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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 101
57
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So, oh enlightened one, please tell us humble folk how the 2 images (posted above) "don't match".




posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

As everyone keeps pointing out to you, it isn't just the LM, it is the LM, all the equipment that has been installed, the tracks between this equipment and the rocks and craters photographed and filmed by astronauts on the surface.

You act as if people are talking about a couple of blobs, when in fact it is this:



and let me remind you how India's shot of that compares:



All anyone can see from your posturing is you sticking your fingers in your ears and ramming your eyelids shut.


It is NOT about how much of it matches up, it is about what DOESN'T match up...

I've clearly explained this to you, many times.


Apollo's surface images would show this 'disturbance' of soil. None of the images show anything of it, which means these images are fake.


Suppose this was a court case...

You would say this feature is the LM, and a soil disturbance it caused in landing. This disturbance cannot be seen, or identified in any surface images. It can only be seen from lunar orbit.

You would have no explanation for this. You'd say you've got a hypothesis, and hope that it will resolve the problem, in future.

And you admit that you have tested soil samples, which failed to work, too.

You say it must be a 'moon' phenomenon!



Then, I show the surface images, which contradict the claim of a disturbance of soil caused by an LM.


Who would believe the surface images are real, besides you Apollo-ites?


Nobody.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So, there isn't any differences in the images, but you still think it's fake because of your opinion?

Sorry champ, but your opinion doesn't override facts.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So, oh enlightened one, please tell us humble folk how the 2 images (posted above) "don't match".


I've been referring to the surface images...

That was rather obvious, I'd thought.

But it is not so obvious to everyone, so it would seem...



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So I was right. It's just your opinion backed up by more opinion.

I guess waiting for any evidence is futile as it is obvious you don't have anything. All you do is come back and go "waaaaaah! It's fake coz I say so!"

I'm not going to waste my time with you any longer.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

So I was right. It's just your opinion backed up by more opinion.

I guess waiting for any evidence is futile as it is obvious you don't have anything. All you do is come back and go "waaaaaah! It's fake coz I say so!"

I'm not going to waste my time with you any longer.


The evidence is all the Apollo surface images, which show no disturbance that is claimed to exist in that area.

It is not an opinion. It is a fact.

Like it or not.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is NOT about how much of it matches up, it is about what DOESN'T match up...

I've clearly explained this to you, many times.


Repeating the same words doesn't actually mean you've explained everything. Everything matches up, show me where it doesn't.


Apollo's surface images would show this 'disturbance' of soil. None of the images show anything of it, which means these images are fake.


Bull. If you go through every one of my pages here:

onebigmonkey.com...

You will see repeated examples where the tracks left by the astronauts (and other surface features) have been photographed and filmed and can be seen in LRO images:

Apollo 11



Apollo 12



Apollo 14





Apollo 15



Apollo 16





Apollo 17





All the Apollo imagery was public long before the LRO came along (need to make me prove that?), and not one photograph taken by any country contradicts anything Apollo has taken.


Suppose this was a court case...


It isn't. Tedious analogy that hoaxers have latched on to because they think it helps their cause. If it was a court of law you'd be desperately trying to get a judge to rule every piece of evidence as inadmissible and failing miserably. You'd have been prosecuted for contempt and wasting time.


You would say this feature is the LM, and a soil disturbance it caused in landing. This disturbance cannot be seen, or identified in any surface images. It can only be seen from lunar orbit.


Again you are failing to grasp the difference between disturbances of the soil and the alterations in the physical properties of the landing site. Try and get that through your head. You can see physical changes on the ground and in orbit.


You would have no explanation for this. You'd say you've got a hypothesis, and hope that it will resolve the problem, in future.


Except I would be able to call multiple expert witnesses to show that there is an explanation for it, an explanation that has been used on a number of different landing sites (something else you claimed didn't exist) including Earth (something else you claimed didn't exist). You have...erm...


And you admit that you have tested soil samples, which failed to work, too.


Funny how hoaxites love the word 'admit' as if it implies something significant. NASA have never 'admitted' anything. They have just 'said'. Yep, they tested soil samples, I have 9 volumes of Lunar Science Conference reports and the PSRs full of the results of those analyses, and not one of them contradicts the fact that they are lunar in origin.


You say it must be a 'moon' phenomenon!


And an Earth one. Remember that link I gave you?


Then, I show the surface images, which contradict the claim of a disturbance of soil caused by an LM.


No, they don't, because you don't understand the difference types of alteration being discussed (and conveniently always ignore the photos taken under the engine bell that show discolouration). If you'd read the papers I'd linked to you'd get what was being discussed, you clearly don't. You very obviously are expecting an area that is burnt around the entire LM, instead of a subtle gradation caused by a change in surface reflectance. This is type pf disturbance is very different to the physical disturbance caused by people which has been photographed on the surface and confirmed from orbit.


Who would believe the surface images are real, besides you Apollo-ites?.


People with a brain capable of understanding evidence and logical argument.

I rest my case.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 04:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I said - Iirc, earlier images show the same features claimed to be Apollo gear. I didn't say I'd seen these images.


Put up or shut up.

Apollo 11



Apollo 12



Apollo 14



Apollo 15



Apollo 16



I'll get around to doing an Apollo 17 one later.

In order to prove a hoax, you need to have convincing evidence that there was a hoax. You have not managed to do that once.
edit on 2/10/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: Add the photos



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I asked you to QUOTE me on this.

Either you can quote me on this, or you can't.

If you can't, then everyone will know you're lying.

So which is it?


really do have short term memory issues dont you?

remember when you admitted you were wrong??
that was in reference to this phenomenon existing. This phenomenon which is caused by a disturbance.

this phenomenon of which you have been claiming to not exist, you admitted you were wrong meaning that you admit that it does exist.



The problem is that they ALREADY PRESUME it is disturbed soil, from the very start.

Why do they already presume it is disturbed soil?


because if it wasnt disturbed regolith it would appear in other spots that has no disturbance whatsoever..


Because, they already presume Apollo landed on the moon, and that an Apollo LM landed at that exact spot, and that an Apollo LM disturbed the soil as it landed on the lunar surface, at that exact spot.


so what about the surveyor landing sites??? soviets?? chinese?? coincidence??



It is all based on NASA's claim. The agency that claimed to land men on the moon, claims this is where they landed, without independent verification to those claims...

NASA's unsupported claims are taken as if true, without question, so let's all move along now, folks!...


not much, just supported by China, Japan and India and the russians.

but i guess you have proof that not one of these countries have been able to verify man landed on the moon right?? all that work that OBMonkey posted previously about India, China and Japan confirming human activity on the moon if just an illusion that doesnt exist?

why is it that you have yet to prove that they are wrong??


From that point, it has to be disturbed soil, caused by the lander, and nothing else.

So the lander disturbed soil, while the disturbance cannot be seen from the surface, or in any surface images,

That's where they need to think of a 'hypothesis'.


you are supposed to prove to us that those images which show this phenomenon has nothing there. you can start by proving that images OBMonkey has posted are all wrong.

it doesnt matter that its a hypothesis or not.. because OBMonkey has been posting evidence that shows that phenomenon is directly linked to human activity

therefore we know with evidence that this phenomenon is caused by disturbance from human activity.

you are the one denying it all, its time you finally proved to us with evidence that OBMonkey is wrong and why he is wrong.

offer your alternative explaination or admit you have nothing.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
all that work that OBMonkey posted previously about India, China and Japan confirming human activity on the moon


I'll clarify that if I may.

India and Japan have both provided evidence of the surface disturbance and change in physical properties around Apollo 15's landing site. I found confirmation in India's images myself confirming Apollo surface disturbance at Apollo 14 and 16.

China has claimed evidence of Apollo activity but to my knowledge has never actually produced it - I think that was something that got lost in translation along the way as their instruments were not strong enough to resolve Apollo equipment and activity (though they may have evidence of changes in surface properties similar to those of India and Japan's scientists).

What I have said about China's orbital imagery is that it contains details that can be found in Apollo images that were not known about prior to Apollo, as the areas I looked at were not covered in high resolution by the Lunar Orbiter programme. They join India and Japan as having carried out orbital surveys that confirm details in LRO and Apollo images.

Likewise the USSR's Lunokhod 2 probe took photographs of its landing area that showed details not revealed by Lunar Orbiter but were photographed clearly by Apollo's Panoramic Cameras.

All the above is laid out in the link I supplied turbonium. It's a link I have provided many times and I have challenged him to disprove what I have worked out on many occasions. He has never done so, nor has he given any impression of even trying to do so. He simply bleats on about the surface disturbances, never quite sure whether he believes they are there or not, demands proof and then skips over it when it's provided, claims he has evidence than never gives it.

I did, btw, look at Apollo 17's site in Lunar Orbiter - it's not even worth trying. The later Apollo missions got the details of their landing sites mostly from previous Apollo missions.

I'll challenge turbonium again:

If you have imagery pre-dating Apollo that shows what you think everyone else has somehow mistaken for Apollo artefacts, provide it.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation



India and Japan have both provided evidence



Pentagon paid propagandists based in the U.K. over half a billion dollars to make fake videos


You are the most aptly named member on this board.

Totally irrelevant, nothing to do with the topic, completely misleading.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


Totally irrelevant


Apparently the apollocrats refuse to acknowledge that any particular moon hoax scholars work does not always fall neatly
into a single category. Some moon hoax scholars work across or independently from the typical established propaganda assemblages, embracing multiple applied influences and literature. Using these unique data sets, that includes imperfect but useful key independent variables, has produce some striking findings and the near total collapse that would otherwise constitute the official apollo calliope. Leaving aside this diffcult issue of divergent research disciplines, it can not be urged enough that the speculative conjectures of the apollocrats and their organized interest groups of elitists should not simply be assumed and of which originates from the strong status quo bias built into the apollogarchy.



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo


Totally irrelevant


Apparently the apollocrats refuse to acknowledge that any particular moon hoax scholars work does not always fall neatly
into a single category. Some moon hoax scholars work across or independently from the typical established propaganda assemblages, embracing multiple applied influences and literature. Using these unique data sets, that includes imperfect but useful key independent variables, has produce some striking findings and the near total collapse that would otherwise constitute the official apollo calliope. Leaving aside this diffcult issue of divergent research disciplines, it can not be urged enough that the speculative conjectures of the apollocrats and their organized interest groups of elitists should not simply be assumed and of which originates from the strong status quo bias built into the apollogarchy.


Abusing a Thesaurus does not make your post anymore useful then if you hadn't posted at all.

That whole statement has absolutely no meaning behind it other then your unwise use of "big" words to make it seem so to try and make your statement seem intelligent to people who know no better.
edit on 5-10-2016 by MuonToGluon because: Clarification



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

What has that got, pray tell, to do with anything involving Apollo's 11-17?



posted on Oct, 5 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

We come down to this simple question/fact:

You've made the accusation, and some few others have as well, that the moon landings were, for some purpose left unstated, staged, or faked.

You, and others have been given ample opportunity to prove your accusations yet will not, or can not. Above this post, towards the top of the page are shots of several of the moon landing spots, with clear evidence of the reality of the landings clearly in evidence.

If they are, as you so forthrightly profess, faked...? You've a golden opportunity here to prove the "apollogarchy" wrong. Here it is.

Go for it. Throw up your evidence. Turbonium has refused/failed to do so to this point...don't you disappoint, too. The challenge is right here for you.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Again you are failing to grasp the difference between disturbances of the soil and the alterations in the physical properties of the landing site. Try and get that through your head. You can see physical changes on the ground and in orbit.


Again, the specific disturbance claimed to be seen in orbit images is NOT seen in any of the surface images.

This is an absolute fact.


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Except I would be able to call multiple expert witnesses to show that there is an explanation for it, an explanation that has been used on a number of different landing sites (something else you claimed didn't exist) including Earth (something else you claimed didn't exist).


The experts DO NOT "..show that there is an explanation for it.."!!

YOUR OWN experts, from YOUR paper, DO NOT support your argument.

These experts have offered several hypotheses, because they need to support the official story. However, these experts NEVER claim to have "an explanation" for it.


You would be able to quote YOUR OWN SOURCE (the paper), if they supported your argument...

Oh, right - 'it's all in there'!!

Good one...



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Got any proof?

No?

Didn't think so.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I asked you to QUOTE me on this.

Either you can quote me on this, or you can't.

If you can't, then everyone will know you're lying.

So which is it?


really do have short term memory issues dont you?

remember when you admitted you were wrong??
that was in reference to this phenomenon existing. This phenomenon which is caused by a disturbance.

this phenomenon of which you have been claiming to not exist, you admitted you were wrong meaning that you admit that it does exist.



I asked you to quote me on this, because, if you could NOT quote me, it would prove that you were lying...

Now, we know you were lying...

Worse, you keep on repeating your lies...


Sad.....



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Again, the specific disturbance claimed to be seen in orbit images is NOT seen in any of the surface images.

This is an absolute fact.


this is the same as saying that this phenomenon was not known about until the first LRO images were returned..

is that your understanding??


I asked you to quote me on this, because, if you could NOT quote me, it would prove that you were lying...


such a bad memory.....


originally posted by: turbonium1
I admit I was wrong, and so are you....
www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 7-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 98  99  100    102  103  104 >>

log in

join