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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 107
49
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Images show a feature on the lunar surface.

Saying it is a disturbance caused by the LM does not work.

The surface images show nothing of the disturbance.

That proves the surface images are fake.

Which means the moon landings were faked, obviously.

NASA can't say their Apollo surface images are faked, that's for sure...


So they are trying to 'explain' why their surface images would show no disturbance, same as you are trying to..


It's purely a fantasy.




posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



I tend to agree, by all logic, when the moon lander actually landed, the lunar dust storm should have been intense.Not so much when it took off again, because all the dust in the blast area would have been blasted away. So their is either a lot of lunar dust, evenly distributed on the moons surface, or their isn't. Since theirs a lot of it according to NASA observed when the excurtion module went touring around, so how come?



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: turbonium1



I tend to agree, by all logic, when the moon lander actually landed, the lunar dust storm should have been intense.Not so much when it took off again, because all the dust in the blast area would have been blasted away. So their is either a lot of lunar dust, evenly distributed on the moons surface, or their isn't. Since theirs a lot of it according to NASA observed when the excurtion module went touring around, so how come?


Before the Apollo 'moon landings', I'm sure they figured that any lunar lander would cause a huge disturbance on the surface. It would cause a blast crater, for sure.

They chose features on the lunar surface beforehand, each having a larger feature, that would fit as the disturbances caused by the LM's.

For whatever reason(s), they didn't create any of these 'disturbances' for their surface images, later on...


Of course, they could have made them.

But they didn't, which is a huge mistake, obviously!


The same thing happens in movies, all the time...

It is called 'continuity'...

For example, one scene shot for a movie has to match with another scene, filmed weeks later...

Although it looks to be continuous, for viewers, some of the little details don't quite match up...


Same as Apollo didn't match up...



posted on Oct, 21 2016 @ 10:51 PM
link   
The scientific community should be ashamed of what they have done, or more like, of what they have NOT done.

Science is about the truth, the facts, and integrity.

But it's all crap, nothing more.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: anonentity

It was. Right up to the point that the engine stopped when the dust stopped instantly.

That can't happen on Earth.

The fact that there was dust right up to the point that the engine stopped shows that not all the dust was removed.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

This is called "making things up".

If the lander was firing its engine hard enough to create a blast crater, it would not have landed. Simple logic.

They could not have picked landing sites with features that just happened to look like a lander and every single piece of scientific equipment, rovers and makings that coincided with every EVA they did because they did not have photos of the landing sites with that level of detail. You never manage to provide proof of that ridiculous claim no matter how many times you are asked.

Every detail of Apollo matches up.

Every single one.

You have never provided any evidence whatsoever that it does not.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Images show a feature on the lunar surface.


Yes, they do. We agree on that.



Saying it is a disturbance caused by the LM does not work.


Then you went and blew it. Saying it is not the LM without any evidence or proof to back up that claim doesn't work.



The surface images show nothing of the disturbance.


And we've already pointed out why you would not see the impact of the LM exhaust at ground level close up. The disturbance caused by people is very easy to make out, and photographs from orbit show those clearly. This includes those taken during the missions and by other countries.



That proves the surface images are fake.


No, it proves you don't understand what you are looking at.



Which means the moon landings were faked, obviously.

NASA can't say their Apollo surface images are faked, that's for sure...


So they are trying to 'explain' why their surface images would show no disturbance, same as you are trying to..


It's purely a fantasy.



NASA won't say it's a fake because it isn't. The explanation they give is the same explanation other scientists and space agencies give for exactly the same features observed around other landers (and also on Earth).

If there should be a massive blast crater, you should be able to find that around the Soviet and Chinese landers, as well as the Surveyor probes right? I look forward to you producing those images. You should also be able to see the massive disturbances you claim should be there in the surface images from China, the USSR and Surveyor. Feel free to present those in support of your claims as well any time you're ready.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I understand that it is impossible.


The word 'understand' does not mean what you think it does.



The papers you cite have not shown any previous examples, or replicated it, either.


You have not read them, or you would know this is not true.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 04:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I understand that it is impossible.

You claim that reflections originating from the surface cannot be seen from the surface...


i never said cannot be seen, i said it is very difficult to see.....


But, you've shown no previous examples to support your claim.

You can't replicate this, in any way, shape, or form.


according to you because you dont understand what im showing you..

the boot print brightness contrast is an example of this!!!!!! you are the one claiming that boot print is irrelevent while ignoring the brightness that i am explaining to you.. not my problem if you choose ignorance.


The papers you cite have not shown any previous examples, or replicated it, either.

As it cannot be shown possible, or replicated, the reality is all too obvious..


except that i can show you the same effect from bootprints???
ie. you can see the brightness of the bootprint from far away, but when nearly on top of it you cannot.. according to you, it should be more obvious but it isnt.. WHY??


Disturbed soil cannot reflect only upwards, first of all!


good for you.. but means nothing for your argument that it doesnt exist at all.

are you even able to prove your theory in the real world???



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 09:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: turbonium1



I tend to agree, by all logic, when the moon lander actually landed, the lunar dust storm should have been intense.Not so much when it took off again, because all the dust in the blast area would have been blasted away. So their is either a lot of lunar dust, evenly distributed on the moons surface, or their isn't. Since theirs a lot of it according to NASA observed when the excurtion module went touring around, so how come?


A few points:

-- The loose dust at the landing sites were only a few inches deep, and even less than an inch in some areas.

-- The descent engine was shut down when the LM was about 4 feet off the surface (except for Apollo 11), so for the final 3 or 4 feet of descent, the dust that was being kicked up by the descent engine thrust (and the films of the landings all did show dust being kicked up) would no longer be kicked up, and that dust would fall towards the surface.

-- When they took off again, only the top half of the LM took off. The bottom half stayed behind and took the brunt of the engine blast on take off. So the ascent engine did not thrust onto the surface.


The point above about the dust falling toward the surface as soon as the engine was shut down, rather than having a cloud of dust hang in the air and shroud the LM, is an important one....

...That's because that due to the lack of a thick atmosphere on the Moon, there is nothing to hold that dust cloud in the "air", because there is no air. On Earth, the atmosphere holds the dust up, creating dust clouds. That can't happen on the Moon, which has virtually no atmosphere. Without air, the Moon's gravity will make the dust just drop -- either straight down or it would fall to the ground as it continues along its ballistic path, as if you threw a rock. The rock moves along a curved trajectory, but one towards the ground -- it doesn't hang around in the air; this is called a "ballistic trajectory".

Just like the rock, the dust on the Moon will not hang around with other dust particles and form a cloud. Instead it will fall toward the ground, like a thrown rock or a dropped rock.

That right there is proof that filmed landings were happening in a place with no atmosphere. Otherwise, there would have been clouds of dust hanging around after the engine was shut down, and there wasn't.


The same goes for the dust kicked up by the lunar rover. On Earth, dust kick-up by a car wheel hangs in the air for a long time and forms clouds that take minutes to dissipate:



However, there is virtually no atmosphere or air on the Moon. The rover's wheels do kick up dust, but that dust does not stay suspended as a cloud, but it instead continues along in an arched ballistic path, arching its way towards the surface, like in this video:
Some of the dust is kicked up really high and takes some time to fall from those heights, but you can see that the dust simply continues along a ballistic path to the surface.


edit on 2016/10/22 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

They could not have picked landing sites with features that just happened to look like a lander and every single piece of scientific equipment, rovers and makings that coincided with every EVA they did because they did not have photos of the landing sites with that level of detail. You never manage to provide proof of that ridiculous claim no matter how many times you are asked.


Unlike when you claim...

"..they did not have photos of the landing sites with that level of detail."

Right - since they never showed photos with greater detail, you seem to think it 'proves' they "did not have photos" with greater detail!!

How typical of Apollo-ites, to assume NASA shows everything, would never, ever try to hide anything from us...as they've always been completely honest and sincere folks!

Dream on..


originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Every detail of Apollo matches up.

Every single one.

You have never provided any evidence whatsoever that it does not.


Same denial, of the reality.

The surface images show no LM disturbance. You know that.

It's clear to see that you've chosen to live in denial.

I prefer to live in the real world.



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
And we've already pointed out why you would not see the impact of the LM exhaust at ground level close up.


No, you've pointed out an absolutely ludicrous excuse that has no basis in reality.

The lunar surface is reflective, right?

These reflections from the lunar surface would be seen from the surface, as well as from orbit, right?

If that surface is more or less reflective at certain areas, then it would be seen as either more or less reflective, from the ground, and from orbit, right?


Your argument is that a disturbance caused by an Apollo LM is not seen as more reflective than the undisturbed soil, from the ground. Only from orbit does it appear more reflective than the undisturbed soil.

Lunar soil has such magical properties!

I've been waiting for an explanation on how your magical soil is blown around randomly, with millions of particles landing down to the surface, exactly the same way, reflecting more light upward, to be seen from orbit, but not from the ground, where it appears exactly like undisturbed soil!

Tell me all about these magical particles, since you believe they exist on the moon..

I'd like to know what makes them all land the same way...

What shape(s) do these particles have, to reflect light upward, from the surface, but appear no different from the ground...

Do you even know how reflections work?...

"For objects such as mirrors, with surfaces so smooth that any hills or valleys on the surface are smaller than the wavelength of light, the law of reflection applies on a large scale. All the light travelling in one direction and reflecting from the mirror is reflected in one direction; reflection from such objects is known as specular reflection."

"Most objects exhibit diffuse reflection, with light being reflected in all directions. All objects obey the law of reflection on a microscopic level, but if the irregularities on the surface of an object are larger than the wavelength of light, which is usually the case, the light reflects off in all directions."


physics.bu.edu...

Another source, to help you understand what an impossible argument you have..

"Mirrors are typically smooth surfaces, even at the microscopic levels. As such, they offer each individual ray of light the same surface orientation. But quite obviously, mirrors are not the only types of objects which light reflects off of. Most objects which reflect light are not smooth at the microscopic level. Your clothing, the walls of most rooms, most flooring, skin, and even paper are all rough when viewed at the microscopic level.

Reflection off of smooth surfaces such as mirrors or a calm body of water leads to a type of reflection known as specular reflection. Reflection off of rough surfaces such as clothing, paper, and the asphalt roadway leads to a type of reflection known as diffuse reflection. Whether the surface is microscopically rough or smooth has a tremendous impact upon the subsequent reflection of a beam of light.

A light beam can be thought of as a bundle of individual light rays which are traveling parallel to each other. Each individual light ray of the bundle follows the law of reflection. If the bundle of light rays is incident upon a smooth surface, then the light rays reflect and remain concentrated in a bundle upon leaving the surface. On the other hand, if the surface is microscopically rough, the light rays will reflect and diffuse in many different directions.

Why Does a Rough Surface Diffuses A Beam of Light?

For each type of reflection, each individual ray follows the law of reflection. However, the roughness of the material means that each individual ray meets a surface which has a different orientation. The normal line at the point of incidence is different for different rays. Subsequently, when the individual rays reflect off the rough surface according to the law of reflection, they scatter in different directions. The result is that the rays of light are incident upon the surface in a concentrated bundle and are diffused upon reflection.


www.physicsclassroom.com...

Does this help you see the problem with your argument?


The lunar surface does not reflect light in one directio. Whether the lunar surface has been disturbed in some way, or has not been disturbed, it is a ROUGH SURFACE. It does not act like a smooth mirror - that is called specular reflection.

The lunar surface has a rough surface, which creates diffuse reflections. The light scatters in all directions.

To remind you of the reason for this...

"..the roughness of the material means that each individual ray meets a surface which has a different orientation."


Rays of light hitting the lunar surface will reflect light in all directions, because the lunar soil is rough, and has differences in orientation to the individual light rays.


Now, you have the scientific explanation for it.

The time and effort you have spent on fantasy-land excuses is over, don't you think?




edit on 22-10-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 22 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

I understand that it is impossible.


The word 'understand' does not mean what you think it does.



The papers you cite have not shown any previous examples, or replicated it, either.


You have not read them, or you would know this is not true.


If you have read the paper(s), you would know it IS true.

Do you understand what 'burden of proof' means?

I cannot show you they did not cite previous examples, or did not replicate it, within these papers. I cannot prove it is not there. YOU must prove that it IS there.

But, I'm quite sure you already know all that, yes?


To have to keep on explaining things such as this, when you already understand them,..is a complete waste of my time, and everyone else's.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Right - since they never showed photos with greater detail, you seem to think it 'proves' they "did not have photos" with greater detail!!

How typical of Apollo-ites, to assume NASA shows everything, would never, ever try to hide anything from us...as they've always been completely honest and sincere folks!

Dream on..


I suppose you have proof that they have these images???

Are you assuming that they have the ability to transmit such detailed images back to earth??

I mean surely you wouldn't be just assuming that they have it and using your assumptions as though they were facts??



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Unlike when you claim...

"..they did not have photos of the landing sites with that level of detail."

Right - since they never showed photos with greater detail, you seem to think it 'proves' they "did not have photos" with greater detail!!

How typical of Apollo-ites, to assume NASA shows everything, would never, ever try to hide anything from us...as they've always been completely honest and sincere folks!


And yet you are the one claiming that you have seen images where there are details that appear to resemble the hardware that pre-date Apollo.

So where are they?

You are the on who denied the technological capability of the cameras to capture these details, either then or now. Which is it?




Same denial, of the reality.

The surface images show no LM disturbance. You know that.


Which disturbance are you referring to here, because this discussion makes it clear that you are easily confused between a large scale alteration from an exhaust plume and small scale ones caused by feet and wheels?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Don't you think it's time you read those papers and tried to get your head around them?

Don't you think it's time you learned how phase change reflectance is worked out?

Don't you think you should show us the blast craters and surface scouring in images taken by the USSR and China?

These would prove your point right? There are enough papers out there that discuss Soviet and Chinese landers and the impact of their engines, so it shouldn't take you long.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I cannot show you they did not cite previous examples, or did not replicate it, within these papers. I cannot prove it is not there.



I know you can't because you have not read and understood them.

You denied evidence existed and demanded it be shown. You have been supplied with it. It is now your job to prove that what is in that supporting evidence is incorrect.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Right - since they never showed photos with greater detail, you seem to think it 'proves' they "did not have photos" with greater detail!!

How typical of Apollo-ites, to assume NASA shows everything, would never, ever try to hide anything from us...as they've always been completely honest and sincere folks!

Dream on..


I suppose you have proof that they have these images???

Are you assuming that they have the ability to transmit such detailed images back to earth??

I mean surely you wouldn't be just assuming that they have it and using your assumptions as though they were facts??


No, that's one of your little tactics.

As I told you earlier, there is no proof, either way.

You've gone on and on about how they cannot possibly have taken better images than they released to us, at that time.

Ironically, you also think that we can take much better images today than they've taken, but 'it's not important, since we all 'know' that they landed on the moon, anyway'.

The point is that nobody knows if they could have taken better images at the time.

I think they could, and did, take far better images than they showed us. I can't prove it, of course. But you can't prove they couldn't have done it, either.

It is very much possible, and you cannot claim it is impossible.

If it's going to be hoaxed, as I believe, then it makes perfect sense to take detailed images of the lunar surface before they 'land' on the moon. Hiding those images allows them to pick out 'landing sites' beforehand. Showing images without any details, is deemed by NASA as 'the best images they can take from orbit'.

That's where the LM's 'disturbance' comes from. They picked it out of unreleased images, beforehand. An LM landing site was chosen, as I said, because they thought at the time it would fit with the LM's 'descent' to the lunar surface. But for reasons unknown, they didn't create a 'disturbance' to match it when they took 'surface' images.

And there is simply no way for you to backtrack and cover up for their incredible blunder.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No, that's one of your little tactics.

As I told you earlier, there is no proof, either way.


Is this the same person that was droning on about 'burden of proof' a few posts ago? No proof either way? Then how can you say they exist?

Asking that you back up a claim with proof is a tactic designed to do what? Get you to support your unfounded nonsense with something crazy like evidence?

You claim they have them, then either show they exist, show they had the capability to take the images, or admit you're just thrashing around in water way over your head trying to find some straws.




You've gone on and on about how they cannot possibly have taken better images than they released to us, at that time.


So did they have them or not? The best cameras they had at the time were the ones on lunar orbiter and the ones they used in Apollo. Unless you can show me otherwise.



Ironically, you also think that we can take much better images today than they've taken, but 'it's not important, since we all 'know' that they landed on the moon, anyway'.


You seem very sure of what people think. Or are you just misrepresenting what people have said.



The point is that nobody knows if they could have taken better images at the time.


Yes they do, and they couldn't.



I think they could, and did, take far better images than they showed us. I can't prove it, of course. But you can't prove they couldn't have done it, either.


Remember that burden of proof thing? The evidence of the photographic and surveillance techniques are all out there and have been for some time. Appealing to sooper seekrit stuff is a fail.



It is very much possible, and you cannot claim it is impossible.


Make your mind up.



If it's going to be hoaxed, as I believe, then it makes perfect sense to take detailed images of the lunar surface before they 'land' on the moon. Hiding those images allows them to pick out 'landing sites' beforehand. Showing images without any details, is deemed by NASA as 'the best images they can take from orbit'.


What you believe and what happened in the real world are not the same. They did take detailed images of the lunar surface, and they were good enough to get a general idea, but not good enough to reveal the exact details of the landing site that might cause you to have to land somewhere else because all of a sudden there's a big boulder field you weren't expecting. There are no hidden images, the images out there are the ones they took.



That's where the LM's 'disturbance' comes from. They picked it out of unreleased images, beforehand. An LM landing site was chosen, as I said, because they thought at the time it would fit with the LM's 'descent' to the lunar surface. But for reasons unknown, they didn't create a 'disturbance' to match it when they took 'surface' images.


This is you making **** up again and just expecting everyone to swallow it without question. It's an utter fabrication reliant entirely on your delusion that you are somehow acquainted with facts.


And there is simply no way for you to backtrack and cover up for their incredible blunder.


There is no blunder. There are no images of the surface of a quality high enough to do what you are claiming. YOU claimed to have seen them but never manage to produce them. You made it up. Your suggestion is that they just happened to find half a dozen landing sites that had features looking exactly like a lunar module, a couple of rovers, lots of scientific equipment and some tracks between it all, which is just downright stupid.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

And yet you are the one claiming that you have seen images where there are details that appear to resemble the hardware that pre-date Apollo.

So where are they?

You are the on who denied the technological capability of the cameras to capture these details, either then or now. Which is it?


Which disturbance are you referring to here, because this discussion makes it clear that you are easily confused between a large scale alteration from an exhaust plume and small scale ones caused by feet and wheels?


I've referred to it as the LM's disturbance, the disturbance caused by the LM, etc. Now, if you don't know which disturbance this would be referring to, then thinking I am the one who is easily confused might be the least of your problems!
-
Btw, I've told you ad nauseum that I have not seen images with such details. I had heard about them, that's all. Get the point, already...

I've never said they didn't have the technology to take better images - just the opposite.







 
49
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join