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: 115
49
<< 112  113  114   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: MuonToGluon
a reply to: turbonium1

Instead of babbling words that you keep saying "explain" it all, could you instead present some evidence, or even some graphics with some arrows and how it's done and etc.

Also doesn't the life support system on the suits do some type of venting...?


What exactly do you want me to show you?

We have the images from orbit, which show a feature. A feature claimed to be caused by the lunar lander.

We also have Apollo surface images, NONE of which show this feature, claimed to be around the LM.

That is the only evidence you need to have.

Do you want me to post surface images, with arrows that point to the non-existent 'disturbance' around the LM?




posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

White assumes the flag was waving due to the astronaut running by it. Secondary sources are not considered, which could be in play, such as air conditioners, fans, etc.

The assumption is that it is caused by the astronaut, because he runs past it during the time the flag waves. But it could be due to a fan, off-camera, etc.



so what you are suggesting is that the flag could have been made to move by the A/C or a nearby fan..

what do you think is heavier, particles of dust being kicked up or a flag???
if a flag can be made to move why is the dust kicked up not affected??



posted on Nov, 27 2016 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

What exactly do you want me to show you?

We have the images from orbit, which show a feature. A feature claimed to be caused by the lunar lander.

We also have Apollo surface images, NONE of which show this feature, claimed to be around the LM.

That is the only evidence you need to have.



evidence of what exactly??

the whole notion that you have of this being visible on the surface is because you see a reflection from orbit therefore you believe you should see that same reflection on the surface..

your whole idea of what you are seeing from the orbit images is WRONG.. so until you can correct yourself you are not going to get anywhere..

like i said previously, you are claiming its a mistake.. a huge mistake that is simply obvious to you, but this mistake has not just occured once or twice like a regular human being would make mistakes, this has occured in every single surface image and footage in existence, what you are claiming is NOT a mistake..

so think back, since it isnt a mistake it must be deliberate, NASA clearly understood that compressed regolith would be more reflective, proven by this image:


NASA clearly understood what the disturbance from the LM engine would look like since they took this image:


to put it back into perspective so that maybe you might understand you see this image:

see that patch of water in the red circle??
you are basically claiming that if seen from the river bank that area of water will appear white..



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I think that the moon landing was real. If thousands of people believed it was faxe experts would have a look at it, but there are only a few people who think it is fake out of the billions who know about it!



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: HammerTime47637

That's the thing though, experts have been looking at it non-stop for nearly 50 years. Much of the technology invented during the apollo program is still in use today, likewise much of the data is also still in use. The hoax crowd love to ignore reality and pretend it was a one and done type of event and then everything was forgotten. It's like the flat earthers, they assume that thousands, if not millions of people have crafted the perfect lie and have carried it on for decades (or millennia to the flat earthers) without a single slip up.



posted on Dec, 2 2016 @ 06:44 PM
link   
How many people believe in something is irrelevant, and yes, experts have studied and found problems with Nasa pictures, etc.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

White assumes the flag was waving due to the astronaut running by it. Secondary sources are not considered, which could be in play, such as air conditioners, fans, etc.

The assumption is that it is caused by the astronaut, because he runs past it during the time the flag waves. But it could be due to a fan, off-camera, etc.



so what you are suggesting is that the flag could have been made to move by the A/C or a nearby fan..

what do you think is heavier, particles of dust being kicked up or a flag???
if a flag can be made to move why is the dust kicked up not affected??


Because the air was not directed to the ground, perhaps?



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

the whole notion that you have of this being visible on the surface is because you see a reflection from orbit therefore you believe you should see that same reflection on the surface..

your whole idea of what you are seeing from the orbit images is WRONG.. so until you can correct yourself you are not going to get anywhere..

like i said previously, you are claiming its a mistake.. a huge mistake that is simply obvious to you, but this mistake has not just occured once or twice like a regular human being would make mistakes, this has occured in every single surface image and footage in existence, what you are claiming is NOT a mistake..

so think back, since it isnt a mistake it must be deliberate, NASA clearly understood that compressed regolith would be more reflective, proven by this image:


NASA clearly understood what the disturbance from the LM engine would look like since they took this image:


to put it back into perspective so that maybe you might understand you see this image:

see that patch of water in the red circle??
you are basically claiming that if seen from the river bank that area of water will appear white..


Comparing two distinct, separate physical areas of the surface, to a lake, or such, which has only the one, very same, area....

You're off to a fine start, yes indeed!!


You mean the soil is disturbed, not seen as disturbed anywhere on the ground, while seen from orbit, as disturbed soil, because this disturbance isn't like any sort of 'real', or 'physical' disturbance, it is a 'reflective' disturbance. This is nothing unusual, of course!

If you disturb soil, which makes it more reflective than the undisturbed soil, all around this area, it would have to be due to some sort of physical change.

If this physical change makes the soil more reflective, it would be seen everywhere, including on the ground...

Because the change is RANDOM.

Soil blown around will land down to surface at random.

It is not landing as one, exact same orientation, everywhere....right?

All the soil is more reflective, so the reflections must be at random, obviously!


It's not hard to understand...



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 03:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: HammerTime47637

That's the thing though, experts have been looking at it non-stop for nearly 50 years. Much of the technology invented during the apollo program is still in use today, likewise much of the data is also still in use. The hoax crowd love to ignore reality and pretend it was a one and done type of event and then everything was forgotten. It's like the flat earthers, they assume that thousands, if not millions of people have crafted the perfect lie and have carried it on for decades (or millennia to the flat earthers) without a single slip up.


It's just the complete opposite, in reality.

Apollo's data is never used, it is either ignored, or given as a passing footnote, at best. Nothing more, let alone like in your fantasy...

It's a good idea for you to take look at some recent papers, and you'll see the big problem ...


Some papers avoid Apollo by implying the study is only about 'long-stay' missions, in 'future'...

Good one.

Fat chance.


They failed to 'return' to the moon, so now..it's onward, to Mars!?!?

Sad.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Take a look at all of the problems, to see the entire picture...


A man has never been in space, so we test and test, with more and more advanced life forms, before man goes there...

Because it was very much unknown, at that time...

So, with an even more unknown environment, but regarded as much more hazardous, is somehow NOT? 'Away we go to moon landings'?!?

Utterly absurd story.

And after Apollo, they decide to go back to Earth orbit, for the next 35-40 years?

This is just another absurd story, yet again.

Next, they try to achieve a 'return' to the moon...

They soon failed, miserably.

Must be about not getting enough money, nothing fishy here, right?!


A lot more, but it should now be very obvious.....



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 04:30 AM
link   
Your side always claimed the flags waved because they'd been touched by astronauts.....

Your side claimed that all flags waved because of astronauts touching them, or moving them, in some way...


If a flag waved without a touch, that would have proven it is on Earth, because only air could have caused the untouched flag to wave...


No, you just changed your entire argument, acting as if it's always been your argument!


Guess again..



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Apollo's data is never used, it is either ignored, or given as a passing footnote, at best. Nothing more, let alone like in your fantasy...


Are you a professional geophysicist that you are so familiar with the literature?


It's a good idea for you to take look at some recent papers, and you'll see the big problem ...


No, you need to do some research.



Some papers avoid Apollo by implying the study is only about 'long-stay' missions, in 'future'...


The papers do not "avoid" Apollo, they use exactly the same data set. The fact is that future deep space missions will be of longer duration, which is why radiation exposure is now an issue.



posted on Dec, 3 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

In what universe do you live where they only way to apply a force is through direct human contact? "If a flag waved without a touch, that would have proven it is on Earth" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say . . . and that's quite the accomplishment. So static charge and/or kicked up dirt just don't exist on the moon or what?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

White assumes the flag was waving due to the astronaut running by it. Secondary sources are not considered, which could be in play, such as air conditioners, fans, etc.

The assumption is that it is caused by the astronaut, because he runs past it during the time the flag waves. But it could be due to a fan, off-camera, etc.



so what you are suggesting is that the flag could have been made to move by the A/C or a nearby fan..

what do you think is heavier, particles of dust being kicked up or a flag???
if a flag can be made to move why is the dust kicked up not affected??


Because the air was not directed to the ground, perhaps?


so the unit was below the flag blowing air up is what you are suggesting now??? since it affected the flag it must have been pretty close too.. you think a fan or ac unit can do this without affecting dust that will be kicked in front of it???

and given you have resorted to saying that fans and AC units were used it must mean that it was NOT filmed in a vacuum..

do we need to remind you of how kicked up dust behaves when an atmosphere is present???



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: turbonium1

In what universe do you live where they only way to apply a force is through direct human contact? "If a flag waved without a touch, that would have proven it is on Earth" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever seen you say . . . and that's quite the accomplishment. So static charge and/or kicked up dirt just don't exist on the moon or what?


Or the passing astronaut may have shook the ground as he walked, and that shaking transferred through the ground to the flagpole.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

That one's never really worked in my head. From what I know of the ground conditions (I definitely haven't studied them in much detail) I don't believe the ground would be able to transfer that much energy, also the flag movement seems to be more the flag itself being manipulated and not ground>pole>flag transfer as just the lower corner moves and not the whole flag. All that can really be said with any kind of certainty is that the video is inconclusive at best. A force was imparted on the flag, what that force was isn't known.



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Take a look at all of the problems, to see the entire picture...


A man has never been in space, so we test and test, with more and more advanced life forms, before man goes there...

Because it was very much unknown, at that time...

So, with an even more unknown environment, but regarded as much more hazardous, is somehow NOT? 'Away we go to moon landings'?!?

Utterly absurd story.


Apollo tested and tested and tested. Every piece of it, over and over. You said it yourself. The only way you can test actually landing on the moon is to land on it. Any other suggestion is absurd.




And after Apollo, they decide to go back to Earth orbit, for the next 35-40 years?

This is just another absurd story, yet again.


Because of political decisions about where to spend the vast sums of money it cost, not because it was suddenly impossible.



Next, they try to achieve a 'return' to the moon...

They soon failed, miserably.


Really? When did this happen?



Must be about not getting enough money, nothing fishy here, right?!


A lot more, but it should now be very obvious.....


Which hospitals and schools do you want to close to pay for it?



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Your side always claimed the flags waved because they'd been touched by astronauts.....

Your side claimed that all flags waved because of astronauts touching them, or moving them, in some way...


If a flag waved without a touch, that would have proven it is on Earth, because only air could have caused the untouched flag to wave...


Some people claimed it was a possible explanation, one of a number of possible explanations.



No, you just changed your entire argument, acting as if it's always been your argument!


Guess again..


Nope.

Another very distinct possibility, as you well know, is that the whole movement is just a video artifact and you are pinning your faith in a bad youtube reproduction of live TV footage.
edit on 4/12/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2016 @ 10:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Comparing two distinct, separate physical areas of the surface, to a lake, or such, which has only the one, very same, area....

You're off to a fine start, yes indeed!!


all that patch of lunar regolith is doing is reflect more sunlight directly into the camera..
all that patch of lake is doing is reflecting more sunlight directly into the camera..

the idea of comparing them is that depending on the viewing location both of those patch of bright spots changes does it not??? or you think that as long as the sun is somewhere in the sky that patch of lake will always appear white???????

do you get now why i say that you need to correct your understanding of what that reflective patch of lunar regolith is before you can continue???


You mean the soil is disturbed, not seen as disturbed anywhere on the ground, while seen from orbit, as disturbed soil, because this disturbance isn't like any sort of 'real', or 'physical' disturbance, it is a 'reflective' disturbance. This is nothing unusual, of course!


after several months of explaining you still dont get it??

it is a disturbance that compressed the surface causing it to be more reflective.. already explained to you..


If you disturb soil, which makes it more reflective than the undisturbed soil, all around this area, it would have to be due to some sort of physical change.


and it is being compressed over a large area....... which has already been explained to you..
there is no physical change to each individual particle..which has also already been explained to you..


If this physical change makes the soil more reflective, it would be seen everywhere, including on the ground...


physical change of the soil????????????? already explained to you why this idea is wrong.



Soil blown around will land down to surface at random.

It is not landing as one, exact same orientation, everywhere....right?



?????????????????????????

after months of explaining to you are you seriously still thinking that it is dust being blown up and settling down is the dust that makes the surface more reflective????

soil being blown away and landing back on the surface is IRRELEVANT, these particles will most likely be miles away from the landing site..

why do you insist on arguing things you do not understand????



new topics

top topics



 
49
<< 112  113  114   >>

log in

join