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: 130
57
<< 127  128  129    131  132 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

simple challenge - recreate a photo using the methods you claim work




posted on Apr, 6 2017 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

However, possible does not prove anything. However, the people making that claim used it as conclusive proof that the images were real.


no one is using it as conclusive proof.. it is support to the larger picture.. and possible does prove something, it proves that it is possible.


Or, lets back up to the beginning and admit that the possibility that light was reflected did not prove anything. Either one is fine with me - as long as both sides get the same treatment.


reflected light doesnt prove anything??
so what you want to do is lead the discussion to ignoring all reflected light to explain why the dark side of the LM is visible????

do you want a discussion or do you just want people to agree with you regardless of what your claims are?



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Those images could be staged and look identical. It is possible. And if that is all that is needed to be accepted as proof, then I have proven those images are staged.

One side gets to use the possibility as proof, but the other side doesn't. Not fair...


Wait a minute...the conspiracy pushers often use their alleged photo anomalies as their "proof" to support their claim that that Apollo moon landings were faked.

I find it rare for someone who believes we went to the Moon to say "the photos = proof that we went". Instead, they usually point to the whole of all of the evidence, including the details of the science and details of the technology.

The totality of the evidence makes it virtually certain that the Apollo missions were real, while none of the evidence promoted by the conspiracy theorists holds up under the scrutiny of science, our understanding of nature, and critical thought.

I mean, this whole moon hoax thing started with the "why aren't there any stars?" argument, which is a really silly argument for someone to make if they have even just a moderate understanding of photography. But instead, many conspiracy believers said "the fact that stars cannot be seen in the images is proof that it was faked."


edit on 2017/4/7 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

Earlier in this thread there were people who said that it has been proven that light could be reflected so the images must be real. Proving the light can be reflected does not prove the images are real, it only proves that it is possible they are real. And having a second light source is also possible. If only being possible is enough to allow that explanation to be considered proof then it should work for anyone who can prove any possibility.

The qualifier for this has been the same all along - possible does not prove anything. It is possible the light was reflected. It is possible the images are showing perspective. It is possible there was a second light source. It is possible the images were staged. The whole point of this argument is that just because it was possible does not prove that is what happened. I refuse to blindly agree that because specific conditions could have existed that would explain the images that there is no alternative explanation. There are more than one potential explanation for these images. People who want to believe the images are real are perfectly fine with abandoning the most basic principles of science and settle on one possibility that suits there purposes but they refuse to let anyone else do the same thing if they are in opposition. That is not science, that is not unbiased examination of evidence. It is blind adherence to a chosen belief.

My entire career was in R&D. I am a research scientist. One of my primary duties was failure analysis. The biggest mistake you can make in my field is to have a foregone conclusion. It leads your investigation exactly where you want it to go and you find exactly what you are looking for. And when you have found enough...you stop looking and declare a root cause. That is wrong on every level. The whole idea is to look systematically at all the evidence in greater and greater detail to discover all potential contributing factors, not just the ones you want to believe or the ones that make sense to you. That is science.

I want to give you an example of what I am talking about. This is an analysis I did roughly 15 years ago. Numerous people from multiple agencies had investigated this issue and were unable to determine the cause of the repeated failures. Six identical machines in a row. The sixth one repeatedly failed at very short intervals. The other five machines were basically identical in performance. After months of looking at every single piece of evidence with an honest eye and carefully examining every failed component I was able to determine vibration, seismic events, were the device. The root cause? Something no one else had even considered because they weren't looking for an answer - they were trying to prove their theory. The concrete slab the machines were on was roughly 5 inches thick except on the end where the last machine sat. The slab was only 2-3 inches thick there with a large air gap underneath. The end of the slab was picking up the vibration from the other five machines and shaking the sixth one apart. We moved the sixth machine about five feet and the problem was solved.

If you steadfastly believe that the images are real, everything you look at, every piece of evidence, will support your belief or be dismissed as false information. I have to keep an open mind. I am not saying the images are fake and I am not saying they are real. I am simply saying there is enough reason to allow for the possibility that the images are manufactured.

For a conspiracy site the people here are pretty gung ho on the accepting the status quo. Kind of makes me wonder...

On a side note - I had a wonderful career in R&D. I worked on some amazing projects. Among my more well known projects were some for the Trident submarines for the US Navy, oh, and a launch vehicle project for NASA-Goddard. You can call me names and insult me all you want. I really don't care. When you have a letter from NASA asking you to assist with a project we can talk. Like I said, things are not always as they seem. A good scientist looks beyond his personal beliefs and the surface to find the real cause and effect. Now, flame away like good little sheep and enjoy yourselves. Just know that none of it matters to me. I am in the been there done that club. You lot are pretty much on the outside looking in. :-)

Oh, one last thing. Yes, I do understand perspective and I am not refusing to accept it. I just don't blindly believe it is responsible for everything in every image ever taken.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
And having a second light source is also possible.


Then why is it you're outright incapable of presenting one of any of the thousands of Apollo photographs that shows evidence of a second light source? By your logic the photographs having been taken by Bigfoot is just as plausible as them having been taken by astronauts.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Virtually everything is "possible".

But it sounds as if you are now leaning towards asking us to prove the negative -- that is, it seems like you are saying "provide absolute 100% proof that the Apollo photographs were NOT faked."

That's extremely difficult, because it is proving a negative.

Let's say you live alone, and one morning the police knock at your door to wake you up. They ask where you were 3 hours ago when some person was murdered. You say you were sleeping (and you actually were), but since you live alone, nobody could confirm that.

The police come up with a possible scenario that you got up in the middle of the night, sneaked out of your house so quietly that your neighbors didn't notice, walked to this person's house and killed them, and then came back home and pretended to be in bed all night. Then they ask you to prove that this possible scenario could not have happened.

Even though you were home all night, you truthfully respond that you can't outright prove that you could NOT have done what they claim...

...So does that mean you murdered that person -- simply because it is within the realm of possibility that you could have accomplished that task? I mean, it seems possible that you could have done it; there's no way to prove that you didn't.


The cops asking you to "Prove that you did NOT murder that person" is just like you asking us to prove that the photos were NOT faked. Sure -- I suppose it is possible to fake the photos of the Moon landings by staging it, just like it as possible for you to have accomplished the murder. However, it is a far cry from saying that the possibility of staging the Moon landings and faking the photos is good evidence that the Apollo photos were in fact faked.


edit on 2017/4/7 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Box of Rain

In you scenario, no, it doesn't mean I murdered that person. But I am willing to bet there are people in jail right now convicted because police somewhere decided they had an opportunity to commit the murder.

I am not asking anyone to prove or disprove anything. I am only asking for the understanding that it is possible the pictures were staged. Some people keep demanding I show absolute proof the images were fake. OK, show me absolute proof the images are real... See the problem?

I saw two sides to this argument - one says the images are real, the other says the images are fake. The argument for the side saying they are real was limited to the lack of evidence to the contrary. That is proof of nothing, only belief in a chosen condition. Neither side can provide absolute proof. Yet one side is adamant that the other is dead wrong. That makes no sense. I am not arguing for either side. I am arguing for equal treatment of both sides. I know for a fact those images could be reproduced with absolutely so sun light on a closed set. I am not willing to endure the expense and difficulty involved in doing so. That doesn't mean I don't think it can be done. It means I do not have the equipment, time or place to do it. And I am not going to shell out hard earned cash in an attempt at satisfying the demands of someone who will undoubtedly deny the results anyway...

In short, the side arguing that the images are real insists they are real because no one has successfully proven they are fake. So I respond by saying the images are fake because no one has successfully proven they are real. Per typical ATS logic this whole thing boils down to which side made the first claim. Personally, I think that is pretty stupid. I don't care which side spoke first. Either you have proof or you don't. And in this case, neither side has proof. But one side says it doesn't need proof and adamantly insists the other side does. The absence of proof for one side of an argument does not equate to confirmation of the other. Sorry, the real world doesn't work that way. You can pretend that your ATS discussion rules are rigged that way but in the real world there are expectations and rules that you pretty much have to follow. Knee jerk nay saying will not get you anywhere. Bind belief will not get you anywhere. You need proof. In place of proof you can substitute a cohesive argument for potential. If you can proven potential, you have proven your point. In a universe of infinite potentials, any potential can be considered as a thing already done.

Is it possible these images are real? Yes. It is possible these images are fake? Yes. My position on this is: either accept and admit that either one is possible, or, prove one of them is not.



posted on Apr, 7 2017 @ 10:45 PM
link   
So many words written, enough for medium lengh novel, but they are all useless words.

It would of been better and more honest just to say "Yeah, I see now, I may of been incorrect" which would lead to a reply like "Yeah, no problem, all good.", but that will never happen as squirming away from admitting and writing up convoluted book size passages is better to do.

*Sigh*



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 01:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

The papers stated those points, get it??

Aluminum was tested.

What you argue is that aluminum alloys were used in Apollo, so not relevant.

Why would they never mention it?

Hey, it's only about 'pure' aluminum, folks!!


it is your argument.. do you not understand why your argument is flawed??

they stated they used aluminium alloy with the contruction of the Apollo spacecraft, they only stated aluminium in your reports, alloy is not mentioned. in your mind these two are completely different with different properties with regards to particle radiation, again this is how you think it works.



Why are they not saying what DOES work?

Being the issue is how to protect humans in deep space, Apollo is a bit relevant, to mention...

Who doubts Apollo proving that humans can fly in deep space for a short period, without any protection, by experts never mentioning it!!

Short stays are NOT mentioned in the papers, only YOUR SIDE said it!

Here is Apollo, the only missions to send humans into deep space.

Although now we know that aluminum can't protect us in deep space, it is only 'pure' aluminum, while Apollo only used alloys of aluminum, which works great for short stays!


Nonsense.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Who says that Apollo did protect its crew members adequately?

Even on those short flights, it's thought that the radiation they received significantly increased their chance of cardiovascular disease later in life. www.google.co.uk...

So yes, Apollo was "just good enough" for short missions to the moon, but it would be no good for extended periods in deep space.

You seem to be hung up on aluminium. Metals are not good for protection because of deep space radiation, because of bremsstrahlung radiation, however you do generally need metal for structural reasons. If you do use metal then you want to use metal with the lowest atomic number (Z) you can, because bremsstrahlung increases with increasing Z.

A glance at the periodic table will tell you that the only metals with a lower atomic number than aluminium are lithium, beryllium, sodium and magnesium. I'll leave you to work out why those aren't much use!

You'll also note that the elements which make up plastics (C,H,O) have very low Z. Future spacecraft will likely have lots of plastic insulation, at least on the inner surfaces. Water is also a good low Z shield, so water tanks on spacecraft could be shaped to provide additional shielding to crew quarters.

But saying "X is a good/bad material" is over simplifying. The best radiation shields would use a "Graded Z" approach where high Z materials block the powerful radiation at the expense of generating Bremsstrahlung, which is then absorbed by lower-Z materials.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Referring to longer missions in papers is all in hope of avoiding the Apollo problem.

They don't claim it is only about long missions, at all. Nor is it even implied.


They claim it applies to ALL future missions in deep space, in fact.

They make no exceptions, anywhere.

Any possible reason? Simply forgot it? Not worth mentioning?


No exception was made.

It cannot prove the hoax, but it confirms it, yet again.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:09 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Who says they are "ignoring the Apollo missions"? There is plenty of information discussing the radiation exposure on the Apollo missions. The fact you haven't bothered to read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The papers discussing future shielding specifically state why a different approach is needed. How is that "ignoring it"????

Read the first two paragraphs of the introduction of this paper. ntrs.nasa.gov...

That is why different shielding approaches are needed. Radiation is a cumulative poison. One or two trips to the moon do not present a problem: all you need is shielding from the SCR and trapped particle radiation, which the Apollo craft did adequately.

For longer missions and/or regular trips of shorter duration, you need to take into account GCRs as well, and they require a different shielding approach. Not all radiation is the same.

So please stop lying and saying that the discussion does not differentiate between missions of different lengths. It is right there in black and white.

Or again here, in a paper discussing radiation protection for missions to Mars: ntrs.nasa.gov...

"For the longer missions, this dose [from GCRs] can become career limiting. Thus the amount of shielding required to protect the astronauts will depend on the time and duration of the mission."

Everyone working in the field knows this. It doesn't have to be repeated in every single discussion because it is patently obvious to everyone who works with space (and anyone else for that matter) that long missions require more shielding than short ones did!



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1

Who says that Apollo did protect its crew members adequately?

Even on those short flights, it's thought that the radiation they received significantly increased their chance of cardiovascular disease later in life. www.google.co.uk...

So yes, Apollo was "just good enough" for short missions to the moon, but it would be no good for extended periods in deep space.

You seem to be hung up on aluminium. Metals are not good for protection because of deep space radiation, because of bremsstrahlung radiation, however you do generally need metal for structural reasons. If you do use metal then you want to use metal with the lowest atomic number (Z) you can, because bremsstrahlung increases with increasing Z.

A glance at the periodic table will tell you that the only metals with a lower atomic number than aluminium are lithium, beryllium, sodium and magnesium. I'll leave you to work out why those aren't much use!

You'll also note that the elements which make up plastics (C,H,O) have very low Z. Future spacecraft will likely have lots of plastic insulation, at least on the inner surfaces. Water is also a good low Z shield, so water tanks on spacecraft could be shaped to provide additional shielding to crew quarters.

But saying "X is a good/bad material" is over simplifying. The best radiation shields would use a "Graded Z" approach where high Z materials block the powerful radiation at the expense of generating Bremsstrahlung, which is then absorbed by lower-Z materials.


Nobody knew about aluminum being a terrible shield in deep space, at the time.

And worst of all, nobody knew about the VAB environment itself.... just the contrary.

They don't use any of the (supposedly) relevant Apollo data in their current research papers - as I've told you, many times.


Evidence is not what you say is evidence, or what I say, or what anyone else says...

We cannot obtain the undeniable proof, by ourselves.

To you, it is only their claims which prove it.


Not one of the claims has held up, though.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1




Not one of the claims has held up, though.

False.
Quite thoroughly so.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
It cannot prove the hoax, but it confirms it, yet again.


...What?

So it doesn't prove they hoaxed it, but yet it somehow confirms that they hoaxed it.

What the hell is wrong with you, you just said it cannot confirm then on the same line say it does confirm it.

Are you plastered or mentally handicapped/challenged?




Nobody knew about aluminum being a terrible shield in deep space, at the time.
And worst of all, nobody knew about the VAB environment itself.... just the contrary.
They don't use any of the (supposedly) relevant Apollo data in their current research papers - as I've told you, many times.


1 and 2: And that proves what(even though I posted the proof and evidence you required and requested about the VARBs)? That they could not do it because they did not know something completely...? I posted the proof that knew knew quite a lot about the VARB environment, where is yours that they did not....?

And 3: You are lying.
edit on 8-4-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Added Content



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 05:57 AM
link   
a reply to: MuonToGluon

Turbonium is a broken record. There is no point in engaging him.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I know, I stopped actual engagement and posting explanations a while back.

However, I am enjoying initiating him in a looping cycle - he needs to be rebooted.
edit on 8-4-2017 by MuonToGluon because: Formatting



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 06:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Is it possible these images are real? Yes. It is possible these images are fake? Yes. My position on this is: either accept and admit that either one is possible, or, prove one of them is not.


It sounds as if you are saying that the images are irrelevant as evidence either way. It's not evidence that Apollo did really go to the Moon, nor is it evidence that it was all faked and Apollo did not go to the Moon.

If that's how you feel about the images, then why did you bring up the "non-parallel shadows" as evidence that it was all faked? It sounds to me that you are saying the photos are meaningless as evidence either way, so they should not be included in a discussion about the truth or non-truth of the Apollo missions.


edit on 8/4/2017 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: face23785

No, only that not every example of image distortion should immediately be passed off as perspective.

I made my point quite clearly. When this thread started people supposedly debunked the multiple light source theory by citing evidence that suggested light could have been reflected causing the opposing shadow or illuminating something that should be in the dark. I concede, that is possible. However, possible does not prove anything. However, the people making that claim used it as conclusive proof that the images were real. Fine. If that logic works, then I am using it too - which is the whole point of my argument. Those images could be staged and look identical. It is possible. And if that is all that is needed to be accepted as proof, then I have proven those images are staged.

One side gets to use the possibility as proof, but the other side doesn't. Not fair. All I did was argue that the images could be manufactured, not genuine. All the opposition needed was proof it was possible. The same rules should apply to me. Or, lets back up to the beginning and admit that the possibility that light was reflected did not prove anything. Either one is fine with me - as long as both sides get the same treatment.


I'm not sure they were using that as conclusive proof the images were real as much as conclusive proof that the conspiracy theorists have no logical reason to suspect they're fake, since their assertions don't prove anything. As I said, the fact that it's within the realm of physical possibility that something could've been faked doesn't provide a reasonable starting place to start questioning whether something really happened, otherwise we'd just go around all day thinking nothing is real, like your life is one long metaphysics class. No reasonable suspicion that the moon landings were faked exists.



posted on Apr, 8 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The images have value, but are not in themselves proof. Technology and talented special effects people can produce just about anything and actual photos can be staged. If I remember correctly, the launch of Apollo 13 in the movie of the same name used no actual nasa footage. It was all cgi. Pretty much everyone who saw it thought at least some of the footage was real. My point is you cant just look at a picture and say yes, this absolutely did happen.

I brought up the other image issues because some of them could be the result of poor attempts at faking the images. Shadows that are nearly parallel could easily be dismissed as perspective. But gross misalignment is harder to accept. Yes, you can demonstrate a point of convergence somewhere, but is that point in the proper place to represent the sun? The scale of the image and event are what make this interesting for me. In the image you have objects that are a few meters apart, but the light source is hundreds of thousands of miles away. The farther away the light source is, the narrower the angle between objects is. That is basic math, you cant argue that. So when you have a light source hundreds of thousands of miles away aimed at two objects a few meters apart the shadows should be pretty close to parallel. Camera distortion can and will affect that impression, but only to a point. At some point you have to start thinking it might be something else. Showing multiple pictures taken on earth through atmosphere, which does bend light, isn't really apples to apples...

This all has to be part of a bigger picture. I don't know how many people have actually talked to astronauts. I spoke to Buzz Aldrin. I can offer this advice if you suggest the moon landings were fake: duck. He will probably swing at you. To be 100% honest, I believe the landings happened. But, I also believe that some of these images are questionable and could be fake. Maybe this is nasa showing us fake images to shut us up and keep us from seeing something they don't want us to see. There are a handful of images that just trigger suspicion in my mind.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 127  128  129    131  132 >>

log in

join