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: 122
57
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
because the ones where we see it very obviously were taken at the right time to provide the best contrast between the dark and bright areas.


You don't even know what time it was taken, yet somehow you know it was taken at "the right time"?...

So they took images in lunar orbit at just the "right time", while Apollo took all of their surface images at the wrong time!!


It can't disappear on Earth, but it can on the moon, no problem!




originally posted by: choos
wasnt it you that said that the bootprints can be sort of like a mini blastzone?? what happened to that argument of yours??

im showing you the blast zone right next to the LM, with loose soil to compare the contrast to.. you choose to ignore it.


I'm referring to the specific area they have identified from lunar orbit images....




originally posted by: choos
so what you want is one image near the LM and one image far from the LM to compare??
you want to completely ignore sun position, contrast settings etc.. is that right??


It's your argument, with nothing to support it, yet somehow you believe it is my responsibility to refute !?!

Deal with it...



originally posted by: choos
you are wrong.. i am comparing compressed soil with uncompressed soil..

what is the soil within the blastzone?? compressed or uncompressed soil??
what is the undisturbed soil far from the LM landing sites? compressed or uncompressed soil?

you choose to ignore this simple fact.


Ignorance is your middle name, no doubt!!


A feature is seen on the lunar surface, being that it appears to be more reflective than all of the outlying surface.

YOUR SIDE made a claim on this specific area - that it is an actual physical disturbance of the lunar soil. And they believe this feature is an actual physical disturbance of soil, based on where it is located on the surface. Exactly at the spot NASA claims an Apollo LM had landed on the moon, almost 45 years ago!

The LM must have caused this disturbance, during its descent....


So that is YOUR claim, about this specific feature.


Your side claims that an LM caused a physical disturbance of soil, in its descent, to the lunar surface.


However, you don't ever support this claim, yourself...

.
You have claimed this feature is simply more reflective than the soil all around it,....

You claim it is more reflective because of 'compression', so seeing it totally depends on the angle of sunlight, at the time....

You cannot say it is a physical disturbance, which caused it to more reflective.

A physical disturbance is seen, as a distinct, real feature of the surface.

Here is the first and only physical feature that is not seen, unlike every other physical feature ever known to exist!!

Sure, that's it




posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you have still failed to point out what Apollo technology didnt work.. saturn V launched, it was able to do rendezvous in space, it was able to re-enter earth it was able to keep its occupants safe..

but according to you, it failed to do any of these.


It was 60's technology, not magic

Look at what we are doing today, to help you grasp that we still have massive problems to deal with...


We tested the LEO environment all throughout, with animals, and so on, well before a human went up there.

Being much more hazardous an environment is not tested with animals - nothing clues you in, just a bit ?



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:00 AM
link   
Several years ago, the ESO had a project to image Apollo landing sites.

They would use the VLT to get the images. At first, with one of its scopes, and if needed, with all the scopes combined.

They soon dropped the whole project, as if it never existed. Their website never even mentions it, not one word.

Why would they want to bury it all away like that? Think hard...



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You don't even know what time it was taken, yet somehow you know it was taken at "the right time"?...

So they took images in lunar orbit at just the "right time", while Apollo took all of their surface images at the wrong time!!

It can't disappear on Earth, but it can on the moon, no problem!


yes at just the right time.. remember the lake image i showed you??

how much light is reflected into the camera is directly related to the suns position..





I'm referring to the specific area they have identified from lunar orbit images....


and ive already shown you areas that is within those areas.. you've admitted that compressed soil will be brighter, you've also admitted that uncompressed soil will be darker.. so when i show you bright soil surrounding dark soil which is surrounding bright bootprints you have no answer all you got is denial.




It's your argument, with nothing to support it, yet somehow you believe it is my responsibility to refute !?!

Deal with it...


nothing to support it?? you mean when i use images and circle the bloody differences its not support??

the reason why you have chosen to go the route of saying that its not your duty to refute it is because YOU CANT..

from the very start you have had nothing but opinions. if you had anything to support you you would be able to refute me easily. but you chose not to, funny that.




A physical disturbance is seen, as a distinct, real feature of the surface.

Here is the first and only physical feature that is not seen, unlike every other physical feature ever known to exist!!

Sure, that's it


we've been over this child.. did you forget??

this "physical feature" you keep going on about is nothing more than more sunlight being reflected into the camera than the surrounding surfaces.



posted on Feb, 4 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It was 60's technology, not magic

Look at what we are doing today, to help you grasp that we still have massive problems to deal with...

We tested the LEO environment all throughout, with animals, and so on, well before a human went up there.

Being much more hazardous an environment is not tested with animals - nothing clues you in, just a bit ?


how many animals did james cameron send to the mariana trench before he went down??? what about the people before him?? what about the first people to climb everest?? how many animals did they send up first?? im guessing you are going to claim its all fake???

and 60's technology is markedly different from todays technology..
its already been stated microchips are much more susceptable to particle radiation than 60's integrated circuits and core rope memory.. prove to me that it isnt and maybe you might have a point.



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
and ive already shown you areas that is within those areas..


You've shown me footprints within the supposed "blast zone" area, which is not what I'm referring to.

I'm repeatedly told you that I'm talking about these two areas - the "blast zone" area, and the surrounding area. This is all I'm talking about!

The "blast zone" area is claimed to be seen in images taken from lunar orbit. This area is only seen because it is brighter than the surrounding area.

Therefore, we need to look at ANY/ALL OF THE SURFACE IMAGES WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO COMPARE THESE TWO AREAS

You need to present any of the surface images WHICH SHOW BOTH OF THESE AREAS.

Obviously you know that, but you avoid it entirely. Because you know there are NO surface images which match up to the images from lunar orbit. None of the surface images show two different areas. The entire surface beyond the LM is the very same, in every way, nothing distinct at all.

I encourage you to man up, and admit the truth - that the surface images do NOT show these two distinct areas.

I'm not afraid to admit to the truth, no matter how much it would destroy my long-held, inherent beliefs.

The Apollo moon landings are considered by many as one of our greatest achievements, rivalled only by the Great Pyramid. It is something we are very proud of, especially in America. I get that. Who wouldn't take pride in such a feat.

But if it if found to be a hoax, then we must accept that. No matter how much we prefer it were real, it is not the truth, and we must accept that, in order to move forward, from that point onward.

(Sidenote: I've debated this issue for years, with many people. What I have often found is anger, and intense emotion, from those who defend Apollo. I think it stems from the gradual realization that Apollo was a hoax, which causes internal angst, and is unleashed as anger at those who showed the hoax to them. Anyway, that's just something I wanted to mention in passing)....


originally posted by: choos
you've admitted that compressed soil will be brighter, you've also admitted that uncompressed soil will be darker.. so when i show you bright soil surrounding dark soil which is surrounding bright bootprints you have no answer all you got is denial.


No, I've already agreed with you on this point. Why do you keep on claiming that I have not answered it?

Oh, right...to try avoiding the issue, by any means...




originally posted by: choos
nothing to support it?? you mean when i use images and circle the bloody differences its not support??


You are circling it in the images from lunar orbit, to indicate the difference. Now, what have I repeatedly asked you to show me?

You know exactly what I've asked you for.

Please show me any surface images which allow us to compare the same two areas, as you have with the lunar orbit images..


originally posted by: choos
we've been over this child.. did you forget??

this "physical feature" you keep going on about is nothing more than more sunlight being reflected into the camera than the surrounding surfaces.


It's not helping your case to call me "child". You only look ....'childish' in saying it...which is quite ironic, indeed.

They said it was a real, physical disturbance of soil.

Why is it directing more sunlight into the camera?



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

how many animals did james cameron send to the mariana trench before he went down??? what about the people before him?? what about the first people to climb everest?? how many animals did they send up first?? im guessing you are going to claim its all fake???


We already saw living organisms in the deep sea environment. We saw no living organisms in space, at all.

The first people to climb Everest would already know there is less and less air to breathe with ever-higher altitudes, and that it is much colder, etc. before first trying to climb to the top of Mt. Everest.

The first humans would've been grasping for air, and many people died, in their attempts at being the first human to climb the highest peak on Earth.

Nobody died in any moon missions, of course.

They knew it was hazardous, before any manned missions.

They'd already tested the LEO environment with animals, so that's why we knew that LEO would be safe for humans, and they began manned LEO missions.


I've compared Apollo, where nobody died in moon missions, to Mt. Everest, where many people have died in the attempt.

I've compared Apollo, going into an environment without any living organisms, already known to be extremely hazardous, to the deep seas, which we knew had living organisms, before humans tried it. I forgot to mention that we had progressed to ever greater depths with humans, before that. Apollo went to the moon in one shot, with humans. It's a fantasy-;and.

I've even compared the previous manned space missions, in LEO, to Apollo. An environment we didn't know much about, to a much less known environment, which are actually three very different, unique environments, grouped together, as if it were one single environment!
This sounds much better, to the Apollo-ites trying to explain how it's genuine. Not in reality.

A less hazardous environment is tested with animals, before humans. Why did they have animals in space before humans? To understand if it was a safe environment for humans, they sent chimps into space. The closest to a human, and if the chimps are safe and sound in the environment, so are humans. Makes sense, right?

Apollo makes no sense, in comparison. Animals were used before humans, in a less hazardous environment, so we knew humans could safely go there.

Apollo's story is beyond absurd!




originally posted by: choos
and 60's technology is markedly different from todays technology..
its already been stated microchips are much more susceptable to particle radiation than 60's integrated circuits and core rope memory.. prove to me that it isnt and maybe you might have a point.


Microchips are more sensitive, sure.

They can protect them against the radiation, too.

All good, then?
edit on 5-2-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You've shown me footprints within the supposed "blast zone" area, which is not what I'm referring to.

I'm repeatedly told you that I'm talking about these two areas - the "blast zone" area, and the surrounding area. This is all I'm talking about!

The "blast zone" area is claimed to be seen in images taken from lunar orbit. This area is only seen because it is brighter than the surrounding area.


you dont know what it is you are seeing..

ive shown you the contrast difference between soil that was affected by the descent stage engine and loosely kicked up uncompressed soil..

and here you are asking me to show you the difference between compressed soil from the descent engine and uncompressed soil..

here ive shown you a stark difference as the change is quite sudden, yet you want me to show you a small change that occurs over several meters.......


Therefore, we need to look at ANY/ALL OF THE SURFACE IMAGES WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO COMPARE THESE TWO AREAS

You need to present any of the surface images WHICH SHOW BOTH OF THESE AREAS.


like i said i have.. the dark surface around the bootprint is loosely kicked up soil.. majority of the lunar surface is loose soil from redistribution of thousands of meteor impacts over millions of years.


(Sidenote: I've debated this issue for years, with many people. What I have often found is anger, and intense emotion, from those who defend Apollo. I think it stems from the gradual realization that Apollo was a hoax, which causes internal angst, and is unleashed as anger at those who showed the hoax to them. Anyway, that's just something I wanted to mention in passing)....


its not because of a gradual realisation that Apollo was a hoax.. that is just your arrogance that leads you to believe that..
the anger and frustration comes from arguing with someone so dense and clueless yet acts like he knows everything when he is clearly wrong..

have you tried teaching an arrogant adolescent before?? are all those angry parents just gradually realising that they are wrong and their arrogant 16 year old child that wants to go to a party with sketchy people is right?


You are circling it in the images from lunar orbit, to indicate the difference. Now, what have I repeatedly asked you to show me?

You know exactly what I've asked you for.


you have asked me to show you the blastzone.. and i have..
i cant help it if you fail to acknowledge it.. the only thing you have been able to do is completely ignore it you cant even begin to refute it.


Please show me any surface images which allow us to compare the same two areas, as you have with the lunar orbit images..


it is near impossible to see what you want from the surface because the gradual change occurs over a very very large area.. there is no hard end point..

do you know why im using the bootprint as an example?? because the edges are very easy to see..

you are basically trying to tell me to tell you exactly how wide in mm the colour purple is on a rainbow and completely disregarding that it is a gradual change from purple to the next colours.



It's not helping your case to call me "child". You only look ....'childish' in saying it...which is quite ironic, indeed.

They said it was a real, physical disturbance of soil.

Why is it directing more sunlight into the camera?



if you werent a child and used some critical thinking like a genuine adult would i need to explain why it is directing more sunlight into the camera??

the real physical disturbance comes from compressing the soil.. compressed soil is more reflective.. the bright area is thus an area of higher reflectance, do i really need to spoon feed you??



posted on Feb, 5 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

We already saw living organisms in the deep sea environment. We saw no living organisms in space, at all.


not my point, my point is we havent sent an animal in a capsule down the mariana trench.. we know fish can survive deep underwater ontheir own, but are you saying that a dog can also???

you are saying that we needed to test the spacecraft by sending live animals inside the spacecraft, thats the only way to know it was real..

we never sent any air breathing animals down the mariana trench.. therefore you are suggesting it was all fake.


The first people to climb Everest would already know there is less and less air to breathe with ever-higher altitudes, and that it is much colder, etc. before first trying to climb to the top of Mt. Everest.

The first humans would've been grasping for air, and many people died, in their attempts at being the first human to climb the highest peak on Earth.

Nobody died in any moon missions, of course.


the difference here, is that Apollo brought along and tested well, the life support system.. did these everest climbers just try to climb everest or did they send up an animal first?


They knew it was hazardous, before any manned missions.

They'd already tested the LEO environment with animals, so that's why we knew that LEO would be safe for humans, and they began manned LEO missions.


and what exactly is so different from LEO and lunar missions?? and by how much?? you sound like an expert.


I've compared Apollo, where nobody died in moon missions, to Mt. Everest, where many people have died in the attempt.


you have never compared the animal testing with everest though?? how come??


I've compared Apollo, going into an environment without any living organisms, already known to be extremely hazardous, to the deep seas, which we knew had living organisms, before humans tried it. I forgot to mention that we had progressed to ever greater depths with humans, before that. Apollo went to the moon in one shot, with humans. It's a fantasy-;and.


the lunar mission was a step by step thing.. because you completely ignore everthing prior to apollo 11 touching the surface does not mean they got there in one step.. thats just your ignorance.


I've even compared the previous manned space missions, in LEO, to Apollo. An environment we didn't know much about, to a much less known environment, which are actually three very different, unique environments, grouped together, as if it were one single environment!
This sounds much better, to the Apollo-ites trying to explain how it's genuine. Not in reality.


you havent quatinfied difference between LEO and lunar surface. the obvious danger for survival is the life support system.. but that was proven to work, next was control that was also proven to work, next earth entry which was also proven to work.. what else do you need??
if you want to go back to particle radiation as being the only reason then i hope you have some figures to back you up??


A less hazardous environment is tested with animals, before humans. Why did they have animals in space before humans? To understand if it was a safe environment for humans, they sent chimps into space. The closest to a human, and if the chimps are safe and sound in the environment, so are humans. Makes sense, right?


they did, and they went into HEO before going through the VAB.


Apollo makes no sense, in comparison. Animals were used before humans, in a less hazardous environment, so we knew humans could safely go there.

Apollo's story is beyond absurd!


says someone whose knowledge of the lunar landings is completely ignoring everything that occured prior to apollo 11.



Microchips are more sensitive, sure.

They can protect them against the radiation, too.

All good, then?


not reliably.. remember these are life support systems that is required to work in extreme environments.. like i said do you want to trust your life on a parachute system that maybe or maybe not had a bit changed from 1 to 0??
do you know what state of the art hardware is considered for space hardware?? you probably had a PC that could match it 15 years ago..

edit on 5-2-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

it is near impossible to see what you want from the surface because the gradual change occurs over a very very large area.. there is no hard end point..



This doesn't make sense.

Look at the surface images which show well beyond any point the (supposed) 'blast zone' area....

All of the surface shows no change, anywhere....

If there was any sort of difference over that whole area, whether or not it was very gradual, over several feet, we'd still see the difference between them. It can't be unchanged over the whole area.

Try to make any sort of disturbance in soil, that cannot be seen from the ground, yet is seen from 50 km above Earth. And it has to be about the same size as the 'blast zone' area....



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 12:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you are saying that we needed to test the spacecraft by sending live animals inside the spacecraft, thats the only way to know it was real..


How would you know if it's safe for humans?

No tests, indeed!


originally posted by: choos

the difference here, is that Apollo brought along and tested well, the life support system.. did these everest climbers just try to climb everest or did they send up an animal first?


We've sent no animals to many other unexplored areas on Earth, as well..

You need no animal tests, anywhere, since no such tests were done, or needed, before Everest, or the Marianas, etc.!?!?

They had no reason to send animals into LEO, either...but they did... anyhoo!!



originally posted by: choos

you have never compared the animal testing with everest though?? how come??


See above.


originally posted by: choos
the lunar mission was a step by step thing.. because you completely ignore everthing prior to apollo 11 touching the surface does not mean they got there in one step.. thats just your ignorance.


Step by step??!!

Try a massive leap - nothing even compares to it...


I've already told you about their animal tests in LEO, prior to Apollo.

And what do you counter with? Everest, and the Marianas!!


Who is ignoring everything prior to Apollo, then?


Compare the steps...

Prior to Apollo, steps were taken - to know whether or not the LEO environment is safe for humans.


You don't grasp the point, right?

They must know if these environments are safe for humans. Beforehand.

So primates are the nearest thing to human, that's why they went into LEO before humans did.

A step which is not taken by Apollo, in a much worse environment?? Nonsense!








edit on 11-2-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:17 AM
link   
Many steps were taken, before a human went into LEO.

After LEO, the next step would be....

Humans go right off to the moon, of course... no problem!

Yup.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

This doesn't make sense.


what do you mean it doesnt make sense??

this is a rocket blast from above that is coming in from a certain direction, it isnt just dropping in from above and stamping the ground with hard edges..


Look at the surface images which show well beyond any point the (supposed) 'blast zone' area....

All of the surface shows no change, anywhere....


and how do you know those areas are not illuminated differently due to being in a different area or do you think the lunar surface is completely flat??


If there was any sort of difference over that whole area, whether or not it was very gradual, over several feet, we'd still see the difference between them. It can't be unchanged over the whole area.

Try to make any sort of disturbance in soil, that cannot be seen from the ground, yet is seen from 50 km above Earth. And it has to be about the same size as the 'blast zone' area....



the blast zone is not "over several feet"......

there are no hard edges of the blastzone, its impossible for there to be hardedges.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

How would you know if it's safe for humans?

No tests, indeed!


because they have sent up a multitude of probes before it to test the environment.. you didnt know?? well now you do.



We've sent no animals to many other unexplored areas on Earth, as well..


therefore according to your argument, they must all be faked.


You need no animal tests, anywhere, since no such tests were done, or needed, before Everest, or the Marianas, etc.!?!?

They had no reason to send animals into LEO, either...but they did... anyhoo!!


you obviously dont get my point.. they needed to test the spacecraft and whether or not it really could support life in space.. it was proven it could.

they also should have tested the submarines to see if they could support life 10km below sea level too according to your argument they didnt so therefore its all fake.




See above.


ditto




Step by step??!!

Try a massive leap - nothing even compares to it...


what massive leap?? show me where they went from no rockets to landing on the moon..

you are ignoring every single mercury, gemini and apollo mission prior to 11.. you are also ignoring all rocket technology built up prior to apollo 11.



I've already told you about their animal tests in LEO, prior to Apollo.

And what do you counter with? Everest, and the Marianas!!


Who is ignoring everything prior to Apollo, then?


you are, you are ignoring mercury all the way to apollo 10. you are ignoring every single satellite/probe launched prior to apollo


Compare the steps...

Prior to Apollo, steps were taken - to know whether or not the LEO environment is safe for humans.

You don't grasp the point, right?

They must know if these environments are safe for humans. Beforehand.

So primates are the nearest thing to human, that's why they went into LEO before humans did.

A step which is not taken by Apollo, in a much worse environment?? Nonsense!



much worse environment?? are you able to prove that? can you prove to me how the lunar environment is worse than inside the VAB.



posted on Feb, 11 2017 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Many steps were taken, before a human went into LEO.

After LEO, the next step would be....

Humans go right off to the moon, of course... no problem!

Yup.



so you want to suggest they had no idea what the lunar environment was like at all?

lets say that you washed your dog with water in a bucket at a temperature of 25degrees celcius, you note that your dog enjoys the wash..

you check a bucket of water with a thermometer in it that indicates the temperature to be 20degrees, but its a different bucket..

do you think its safe to put your hand in it?? or are you going to wash your dog with that bucket of water first because its in a different bucket??

because what you are telling me is that you need to test the second bucket on your dog first before you can try it yourself.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

and how do you know those areas are not illuminated differently due to being in a different area or do you think the lunar surface is completely flat??


It makes no difference. If it's seen in lunar orbit, it would be seen from the surface, too. Flat or lumpy, no matter.


originally posted by: choos
the blast zone is not "over several feet"......

there are no hard edges of the blastzone, its impossible for there to be hardedges.


No, I was referring to your claim of a gradual change over several feet.

Having a gradual change, no hard edges, yet is seen as a distinct area from lunar orbit - it would be seen from the surface, too.

If you look at a beach, for example, it changes gradually along the water. There are two distinct areas, one completely dry, and one completely wet. They are both seen from the ground. A gradual change doesn't matter.



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 05:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

because they have sent up a multitude of probes before it to test the environment.. you didnt know?? well now you do.



They sent up probes into LEO, as well.

Yet, they still sent animals into LEO, before any humans....

Why sent animals into LEO?

Probes can measure the radiation, in specific areas, not the biological effects.

Why do you think they have probes in the VAB, if they'd measured all of the radiation, before Apollo?



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It makes no difference. If it's seen in lunar orbit, it would be seen from the surface, too. Flat or lumpy, no matter.


and it is seen, at certain angles depending on sun position and camera position the difference in contrast levels can be seen, which is why i keep showing you those bootprints with the dark and bright patches right next to the lander..



No, I was referring to your claim of a gradual change over several feet.


you are the one claiming its a change over several feet.. but it isnt, it is a gradual change over several hundred feet.. over a large area!!!! several feet is by comparison a very small area

or do you want to suggest that it is a hard change that occurs instantly??


Having a gradual change, no hard edges, yet is seen as a distinct area from lunar orbit - it would be seen from the surface, too.


no it wouldnt, with gradual changes that occur over a large distance the closer you get the harder it is to notice where the edge is..


If you look at a beach, for example, it changes gradually along the water. There are two distinct areas, one completely dry, and one completely wet. They are both seen from the ground. A gradual change doesn't matter.


yea you know what the difference is??
the change from dry sand to wet sand occurs over a distance of about 2/3 feet.. are you saying the blast zone gradually changes over 2/3 feet??
edit on 12-2-2017 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They sent up probes into LEO, as well.

Yet, they still sent animals into LEO, before any humans....

Why sent animals into LEO?


told you already, to test the survivability of the life support system onboard the spacecraft.. are you dense or do you just dont like to read what others post?


Probes can measure the radiation, in specific areas, not the biological effects.

Why do you think they have probes in the VAB, if they'd measured all of the radiation, before Apollo?


because they want to know more about the VAB maybe?? or do you think they know absolutely everything and dont need to know any more about it??



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you are the one claiming its a change over several feet.. but it isnt, it is a gradual change over several hundred feet.. over a large area!!!! several feet is by comparison a very small area

or do you want to suggest that it is a hard change that occurs instantly??


no it wouldnt, with gradual changes that occur over a large distance the closer you get the harder it is to notice where the edge is..


No, because surface images which show the area, and well beyond it, would show any changes over the whole area, as well.

I've asked you to try and replicate this on Earth, and show me any other example of it on Earth, because you have nothing to support your argument.

This means you have to create an area of disturbance, on the ground, and not see it on the ground, anywhere, yet it can be seen from high above it...




top topics



 
57
<< 119  120  121    123  124  125 >>

log in

join