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: 73
57
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
cognizant individuals are possibly more or less not definitely rejecting the essential constituent that in no way with any amount of uncertainty that green-screen artifacts do or do not appear to exist ,if that indeed wasn't intrinsic too what degree they aren't, Ergo, concordantly compromising the propagandists hypothesis ....





posted on May, 19 2016 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Are you ever going to present any data to back up your wild claims or are you just going to stick with the "I'm right, you're wrong" method of debate and repeatedly refuse to provide even a single shred of evidence for anything you say?


I don't have evidence, I'm not permitted to handle radiation and i don't have access to the materials in question.... all i am saying us what scientists and nasa says, with a little time and effort you can find this information easily. Find the materials used in specific instruments, search up said material and the effects after exposure to radiation, and you shall have more then enough material to go through.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

people who actualy understand science recognise chromatic aberation - and realise that you are talking utter bollox



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   
www.nasa.gov...

Pics from the LRO.

sorry to destroy your theory.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

No, you aren't saying what science and NASA says, because firstly you haven't actually shown us any words form science or NASA, and secondly science doesn't say what you say it does. Show us the scientific papers and journals and books that prove your point.

Here's your starter for ten

ntrs.nasa.gov...|Collection|NASA%20STI||17|Collection|NACA

And as promised, here are the clouds 'not moving' in that lunar transit sequence:




posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

I know you love making idiotic posts but claiming that NASA flew the moon in front of a green screen and then edited in the Earth is a whole new level.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

So, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your repeated claims, got it. Can you at least explain why you think a modern cell phone uses 1960's technology?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: SerpentMoon87


That gif cracks me up, the moon is literally just flying past the camera, shouldn't th moon be rotating around earth?


what should be the observed rotation of the moon ??

we know the length of the lunar day

we know the time lapse duration

so come on - how many degrees rotation should the moon exhibit ??????????????


From our perspective, about half a degree per hour. Those shots are taken from a million miles away, the relative object is earth which is rotating, that time lapse is 5 hours long, we should clearly see the moon rotate as well, yet the moon exhibits absolutely 0 degree of rotation, and at that distance.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation


There are slight artifacts in the image caused by the processing, with a green sliver appearing on the right limb of the moon. The images combined to form the natural colour photo were taken by EPIC about 30 seconds apart, and the moon’s position changed as the camera recorded the views with the red, green and blue filters, NASA said.

Watch the Moon transit the Earth



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

So, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your repeated claims, got it. Can you at least explain why you think a modern cell phone uses 1960's technology?


This is off topic, they are not my claims, what is so hard to understand about that, people that you trust do so, not my problem you can't invest time reading radiation study papers and research data.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to:

It's all circuit based, the materials are all the same. It's been compressed, that is it. We still drive 100 year old combustion engines. It just looks different now. It makes absolutely no difference to radiation what it looks like, bigger? The more surface area exposed, it's not that complicated.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

So, you have absolutely zero evidence to back up your repeated claims, got it. Can you at least explain why you think a modern cell phone uses 1960's technology?


This is off topic, they are not my claims, what is so hard to understand about that, people that you trust do so, not my problem you can't invest time reading radiation study papers and research data.


So whose claims are they?

Do you have a link to those claims if they aren't yours?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to:

It's all circuit based, the materials are all the same. It's been compressed, that is it. We still drive 100 year old combustion engines. It just looks different now. It makes absolutely no difference to radiation what it looks like, bigger? The more surface area exposed, it's not that complicated.


Nope. Different materials used 60 years ago.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Here are two views of the moon taken 5 hours apart as viewed from the Sun using screenshots from Stellarium



How much rotation do you see?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: SerpentMoon87
a reply to:

It's all circuit based, the materials are all the same. It's been compressed, that is it. We still drive 100 year old combustion engines. It just looks different now. It makes absolutely no difference to radiation what it looks like, bigger? The more surface area exposed, it's not that complicated.


In the case of core rope memory, it's NOT just "the same thing today, just smaller today".

Core rope memory is physical memory, not electronically digital. The binary state of being a "1" or a "0" in core rope memory depends on whether a wire physically goes through a core or around a core. Radiation isn't going to change whether a wire goes through a core or around a core.


edit on 5/19/2016 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
That makes no difference, ferrite does get damaged by ionized beta particles, and others. The magnetic structure changes, which would erase, misplace or even change the data. The effects are random.


edit on 19-5-2016 by SerpentMoon87 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Here are two views of the moon taken 5 hours apart as viewed from the Sun using screenshots from Stellarium



How much rotation do you see?


That's not the images we are discussing. You are comparing images from a program to a craft in space? What?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Then why not provide some proof of your own. I've shown that the moon from a distance shows negligible apparent rotation over a short period of time.

You have shown precisely nothing.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: SerpentMoon87

Sources required.


I named the material, and the parts, and the different types of radiation, sources are available to you for free any time you decide to spend some time actually searching, over this whole time you could have obtained the information, yet you decide to repeat your self, multiple times. A waste of thread space.




top topics



 
57
<< 70  71  72    74  75  76 >>

log in

join