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: 102
57
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

Got any proof?

No?

Didn't think so.


Since you didn't think your 'invisible disturbance' needed any proof....




posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I'll take that as a resounding no.

So,like the rest of your posts, it's based purely on your opinion, again.



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Since you didn't think your 'invisible disturbance' needed any proof....


it isnt invisible, just harder to see..

already shown you the differences in the surface around the landers, which would cause a more reflective and which would cause a less reflective surface.

this has been written about since atleast 1972.. this isnt a new phenomenon that was first realised from LRO images, it is only further confirmed by LRO images..

you cannot claim that it doesnt exist on the surface if it was written about in 1972. unless you can provide some orbit images from 1972 or before that shows such details such as the LRO



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

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...


What the *&(?

See below...

"I admit I was wrong, and so are you....

They are not theories, at all. They are only hypotheses"


You're going into loony-land, it seems.....


Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, and try to relax...



posted on Oct, 7 2016 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

What the *&(?

See below...

"I admit I was wrong, and so are you....

They are not theories, at all. They are only hypotheses"


You're going into loony-land, it seems.....


Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, and try to relax...


loony land indeed.. maybe you should read what you are admitting wrong to??

at no point was i getting you to admit that it was a hypothesis and not a theory or vice versa..
edit on 7-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

it isnt invisible, just harder to see..


Sort of like the Monty Python skit - the parrot wasn't really dead, it was 'just pining for the fjords'!!

I'm sure....


originally posted by: choos
already shown you the differences in the surface around the landers, which would cause a more reflective and which would cause a less reflective surface.


Reflecting more or less light is a very common phenomenon, and is easily provable. It can also be replicated, to prove the phenomenon at any time.

Not a bit like your 'phenomenon'. It defies all the facts, it can't be replicated, it cannot be rationally explained, and it certainly cannot be proven, in any way, shape, or form.

They have numerous samples of the lunar soil - so what did they find out?

They found nothing in the lunar soil to explain it....

Perhaps it is only specifically top-layer soil, that works in such a way...but sadly, we didn't collect this specific lunar soil, so we can't prove our hypothesis...


What a farce!


Lunar soil is scattered about, randomly, for miles...

Disturbed lunar soil has a very remarkable property - no matter how randomly they are blown around, if only a few inches away, or if it is miles away..... they all land down to the surface exactly the same way! Every particle reflects light upward, which cannot be seen from the surface. The reflections can only seen from lunar orbit!


Amazing little particles, they 'shorely be!




edit on 8-10-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

already shown you the differences in the surface around the landers, which would cause a more reflective and which would cause a less reflective surface.

this has been written about since atleast 1972.. this isnt a new phenomenon that was first realised from LRO images, it is only further confirmed by LRO images..

you cannot claim that it doesnt exist on the surface if it was written about in 1972. unless you can provide some orbit images from 1972 or before that shows such details such as the LRO


Soil is made up of countless little particles.

Some of these particles may be very reflective, and others not much, or whatever..

Yet, they all magically reflect sunlight upward, at the exact same direction? Pure nonsense!



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Not only do you need to have every particle reflect upwards, each particle has to account for landing at varying slopes!

Particle A lands on flat surface, and Particle B lands at a 30 deg. slope. To reflect light upward, in the same direction, each particle must compensate for its specific orientation on the lunar surface!!

Truly incredible phenomenon you have here, yes indeed



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You really really still don't get it.

There is a difference between soil being physically disturbed and it having a property altered that changes the way it can be observed.

Get it into your head that we are talking about two different things here.

The alteration of properties that causes the subtle change visible from orbit has been replicated, it has been replicated on the moon at other landing sites by other probes and it has been replicated on Earth. Check those links.

Got those photos for me yet?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Same point as I made above, you don't get what we're discussing. If you think there's proof in the papers I linked to that helps your case, you find it and you show us and you explain what it means.

Do the photos I linked show the same physical disturbance on the ground as can be seen from orbit or not?

Do you have any photos showing Apollo equipment before Apollo landed or not?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You really really still don't get it.

There is a difference between soil being physically disturbed and it having a property altered that changes the way it can be observed.

Get it into your head that we are talking about two different things here.

The alteration of properties that causes the subtle change visible from orbit has been replicated, it has been replicated on the moon at other landing sites by other probes and it has been replicated on Earth. Check those links.



It's been replicated on Earth? Please link your source(s) for it, then...


I'd like to see it....



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 02:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I already did, not going through them again. It's in the thread and I specifically drew your attention to it.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
Do you think they cannot take any better images of the landing sites?

That would mean you'd believe it is easier to land men on the moon, than to get any decent images of the landing t?

sites...

But I'm sure you'd say they COULD take better images, right?

And you'd say they don't have any reason for getting better images, yes?

It would not benefit scientists, obviously!

Studying the lunar environment, and the long-term effects on the surface.
None of them know how it may have affected any of the equipment left at these landing sites..
No big deal, they don't care, anyhoo!

Nobody is curious about how it would look, 45 years later, of course...

The agency that wants public approval of future manned space programs, because they'd push for the government to fund it, doesn't think glorious close-up images of Apollo landing sites would spur public interest in future manned space travel!


No reason, at all...



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

I already did, not going through them again. It's in the thread and I specifically drew your attention to it.


Right, you think I should go looking through pages for your post, not the one who just brought it up?



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Not my job to keep you up to speed with what's being posted.

Hire a secretary or something.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Reflecting more or less light is a very common phenomenon, and is easily provable. It can also be replicated, to prove the phenomenon at any time.

Not a bit like your 'phenomenon'. It defies all the facts, it can't be replicated, it cannot be rationally explained, and it certainly cannot be proven, in any way, shape, or form.

They have numerous samples of the lunar soil - so what did they find out?



a relatively hard compacted surface is going to reflect more light than a loose rough surface, do you agree??

ie. why is the boot print brighter than the surrounding regolith?
also, why is the regolith where the bootprints are darker than the surrounded regolith??

AS11-40-5887

edit on 8-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 04:53 AM
link   
Why do you think they've written papers on this issue?

They are trying to explain something, right?

It's claimed that the LM, and a disturbance caused by the LM, are seen in images taken from orbit.

So what's the problem, now?

Why would they have to explain this?

What is NOT mentioned, and is never once brought up, is the only reason they wrote these papers.

The claim the LM, and the disturbance it caused, can be seen in images taken from orbit.

Why would they try to explain that the disturbance was only being reflected upward, to orbit?

It means the disturbance is not seen in surface images, that's the whole problem. And their papers are an attempt at resolving their problem.


And it failed, miserably.



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why do you think they've written papers on this issue?

They are trying to explain something, right?

It's claimed that the LM, and a disturbance caused by the LM, are seen in images taken from orbit.

So what's the problem, now?


the problem with the argument of yours is that explainations began from atleast 1972.

if it was unseen from the lunar surface than the explainations would only begin after the LRO images..

but you see, they have been explaining this since 1972, atlteast perhaps earlier.. which means it was known about from the the lunar landings.

unless you can provide some highly detailed satellite images prior to 1972, comparable to the LRO images???
edit on 8-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Not my job to keep you up to speed with what's being posted.

Hire a secretary or something.


You seem to have a problem here, I'm fine..



posted on Oct, 8 2016 @ 05:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
Why do you think they've written papers on this issue?

They are trying to explain something, right?

It's claimed that the LM, and a disturbance caused by the LM, are seen in images taken from orbit.

So what's the problem, now?


the problem with the argument of yours is that explainations began from atleast 1972.

if it was unseen from the lunar surface than the explainations would only begin after the LRO images..

but you see, they have been explaining this since 1972, atlteast perhaps earlier.. which means it was known about from the the lunar landings.


They just wrote papers offering various hypotheses, in trying to explain it...

Why do you think they'd explained it back in 1972?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 99  100  101    103  104  105 >>

log in

join