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: 111
49
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

The area spotted by archaeologists from aerial surveys is not comparable, in any way...

You are referring to an entire area that can only be seen from above..

On the ground, we CAN distinguish it, just not as an entire area.

That is what can only be seen from above.

Do you get the point here?

How can you see an area from above, yet not see any of it from the ground? You cannot.



The problem with your argument is that the LM disturbance isnt seen ONLY from above. i just posted an image of what it looks like directly under the LM and in direct sunlight.

the image from above is a reflection of the sun where a larger amount of sunlight is reflected into the camera.
the image from the surface is images of lunar regolith reflecting less sunlight into the camera.

i wonder how long it will take for you to realise its a reflective issue??


Why don't you explain what makes it more reflective than undisturbed soil?

What source(s) support you on that claim?

I'd like to see it, as I've never seen anything on it, ever before.

Somehow, it exists, yet nobody knows how to explain it! But it really does exist, okay?!


Now you're saying more light reflects from the area as a whole, and that is what makes it visible only from orbit, right?

I'm sure you can show me a source or two that supports your claim??



It'd be a first, for you....




posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You've already been supplied with the evidence explaining it many times.

Read the thread.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...


There is a difference between having an open mind, and having a shotgun blast sized hole in your head.

If I do not believe in the Mandela Effect does that mean I do not have an open mind? And yet I believe in UFOs, Aliens and the Supernatural.

If I do not believe in the Nibiru Garbage or the guy who keeps uploading photos of clouds to support it, does it mean I do not have an open mind? And yet I believe in various government conspiracies.

Who are you to define what one believes in and what one does not, if I took everything as a conspiracy without proof, I would also believe that the earth is only 10000 years old, the world is flat, and I live in a holographic matrix surrounded by NPCs controlling every facet of my life.

Can you please stop trying to tell people what to open their minds to, you are no better then a religious cult when doing so.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Same as the area of 'disturbance' is all you need to prove it was faked.


the problem is, what that disturbance looks like and what you want it to look like are two completely different things.

you are expecting a huge white coloured regolith in surface images but so many times people have told you it is a reflective issue and not so much a physical one..

its like flying over a lake and you see this huge bright spot in the water

you dont know what it is and want to investigate it so you go down to the lake and see this:


you would be thinking to yourself "wheres the big patch of white water?? my eyes must be fake"


People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...


you mean people that simply dont understand what that LM disturbance is, like yourself??

you have spent the last few months thinking that the LM disturbance was a physical feature when its been the reflection of sunlight...


A disturbance of soil is not actually a physical feature?

The LM blew dust out everywhere. The disturbance of soil was not physical, however!

I can't wait to know exactly what you'd call it, then...


And show me your sources, for this one, please...



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

And show me your sources, for this one, please...


read the thread.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not closed to the possibility (regardless of how slim chance that math may be) that the moon landing is a hoax, my mind is never locked.

You do have to take in consideration the many many thousands of different "evidence" that people have stated over the decades that they said proved that the moon landing was a hoax only for it all to be debunked

I stated that you actually have to show something with plenty of proof behind it backing your statements to be able to sway people, you cannot just act ;condescending, arrogant, rude, insulting, shoving it in their faces, their wrong your right.

It just does not work that way.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon

originally posted by: turbonium1
People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...


There is a difference between having an open mind, and having a shotgun blast sized hole in your head.

If I do not believe in the Mandela Effect does that mean I do not have an open mind? And yet I believe in UFOs, Aliens and the Supernatural.

If I do not believe in the Nibiru Garbage or the guy who keeps uploading photos of clouds to support it, does it mean I do not have an open mind? And yet I believe in various government conspiracies.

Who are you to define what one believes in and what one does not, if I took everything as a conspiracy without proof, I would also believe that the earth is only 10000 years old, the world is flat, and I live in a holographic matrix surrounded by NPCs controlling every facet of my life.

Can you please stop trying to tell people what to open their minds to, you are no better then a religious cult when doing so.


An open mind is healthy. I don't tell people what to think, or to not think, about anything.

It shouldn't be emotional to discuss the moon landings as a hoax, but it often is. Only from the Apollo side...not from the hoax side.

To me, that is not someone who is open-minded. It is based on a doctrine, a faith, a religious zeal, in such emotional behavior of those people. Not a bit open-minded, it's just the opposite...



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Some more light reading for turbonium to pretend he hasn't seen but still knows what's in them:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.sciencedirect.com...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not closed to the possibility (regardless of how slim chance that math may be) that the moon landing is a hoax, my mind is never locked.

You do have to take in consideration the many many thousands of different "evidence" that people have stated over the decades that they said proved that the moon landing was a hoax only for it all to be debunked

I stated that you actually have to show something with plenty of proof behind it backing your statements to be able to sway people, you cannot just act ;condescending, arrogant, rude, insulting, shoving it in their faces, their wrong your right.

It just does not work that way.





I look at all the evidence, from all sides, and then I see where it leads - and that's it...

It is not 'debunked' at all, either. Far from it, in fact.

It's about finding the truth, and accepting the truth.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Why don't you explain what makes it more reflective than undisturbed soil?

What source(s) support you on that claim?

I'd like to see it, as I've never seen anything on it, ever before.

Somehow, it exists, yet nobody knows how to explain it! But it really does exist, okay?!

Now you're saying more light reflects from the area as a whole, and that is what makes it visible only from orbit, right?

I'm sure you can show me a source or two that supports your claim??

It'd be a first, for you....


this post is a demonstration (yet again) that you dont read and understand what anyone posts.
you live in your own dreamworld..

i have mentioned multiple times the reflection comes from lunar regolith being more compressed..

remember the boot print?? you were claiming it had nothing to do with this?? remember that argument??
were you ever wondering why i was asking you to explain why the boot print was bright and the regolith surrounding it was darker???

its not that you are clueless, its that you choose to filter out anything that does not follow your argumens you out right ignore it all..

OBMonkey has already posted an article explaining this and here is another:
adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not closed to the possibility (regardless of how slim chance that math may be) that the moon landing is a hoax, my mind is never locked.

You do have to take in consideration the many many thousands of different "evidence" that people have stated over the decades that they said proved that the moon landing was a hoax only for it all to be debunked

I stated that you actually have to show something with plenty of proof behind it backing your statements to be able to sway people, you cannot just act ;condescending, arrogant, rude, insulting, shoving it in their faces, their wrong your right.

It just does not work that way.





I look at all the evidence, from all sides, and then I see where it leads - and that's it...

It is not 'debunked' at all, either. Far from it, in fact.

It's about finding the truth, and accepting the truth.


complete and utter BS

you have demonstrated over and over in this thread alone that you dont read evidence supplied...
THIS POST is more proof.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Some more light reading for turbonium to pretend he hasn't seen but still knows what's in them:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.sciencedirect.com...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

ntrs.nasa.gov...

onlinelibrary.wiley.com...


It might help if you'd actually support your claims with sources.

Show your point, if you have one..



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 04:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Same as the area of 'disturbance' is all you need to prove it was faked.


the problem is, what that disturbance looks like and what you want it to look like are two completely different things.

you are expecting a huge white coloured regolith in surface images but so many times people have told you it is a reflective issue and not so much a physical one..

its like flying over a lake and you see this huge bright spot in the water

you dont know what it is and want to investigate it so you go down to the lake and see this:


you would be thinking to yourself "wheres the big patch of white water?? my eyes must be fake"


People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...


you mean people that simply dont understand what that LM disturbance is, like yourself??

you have spent the last few months thinking that the LM disturbance was a physical feature when its been the reflection of sunlight...


A disturbance of soil is not actually a physical feature?

The LM blew dust out everywhere. The disturbance of soil was not physical, however!

I can't wait to know exactly what you'd call it, then...


And show me your sources, for this one, please...


perhaps i need to be more clear, the "disturbance" as seen from orbit is not a physical disturbance IT IS SIMPLY REFLECTING MORE SUNLIGHT INTO THE CAMERA.

the surface disturbance caused by the engine is a physical one, but it is not the same reflection that you saw from orbit images.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not closed to the possibility (regardless of how slim chance that math may be) that the moon landing is a hoax, my mind is never locked.

You do have to take in consideration the many many thousands of different "evidence" that people have stated over the decades that they said proved that the moon landing was a hoax only for it all to be debunked

I stated that you actually have to show something with plenty of proof behind it backing your statements to be able to sway people, you cannot just act ;condescending, arrogant, rude, insulting, shoving it in their faces, their wrong your right.

It just does not work that way.





I look at all the evidence, from all sides, and then I see where it leads - and that's it...

It is not 'debunked' at all, either. Far from it, in fact.

It's about finding the truth, and accepting the truth.


complete and utter BS

you have demonstrated over and over in this thread alone that you dont read evidence supplied...
THIS POST is more proof.




Here is an example of this emotional behavior, as I mentioned..

There is no disturbance seen in any surface images.

This proves they faked it.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:06 AM
link   
Come on guys. There's no point in trying to make him see things because he's got his eyes shut to anything that doesn't fit into his little conspiracy.

How many times has he changed what's part makes it a hoax only to be shown evidence that he's wrong, then goes back to it as if it's something new?

He's just rehashing the same debunked arguments while ignoring evidence to prove him wrong and supplying no evidence to back himself up.

Everyone's just wasting time even speaking to him.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Same as the area of 'disturbance' is all you need to prove it was faked.


the problem is, what that disturbance looks like and what you want it to look like are two completely different things.

you are expecting a huge white coloured regolith in surface images but so many times people have told you it is a reflective issue and not so much a physical one..

its like flying over a lake and you see this huge bright spot in the water

you dont know what it is and want to investigate it so you go down to the lake and see this:


you would be thinking to yourself "wheres the big patch of white water?? my eyes must be fake"


People with an open mind might be able to find the truth, and accept it, as such. That's a decent enough motivation, to keep going forth...


you mean people that simply dont understand what that LM disturbance is, like yourself??

you have spent the last few months thinking that the LM disturbance was a physical feature when its been the reflection of sunlight...


A disturbance of soil is not actually a physical feature?

The LM blew dust out everywhere. The disturbance of soil was not physical, however!

I can't wait to know exactly what you'd call it, then...


And show me your sources, for this one, please...


perhaps i need to be more clear, the "disturbance" as seen from orbit is not a physical disturbance IT IS SIMPLY REFLECTING MORE SUNLIGHT INTO THE CAMERA.

the surface disturbance caused by the engine is a physical one, but it is not the same reflection that you saw from orbit images.



It can't reflect light only upward, to only be seen from orbit - that's the problem....

You can't explain what makes the soil become more reflective, first of all.

You can't explain how the unexplained soil could all reflect upward, millions of particles acting in unison, after being thrown about randomly, all over the surface, which is not a flat surface, either. No matter the angle each particle lands, it still reflects upward, just like magic!


You have no sources to support any of this, either.

What you say amounts to nothing but hot air...



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Come on guys. There's no point in trying to make him see things because he's got his eyes shut to anything that doesn't fit into his little conspiracy.

How many times has he changed what's part makes it a hoax only to be shown evidence that he's wrong, then goes back to it as if it's something new?

He's just rehashing the same debunked arguments while ignoring evidence to prove him wrong and supplying no evidence to back himself up.

Everyone's just wasting time even speaking to him.


So you're here, telling them why they shouldn't be here, which isn't at all wasting our time!?
edit on 29-10-2016 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
Come on guys. There's no point in trying to make him see things because he's got his eyes shut to anything that doesn't fit into his little conspiracy.

How many times has he changed what's part makes it a hoax only to be shown evidence that he's wrong, then goes back to it as if it's something new?

He's just rehashing the same debunked arguments while ignoring evidence to prove him wrong and supplying no evidence to back himself up.

Everyone's just wasting time even speaking to him.


So telling them why they shouldn't be here, while you're here, isn't at all wasting our time!?


Of course it's wasting my time. Just like your wasting everyone's time with your "nuh-uh" argument.

You've constantly failed to prove anything, then rehash stuff from months ago and demand evidence while evidence has been presented. Then fail to produce any evidence of your own.

Your whole argument is "it's a hoax coz I said so!"

So yeah, we're wasting our time even acknowledging you.



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It can't reflect light only upward, to only be seen from orbit - that's the problem....


so are you saying that this bright spot is seen in ALL LRO images??


You can't explain what makes the soil become more reflective, first of all.


first of all, yes i have multiple times, you have continued to ignore it..
OBMonkey has also provided links to this that you have ignored multiple times.


You can't explain how the unexplained soil could all reflect upward, millions of particles acting in unison, after being thrown about randomly, all over the surface, which is not a flat surface, either. No matter the angle each particle lands, it still reflects upward, just like magic!


no one ever said it reflects upwards only.. it is just visible from a few LRO images because the LRO took images of those at the right time.


You have no sources to support any of this, either.

What you say amounts to nothing but hot air...



no sources huh?? thats what you think is it??

so where is your proof of your theory that this reflection should be more visible the closer you get???



posted on Oct, 29 2016 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Helious
they were no more enemies than Macho Man Randy Savage and Hulk Hogan.


That's a terrible analogy, those two hated each other. Randy Savage even released a rap album with a Hulk Hogan diss track.







 
49
<< 108  109  110    112  113  114 >>

log in

join