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: 108
49
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

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?


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.

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.



The only reason you believe they couldn't have taken better images is because they said so, and nothing NASA says is ever a lie, right? Dream on.

You have no idea if they are lying about this. You don't have any proof to support their claim. Nor do I have proof of the opposite, either.

It is possible that they have taken better images, whether you like it or not. It can't be proven either way, so accept how things are, and just get over it




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.



How can YOU claim to live in the real world and that WE are the Delusional ones when you write up something like that and claim that is what actually happened!?

Holy S**T, Batman!



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
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?


Spewing out phase change reflectance" is mighty impressive, other than it has nothing to do with your solving your problem.

You've seen the sources I've cited that explain reflectance, right?

Your argument is supported by spewing out the same nonsense, repeatedly, over and over again.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.



How can YOU claim to live in the real world and that WE are the Delusional ones when you write up something like that and claim that is what actually happened!?

Holy S**T, Batman!


Think about it. A disturbance that cannot be seen from the lunar surface is seen from orbit, is scientifically impossible. The lunar surface is rough. Whatever angle of sunlight, the reflections will scatter everywhere, and it will be seen everywhere.

It is delusional to believe this does not happen, because it is an absolute fact.

If you've seen the sources I've cited which explain this, then you know it is a fact.

Science can't help with your delusion, sorry to say.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Science can't help with your delusion, sorry to say.


With my delusion? I haven't even said anything on your issue on this subject!

Don't go going delusional on me about something I haven't said while calling me delusional while you refute every other claim while claiming I am delusional.

It might make you sound delusional, sorry to say.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No, you've posted stuff about how things are reflected. You have not managed to get that translated into your mind as to how modern studies of the phenomenon you claimed didn't exist work.

Come back when you understand the subject.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: turbonium1
Science can't help with your delusion, sorry to say.


With my delusion? I haven't even said anything on your issue on this subject!

Don't go going delusional on me about something I haven't said while calling me delusional while you refute every other claim while claiming I am delusional.

It might make you sound delusional, sorry to say.




You've said nothing about the subject....

Then, you decide it's about time to post...

'So you think WE are the delusional ones?'


Forget your meds?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: turbonium1
Science can't help with your delusion, sorry to say.


With my delusion? I haven't even said anything on your issue on this subject!

Don't go going delusional on me about something I haven't said while calling me delusional while you refute every other claim while claiming I am delusional.

It might make you sound delusional, sorry to say.




You've said nothing about the subject....

Then, you decide it's about time to post...

'So you think WE are the delusional ones?'


Forget your meds?


That doesn't even made sense.

I never posted on your issue, I posted a line about you saying we are delusional for believing in the moon landing and then you posted what you think actual happened, am I missing something?

PS: I have BiPolar 2 with PTSD thrown in from seeing my partner dead and from the physical abuse I caused him during a drug addiction several years ago, but no, I have not forgotten my "meds", have you?

Edit: ^ Why say the last part? I can admit to my problems and that I live in the real word, it is a shame others cannot.
edit on 23-10-2016 by MuonToGluon because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

No, you've posted stuff about how things are reflected. You have not managed to get that translated into your mind as to how modern studies of the phenomenon you claimed didn't exist work.


There is no 'phenomenon'. It does not exist.

What are these 'modern studies"? Do you mean the papers we've talked about here?

Show me any one of these "modern studies" explain this 'phenomenon', to even exist. And show how they are claiming that this 'phenomenon' accounts for the invisible disturbance...if you can..........

You have no explanation for this. There is nothing in scientific documents that explains it. Some are offering various hypothetical scenarios in trying to explain it, none of which held up in any way, or even close to it.

They are tasked with creating a hypothesis that might possibly hope to explain away something that is completely impossible to explain away.

What they end up with is a hodgepodge of random ideas, which people like you think is an 'answer' to the problem.

I've shown you that it is NOT explained by any of these papers. Nor do they claim it is explained, either.

Obviously, you know they don't explain it.

If they had explained it, you'd have quoted it - over, and over, and over again, because you'd like nothing better than to prove me wrong, again and again....

Except you can't prove me wrong. So you will never quote the papers, which you claim support your argument.

Your argument goes like this...

'The papers explain this phenomenon. You haven't read the papers, obviously!'

'You don't understand how this phenomenon works.'


Meanwhile, you never, ever quote these papers.

If you just keep on saying it is in the papers, maybe someday it will magically appear in them, right?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

I never posted on your issue, I posted a line about you saying we are delusional for believing in the moon landing and then you posted what you think actual happened, am I missing something?


I never said you are delusional for believing in the moon landings, first of all. Take a look at your post, where you quoted me.

Do you see me calling anyone delusional?

No.

So what are you talking about, then?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 05:27 AM
link   
I'd like to add that I have nothing against people who believe we landed on the moon. They have an opinion, which I don't agree with. That's fine with me. No problem.

The reality is that practically all the anger and name-calling comes from those on the other side, who believe in the moon landings. I could show you countless examples of it, as well.

But enough about this, it's not relevant to the issue.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I refer you to the previous answers I gave you, seeing as you're just regurgitating the same lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject as before and asking the same questions that demonstrate your failure to research the material you've been given.

E2A: I even posted photographs of pages with the explanations on. If can't be bothered to even look at the pictures there is no point quoting the text at you.
edit on 23/10/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: addendum



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


They have an opinion, which I don't agree with.


Historical methodology is not a matter of opinion.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:15 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.



so you know for a fact that there is no proof that there is any better images or not but you will assume anyway that there are????


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


it isnt just about being able to take a few better images....

you are proposing that they found these brightspots prior to Apollo 11.. with the accompanying footpaths and tracks..

so what caused the footpaths and tracks?? aliens???
or you want to claim that the footpaths and tracks simply do not exist on the lunar surface to this very day???



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So, out of curiosity, can you show any recent photos (any orbiter of your choice) of any places where these disturbances exist other than the 6 apollo sites? Or are you going to try and claim that only 6 such sites exist on the entire moon and that's why apollo 18-20 were cancelled because the couldn't fake landing sites any more? I mean, you'd prove your case beyond any shadow of a doubt if you could simply show an area on the moon where LM, LRV's and foot/rover paths are naturally occurring features.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Roger Stone a member of Nixon's notorious CREEP Committee has publicly spilled the beans on the moon landing


In a January 2013 Twitter exchange, Stone wrote in response to someone stating that Americans “stepped on the moon”: “whole moon shot thing a hoax. Video shot in a warehouse in NJ.”

Roger Stone: Moon Landing Video Was A "Hoax"


The effort to discredit Roger Stone


A complaint was made to FBI alleging that Roger Stone was colluding with Russian hackers and WikiLeaks





According to Stone, during the day he officially work on the Nixon campaign, but "By night, I'm trafficking in the black arts. Nixon's people were obsessed with intelligence."


Nixon's Apollo




edit on 24-10-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation
Roger Stone a member of Nixon's notorious CREEP Committee has publicly spilled the beans on the moon landing


In a January 2013 Twitter exchange, Stone wrote in response to someone stating that Americans “stepped on the moon”: “whole moon shot thing a hoax. Video shot in a warehouse in NJ.”

Roger Stone: Moon Landing Video Was A "Hoax"




Do you have anything more on this (i.e., evidence Roger Stone has to back up this assertion?).

All I could find is the one-liner Twitter blurb and a bunch of click-bait stories reacting to that Twitter one-liner. That really isn't very much to go on; it's not evidence of anything.


edit on 2016/10/24 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 08:26 AM
link   
We're supposed to take the word of political opportunist who was 17 when they landed on the moon and only just involved with Nixon when Apollo finished?

mediamatters.org...

The man's a moron.



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
We're supposed to take the word of political opportunist who was 17 when they landed on the moon and only just involved with Nixon when Apollo finished?

mediamatters.org...

The man's a moron.

I'm not necessarily discounting him just because he seems to be a political opportunist; I'm discounting his Twitter blurb because it is only a Twitter blurb. Where is the evidence for this warehouse in New Jersey that was supposedly used as a sound stage?

I mean, if the hoax believers are going to blindly take the word of someone (even a former political operative who was once in a position of authority), then why didn't they "blindly" take the word on the people in positions of authority who said we DID go to the moon...

...And that's actually not a very good analogy, because the people in positions of authority who said we went to the Moon are backed up by corroborating evidence that consistently supports their claims that we went to the Moon.

Personally, I didn't even blindly take Neil Armstrong's, Buzz Aldrin's, or NASA administrators' word for it that we went to the Moon. Blindly believing something someone says is dumb, even if those people are authority figures. A belief in what they say requires corroboration evidence that supports what they say -- and the official account of the Apollo missions are backed up by, and consistent with, mounds of corroborating evidence, much of it independent evidence.

I'm always amazed that many conspiracy theorists who are so distrustful of what "Authority" tells them, but when some person in a position of authority wants them to blindly believe a conspiracy, they so quickly jump on board, claiming that the person should be believed simply because, and for no other reason, they are or once had been in a position of authority. Why would these normally distrustful conspiracy theorist suddenly become blindly trustful?


edit on 2016/10/24 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
I take your point, but the one I was clumsily making alludes to where you make the "position of authority" reference.

I'd argue that, apart from being a certifiable nutjob keen on keeping very dubious company (Nixon AND Trump??), he was not in a position of authority during Apollo, and indeed for Apollo 11 would barely have been allowed out on his own.

NJ isn't exactly Nevada, there isn't that much room for the size of warehouse that would be needed, never mind actually operate a hoax from without anyone noticing, and I'd guess all the ones that were there would have been full of other stuff!

The guy's a knee-jerk reactionary. Even Trump doesn't like him, callong him a 'stone cold loser'.

www.newyorker.com...

www.alternet.org...




top topics



 
49
<< 105  106  107    109  110  111 >>

log in

join