context of your theory.....

1) the astronomers that witnessed the mission, including activity on the moon.
2) the splash down of that was completeed at 12:50 p.m. EDT on July 24, 1969, when the Columbia splashed down about 812 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii, returning the 3 astronauts safely to Earth.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
you're a slippery target sunofone, I'll try to explain myself as clearly as possible.........

how do you explain in the context of your theory.....

2) the splash down of that was completeed at 12:50 p.m. EDT on July 24, 1969, when the Columbia splashed down about 812 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii, returning the 3 astronauts safely to Earth.

oh oh .. let me try.... * answering for sunofone....*

the capsul was taken airborn in a large transport type aircraft... the astonauts were loaded inside and then dropped into the ocean, making it seem as though they were returning from the moon..

something like that.. .


J/K, sorry I couldn't resist that one... I meant no harm....

carry on ...

[edit on 13-4-2005 by elevatedone]

HOLY CRAP!!

There were giant floating pointing hands on the Moon?!?!

OH DEAR LORD! THEYRE GONNA KILL US ALL!!!

....... I need a nap.

> I for one welcome our new giant floating pointing hand overlords. May they being dominance and suffering to us all.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by apc]

Originally posted by apc
HOLY CRAP!!

There were giant floating pointing hands on the Moon?!?!

OH DEAR LORD! THEYRE GONNA KILL US ALL!!!

....... I need a nap.

> I for one welcome our new giant floating pointing hand overlords. May they being dominance and suffering to us all.

[edit on 13-4-2005 by apc]

Well I have to admit, at least you attempt to provide credible links to your evidence.

Originally posted by GEORGE
I can't believe this...WE WENT TO THE MOON ,WALKED ON IT ,THEN CAME BACK.

But... why can't you believe "we" did that?

I wanted to share this paper with the class because I found it immensely amusing and it talks about, in detail, why the Apollo missions were ALL a hoax (and the conclusions seem to also say that every interplanetary probe... mars, jupiter.. uhm... well just read it). Really have to read it to the end to get the full impact.
www.midclyth.supanet.com...

Originally posted by apc
I wanted to share this paper............

www.midclyth.supanet.com...

Thanks I needed some humor with my morning coffee Here is my favorite quote from the whole article:

You can believe the Bible, or you can believe NASA, that is up to you, but you cannot believe both, for they are mutually exclusive.

This bible thingy, It's a book yes? Is it still in print? Who's the author?. Looks like its full of laughs.