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: 91
57
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Somehow, this great disturbance of lunar soil does not show up anywhere in images from the actual surface, though!!



so your claim is that while NASA spent so much money on attempting to fake the landings they forgot to put in the disturbance of the soil but remembered to put it into the aerial images??
(ofcourse you are ignoring the close up images of beneath the lander with evidence of regolith disturbance)



Yikes!

Your argument is that anything supporting a hoax will not be valid evidence of a hoax...because they had so much money that if they were going to hoax it, they'd never make any mistake, whatsoever. Now, if evidence shows a hoax, like this example shows, cannot be evidence at all - because it would have been noticed at the time, and corrected.

That's your argument - it would be impossible for them to get caught, with so much money, right?


Sheesh....


In reality, mistakes happen, no matter how much money is spent on avoiding it, because we are human, and mistakes are human.

Images taken from lunar orbit show this area as a distinct feature of the lunar surface.

They cannot know what this feature actually is, not from these images.

They assume what it is, from assuming the LM is at this exact spot, and that's why they say it is the LM landing area.


But in fact, all the surface images show nothing of this area is disturbed in any way, you've got a huge problem now...

There is only one explanation for this, which you know, but cannot admit, and so excuses are used, as usual..


Look at the reality, here...




posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
This old chestnut again. Why bother looking into massively debunked conspiracy theories like this, mainstream stuff that can be easily debunked.

There are plenty of real conspiracy theories to look into, don't waste your time looking into the stuff that mainstream conspiracy theorists are all looking at and call yourself "awake".

Look into stuff on the fringes. This will require a lot more effort and a lot more research, but will be a lot more rewarding for your efforts, and guess what, you might actually uncover something new on your own !

If you want somewhere to start that's a little off the beaten conspiracy theory path, look into the Greek bailout of 2008 and Dominique Strauss-Khan's involvement.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Balkanization

You're being a bit vague here. Are you trying to make the argument that the astronauts found aliens on the moon who told us to stay away?



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

safety standards would have increased since then. the Saturn V, command and service module and the lunar module were built with 60's technology safety and standards.

those standards have increased. meaning alot of those things need adjustments.

and also they have used Apollo era technology, but for some reason you continue to ignore it, is the reason why you continue to ignore it because you know it contradicts your argument??


Your argument makes no sense..

They already knew all the regulations, beforehand.

Knowing the regulations at present, and knowing the regulations during the Apollo-era..

So when they asked them to use all possible Apollo technology for the project, they knew what the regulations were during the Apollo-era.

Apparently, you know they asked them to use Apollo technology, when they knew it couldn't be used because of regulation issues, yet they still asked them to use it...

You have no proof, but you just 'know' it, right?




originally posted by: choos
and since you claim that the constellation program "failed" does that mean the space shuttle was a hoax also??
since NASA failed miserably to make a spacecraft and rocket capable of launching man to LEO???


Get serious.



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: babybunnies
This old chestnut again. Why bother looking into massively debunked conspiracy theories like this, mainstream stuff that can be easily debunked.

There are plenty of real conspiracy theories to look into, don't waste your time looking into the stuff that mainstream conspiracy theorists are all looking at and call yourself "awake".

Look into stuff on the fringes. This will require a lot more effort and a lot more research, but will be a lot more rewarding for your efforts, and guess what, you might actually uncover something new on your own !

If you want somewhere to start that's a little off the beaten conspiracy theory path, look into the Greek bailout of 2008 and Dominique Strauss-Khan's involvement.


You just prefer others do it, rather than yourself!!...



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: I3amI

What you would have done is irrelevant, these men were professionals and there's no way they would have risked their lives, the lives of their crew and the mission to act like idiots.

The moon landings were repeated 6 times, how many times do you think would be enough? Nobody wants to spend the massive amount of money to build a large enough telescope to be able to see apollo hardware when it's much easier to just photograph them from lunar orbit which has been done multiple times with the hoax theologians screaming photoshop every time.



Sure, and it's far easier to not even go out into space, by your 'logic...

'Easier' is a lame excuse.

To claim humans landed on the moon over 40 years ago is not proven with images of dots and blobs from lunar orbit, proclaiming it shows the Apollo 'landing sites'!!

Trying to convince everyone it is proof of Apollo's moon landings, is beyond absurd...

A blob that doesn't match to any surface images, soon leads Apollo-ites to the discovery of an unknown 'phenomenon' to explain why the 'blob' is only seen from orbit!!

Other Apollo-ites claim it can't be evidence of a hoax, because they had so much money, no evidence of a hoax would be overlooked. They can't explain why the 'blob' isn't seen from the surface, but, hey, that's no big deal!


I can't wait to see what they come up with next time!!



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Somehow, this great disturbance of lunar soil does not show up anywhere in images from the actual surface, though!!



so your claim is that while NASA spent so much money on attempting to fake the landings they forgot to put in the disturbance of the soil but remembered to put it into the aerial images??
(ofcourse you are ignoring the close up images of beneath the lander with evidence of regolith disturbance)



Yikes!

Your argument is that anything supporting a hoax will not be valid evidence of a hoax...because they had so much money that if they were going to hoax it, they'd never make any mistake, whatsoever. Now, if evidence shows a hoax, like this example shows, cannot be evidence at all - because it would have been noticed at the time, and corrected.

That's your argument - it would be impossible for them to get caught, with so much money, right?


Sheesh....


In reality, mistakes happen, no matter how much money is spent on avoiding it, because we are human, and mistakes are human.


His argument is pointing out how stupid your argument is. His argument is that there is no hoax, so there is nothing to discover. People do make mistakes, and yet not one single one has been found in all this time and with all these 'researchers' desperately picking over all the evidence. Why? Because Apollo happened.



Images taken from lunar orbit show this area as a distinct feature of the lunar surface.

They cannot know what this feature actually is, not from these images.

They assume what it is, from assuming the LM is at this exact spot, and that's why they say it is the LM landing area.



Yes we can, it's just that you refuse to admit it. You can tell that it is the descent stage of the LM, not just because it is in some vague area roughly where they said it landed, but exactly where it landed, exactly where tracking stations all over the world received the data from, exactly where laser reflectors are, exactly where Japan and India also imaged them. Also in exactly the right places are the equipment used, the same equipment that sent data back for years after the missions finished. The tracks between the LM and this equipment are visible, exactly as recorded in TV, video and photographs - all of which were publicly available as soon as the missions finished. You even have photographs taken from orbit during the missions that showed changes in the surface and the layout of equipment as the missions progressed - right down to different locations of the rover between EVA. AlLl the rocks and craters are there too.

These features were not know prior to the mission and yet modern orbital probes confirm that all the rocks and craters are exactly where Apollo photographed them.

These are not some vague coincidences that Apollo just happened on, they are proof that they went.



But in fact, all the surface images show nothing of this area is disturbed in any way, you've got a huge problem now...


There are lots of things I have witnessed first hand that I have not photographed - does that mean it didn't happen?

Changes on the surface directly under the engine bell were documented by previous crews and commented on during EVAs. Wider changes to the surface as a result of that engine plume are subtle gradations as it descends - they are not necessarily gong to be visible over a wide area. Like many things, you need to be further to actually see a difference like that.




There is only one explanation for this, which you know, but cannot admit, and so excuses are used, as usual..


No, there are other explanations - see above.




Look at the reality, here...


You have absolutely no sense of irony.


Now, once again:

Photographs, live TV and 16mm images taken by Apollo show surface details that were not known about prior to the missions. You claimed there were photographs that you had seen that did show that - where are they?

You claimed that the details of surface activity were added recently, I showed you a photograph for sale on ebay that disproved this yet you have no comment to make. Why is that?



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And yet your explanation of "they made it up and it even isn't there" is more rational despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Uh-huh..



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I've been wondering about how footprints could really be seen in lunar orbit, too...

Are these footprints seen in any surface images, as well?

If so, please post them here.

If there are no surface images of those same footprints, it's probably a worthless claim at that point...


However, let's say the footprints are seen in surface images...

Let's say these two people walked to some gear, set up 30 feet away from the lander. Or what they claim is the lander, anyway.

Now, let's assume they had a good reason for going back and forth to this gear. I've no idea why they would have to go back and forth so much, but let's say they did....


If you have ever walked in a field, a forest, a sandy beach, or anything else that has no path, trail, etc...

You make a path as you walk along, right?

If someone else is with you, he could follow your path, behind you, or go beside you, and make a path alongside your own...

So, if you and/or your friend walk back again, you would take the same path, which you had already made.... right?

This is exactly what you claim the two astronauts did on the moon, correct?


Now, if you and your friend go back and forth along your path, do you walk in your same path, or do you make a new path, which matches the path you first made, widening it?

You would take your original path, right?

In fact, that is how we always walk -in the one same path, over and over again.


We have no reason to make the path wider, it doesn't make sense...

The original path is flattened down by walking over and over it, and better for walking along..


HERE IS THE POINT...

If two astronauts were going back and forth along the same path, it would not grow wider and wider, it would stay the same width....

This path would not be ANYWHERE NEAR wide enough to be seen from lunar orbit!!

Nor anywhere near to deep enough, either.


You do realize that many similar sized paths exist on Earth, yes?

Do you think these paths are visible in any images taken from Earth orbit, as you claim is found in the lunar images??

If you do, then show proof of it.


It's nonsense, pure and simple.



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 04:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Yikes!

Your argument is that anything supporting a hoax will not be valid evidence of a hoax...because they had so much money that if they were going to hoax it, they'd never make any mistake, whatsoever. Now, if evidence shows a hoax, like this example shows, cannot be evidence at all - because it would have been noticed at the time, and corrected.

That's your argument - it would be impossible for them to get caught, with so much money, right?


Sheesh....


yikes indeed!!

thankyou again for displaying your ability (inability) to understand other arguments..

guess i have to explain again..

consider the level of detail that NASA has had to go into with details such as what OBMonkey has posted, Apollo 11 images from 600m away from the landing point, that level of detail.

next you claim that they humanly forgot to put in the lunar disturbance from landing. lets assume that they did for the time being and just ignore that you dont know what that disturbance should look like in the first place.

now, we know for a fact that the astronauts did take CLOSE UP IMAGES OF THE LUNAR DISTURBANCE directly under the lunar module, of which you casually just stated that they forgot.

im not so much arguing about how much money was spent therefore no mistakes will be made, im arguing that your excuse is retarded in that you claim they forgot to put something in even though they have gone into the effort to photograph close up images of exactly what you claim they forgot to put in.


Images taken from lunar orbit show this area as a distinct feature of the lunar surface.


actually the images show that the disturbed area has a higher refractive index.


They assume what it is, from assuming the LM is at this exact spot, and that's why they say it is the LM landing area.


no that is your interpretation because you need to find some random illogical excuse in order to fit into your agenda.
but if you think they chose this spot because it looked disturbed..
please find the pre Apollo images of the landing sites with these disturbances.. (this is called backing up your claims with evidence)
im sure OBMonkey can help you source the original images of pre Apollo landing satelite lunar images (which was stated was the best they had)


But in fact, all the surface images show nothing of this area is disturbed in any way, you've got a huge problem now...


now think about this claim of yours.
in 1969 (assuming NASA really did fake the landings) they chose the Apollo 11 landing site (which according to your hoax theory is completely untouched and undisturbed) but NASA chose this anyway.

now know that the Soviets had their luna rover landing on the moon at roughly the same time to image the moon. strike 1 for your theory.
now consider that NASA would have no idea when the next country or even which would send a rover to the moon to image the Apollo 11 landing site.

but you are still willing to claim that NASA is arrogant enough about the world being so far behind them that they will never send a rover to the Apollo 11 landing site that they have no need to prepare the Apollo 11 landing to be exactly the same as they showed it to be from images and video they took.


Look at the reality, here...


seems its you that is not considering reality here.


Your argument makes no sense..

They already knew all the regulations, beforehand.


again, you dont understand the point, sure they would know the regulations before hand, but the equipment and hardware built back in the 60's DID NOT KNOW THE REGULATIONS OF TODAY.

p.s. whats this why dont you claim the shuttle program was a hoax?? or the ISS???

as per your claims constellations was a complete failure because they failed to even make a spacecraft to achieve their stated goals.

their first goal was to send man to the ISS for completion, the second manned flight to the moon, and lastly crewed flight to mars.

you have ignored the first and last goal, and stated since the program failed, it proves Apollo was fake.
well, according to your argument, since the program failed miserably, sending man to the ISS is a hoax for NASA.

want me to get serious?? sorry but this isnt my argument it is your argument in essence, so effectively you are telling yourself to "get serious"



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Yes we can, it's just that you refuse to admit it. You can tell that it is the descent stage of the LM, not just because it is in some vague area roughly where they said it landed, but exactly where it landed, exactly where tracking stations all over the world received the data from, exactly where laser reflectors are, exactly where Japan and India also imaged them. Also in exactly the right places are the equipment used, the same equipment that sent data back for years after the missions finished. The tracks between the LM and this equipment are visible, exactly as recorded in TV, video and photographs - all of which were publicly available as soon as the missions finished. You even have photographs taken from orbit during the missions that showed changes in the surface and the layout of equipment as the missions progressed - right down to different locations of the rover between EVA. AlLl the rocks and craters are there too.


Changes on the surface directly under the engine bell were documented by previous crews and commented on during EVAs. Wider changes to the surface as a result of that engine plume are subtle gradations as it descends - they are not necessarily gong to be visible over a wide area. Like many things, you need to be further to actually see a difference like that.



Nonsense.

Show me any example of this on Earth, to support your absurd claim...

If someone wanted to intentionally replicate your 'phenomenon', they would always fail....


Why?

The first thing you Apollo-ites need to realize is the approximate size of this feature...

This area is small enough that the area beyond it is easily be seen, in many of the surface images!!

Your argument is that this area cannot be identified from the surface because it is over a vast area, which is too large to see from the ground, and/or see the area beyond it....

This argument is absolutely false, as we all know... or should know, anyway


The surface well beyond this area is clearly found in many of the surface images.

And that is where we would find a distinct feature that goes outward, from the LM, and where it ends, with undisturbed soil everywhere beyond it..

It does not matter if the disturbance is subtle, and/or very gradual overall, because we see where it should END, and BEYOND that point, in surface images.

A distinct area surrounded by undisturbed, normal soil....is not found in ANY of the surface images.


This shows - beyond doubt - that it was faked.

Period



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

HERE IS THE POINT...

If two astronauts were going back and forth along the same path, it would not grow wider and wider, it would stay the same width....



an untouched lunar surface doesnt cast many shadows. atleast it is easy to tell which are hills and craters.
a disturbed path would cast a shadow under certain specific sun angles. these shadows will make the paths very visible as they are nothing like a hill and nothing like a crater.

are you denying that seeing shadows from lunar orbit is an impossiblity??



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

again, you dont understand the point, sure they would know the regulations before hand, but the equipment and hardware built back in the 60's DID NOT KNOW THE REGULATIONS OF TODAY.



Apollo technology was obviously based on regulations of the time.

They clearly knew that before they asked them to use Apollo's technology, as much as possible!

Asking them to use Apollo's technology throughout would mean they will be basing it on the regulations of that time, right?

The goal was to land men on the moon, by 2020.

It was not about developing technology that meet to their revised safety standards.

Because they already knew that Apollo didn't meet the revised standards, when they asked them to use Apollo technology!!

Get it?



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your argument is that this area cannot be identified from the surface because it is over a vast area, which is too large to see from the ground, and/or see the area beyond it....

This argument is absolutely false, as we all know... or should know, anyway



it isnt only because it is over a vast area, but alot of it is about the refractive index.

have you ever wiped a table clean? at times looking at the table it is difficult to see where you have wiped, look at it from a different angle and you can see which part of the table has been wiped and which part hasnt.

but im sure you have taken viewing angle into account right??? or do you think the surface images are exactly the same sun reflective angles as those taken from satellites??



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 05:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Asking them to use Apollo's technology throughout would mean they will be basing it on the regulations of that time, right?

The goal was to land men on the moon, by 2020.

It was not about developing technology that meet to their revised safety standards.

Because they already knew that Apollo didn't meet the revised standards, when they asked them to use Apollo technology!!

Get it?


wow.. do you even read what you type??

so basically you admit that standards would have increased since the 60's
next you are saying that they asked them to use technology and build the spacecraft meeting standards from the 60's, even though you know that standards have increased..

so what you are saying is that NASA should build a spacecraft that doesnt meet todays safety standards..

also.. any reason why you have ignored them basing the aerodynamics off the command module?
any reason why you ignore them using the same rendezvous procedures?
any reason why you ignore them using the same parachute design?
any reason why you ignore them using the same rocket concepts?
any reason why you ignore the heat shield which is based on the command module heat shield??

according to you, they didnt use any of the Apollo technology.. but why is it that they have adopted all of these that you conveniently ignore???



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

HERE IS THE POINT...

If two astronauts were going back and forth along the same path, it would not grow wider and wider, it would stay the same width....



an untouched lunar surface doesnt cast many shadows. atleast it is easy to tell which are hills and craters.
a disturbed path would cast a shadow under certain specific sun angles. these shadows will make the paths very visible as they are nothing like a hill and nothing like a crater.

are you denying that seeing shadows from lunar orbit is an impossiblity??


Shadows, now??

There are no shadows in those surface images.

Disturbed soil would be seen in those images, because UNdisturbed soil would ALSO be seen in the same images, immediately beyond the area of disturbed soil...

Shadows do not make it appear as disturbed soil, seen only from orbit!

Try this on Earth - you'd be the first human to ever do it!

Create a physical disturbance of some kind, your choice.

No matter what, the disturbance cannot be seen from the ground. Nor can it appear any different from the undisturbed areas surrounding it.

Think you could do that, hmm?


But that's what you're saying here, so how about proving it?

Not likely...



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

Asking them to use Apollo's technology throughout would mean they will be basing it on the regulations of that time, right?

The goal was to land men on the moon, by 2020.

It was not about developing technology that meet to their revised safety standards.

Because they already knew that Apollo didn't meet the revised standards, when they asked them to use Apollo technology!!

Get it?


wow.. do you even read what you type??

so basically you admit that standards would have increased since the 60's
next you are saying that they asked them to use technology and build the spacecraft meeting standards from the 60's, even though you know that standards have increased..

so what you are saying is that NASA should build a spacecraft that doesnt meet todays safety standards..

also.. any reason why you have ignored them basing the aerodynamics off the command module?
any reason why you ignore them using the same rendezvous procedures?
any reason why you ignore them using the same parachute design?
any reason why you ignore them using the same rocket concepts?
any reason why you ignore the heat shield which is based on the command module heat shield??

according to you, they didnt use any of the Apollo technology.. but why is it that they have adopted all of these that you conveniently ignore???


What safety standards changed?

If you know, that is.

What standards caused Apollo's technology to not be usable, as you claim??


I'll wait for your answers..



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
I've been wondering about how footprints could really be seen in lunar orbit, too...

Are these footprints seen in any surface images, as well?

If so, please post them here.

If there are no surface images of those same footprints, it's probably a worthless claim at that point...


I'll assume you mean footpaths, not footprints, but whatever. I refer you once again, as I have many times, to work I have done on my site but which you have obviously never read:

onebigmonkey.com...

For every Apollo mission that landed there are photographs taken from the LM post-EVA and everyone of them matches what can be seen in LRO images. Orbital Panorama Camera images even show the different EVA paths as the mission progress. Those images (which include the 16mm take-off footage, stills of which were publicly available in the science reports and in popular magazines and journals - copies of which I own.



However, let's say the footprints are seen in surface images...

Let's say these two people walked to some gear, set up 30 feet away from the lander. Or what they claim is the lander, anyway.

Now, let's assume they had a good reason for going back and forth to this gear. I've no idea why they would have to go back and forth so much,


..because you have never done any research into the missions and have no idea what they did. Try watching the TV footage.



but let's say they did....


They did.




If you have ever walked in a field, a forest, a sandy beach, or anything else that has no path, trail, etc...

You make a path as you walk along, right?

If someone else is with you, he could follow your path, behind you, or go beside you, and make a path alongside your own...

So, if you and/or your friend walk back again, you would take the same path, which you had already made.... right?

This is exactly what you claim the two astronauts did on the moon, correct?


Now, if you and your friend go back and forth along your path, do you walk in your same path, or do you make a new path, which matches the path you first made, widening it?

You would take your original path, right?

In fact, that is how we always walk -in the one same path, over and over again.


We have no reason to make the path wider, it doesn't make sense...

The original path is flattened down by walking over and over it, and better for walking along..


All this is just proving that you have never been outside, ever. Seriously. you are suggesting that because Apollo astronauts didn't put their feet in exactly the same place every time this is somehow proof for you? I need another page for my list of "ridiculous things turbonium has said".



HERE IS THE POINT...

If two astronauts were going back and forth along the same path, it would not grow wider and wider, it would stay the same width....

This path would not be ANYWHERE NEAR wide enough to be seen from lunar orbit!!

Nor anywhere near to deep enough, either.


Ridiculous assertion with a fantastic amount of logical fallacies attached.




You do realize that many similar sized paths exist on Earth, yes?

Do you think these paths are visible in any images taken from Earth orbit, as you claim is found in the lunar images??

If you do, then show proof of it.


You mean the kind of satellites that are being used to monitor animal migrations:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

You can't see narrow paths and dirt roads from satellites?

visions-of-earth.com...

environmentalresearchweb.org...

or other human activity?

listosaur.com...

A you happy that when LRO can show you pictures of CHang'e-3 and Lunokhod that those are genuine? What about the Mars rovers - is it impossible to photograph the tracks they leave as well?



It's nonsense, pure and simple.


Right back atcha, and not one of the nonsensical diversions you just posted answers my questions to you or proves my argument wrong.







edit on 20/8/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Shadows, now??

There are no shadows in those surface images.


no shadows??? wow..

remember all those hoax believers saying that the shadows should be parallel?? are you calling all hoax believers that argue this hoaxers??


Disturbed soil would be seen in those images, because UNdisturbed soil would ALSO be seen in the same images, immediately beyond the area of disturbed soil...


and it is..


Shadows do not make it appear as disturbed soil, seen only from orbit!


yes it would, think of a flat plain, if a single foot print was impressed into that ground and the sun was low on the horizon the foot print would cast a shadow in the same way that a crater does.


Try this on Earth - you'd be the first human to ever do it!

Create a physical disturbance of some kind, your choice.

No matter what, the disturbance cannot be seen from the ground. Nor can it appear any different from the undisturbed areas surrounding it.

Think you could do that, hmm?


indeed i could.

i can make a footprint just behind a very small crest which just covers my line of sight to the footprint, but an aerial view with the sun low in the horizon will cast a shadow inside the footprint.

or, i can make a footprint and i can be viewing the footprint down sun (ie. sun is behind me) makin gthe footprint nearly invisible.
and aerial view of the footprint will see the shadow cast by the footprint which was previously covered from my point of view when i was on the ground.


What safety standards changed?

If you know, that is.

What standards caused Apollo's technology to not be usable, as you claim??

I'll wait for your answers..


not sure, probably manufacturing safety standards, safety factors, manufacturing standards (hand made compared with production line or machine production) six sigma quality process was introduced in the 80's and has been adopted world wide by manufacturers..

are you trying to suggest that leading aerospace companies have never bothered to improve their standards since the 60's??
edit on 20-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
And yet decades later, not one of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings has ever come forward to say they were faked.

People are such good secret keepers.


How many millions fought & died in WII? Not each was privy to the overall plan. They just did as told. Besides, the moon landings could be fake, doesn't mean they never went there the times they said they did, completed the missions exactly as recorded.

The only difference being 'the real tapes' would've never been shown to the public. It almost makes it reasonable, that they 'destroyed all the originals, by accident'

Even if everything is as stated, I believe they've disseminated their super vacuum chamber which you can recreate moon atmosphere, and surroundings in. It would surprise me if at the very least, they pre-shot footage, just in case (whatever reason).
edit on 20-8-2016 by boncho because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
57
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join