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: 16
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Another point...

The paper cites an image from Apollo 11, and claims it shows the disturbance of soil, caused by the LM's landing...

So, your own sources are claiming to see this feature close up, but you've insisted it cannot be seen at close-up!



reading your reply, it looks like you didnt exactly understand what was being shown and decided to make up random arguments that dont make sense..

what part of using the LRO images is close up?
or have you been arguing with everyone with the mindset that 50km is what you consider close up?


No, I'm referring to the paper which cites an Apollo 11 surface image, near the LM...

Your side was the one who actually cited the paper, yet you don't even know about the Apollo 11 surface image in that very same paper?

Sheesh...
edit on 17-10-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
These images were/are supposed to prove that Apollo landed men on the moon, but only proved the very opposite, which is quite ironic...

They can produce images far, far better than these images, of course.

I've heard all sorts of bs excuses...

- we have good enough images already, to prove the landings were genuine, so why should they bother?.... just to make you 'hoaxers' happy?

- the images would have almost no scientific value, of course.

Sure, if all the world's scientists had 'morphed' into utter morons!


The scientific value alone justifies getting the best images possible... beyond any doubt!

All the scientists who study the lunar environment, do not care to see/know/study/research what effects 40+ years has in the lunar environment?



Im not too sure but your loose grasp of the English language makes me think either you are uneducated or are from a non English speaking land.

Calling out people who have spent their entire lives to study, explore and research the moon, space and the galaxies and yet still do not call out the Moon landings fake is absurd.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 03:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Another point...

The paper cites an image from Apollo 11, and claims it shows the disturbance of soil, caused by the LM's landing...

So, your own sources are claiming to see this feature close up, but you've insisted it cannot be seen at close-up!



reading your reply, it looks like you didnt exactly understand what was being shown and decided to make up random arguments that dont make sense..

what part of using the LRO images is close up?
or have you been arguing with everyone with the mindset that 50km is what you consider close up?


No, I'm referring to the paper which cites an Apollo 11 surface image, near the LM...

Your side was the one who actually cited the paper, yet you don't even know about the Apollo 11 surface image in that very same paper?

Sheesh...


and what about the rest of the paper???

you just going to ignore it?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
This is a genuine physical feature found, in images, on the lunar surface, right?

And this feature will appear more prominent and less prominent, depending on the angle of sunlight, and other factors, in play...

But the feature is always seen, in all the images taken from orbit...

None of the Apollo surface images show it, and that's the monstrous problem here.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 04:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Forensick
Im not too sure but your loose grasp of the English language makes me think either you are uneducated or are from a non English speaking land.

Calling out people who have spent their entire lives to study, explore and research the moon, space and the galaxies and yet still do not call out the Moon landings fake is absurd.


Why would you expect any of them to call it a hoax?

Do you think every single scientist around the world believes the official story?

You do, because no single scientist has ever disputed the landings...at least in public.

Nothing is odd about that?

And none of the world's scientists have shown any interest in getting some close-up images of Apollo's equipment, since none of them have ever mentioned it, yes?

Nothing odd about that, either?


It is absolutely beyond normal, beyond any reality.


A scientist asks questions, raises doubts, all the time....that is normal, within every field of science.

But, with a manned moon landing, none of these scientists can even begin to prove anything is factual.


They have nothing to gain by saying they believe it was faked.

But they have a lot to lose, for sure.

Silence is the only option.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Another point...

The paper cites an image from Apollo 11, and claims it shows the disturbance of soil, caused by the LM's landing...

So, your own sources are claiming to see this feature close up, but you've insisted it cannot be seen at close-up!



reading your reply, it looks like you didnt exactly understand what was being shown and decided to make up random arguments that dont make sense..

what part of using the LRO images is close up?
or have you been arguing with everyone with the mindset that 50km is what you consider close up?


No, I'm referring to the paper which cites an Apollo 11 surface image, near the LM...

Your side was the one who actually cited the paper, yet you don't even know about the Apollo 11 surface image in that very same paper?

Sheesh...


and what about the rest of the paper???

you just going to ignore it?


I haven't ignored it.

Any point here?.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I haven't ignored it.

Any point here?.



if you havent ignored it, then it means you admit the LR-BZ and the HR-BZ are there.

so i guess theres no argument here?



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
It is impossible to see footprints on the lunar surface, from 50 km above.

Please try to prove that, here on Earth, and if you can, I'll be more than happy to admit I'm wrong...


Go ahead, if you claim this is so...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

No-one ever claimed you can see footprints.

You can, however, see footpaths, and vehicle tracks, and other surface disturbances as the Americans, Indians and Japanese have demonstrated.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I haven't ignored it.

Any point here?.



if you havent ignored it, then it means you admit the LR-BZ and the HR-BZ are there.

so i guess theres no argument here?


No relevance.

The issue is specifically about the 'halo' in the images from orbit, which are not seen in any of the Apollo 15 surface images.

You are not talking about the specific issue here...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

No-one ever claimed you can see footprints.

You can, however, see footpaths, and vehicle tracks, and other surface disturbances as the Americans, Indians and Japanese have demonstrated.


We cannot see footpaths, or tire tracks, from 50 km orbit...

A tire track is a few inches wide - much too thin to ever see it at 50 km altitude...

Another tire track is there, of course, but it's just one thin line, too..the two tire track lines are apart, not together...

But as I said, you can try and prove me wrong, here on Earth, any time you like...



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   
You say that they don't need to prove anything, and that they don't need to get close-up images of the landing sites...

So now, they are spending so much time, and effort, and money, just to prove that the landings were genuine, using the crappy images taken from orbit, and claiming they show footpaths and tire tracks!!

Amazing, but true..



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I haven't ignored it.

Any point here?.



if you havent ignored it, then it means you admit the LR-BZ and the HR-BZ are there.

so i guess theres no argument here?


No relevance.

The issue is specifically about the 'halo' in the images from orbit, which are not seen in any of the Apollo 15 surface images.

You are not talking about the specific issue here...


saying no relevance is just ignoring it..

also, why do you think that it would be clearly visible when you are standing in the middle of it??

the only reason you can see it from orbit is because they have undisturbed soil (a very large sample of it) right next to it to compare it with..

if you go stand in the middle of a field it will look green, go stand in another field next to it and it will also look green, look at them side by side in the air and you will see two shades of green. your argument is stupid.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

No-one ever claimed you can see footprints.

You can, however, see footpaths, and vehicle tracks, and other surface disturbances as the Americans, Indians and Japanese have demonstrated.


We cannot see footpaths, or tire tracks, from 50 km orbit...

A tire track is a few inches wide - much too thin to ever see it at 50 km altitude...

Another tire track is there, of course, but it's just one thin line, too..the two tire track lines are apart, not together...

But as I said, you can try and prove me wrong, here on Earth, any time you like...


you can see fresh tracks carved out by skiers or snow boarders from a very far distance, angle the sun so that the tracks make a shadow in the newly formed depression while lighting up the fresh untouched snow all around it and there you have it.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Oh dear Turbonium, you can even see penguins from space

inkfish.fieldofscience.com...

thin tracks calibrating spy satellites

www.dailymail.co.uk...

or cars and people

www.theguardian.com...

What about the views of Russian and Chinese surface probes? Are they fake too? Or are you just dismissing the ones that undermine your fantasy life?

There are dozens of images taken by satellites that show small details - is turbonium claiming they aren't possible?

What I suggest turbonium does is research the optical capabilities of a range of satellites, be then in orbit around Mars (there are a few that are tracking rovers on the ground), the Moon or Earth and prove to me that they can't resolve disturbed ground and large objects.

Given that there are many satellite views used on Earth



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:20 AM
link   
Lunar gravity, or 1/6 g, was first seen on our TV's - as they walked on the moon...

We now know that it was a slow-motion effect, done right here, on Earth.

And harness/wires were used for achieving their un-Earthly 'jumps', as we know.

It is also proven that they changed the speed after Apollo 11, from 50%, up to 66.66%, of normal 'Earth' speed.

Changing the speed to 66.66% allowed them to shoot footage for many hours, continuously. It's probably the main reason they decided to change speeds midstream, as well.

Now, it is their fatal mistake - a dead giveaway of the hoax. It cannot be resolved, in any way, at all.


We also have film of true 1/6 g, from the Vomit Comet, for example. It is nothing like Apollo 'gravity' was



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

and just like that you have ignored everything and moved along to something else in blissful ignorance..



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 08:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

I haven't ignored it.

Any point here?.



if you havent ignored it, then it means you admit the LR-BZ and the HR-BZ are there.

so i guess theres no argument here?


No relevance.

The issue is specifically about the 'halo' in the images from orbit, which are not seen in any of the Apollo 15 surface images.

You are not talking about the specific issue here...


saying no relevance is just ignoring it..

also, why do you think that it would be clearly visible when you are standing in the middle of it??

the only reason you can see it from orbit is because they have undisturbed soil (a very large sample of it) right next to it to compare it with..

if you go stand in the middle of a field it will look green, go stand in another field next to it and it will also look green, look at them side by side in the air and you will see two shades of green. your argument is stupid.


Your analogy doesn't fit .

Let's say you are standing in an area of light grass. You can see BEYOND this area, because it is small enough to see past it. That area has a dark green color of grass, very distinct from the light grass. You go up to where light grass ends, and dark grass starts, and clearly can see it change when close up..

You need to understand this - the CHANGE is seen from close-up.

The 'halo' area of disturbed soil CHANGES to the outlying, undisturbed soil. That CHANGE is visible from the ground, while standing in the middle of the 'halo' area. That is proven with the Apollo surface images, which show the ground well beyond the area of 'disturbed' soil.

And they have images from many points, showing no change of surface, in reverse.

That is the point here.



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
This area cannot exist in Apollo surface images, because nothing changes over the entire visible surface. It shows a uniform appearance, in every single image.

It would be seen, in many of the surface images, if it was really there..


There is no logic to it..

Make an area of ground so it can be distinguished from the ground beyond it.

But you can't see it, at the same time you make it.

Only from far above, can you see it, as that area of changed surface..


There's no chance of achieving this, obviously.
edit on 17-10-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Too determine if your being lied too. look for what should be there and isn't,

And what isn't there is the ability of the propagandists too produce a smoking gun that can confirm the validity of apollo ...



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join