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: 105
57
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is not proof.

That is, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions, opinion.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?




posted on Oct, 10 2016 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Because of confirmation bias and ego.

He's gone in for pages and pages on how, in his opinion, the moon landings are fake. He now has to keep up the denial of everything to keep his story in check.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The propagandists preference data used to measure the relative magnitudes of independent regolith response variables precludes an empirical systematic relationship between the parameter estimates of varying albedo regression categories within the referenced predicted probability of regolith transformations, inevitably establishing significant logistical intricacies or otherwise substantially trending towards an untenable convoluted albedo hypothesis which can only be sustained deep within the recesses of the Apollogarchy...



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

For the love of God, someone take the thesaurus away from this guy!



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

translation - "misinformation " has nothing releveant to say - so ` word salad du jour `



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

...and this is supposed to put us in our place somehow or other?

I, too, can slap together multi-syllabic words into semi-coherent sentences...but it doesn't make me right. Just as that word barrage doesn't make you right.

...and haven't you figured it out yet? Apollogarchy isn't an insult. It's a complement.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Apollogarchy?

Or as I like to put it, people who understand the science and data that proves we went to the moon.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 07:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
The propagandists preference data used to measure the relative magnitudes of independent regolith response variables precludes an empirical systematic relationship between the parameter estimates of varying albedo regression categories within the referenced predicted probability of regolith transformations, inevitably establishing significant logistical intricacies or otherwise substantially trending towards an untenable convoluted albedo hypothesis which can only be sustained deep within the recesses of the Apollogarchy...


"Is there another word for 'Thesaurus'?"
-- Steven Wright



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 08:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

If there were several of you, you might eventually come up with some Shakespeare.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

what is the remuneration package for members of the " Apollogarchy " ???



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

When you find out, do let me know? I'm as close to an original member as it gets...
I'm owed a lot!!



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is not proof.

That is, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions, opinion.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?


Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

It's right in the same bloody area!! How is it not flippin' relevant?

That area is right beside the Lander. So, please, do explain how it is not relevant. Point is, it is relevant...very much so. But it doesn't play into your story, so it's to be ignored.



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is not proof.

That is, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions, opinion.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?


Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?


do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at, and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.

edit on 14-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

It's right in the same bloody area!! How is it not flippin' relevant?

That area is right beside the Lander. So, please, do explain how it is not relevant. Point is, it is relevant...very much so. But it doesn't play into your story, so it's to be ignored.


The claim is that an area of disturbance is seen from lunar orbit. Yes?

They also claim this area of disturbance was caused by the Apollo LM, as it landed. Yes?

So, why are you babbling on and on about footprints?



posted on Oct, 14 2016 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is not proof.

That is, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions, opinion.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?


Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?


do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at, and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.


What do your footprints prove?

They prove a disturbance on the surface would be seen, from the ground...

A single footprint can be seen.

At closer range, the feature - your footprint - is only MORE defined, and MORE CLEAR to see, as a footprint....right?

This is because the footprint is a real physical feature.

You even show me all kinds of examples of features, that are clearly seen on the ground!!


Agreed, then!



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

No, that is not proof.

That is, as has been pointed out on multiple occasions, opinion.

Choos has shown you a picture with some darker soil surrounded by lighter soil, that looks rather disturbed to me. It even has lighter soil that looks remarkably like footprints pressed down into the darker disturbed soil.

Why are you ignoring this?


Again, the footprints are not relevant to the area claimed to be disturbed BY THE LANDER!!

Do you get it?


do you understand now why i say it is harder to see??
the fact that the bootprints are so much brighter than any of the surrounding regolith proves you have no understanding of what you are looking at, and more so that you say that it is irrelevant..

even though it is right there in front of your face you do not even recognise what you are looking at.

so again,
explain to me why in that red circle that a hard impression in the lunar regolith such as the bootprints makes them so much brighter than any of the surrounding lunar regolith.
explain to me why the regolith is darker than the surrounding area within the red circle.

last time im asking you,
give your OPINION on why there are three different shades of brightness.
failure to give your opinion makes all of your posts about the disturbance null and void, since you do not have an opinion about this.
if i feed you the answer then you give your opinion it just ridicules your own opinion.
It will just prove that prior to me drip feeding you the answer, you had no prior opinion about the lunar disturbance.
That in turn proves that you have no clue about anything. All you have is your own belief that man didnt land on the moon, and you make up everything else to fit that one made up scenario, Kind of like how compulsive liars act.

all of it is evident since you have demonstrated you dont have an opinion on this one little thing.


What do your footprints prove?

They prove a disturbance on the surface would be seen, from the ground...


it proves that when lunar regolith is compressed it reflects more light..

so then why??


A single footprint can be seen.


a single footprint?? are you blind?? or just being intellectually dishonest??

there is atleast 10 within the circle that is visible... but that isnt the point, the boot prints are clearly more reflective than the surrounding regolith. WHY???


At closer range, the feature - your footprint - is only MORE defined, and MORE CLEAR to see, as a footprint....right?

This is because the footprint is a real physical feature.

You even show me all kinds of examples of features, that are clearly seen on the ground!!

Agreed, then!


not the point im making, why is it that you always seem to miss the points people make??..

however, im talking about the BRIGHTNESS of the boot print and NOT THE SHAPE, to further put that point across since as you claim the closer we get the easier the difference is noticable here is a famous bootprint.


now tell me why the surrounding regolith is not dark like in this below image?


according to you, since the first image is closer to the bootprint we should see the difference in shading alot more clearly..

so why is it that it is more difficult??? why in the second image are the bootprints so much brighter than the surrounding regolith???
edit on 15-10-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 01:29 AM
link   
You can't address the issue, obviously.

The issue I'm discussing - or trying to discuss, anyway - is the disturbance claimed to be caused by an Apollo LM.

It has nothing to do with footprints.

Your claim is that the LM caused a disturbance. It didn't cause any footprints, so trying to make this about footprints won't wash

Avoid problems you can't deal with, like usual.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Turbonium obviously hasn't read any of the papers I linked to, and seems to think we should be looking at burnt crispy lunar surface under the path of the LM. If he looks up quickly enough he might see the point flying overhead.

So that we don't lose sight of all the wood in the midst of the trees, the photo choos has linked to is part of a short series of images that can be made into a panorama. Here is that panorama, I made it myself this morning.



It features a shallow crater pair, which is itself peppered with smaller craters. That crater pair appears in other images, including those taken from inside the LM, the live TV images, and the 16mm footage.

Here is one of the LRO shots of the LM showing that crater pair, which I've re-oriented to show the roughly the same viewing angle as the panorama above:



It isn't the clearest shot of the LM, but it does show the craters more clearly.

Do I need to draw some arrows on to match up the features? It isn't hard for people looking properly to identify them, but I'm willing to bet turbonium will suddenly develop severe myopia

Lunar Orbiter images taken before Apollo do show that crater pair, but they do not show the details within those craters. Apollo does, and they match the Lunar Orbiter images.

I'l keep repeating it: it isn't just about the equipment and the astronaut tracks, it's every single tiny little detail. They all match.



posted on Oct, 15 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
You can't address the issue, obviously.

The issue I'm discussing - or trying to discuss, anyway - is the disturbance claimed to be caused by an Apollo LM.

It has nothing to do with footprints.


nothing at all you say????

does a bootprint compress the lunar regolith beneath it??

will the LM engine compress the lunar regolith beneath it???

according to you, one is yes the other is no..


Your claim is that the LM caused a disturbance. It didn't cause any footprints, so trying to make this about footprints won't wash

Avoid problems you can't deal with, like usual.


lol you are the classic example of avoiding problems.. you have never once answered any question asked of you.. never once..

ill put it frank to you since you dont have an opinion on this matter:

the bootprint is capable of reflecting more sunlight because it is relatively highly compressed when compared with untouched regolith.
the LM engine will also compress lunar regolith when it was landing also making the regolith slightly brighter.
the darker areas are very loose regolith that had been kicked up by the astronauts.

it doesnt matter what your opinion is anymore since you have proven you have not got a clue and could not even give your opinion on the matter.

the only opinion you gave was that the difference will become more clear the closer you get.. but in these two little images it proves you wrong:

far away bootprint brightness compared with surrounding obvious difference


close up image bootprint brightness compared with surrounding not so obvious difference.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join