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: 123
57
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 07:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

told you already, to test the survivability of the life support system onboard the spacecraft..


To know if prolonged weightlessness was safe for humans..

They didn't know radiation was safe for humans, beyond LEO, either.



originally posted by: choos
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??


You said they knew all about the VAB, before Apollo. And over 40 years later, they just 'want to know more'??

They now say it's not at all like they always believed it to be!




posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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...



you just cant get your head around what viewing distance can do can you??

heres an example:

random sunrise pic, im going to use photoshop and zoom into the green area note you can easily make out where the horizon is.
but zoom right in


and the horizon becomes difficult to see. the simple concept you have failed to understand for several months already.



posted on Feb, 17 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

told you already, to test the survivability of the life support system onboard the spacecraft..


To know if prolonged weightlessness was safe for humans..

They didn't know radiation was safe for humans, beyond LEO, either.


they knew the levels didnt they?? they also sent human missions into the VAB..




You said they knew all about the VAB, before Apollo. And over 40 years later, they just 'want to know more'??

They now say it's not at all like they always believed it to be!



no i said they knew enough about it to get around it. you are the one claiming they knew everything about the VAB which is why you find it weird they need to continue studying it.

not being like they believed it to be sounds worry-some right?? BUT HAVE YOU QUATIFIED IT???

or is this your version of doom and gloom porn??



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

you just cant get your head around what viewing distance can do can you??

heres an example:

random sunrise pic, im going to use photoshop and zoom into the green area note you can easily make out where the horizon is.
but zoom right in


and the horizon becomes difficult to see. the simple concept you have failed to understand for several months already.


Not again!

I'm talking about a physical feature, you claim to exist, on the lunar surface. Not a horizon seen at sunrise.

The area is estimated to be about 500 m long, and about 300 m wide, perhaps less.

You claimed this is a physical disturbance of lunar soil, which was caused by an Apollo lunar lander.

You're the one who is claiming it is a physical feature, therefore.

But you're trying to compare it to a sunset horizon, or lake reflections, instead of an actual, physical feature.


It's referred to as a 'blast zone', for some reason, or other!



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 02:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

you just cant get your head around what viewing distance can do can you??

heres an example:

random sunrise pic, im going to use photoshop and zoom into the green area note you can easily make out where the horizon is.
but zoom right in


and the horizon becomes difficult to see. the simple concept you have failed to understand for several months already.


Not again!

I'm talking about a physical feature, you claim to exist, on the lunar surface. Not a horizon seen at sunrise.


you still dont get it.. its a gradual change over a large distance.. IT ISNT EASY TO SEE UP CLOSE THERE ARE NOT HARD EDGES LIKE IT IS SEEN FROM ORBIT.


The area is estimated to be about 500 m long, and about 300 m wide, perhaps less.

You claimed this is a physical disturbance of lunar soil, which was caused by an Apollo lunar lander.

You're the one who is claiming it is a physical feature, therefore.

But you're trying to compare it to a sunset horizon, or lake reflections, instead of an actual, physical feature.


do you get it yet that you simply dont understand my point???

ive shown you how differences between viewing distances can make something easy/difficult to see, but you missed the point again.. not surprising.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

no i said they knew enough about it to get around it. you are the one claiming they knew everything about the VAB which is why you find it weird they need to continue studying it.



I don't recall any documents on avoiding the VAB, so what are your source(s)?

I recall only one document, briefly mentioning the issue...

They say the VAB cannot be avoided, in fact.

The astronauts must go fast as possible, through the belts, to minimize the hazards within!!


And your source(s) ?



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

no i said they knew enough about it to get around it. you are the one claiming they knew everything about the VAB which is why you find it weird they need to continue studying it.



I don't recall any documents on avoiding the VAB, so what are your source(s)?

I recall only one document, briefly mentioning the issue...

They say the VAB cannot be avoided, in fact.

The astronauts must go fast as possible, through the belts, to minimize the hazards within!!


And your source(s) ?


no one claimed they avoided the VAB that is YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING, of which there are many.

i am saying they knew enough about the VAB to get around that hurdle. ie. they know the dense areas they know the thinner areas, they knew the trajectory that would be required to minimise exposure to a safe enough level



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 04:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

I've shown you how differences between viewing distances can make something easy/difficult to see, but you missed the point again.. not surprising.


No.

Here is the point, once again..

There are two areas, one is disturbed soil, and one is undisturbed soil...

Because we have Images which show that there are, indeed, two distinct areas.

That's how we find any sort of distinction...

Images that include both of the areas show this distinction.



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 04:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

no one claimed they avoided the VAB that is YOUR OWN MISUNDERSTANDING, of which there are many.

i am saying they knew enough about the VAB to get around that hurdle. ie. they know the dense areas they know the thinner areas, they knew the trajectory that would be required to minimise exposure to a safe enough level


I suppose you have no sources to support your claim, right?


As for knowing where it's denser, and less dense, within the VAB...it's less dense at the fringes, more dense inside...go figure!!

So what did they understand about the VAB, anyway?

They assumed the VAB was a very slow, unchanging environment...

It's the very opposite, in fact. It is constantly changing, fast moving...


It's denser at one moment, and not dense the next moment, so they knew squat about where/when it's safe, or not safe...

Think it through, now...



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 05:08 AM
link   
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!

You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!



posted on Feb, 18 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Lovely Theory, i always believed the moonlanding was faked as the evidence that we have been provided by is so faguely presented that it is no propper proof that we actually went to our beloved cheesy friend, it's rather fishy that all the so called psuedo objects that they brought to back just vanished like it was a simple magic trick.... curiously enough if you just use your observational skill's then sure as hell something is going on, if they staged it or not something is rather odd about the whole case.

Rather a dissapointment that we cannot look in Nasa there archives even for such a historic event even though such small step for mankind should be praised and the theory actually debunked but then again Nasa refuses to give us any insight in the matter and thus continueing the fassade.



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 08:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No.

Here is the point, once again..

There are two areas, one is disturbed soil, and one is undisturbed soil...

Because we have Images which show that there are, indeed, two distinct areas.

That's how we find any sort of distinction...

Images that include both of the areas show this distinction.



and here is the point you are missing yet again..

the reflective difference in the soil gradually occurs over a large area.. do you undertand what the word fade means?



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I suppose you have no sources to support your claim, right?


oh i dont know, gemini 11 maybe??


As for knowing where it's denser, and less dense, within the VAB...it's less dense at the fringes, more dense inside...go figure!!


and how did they know this??? you cant see the VAB with your eyes.


So what did they understand about the VAB, anyway?


the shape, the densities the flux etc.


They assumed the VAB was a very slow, unchanging environment...

It's the very opposite, in fact. It is constantly changing, fast moving...


can you quantify how much it changes???


It's denser at one moment, and not dense the next moment, so they knew squat about where/when it's safe, or not safe...

Think it through, now...


can you quantify how much denser it got?? can you quantify what is safe and what is not safe??



posted on Feb, 19 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!

You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!


they did understand the nature of it, they just underestimated how it changes in certain circumstances..
does it change from safe to unsafe??
how fast does it change?? days/hours/seconds??
does the entire shape of the VAB change or does the flux and densities change??

quantify your beliefs..

its like you heard that ants can hold upto 20x their weight.. and then you go off saying the world is doomed because of how strong ants are..

but when you realise that ants weigh about 5mg it puts your perspective out of whack.

so how about you get to quantifying your beliefs?



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

No.

Here is the point, once again..

There are two areas, one is disturbed soil, and one is undisturbed soil...

Because we have Images which show that there are, indeed, two distinct areas.

That's how we find any sort of distinction...

Images that include both of the areas show this distinction.



and here is the point you are missing yet again..

the reflective difference in the soil gradually occurs over a large area.. do you undertand what the word fade means?


You're not getting the point, or more likely you do know it, and you'll never admit to it....

You insist that the area is so vast, it can't be seen from anywhere on the surface....

This is not true, obviously. The area is seen...and well beyond it, too.



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!

You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!


they did understand the nature of it, they just underestimated how it changes in certain circumstances..
does it change from safe to unsafe??
how fast does it change?? days/hours/seconds??
does the entire shape of the VAB change or does the flux and densities change??



What nonsense!

They had no idea the VAB changed from one instant to another, all the time, anywhere...

They've admitted it, you should know...



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 09:32 PM
link   
I've asked you to show me any sources that support your argument - which is that they planned, and executed the plan, to avoid the VAB, with all of their 'lunar' missions.

Your sources are Apollo-ites, saying it as if it's a fact, so let's all move along now, folks!

Now, something like this will be documented, in every detail, before the Apollo lunar missions...yes?

So where are the documents about this?

Based on your non-existing documents, they avoided the worst parts of the VAB, anyhow...

The VAB environment is diametrically opposite in its behavior, to what they believed. However, they know how to avoid all of its hazards!!!??!


Yikes!



posted on Feb, 24 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
What about sailing across the ocean, for the very first time?

We might know about a rocky reef under it, a hazard we'll be able to avoid, when we first attempt to sail the ocean..

They might believe the ocean is quite calm, in their limited knowledge.

Get the point, now?



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 01:41 AM
link   
When they first discovered the VAB, they knew it was an extremely hazardous environment.

Bombing it with nukes a few years later shows their pure desperation, obviously.

So they didn't understand much about the VAB, they were total idiots..


They didn't know it was an extremely dynamic environment, which means there is no 'safe' area. The VAB has no 'fixed spots' or whatever.


Here is the point -

The VAB have no 'areas' within it, no 'fringes' surrounding it, not ANY sort of fixed regions.

No 'areas' exist in the VAB, it's constantly changing, nobody knows where, or when, or why, it changes all the time, in an instant....so far, at least.

Apollo could not 'know' where it's 'safer', because no areas exist, a 'safe' area, or a 'very hazardous' area.



posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 02:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
If they didn't even understand the very nature of this environment, which they didn't, then it's ridiculous to believe they knew it was safe for humans!

You guess they were just 'lucky', no doubt!!


they did understand the nature of it, they just underestimated how it changes in certain circumstances..
does it change from safe to unsafe??
how fast does it change?? days/hours/seconds??
does the entire shape of the VAB change or does the flux and densities change??

quantify your beliefs..

its like you heard that ants can hold upto 20x their weight.. and then you go off saying the world is doomed because of how strong ants are..

but when you realise that ants weigh about 5mg it puts your perspective out of whack.

so how about you get to quantifying your beliefs?


What do you think they are trying to find out right now, with their VAB probes?

Why would they spend so much money, and time, to study the VAB?

We realize the VAB environment is nothing like they had previously believed.

How does this fit with the Apollo story?




top topics



 
57
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join