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: 124
57
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Whynotman

Basically none of what you said is true. Can you explain what artifacts you think vanished? Can you explain what information you think NASA is hiding? The Apollo program is one of the most well documented and publicly disclosed events in human history. The simple fact of the matter is that in nearly 50 years not a single piece of evidence presented by the hoax crowd hasn't been shown to be either ignorance of basic science or outright lies.




posted on Feb, 26 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.


yes seen, but only seen clearly when viewed from very far away........ its obvious that it is you who simply does not understand.


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...


have you quantified the changes?? it doesnt look like you have so how to you know it would change while they are traversing through it?? and how do you know that it will change from safe enough to pass to deadly??

QUANTIFY YOUR CLAIMS


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?


to fully understand it so that it can be predicted so that it can be manipulated or missions can be manipulated..

we are still studying the weather now but we fly in it all the time.. your argument is flawed.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
yes seen, but only seen clearly when viewed from very far away........ its obvious that it is you who simply does not understand.


Nothing at all is seen from the surface, that's the problem here.

You have no support for it, no examples of any kind, no way to repeat it on Earth...

Face the reality, or stay in denial, nothing will change the facts here...


originally posted by: choos
have you quantified the changes?? it doesnt look like you have so how to you know it would change while they are traversing through it?? and how do you know that it will change from safe enough to pass to deadly??

QUANTIFY YOUR CLAIMS


They are still trying to quantify it, right now, that's the whole problem...

Asking me to quantify it when it's not known yet?!?



originally posted by: choos
to fully understand it so that it can be predicted so that it can be manipulated or missions can be manipulated..

we are still studying the weather now but we fly in it all the time.. your argument is flawed.


You compare this to the weather???

We are still flying, in one.

We never fly in the other one, at all..

That's your comparison?
edit on 3-3-2017 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:04 PM
link   
You now have two groups planning a manned moon mission, while they have no idea how, but know that it's all been done before, so no problem!!

Why could they ever fail, right?

After taking these idiots to spend a fortune on their fairy-tale, as a non-refundable deposit, they cite some delay, but nothing to worry about. Good news, more idiots buy in...

In hopes of all their dreams will come true, after all...

I seem to recall some type of plans for a manned mission to Mars, as well.


Humans cannot safely fly beyond Earth's orbit.

That explains why nobody has ever gone past Earth's orbit, except 50-year-old technology worked perfectly for the first time, and they didn't use it ever again. They tried to, decades later, and it failed to work. Nice one.



posted on Mar, 3 2017 @ 10:44 PM
link   
It appears that you have no valid support for your claim - that Apollo was always flying around, or at the 'fringes', of the VAB, on their (supposed) moon missions....right?

Nobody has shown anything of the sort....

Your side is simply making up this claim, and pretending it's a fact...


You fear the reality, and you always will.

Sad.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Whynotman

Basically none of what you said is true. Can you explain what artifacts you think vanished? Can you explain what information you think NASA is hiding? The Apollo program is one of the most well documented and publicly disclosed events in human history. The simple fact of the matter is that in nearly 50 years not a single piece of evidence presented by the hoax crowd hasn't been shown to be either ignorance of basic science or outright lies.


The experts have ignored Apollo's documents, meaning it's garbage, to be ignored. Perhaps a brief mention of some kind, at best. And nothing more is said on it.

A paper written a few years ago looked into what radiation protection humans will require before going on any future missions into 'deep space', as in, beyond Earth orbit.

That is where the paper should have referred to the Apollo lunar missions, being the only manned missions ever to go beyond Earth orbit....

The Apollo data should have been fundamental to their study. Nothing is even close to it, in valid data, and the effects on humans, at the time, and for many years afterward. If you disagree, what else even compares to it?...

So what do they choose, as data?

No data is used from the Apollo missions, at all. None.

Instead, they use data from LEO, to extrapolate it for the region lying beyond LEO!! It's a guess, of what it might actually be!!

Why would they need to make guesses, when they'd already know it, with all of the Apollo lunar missions??

Only if Apollo wasn't there, obviously.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

This alone is enough evidence they faked it. One photo of a "training site" here on Earth, with Buzz Aldrin and some other NASA guy, posting in front of a barren landscape with a mountain in the background. Then, another photo, from the "Moon", with the same landscape and exactly same mountain in the background.

www.facebook.com...



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SolarSon

If it's the same mountain, why does it look completely different? Even by hoax theologian standards this is terrible.



posted on Mar, 4 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: SolarSon

If it's the same mountain, why does it look completely different? Even by hoax theologian standards this is terrible.


Correct. The left slope looks quite different. For example, the left side of the Moon mountain has a small depression/ravine/canyon at the bottom, but the one in Hawaii does not.

By the way, why do you ("SolarSon", in two posts above) say the guy with Buzz is "another NASA guy". It seems to me he looks like a tourist, and the rest of the context of that picture makes it seem as if it is of a tourist excursion out to that site, or some tourist photo-op with Buzz. I suppose he could be a NASA guy, but there is no reason to suspect that he is.


edit on 2017-3-4 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I'm also pretty sure the one in Hawaii is actually two separate hills. It's a very low quality scan so it may just be a crease in the right spot but it looks like there's one trapezoidal hill and then behind that you see part of another hill.

There's also the extreme lapse in logic that one could make someone believe that if NASA faked the moon landings they'd have the set they used open to the public in a photograph that, based on Buzz's apparent age and the vehicles in the background was taken about 30 years after the moon landing. If they shot on location, the first logical thing to do would send an explosives crew to make sure that those mountains don't look the same anymore . . . also making your top secret moon set a tourist attraction is pretty dumb.



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
there are plenty of 3rd party verifications

Baysingers observations

all right here



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SolarSon
a reply to: CB328

This alone is enough evidence they faked it. One photo of a "training site" here on Earth, with Buzz Aldrin and some other NASA guy, posting in front of a barren landscape with a mountain in the background. Then, another photo, from the "Moon", with the same landscape and exactly same mountain in the background.

www.facebook.com...


Here is a picture of Silbury Hill in Wiltshire England that, from certain angles, looks similar to your image from Hawaii.

Should that lead me to believe that your image from Hawaii is fake?




edit on 2017/3/5 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2017 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Nothing at all is seen from the surface, that's the problem here.

You have no support for it, no examples of any kind, no way to repeat it on Earth...

Face the reality, or stay in denial, nothing will change the facts here...


i have supported it, you ignored it.. not my problem you choose to ignore it.



They are still trying to quantify it, right now, that's the whole problem...

Asking me to quantify it when it's not known yet?!?


it is known, what isnt known is how and why it behaves the way it does. you are the only one that refuses to believe that they have no clue what the levels of exposures will be.



You compare this to the weather???

We are still flying, in one.

We never fly in the other one, at all..

That's your comparison?


yes, like you said we are flying in one while we are still studying it to this very day.. according to your argument flying machines are a hoax.. so are birds, or do birds know everything about the weather??



posted on Mar, 6 2017 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

You heard it here first. Hawaii is a hoax filmed in Wiltshire!!



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 02:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

i have supported it, you ignored it.. not my problem you choose to ignore it.


To know this area is not seen in any 'surface' images is an absolute fact, and you choose to ignore that fact, which is not my problem.


originally posted by: choos
it is known, what isnt known is how and why it behaves the way it does. you are the only one that refuses to believe that they have no clue what the levels of exposures will be.


The VAB always changes, and nobody knew that in the Apollo-era. Nobody could take accurate measurements, because it changes all the time, and nobody knew that at the time.


You've made a claim - that Apollo always flew around the VAB, or most of it, anyway.

You have nothing at all to support your claim, yet STILL you go on and on, claiming it!!

Why?




originally posted by: choos
yes, like you said we are flying in one while we are still studying it to this very day.. according to your argument flying machines are a hoax.. so are birds, or do birds know everything about the weather??


We study the weather, but know enough to fly planes in it.

We don't fly humans in the VAB.

That is your own comparison!!


What indicates that they knew so much about the VAB, at the time?


Compared to, what indicates they didn't know much about the VAB, at the time?

- no data is used for any of their studies, for one.
- nobody knew the VAB are very dynamic, just the opposite, in fact.
- nobody has ever attempted to fly through, or around, the VAB since then.
- no evidence exists for Apollo flying around the VAB, as claimed.


So what do you have?



posted on Mar, 11 2017 @ 03:54 AM
link   
An area of disturbance is not seen in any of their 'surface' images, and the reason is...

There is an unknown phenomenon causing the effect.

First time ever that a phenomenon would cause physically distinct surfaces to be seen only from 50 km away, vanish from sight anywhere on the surface! A miraculous coincidence!


Or, it is not seen because it doesn't even exist, at all.

Countless examples of this can be found, to support this claim...
It can be replicated, at any time, as well...



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

To know this area is not seen in any 'surface' images is an absolute fact, and you choose to ignore that fact, which is not my problem.


already shown you what it looks like, already shown you they have taken a close up HD image of directly under the descent engine.. you choose to ignore it.. that is your problem.



The VAB always changes, and nobody knew that in the Apollo-era. Nobody could take accurate measurements, because it changes all the time, and nobody knew that at the time.

You've made a claim - that Apollo always flew around the VAB, or most of it, anyway.

You have nothing at all to support your claim, yet STILL you go on and on, claiming it!!

Why?


they knew it changed, they just underestimated it.
nothing to support the claim they flew around the most intense areas???

thats just your ignorance speaking. go learn about the inclinations of each mission and tell me they didnt avoid the more intense areas..





We study the weather, but know enough to fly planes in it.

We don't fly humans in the VAB.

That is your own comparison!!


yes because according to you, we should ONLY be able to safely fly when we have a complete 100% knowledge of weather.

like how you suggest we are still studying the VAB therefore we dont have a single clue on how to pass it.
to put back into your terms, planes are a hoax because we are still studying the weather, therefore we have no clue about flying in earths atmosphere.



What indicates that they knew so much about the VAB, at the time?


they flew probes to measure the boundaries of the VAB they have published books about the shape of the VAB, were they just guessing??


Compared to, what indicates they didn't know much about the VAB, at the time?

- no data is used for any of their studies, for one.
- nobody knew the VAB are very dynamic, just the opposite, in fact.
- nobody has ever attempted to fly through, or around, the VAB since then.
- no evidence exists for Apollo flying around the VAB, as claimed.

So what do you have?



apparently more than you..
no data use for any studies?? they have tables publish on the intensity of the VAB available on the internet...
nobody knew the VAB was very dynamic? define very dynamic.
nobody attempted to fly through? whats your point?? nobody has attempted to make a supersonic passenger jet since concorde neither, so whats your point??
no evidence exists for apollo flying around the VAB? thats your ignorance rearing its ugly head again.. educate yourself and realise you are ignorant.. what kind of hoax believer would even bother making such a false claim?



posted on Mar, 13 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Avoidance by mapping a course and punching through the thinest section in short time.


Regardless of the differences of the flux levels in the Inner and Outer Van Allen belts, the beta radiation levels would be dangerous to humans if they were exposed for an extended period of time. The Apollo missions minimised hazards for astronauts by sending spacecraft at high speeds through the thinner areas of the upper belts, bypassing inner belts completely.



Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.


Current Tech = Vulnerable.

Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions.


What a modern shielded satelitte receives with current digital computers going direct through the VARB.

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles (320 by 32,190 km)) passing the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year (for comparison, a full-body dose of 5 Sv is deadly). Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.


The prior probes to investigate and map the VARB

Explorer 4, Pioneer 3, Luna 1


Sources = Wiki VARB Article with 3+ Sources for each claim, does not take long to read.

Also the detonation of several Nuclear Warheads in Space with associated scientifitic data and analysis associated with it with firing many rockets with science data payloads with a plethora of scientific ships from multiple nations undertaking tasts with those High Altitude Space Nuke Booms.

We also detonated Nukes and got our people to crawl through it to test the effects of extremely high radioactive fallout more lethal then the VARBs. (I say We because the US, Russia, UK and Australia all did the same crawling through radioactive sludge crapworks)

The Astronauts did not do it without risk.
edit on 13-3-2017 by MuonToGluon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 03:10 AM
link   

a reply to: syrinx high priest
there are plenty of 3rd party verifications
Baysingers observations


theres an overwhelming consensus that Baysingers association with UFO organizations made them a susceptible target to be feed hoaxed transmissions associated with a disinformation campaign.






posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: syrinx high priest
there are plenty of 3rd party verifications
Baysingers observations


theres an overwhelming consensus that Baysingers association with UFO organizations made them a susceptible target to be feed hoaxed transmissions associated with a disinformation campaign.

If it was a disinfo campaign meant to discredit a UFO researcher, why would "They" be feeding Baysinger fake conversations from Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins?

Wouldn't that just serve to give Baysinger a bunch more credit for being an amateur expert at receiving signals from space?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join