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.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 22
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2015 @ 04:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: TheWhisper

Your 3g refers to the spaceshuttle not the Saturn V.



maybe want to check out what he was replying to before pointing out the obvious?

Yes but this tread is about the Saturn V. It is just extra information that is shared with everyone. What is wrong with that?




posted on May, 1 2015 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheWhisper

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: TheWhisper

Your 3g refers to the spaceshuttle not the Saturn V.



maybe want to check out what he was replying to before pointing out the obvious?

Yes but this tread is about the Saturn V. It is just extra information that is shared with everyone. What is wrong with that?


Evidence of your inability to acknowledge when you're wrong and haven't read something properly? You said:


Your 3g refers to the spaceshuttle not the Saturn V.


That was a correction, you didn't read properly and now you can't even admit it. Amazing, really, really special man.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

But it left tracks. Now, we have a journal that states it wasn't moved by lifting it and photos with no tracks explaining how it got there. From you, a myriad of excuses that honestly don't add up but you come off conclusive.

We know the rover leaves tracks in loose regolith. We know the astros leave foot prints in the loose regolith. We can just chalk this up to another mystery, not thuroughly explained by either side. Like the photos I presented earlier.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:45 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify


Well we have to keep it going, boys and girls.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is the link to the 400pg behemoth and I'd like to continue.


Actually, that was one of the worst Moon Hoax threads of all time! The Hoaxies were all vague, and when they actually raised issues, they were all the worn out ones. I could barely bring myself to participate it was so boring. Let me know when someone starts a thread as good as this one was:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Hoaxies would actually bring up questions that required actual research to answer, instead of inanities like: "they sound like they're reading off a script." Seriously? They were test pilots who trained for hours following a detailed timeline. Did you expect them to be shrieking like panicked children: "Aaaaaaaah!!! What does that flashing yellow light mean? Oh noes! Why are those numbers running backwards? What does that switch do?!"



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

They aren't excuses, they are explanations - explanatio s that make much more sense than the alternatives offered.

For the record as I recall no-one said it was moved, just that it is possible.

Personally I don't think it was - I think it was driven bsck to the LM and parked there, on the moon.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

But it left tracks. Now, we have a journal that states it wasn't moved by lifting it and photos with no tracks explaining how it got there. From you, a myriad of excuses that honestly don't add up but you come off conclusive.


it hasnt left any tracks even while in motion..
www.hq.nasa.gov...



We know the rover leaves tracks in loose regolith. We know the astros leave foot prints in the loose regolith. We can just chalk this up to another mystery, not thuroughly explained by either side. Like the photos I presented earlier.


think about the hoax theory explaination..

stage hands who have to meticulously controlled the lunar surface so that it resembles the video footage, this is a high resolution image of a real working rover as shown in the second image.. so it will weigh about 200+ kg, so instead of the stagehands rolling it into position they lift it with wires even though they know rolling it into position will make the tracks for them..

they somehow forget to put the tracks in the "lunar" surface for these few photos..

now, these photos have to go through scrutiny by the "screeners" and they missed it also and then have decided to give it the go ahead to publish it.

so it has slipped through atleast two very very tight nets.. and thats just these two images.. there are probably more..

the other explaination is that the rover makes easily visible tracks on some surfaces and not on others.. but thats not likely at all to hoax believers..



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

DJ, there you go calling names again!


Hoaxie has kind of a nice ring to it, though. That was a good thread. I liked the other I continued as well. Wu and Foosm don't post that much anymore from what I can tell and I really liked their insight. We still have SJ, PPK, AwE, Webstra, Ove, etc keeping the "hoaxie" alive.

From what I see, it comes down to intrepretation. That's usually the decider. And there's a lot more on your side than mine; but that's okay - I like a challenge



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Can you source who made that hoax claim or was this made up on the spot, by someone who adamently fights the hoax theory? Because the latter would be completely unfair



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Can you source who made that hoax claim or was this made up on the spot, by someone who adamently fights the hoax theory? Because the latter would be completely unfair


Well what is your explanation if you point and go "no tracks.. something wrong.."?
Because implying it did not drive into position because you can't make out tracks creates an alternative explanation which is what choos described.
Scientifically minded people find explanations to things, we don't just point at things and say "why", "not right", etc and then just sit back staring waiting for someone else's explanations to argue against because they 'don't seem right'.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify
Well PPK55 irc claimed to be in the video/film industry but when challanged re his claim never backs it up and as simple lighting issues in the pictures seem to fool him he us either no good or telling lies.

Webstra as never put anything worthwhile on these threads except the typical in my opinion slant.

Foosm posted the picture with arrows all over the place because he cant understand how shadows work.

As for the no tracks claims in many of the shots there is not enough contrast to show whats left of the tracks which is also made harder due to dust being able to fall through the wheels.

edit on 1-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Anyway, you should be looking at the design:

NASA, Goodyear replicate lunar rover tire

Type something like 'Dune Buggy' into Google and look at the pictures of the varying and sometimes non-existent tyre tracks.

And also go out on beaches and dunes and examine the varying compositions of different areas. Experiment with your footprints and a tyre if you want.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, Mr. Smith - it could be a myriad of factors. We know there's loose regolith around the rover so it would have left tracks. I guess these are the "hoaxie" options:

- lifted there by a crane
- carried there by helpers
- shopped into the photo by NASA (remember, many of these photos were not seen by the public till far after and with the internet catalogue)
- the mesh tires weren't of original design but inflatable tires were, which we all know would have exploded on the moon, so much work was put into the retaking of lunar rover footage. I've heard a few people claim this but haven't seen actual proof, so....


Remember, Mr. Smith - sometimes those PF Flyers showed up in photo record

www.aulis.com...



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

That couldn't possibly be the result of a boot stepping in more or less the same spot at a different angle, now could it?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

It has definitely been claimed - there's a thread by James Fetzer claiming just that on the Deep Politics forum (to which I can't link as I am on my phone).

It has been re-iterated by others and it is a ridiculous self-defeating claim, as illustrated by choos' illustration of what the claim entails.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

No, it doesn't match at all. Care to find another footprint that matches this one? The tread is different, spaced different. If it was a simple angular difference, this type of print would be common.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, Mr. Smith - it could be a myriad of factors. We know there's loose regolith around the rover so it would have left tracks. I guess these are the "hoaxie" options:

- lifted there by a crane
- carried there by helpers


Opinions with as much evidence as an elephant being in orbit.



- shopped into the photo by NASA (remember, many of these photos were not seen by the public till far after and with the internet catalogue)


We had something called books before the Internet



- the mesh tires weren't of original design but inflatable tires were, which we all know would have exploded on the moon, so much work was put into the retaking of lunar rover footage. I've heard a few people claim this but haven't seen actual proof, so....


So another made up story then, like an elephant in orbit.



Remember, Mr. Smith - sometimes those PF Flyers showed up in photo record

www.aulis.com...


I'm not sure what a PF flyer is, but I'm not seeing an alien boot print... I am seeing uneven ground with an uneven coating of looser material and overlapping boot prints though.
Does anyone know where I can get an orbitoclast so that I can enjoy seeing the alien boot print and help make sense of hoax theories?



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: DJW001

No, it doesn't match at all. Care to find another footprint that matches this one? The tread is different, spaced different. If it was a simple angular difference, this type of print would be common.


You seem to still be failing to grasp the fact the ground is not flat it is uneven, the density of the regolith material varies and the depth of the regolith material varies. You're looking at a three dimensional scene rendered in two dimensions - a photograph.

Seriously is it actually complicated? I don't even have to wake up and think to know what I'm looking at.



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

fc04.deviantart.net...


LOL! :-p Smart ass ;-)



posted on May, 1 2015 @ 08:50 AM
link   
a reply to: AgentSmith

I disagree. The thickness of the tread is completely different. I think we need to try a real world example of this. I can certainly see what you're saying but you'd think there'd be plenty of other footprints like this or similar




top topics



 
17
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join