New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

reply to post by Kr0nZ


I can't believe the website making this original claim could be that stupid. Those type of tires are just now in use on military vehicles. Often they DON"T LEAVE TRACKS because the dust gets filled in unless you are driving really, really fast!!!

wow just wow...

20 pages and its all crap i have heard before....
It is people who refuse to look at the evidence from both sides and come to a logical conclusion that the term "Conspiracy Theorists" makes people think of wack jobs.

ATS motto is still Deny Ignorance right...?

Naa come on, Mith and Buster prove it, they said the moon landing is real. And I had friend who is in his 80 use to assemble the Apollo rocket. He show me all the photos, and all the follow workers who use to build them. There is no way they can cover up the fake moon landing.... N-O way...

I think if you really look into it, there is no question they (nasa, JPL Malin) are hiding artifices (though tiny leaks), structures, buildings towers etc. I think it is a MUST listen to check out Coast to Coast a few nights ago with Jay Weidner, he really makes a lot of sense to me. In regards to Stanley Kubrick working for Nasa in the beginning, especially with leaked movie scenes into some of his other movies. But Jay realized there was background stitching (seams) in the backdrop of Stanely's films with Nasa and the early Apollo mission. Which indicated the LACK of original backdrop that should of been there when the astronauts were on the moon.

The astronauts were on the moon alright, but there are incredible things that they definitely didn't want us to see. Too many legit whistleblowers, too many legit theories now that is in the process of blowing a bit of their cover. Maybe they planned it that way.

The reason the skeptics i think at least some, get mixed up, is that because of the cover up of not letting us know about alien civilizations, they kind of stepped on the feet of the (they - landed - on - the - moon - skeptics) that didn't wake up to the fact that it should be a no brainer. They did land and partake of the moons surroundings to a little degree as compared to other advanced civilizations that have been doing business for untold centuries into thousands of years and heaven knows so much more.

I also highly regard Richard Hoagland, even though I think many of here don't. Sure he can get long winded in regards to sacred geometry. etc. But I REALLY think is a hound on the hunt big-time with artifacts on mars and the moon. There is SO much to say in that regards, SO much. And it WILL eventually help change the world as well know. Hopefully for the good!.

My hunch is Nasa, JPL, Malin's leaders know or at least have an idea about some of the alien's advancement. That aliens are mental telepathy experts, they might be able to invade your minds with out you even knowing about it. Such as sleep interrogations etc. They could be able take your days activities and take snap shots and analyze. And unless the world understands that you are dealing with beings so advanced. If nasa, government leaves us unprotected and unable to protect ourselves from mind invasion then yes, we really are in the dark. I think in that regard a belief in GOD is important.

Aliens in my opinion are not playing by OUR earth rules and the quicker EVERYBODY knows about it the better ALL of us will be. These are hunches only and should be taken with a grain of salt, Hopefully not the kind of salt that Lot's wife dealt with

So I think there is a lot of incredible earth shaking things Nasa knows, but they may realize that it could be a war out there. But not a war that we can even fathom. Hopefully the government, Nasa are truly on our sides. If they are not we are could be in for a VERY WILD RIDE and an incredible strange one!

Originally posted by Undeadlady
Apollo DID land on the moon, and they also FAKED the landing for TV. They had to fake the landing after they discovered someone got to the moon first, and it wasn't humans. Now. back in the day this happened they couldn't just blab that they discovered traces of alien's on the moon, remember the war of the worlds broadcast? way to many nutters to just come out with the truth. Personally i think they did the right thing by staging a landing, but now all these years later i think they should tell everyone the truth. No wonder Neil Armstrong became a virtual recluse after the moon landing, poor guy had to live with what he saw and probably couldn't get to grips with it, God rest his soul.

So they did go to the moon, and they did fake one as well, so, get over it OP

No, i don't have proof of this, its just what i believe.

I've already said in this thread that I don't know what to believe but there have been stories about ET. watching them on the moon, UFOs lined up along the horizon.
So I decided they must have gone to the moon or this couldn't have happened, although there are people who say that didn't happen. Well they can't have it both ways for me to come down on one side or the other.
Truth is I still don't know what to think.

reply to post by WWu777


I'm a graphic designer and know a thing or two about altering photos, and I can tell you that you can't push the pixels to be brand new a crisp clear like the photo you think was lightened. Let me say again.. there is no way to take black pixels and push them to where colors and definition start appearing. It's much more likely that the dark photo was the altered one. And if there were a second light source then there would be two shadows, unless you are the sun was behind the moon. Crack pots like you who come here and throw a bunch of BS and call it evidence really don't follow the principles of research, and instead ignore it and scramble for anything you might find in the trash to use just as long as you think it could help your agenda. "white canvas cloth" isn't going to cut it.

The answer to most debates, is always in the middle.
Both sides will have some correct info.
Apply Occam's razor and here would be the answer.
1. Some of the photos are faked. Beautiful shots designed for splash and cover to sell NASA
Done here on the Earth and ready to go and NASA doesn't want to admit sell job.
2. They did land, and the crap photos are from there.
3. Why wouldn't Russia have outed them if it was fake? Who would have believed the Red Threat trying to destroy Americas greatest triumph? No one. On top of that, who would want to admit that the Americans pulled it over on them.

What I would advise to both sides presented in this thread:

a. Do not present material that is fringe as it waters down your argument. Weed that out and display only strong easily identifiable concepts and information..
b Start showing some respect for people even if you do not agree with them. Your case is weakened by name calling and snide responses, which lowers the readers opinion of you and effects their willingness to see the validity of your statements.

Thank you for taking the time to read my post

Originally posted by WWu777
Can someone edit this thread to "White carpet cloth over dirt floor clearly seen"?

I'm not talking about a piece of cloth. I'm talking about the WHITE LAYER behind the astronaut. It's a sheet placed over the dirt. How can you miss it? Don't you see the obvious difference between that white carpet behind him and the dirt in front?

Hey OP, is this the cloth you are talking about?



I saw you reply to me about the first screenshot on page 1 and how the rock object is not it. This has turned into a very interesting thread on all point of views and I am not sure if this ever got answered.

I just want to know if this pic here is what the OP is referring to in his thread title. It does "kind of" look like a cloth but it is just the dirt/sand. I think this is what he means for cloth.

reply to post by digitalf


Hmm, strange.

I can't remember what I googled to find that picture, but a couple of other pictures along the same lines came up in my searches which happened to be from posts here on ATS, with regards to the moon hoax debate, so that might explain it. If people are using photos like these in discussions like this then it makes sense?

Originally posted by PsykoOps
...
I asked devil to produce even a single one of these mysterious high powered telescope pictures. The LRO images are not taken with a high powered telescope

Oh okay. But why are pictures taken from an orbiting satellite considered less conclusive than some from a high powered telescope?
What level of detail do you expect a high powered telescope to be able to resolve that is higher than an ORBITING SATELLITE?
What level of power are we talking here?
and I hope you're not talking about hubble ...

In fact, if you do the math (set Hubble’s resolution to 0.1 arcseconds and the distance to 400,000 kilometers) you see that Hubble’s resolution on the Moon is about 200 meters! In other words, even a football stadium on the Moon would look like a dot to Hubble.
....
Using a bigger telescope won’t help much. You’d need a mirror 50 times bigger than Hubble’s to see the landers at all, and we don’t have a 100 meter telescope handy.

Full article...blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Originally posted by jrtallent
It just occurred to me why the moon photos are done in black & white -- it's much easier to hide the fakery when there's no color.

For those people who are serious about whether the moon hoax is real or not, go to this website: Project Apollo Image Gallery There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pictures from the surface of the moon here for you to examine.

Track marks on the Looner rover in this image, but still seems all dodgie to me.

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Info obtained from:
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by KAOStheory

 

Why does no one consider that maybe we did go but the video was faked?

That's what I believe. ...

So they went to the moon at the same time as they were transmitting from the craft, a pre-prepared film of them going to the moon? Or they went to the moon after that?
The television images were picked up from space and then re-transmitted, so even if they didn't go to the moon until later, they still had to have a vehicle going to the moon and transmitting. How would that have worked?

reply to post by delusion


No it was the other guy who claimed we can see stuf on the moons surface with a "high powered telescope". I demanded he post an example of even one cause I know that there isn't a telescope that could do that. Not even hubble.

Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?

None other than to bankrupt the soviets and give Americans a sense of entitlement and to assist in a future union with the UN.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by delusion

 

No it was the other guy who claimed we can see stuf on the moons surface with a "high powered telescope". I demanded he post an example of even one cause I know that there isn't a telescope that could do that. Not even hubble.

Fair enough.
But we CAN see stuff on the moon's surface with an orbiting sattelite right? So, maybe that's what he meant.
You can see that picture right? That doesn't do anything for you?

Yes I love lro images. Another nail on the HB coffin. They just dismiss them thought because they can't explain them.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by jrtallent
It just occurred to me why the moon photos are done in black & white -- it's much easier to hide the fakery when there's no color.

For those people who are serious about whether the moon hoax is real or not, go to this website: Project Apollo Image Gallery There are literally hundreds and hundreds of pictures from the surface of the moon here for you to examine.

I have about 1,000 pictures of Black Rock Desert in NV...in Black & White those pictures are indistinguishable from the surface pictures you mentioned. These days, evidence that CANNOT be faked is becoming harder and harder to come by as technology in imaging, editing, analyzing, and overall science/astronomy advances. How long do you really want to hold tight to your flat-lander folk lore? The 60's and 70's were a LONG time ago. If we actually went to the moon back then, and it was so 'easy', then why'd we stop? The He-3 industry on the Moon would be enough to mine it...if we could.

Do the "moon conspiracy" people believe that the Apollo rockets took off, circled the Earth for a few days and the astronauts splashed down without going to the moon? Or perhaps there were NO Apollo launches? Everyone involved, including the media and visitors were duped somehow? LOL, our government isn't capable of producing such a feat today. Was mankind more advanced in 1968?
-cwm

reply to post by thetiler


AGREED bravo best statement in this thread