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.
originally posted by: turbonium1
About 30 or 40 people knew the actual plans, I'd say...
But thousands? Not a chance...
originally posted by: turbonium1
Apollo's 'science' is mostly garbage, sorry to say.
Real technology/methods, compared to fake technology/methods...
A real technology will always hold up, after years, or centuries, the same way...
A fake technology cannot hold up, after years, or centuries. Because it never even existed, at all.
To have it replaced with new technology is very common, as we progress, of course....
But the old, outdated technology always exists, no matter how old, or how primitive it looks to us, years later
This was their plan for a 'return' moon landing. Use the same technology Apollo used, or as much of it as possible, anyhow.
originally posted by: MuonToGluon
How could you possibly even know that, pulling figures out of your butt again.
originally posted by: MuonToGluon
Do you know anything at all?
The technology for it was mostly HAND made, fabricated by hand, can you give me one other example of technology from the beginning of that are that is still used TODAY? And I mean not updated to our standards today, not evolved or upgraded, but by your standards of then.
The memory and circuitry was done by hand, the computers were built by hand, the welding and joints were done by hand, the programming was inputted by hand, it was most of all done by hand, they do NOT fabricate those parts and technology anymore, they have no need to!
originally posted by: choos
no, they reflect light in the same exact way as any object does.. the difference is the amount in certain directions.
no it is relevant to all surfaces, all surfaces reflect light, smoother surfaces just reflects light more uniformly in a certain direction. rough surfaces also reflect light and can be arranged when in a large group to reflect more light in a certain direction..
originally posted by: choos
molecular level?? are you saying that water at the molecular level is smooth?? so if i compare a single molecule of water to a single molecule of sand one will be rough the other smooth??
do you even know what a molecule is?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1
I can't be bothered reading this thread any more. You just keep going around in circles. Also, I don't really care as we went to the moon.
Merry Christmas turbo and everyone else
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1
I can't be bothered reading this thread any more. You just keep going around in circles. Also, I don't really care as we went to the moon.
Merry Christmas turbo and everyone else
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, these are two distinct surfaces - One surface is referred to as 'rough', the other surface is referred to as 'smooth'. The two types of surfaces reflect light in very different ways, as I said.
One is called specular reflection, and the other is called diffuse reflection. I've already explained this to you, many time - so what is not getting through to you,here?
What you need to understand is that they are two types of surfaces, which reflect light differently.
This is the scientific explanation, from several sources I've cited.
A lake will not be perfectly smooth, of course. Mirrors aren't perfectly smooth, either. They are both smooth surfaces, yet nothing is perfectly smooth, in reality.
Yes, at the surface, water molecules are 'smooth', like a mirror. Read the sources, if you are confused about this point.
You must understand this, to know why you have a big problem, here.
originally posted by: choos
dont just yes when you have no idea what you are talking about..
prove to me that water molecules are smooth.. (i dont even think you know what a molecule is)
FYI a water molecule is H2O..
originally posted by: turbonium1
So when they tried to 'return' to the moon l, it was intended to be done with Apollo's technology. But it failed, dismally...
originally posted by: choos
the lunar regolith doesnt present a smooth surface, when look from afar it is a little smooth, but it still reflects light..
when compressed the lunar regolith particles will fill in empty spaces therefore reflecting MORE light back out when compared with undisturbed soil.. which is why it will appear brighter which is why the regolith around the bootprint is darker than the bootprints.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
And yet you can't find a single shred of evidence that your filmed in a studio claim happened, you can't find where it was done, you can't find out how they did hours of footage with the speed altered, or how they manipulated the soil to behave as if it was done in zero gravity, or how they put live shots of Earth into the broadcasts. Not one single piece of evidence exists anywhere from anyone, not a single deathbed confession, not a single letter locked in a drawer waiting for publication, nothing.
originally posted by: captainpudding
originally posted by: turbonium1
So when they tried to 'return' to the moon l, it was intended to be done with Apollo's technology. But it failed, dismally...
You seem to enjoy repeating this lie in the hopes it will magically become true. Do you have any evidence for this claim or is it like every other claim you've ever made and is just a personal, ignorant opinion that is in no way based in fact or reality?
originally posted by: turbonium1
We DO NOT SEE the supposed LM Blast Zone as more reflective from the surface, which is the problem here. It would be seen, from the surface, just like the footprints are.
originally posted by: turbonium1
If there was a 'deathbed confession', you'd never accept it, anyway. You'd say he was not of sound mind, at the time, because he was sick, and near death. And you'd also say he had no proof, either.
There is abundant evidence of the hoax, but you will never accept any of it, no matter how much, or how convincing. Nothing has, or can, ever convince you that it is actually just a hoax.
I've also explained how they did the footage at slow speed, being it is a perfect 66.66% of normal, Earth speed. How would the lunar gravity slow down human movements, first of all? That alone is totally absurd. But to then slow it down to a perfect 66/66% of normal speed, makes it a complete joke!