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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 119
57
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
You have claimed Apollo's technology was genuine.


It is. Prove otherwise.


So they tried to use that same technology, again, to prove it was genuine.


That is not why it is being used.



Yet when they failed, you say it is NOT proof of being fake technology!!


Show us where it failed.



Nothing will ever convince you that Apollo's technology is fake, obviously.


Because it isn't.

Oh, and show is where they were 'told' they had to use it.




posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
So we're back to the portion of the silliness that says the tech isn't capable, again, are we?

I would think, that somewhere in this colossus of a thread, that would have been covered, at least once...



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

EVERYTHING has been addressed multiple times - but hey - the hoaxers just keep regurgitating the same crap

they havnt done " shadows " for a while



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

That's the one that's the most fun though... They're always so wrong!

I would actually suggest that this thread has run its course, but someone would just start a new one.



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

if the staff cose this thread - the hoaxers will scream " cencorship " and spit thier dummies out

aww fook it - lock the thread



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The bootprints reflect more light, that's true. But nobody is arguing that point.

The bootprints are SEEN as more reflective from the surface. That's the point.

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.

Aren't these footprints within the supposed LM Blast Zone, as well? That's what you've been claiming.

So you're claiming the footprints are more reflective, because they're flattened, yet so is the LM Blast Zone, which is NOT seen at all.

You want it both ways, at the same time.


simply becuase you are too slow to understand..

i have asked you multiple times to explain the dark regolith around the bootprint:


i have even given you the answer, but you refuse to acknowledge it you continue to ignore it..

so ill ask again, why is the regolith dark around the bootprints??
(HERES A HINT: ITS BECAUSE THE REGOLITH AROUND THE BOOTPRINT IS FRESHLY KICKED UP REGOLITH AND IS NOT COMPRESSED THEREFORE REFLECTING LESS LIGHT)

was that too much of a hint??



posted on Dec, 31 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

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.


Except where you do, which you've been show, but conveniently ignored.


It's not the area in question...if it's even an area, to begin with.

Do you even know the area I'm referring to, here? It is the so-called LM 'Blast Zone' found in lunar images. The area AROUND THE LM.

Nothing else.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Show us where it failed.


"significant technical and design challenges for the Orion and Ares I
vehicles, such as limiting vibration during launch, eliminating the risk of
hitting the launch tower during lift off, and reducing the mass of the Orion
vehicle, represent considerable hurdles that must be overcome in order to
meet safety and performance requirements;"


www.gao.gov...




originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Oh, and show is where they were 'told' they had to use it.


From the same source, noted above....

"When it completed the ESAS study, NASA indicated it would maximize the
use of heritage hardware and established technology
in order to reduce
cost and minimize risk."


"By emphasizing heritage technology, the Constellation program
was designed to avoid problems associated with the prior shuttle
replacement efforts, which were largely rooted in the desire to introduce
vehicles that significantly advanced technologies. Thus far, however, the
Constellation program has encountered daunting challenges in terms of
design, testing, manufacturing, and poorly phased funding that have led
the program to slip its target for a first crewed flight to no later than March
2015."



"Human spaceflight development programs are complex and
difficult by nature and NASA’s previous attempts to build new
transportation systems have failed in part because they were focused on
advancing technologies and designs without resources—primarily time
and money—to adequately support those efforts.
While the current program, Constellation, was originally structured to rely on heritage
systems
and thus avoid problems seen in previous programs, the failure to
establish a sound business case has placed the program in a poor risk
posture to proceed into implementation as planned in 2010."



Both of my points are now proven correct.

They never mention Apollo, by name. They only refer to "heritage" technology, when the only one (supposedly) going to the moon is Apollo. It seems as if they didn't want to mention Apollo by name, for some strange reason! Anyway, no matter.

Point 1 - We know they were attempting to use Apollo technology, for their mission to the moon. As much as possible, anyway.

Point 2 - We know the mission failed, in large part, because they lacked mature technologies required for such a mission.

Do you see the big problem, here?

They don't have the technology for a manned lunar mission.


edit on 1-1-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 12:49 AM
link   
I still don't know how they can get past the Radiation belt never mind the dome itself.


Space... It's like Time. Is it even there or merely an Illusion



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

The bootprints reflect more light, that's true. But nobody is arguing that point.

The bootprints are SEEN as more reflective from the surface. That's the point.

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.

Aren't these footprints within the supposed LM Blast Zone, as well? That's what you've been claiming.

So you're claiming the footprints are more reflective, because they're flattened, yet so is the LM Blast Zone, which is NOT seen at all.

You want it both ways, at the same time.


simply becuase you are too slow to understand..

i have asked you multiple times to explain the dark regolith around the bootprint:


i have even given you the answer, but you refuse to acknowledge it you continue to ignore it..

so ill ask again, why is the regolith dark around the bootprints??
(HERES A HINT: ITS BECAUSE THE REGOLITH AROUND THE BOOTPRINT IS FRESHLY KICKED UP REGOLITH AND IS NOT COMPRESSED THEREFORE REFLECTING LESS LIGHT)

was that too much of a hint??


I've repeatedly explained this to you.

Address the issue, already!



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

He's done nothing but address the issue(s).

You just ignore them because you haven't, in any fashion, refuted his explanations.



posted on Jan, 1 2017 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've repeatedly explained this to you.

Address the issue, already!


oh you have explained it have you??

you have already agreed that the brightness of the bootprint is because the lunar regolith is compressed making it reflect more light..

so therefore logic says that uncompressed lunar regolith will be darker than compressed regolith like that of the bootprint right?? just like the dark regolith around the bootprint.. agree?? if you dont agree that means you were wrong about compressed regolith being brighter which you have admitted to already.. (hope you dont go round in circles again it took you months to get that far)
edit on 1-1-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've repeatedly explained this to you.

Address the issue, already!


oh you have explained it have you??

you have already agreed that the brightness of the bootprint is because the lunar regolith is compressed making it reflect more light..

so therefore logic says that uncompressed lunar regolith will be darker than compressed regolith like that of the bootprint right?? just like the dark regolith around the bootprint.. agree?? if you dont agree that means you were wrong about compressed regolith being brighter which you have admitted to already.. (hope you dont go round in circles again it took you months to get that far)


The only one going round and round in circles is you, just above...

It's obvious you cannot address the point, honestly.



posted on Jan, 6 2017 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The only one going round and round in circles is you, just above...

It's obvious you cannot address the point, honestly.


i have addressed the point.. you are the one missing the obvious..

if something is made brighter what does that mean?? it means it is brighter compared with something right??

you have already admitted that the compressed lunar regolith is brighter.. brighter than what???

from the image i have posted it can be clearly seen the bootprints are brighter than the surrounding regolith.. why?? because the bootprint are compressed.. which means the dark regolith which is directly next to and around the bootprints are uncompressed which makes sense since it is loosely kicked up regolith.

therefore the dark regolith has been addressed your nonsense about it being rough molecules is utter rubbish.. because they are BOTH LUNAR REGOLITH IN THE SAME AREA.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: turbonium1

He's done nothing but address the issue(s).

You just ignore them because you haven't, in any fashion, refuted his explanations.


It's nothing but an excuse, to AVOID the actual issue!

Your claim of a feature on the moon being around an Apollo lunar lander, which is not seen in any Apollo surface images, that is the specific issue, I'm referring to here.

Footprints can be compressed, and reflect more light than before? Sure, we agree on that point.

You actually believe it is relevant to the specific issue?

Just say it, and keep on saying it, because you cannot face the reality....right in front of you.

When everything in Apollo surface images was a perfect match to recent images from lunar orbit, it confirmed the landings were genuine, you said.

You still say it confirms the landings, even now.


Your argument is if it all matches up, that confirms the landings as genuine. So the opposite case is equally valid, by the very same argument, therefore.


Not so in Apollo-land, a fantasy world where your dreams can become a reality.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

The only one going round and round in circles is you, just above...

It's obvious you cannot address the point, honestly.


i have addressed the point.. you are the one missing the obvious..

if something is made brighter what does that mean?? it means it is brighter compared with something right??

you have already admitted that the compressed lunar regolith is brighter.. brighter than what???

from the image i have posted it can be clearly seen the bootprints are brighter than the surrounding regolith.. why?? because the bootprint are compressed.. which means the dark regolith which is directly next to and around the bootprints are uncompressed which makes sense since it is loosely kicked up regolith.

therefore the dark regolith has been addressed your nonsense about it being rough molecules is utter rubbish.. because they are BOTH LUNAR REGOLITH IN THE SAME AREA.


I've told you to address the specific issue.... over and over again.

The issue is about the supposed blast zone, around the LM, claimed to be seen in images taken from lunar orbit, but cannot be seen in a single Apollo surface image.

Don't act the fool .... you absolutely know that this was/is the specific issue I've been asking you to address.

No more hiding away now, please...



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You spend an awful long time denying that those blast zones existed at all, and that there was no evidence of them taken by anyone. Now you're relying on them to prove that they aren't visible on the ground. Which is it? Do they exist or not? Probes from several countries say they do. Reports from the time of the missions say they do. Do you?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 01:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You spend an awful long time denying that those blast zones existed at all, and that there was no evidence of them taken by anyone. Now you're relying on them to prove that they aren't visible on the ground. Which is it? Do they exist or not? Probes from several countries say they do. Reports from the time of the missions say they do. Do you?


Your side claims they are "blast zones', not me, as you know already. You're still playing the fool, despite what I've just said about it. Hopeless to ask for a mature conversation, that's painfully obvious to see.

We don't see any 'blast zones' in Apollo surface images. Why not?



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've told you to address the specific issue.... over and over again.

The issue is about the supposed blast zone, around the LM, claimed to be seen in images taken from lunar orbit, but cannot be seen in a single Apollo surface image.

Don't act the fool .... you absolutely know that this was/is the specific issue I've been asking you to address.

No more hiding away now, please...



how can i possibly address the blastzones properly when you have repeatedly shown that you DO NOT RECOGNISE WHAT THE BLASTZONES WILL LOOK LIKE!!!!

the whole purpose of making you understand the dark regolith and the bright regolith of and around the bootprint is to show you what dark loose regolith would look like and what compressed regolith looks like..

so far you have only able to admit what compressed regolith looks like, you have still failed to understand what loose regolith looks like even though i have repeatedly given you the answer you are still too dense and ignorant to admit it.



posted on Jan, 7 2017 @ 02:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

We don't see any 'blast zones' in Apollo surface images. Why not?



like i said..

the reason YOU dont see the blastzones is because YOU DONT KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE..

you have already admitted that compressed regolith will be brighter..
logic states that if compressed regolith makes the soil brighter then uncompressed (loose soil) will not be as bright ie. darker!

so when you look at this image again for the nth time


you will see that the bootprints are about as bright as the regolith around the dark patch..
what caused the dark patch?
obviously from moving about kicking up loose soil which settles down on the lunar surface according to lunargravity which isnt much, so it is NOT COMPRESSED REGOLITH therefore being darker in appearance.

so then why is the surrounding soil brighter than that dark patch?
the image is taken almost right next to the lander, so it is obviously inside the blastzone.. which begs the question, does the blastzone consist of compressed lunar soil??
if so does compressed lunar soil reflect more light compared with loose soil?? you have already admitted it does
so the bright regolith around the dark regolith is what part of the blast zone will look like from the surface.. will you admit to this?? most likely not in a hundred years.
edit on 7-1-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join