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: 93
57
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: illuminnaughty

Neil was well acquainted with convicted violent criminal Bart Sibrel, particularly as Sibrel had been warned by police for gaining entry into his house in his absence and harassing his wife, and who had been stalking him for months.

Conspiracy lovers always like to present the videos where the astronauts rightly tell Sibrel exactly up which orifice he can shove his bible, they are not so keen to show the footage of those astronauts that did swear on the bible. They also seem to prefer using a short video clip as proof over the wealth of data that prove Apollo happened.

Conspiracy theorists are also keen to say the words 'Van Allen Belts', while never presenting any evidence that it would have, ignoring the evidence of the trajectory and sites like this:

www.braeunig.us...

and even the testimony of Van Allen himself, who called the claims nonsense.


Studying the VA Belts now is to gain further knowledge, nothing fishy there!!

It is nothing like we once thought, but no big deal, right?

To prove the VA Belts were known already, they are spending money to study it now, on gaining even more knowledge, to be safer than before, in our future missions.. manned, or unmanned.

You argue the VA Belts are safe, because you say it is safe, with no scientists claiming it is NOT safe, and the data recorded by Apollo, which shows it is safe, as well...

You claim it is proof of the VAB being safe for manned missions, all hazards are known and we can avoid them, and we have proven it, over 40 years ago, as perfectly safe...

What you have is assumed some of these scientists would have mentioned it if it looked fishy, or a bit odd, or even a bit unusual, in any way, shape, or form...

You have no proof, so you have no argument here.

The scientists you say support your case, are actually ignoring it like so much trash, in fact.

Apollo data is not used, in any way, by any scientist, today, or the last 20 years, at least...

It is the only data of manned missions beyond LEO....

They have no other data to compare it to. And they (supposedly) all believe that it is genuine data, too.

So when they all ignore it, and use data from LEO, to make guesstimates of it, they are all believers of the Apollo fable - since none of them ever said otherwise!!

They said it without a word being said....it is so blatantly obvious.

Who would ignore the only data which measured radiation on manned missions beyond LEO, which proved to work superbly in every way, to protect all of the humans against radiation, or any possible long-term effects....??

Nobody would ignore it.

Your excuse is that long-term missions are their goal, so Apollo's data is not relevant to long-term missions, which are much more dangerous than with short, Apollo-length, missions.

Finding out we have not even planned any sort of long-term mission would not yet be known as their actual goal - not as you mean it, anyway. The actual goal was to land men on the moon, by 2020. That's it. Period.

Apollo's technology was chosen because they believed it worked, and would work again, for similar missions...

You already know all this, of course.

It was assumed that we did it, and we can't fail to do it again, by using the exact same technology as they used.


Excuses don't work, no chance.




posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 02:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It is not hidden behind a crest, or anything else....


Some of them are, by making a footprint some of the regolith is pressed down some are pushed to the side.

The regolith pushed to the side generally gets pushed upwards due to the surrounding resistance, this creates a small crest.


The ground is seen beyond the supposed disturbed area of soil,


I'm not talking about the undisturbed regolith.. You asked how disturbed regolith can be more or less invisible from the surface but visible via shadows from above.




Nobody on your side has claimed the ground beyond this disturbance is not in the surface images....except for you, now...


You have completely misunderstood my explaination...

I am saying the small crests can hide the shadows from the disturbance blending the sunlight surfaces with the distant undisturbed surface making disturbed surface easily seen from above but not from the surface..

What a rant from not understanding what I'm saying







So you admit you don't know diddly squat, but somehow you know it couldn't work because of that??

Are you serious??


Your answer just shows you know nothing at all about manufacturing..

Six sigma process was introduced in the 80's all top manufacturers have adopted it. Probably by now they have improved on that process.
Back in the 60's for example the heat shield was hand made. Leaving quality assurance up to possible human errors. Six sigma is a process design to eliminate errors and guarantee quality.
In today's world we want machinery to produce quality products and minimize labour costs.
It is a completely different world today in manufacturing compared with the 60's.
They have already complained that designing the mass production of the heat shield to meet requirements to be difficult you know.

But just shows how deluded you are thinking today's standards have not improved a single bit from the 60's



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo



You are obviously not looking in the right place. The LRO images reveal remarkable levels of detail including the lunar modules and lunar equipment. Try reading my pages on it again - all of them:

onebigmonkey.com...



The LM cannot be seen in lunar orbit, but the disturbance created by the LM can only be seen in orbit images, not anywhere on the surface, where the LM is seen, with incredible detail!!


Yes it can, even Apollo missions could see it:

onebigmonkey.com...



Not possible to replicate this 'phenomenon', whatsoever...



It has been replicated, by India and Japan, which both show the same human activity.

The LRO has also spotted Lunokhod and its trails:

www.nasa.gov...

Are those fake?

Chang'e-3 too:

www.nasa.gov...

Is that fake?

What about all the small rocks and craters visible in the LRO images that are also in exactly the same places in Apollo images, are they fake too?


I don't think they are fake rocks, or fake craters. Most likely, they are all real features of the lunar surface.

There is no Apollo gear on the moon, however, since it does NOT match up to all the same features.

Every rock and crater might match up with Apollo surface images.

And finding all of their equipment matches up, is your main 'proof' of Apollo landing on the moon, right?


So when it does NOT all match up, what does it mean?


You seem to think if it matches up nearly everywhere, just one that doesn't match, supports your argument...is that how you see it?

By your post, it seems so...


A hoax tries to have everything match up with the reality, so that's why there would likely be many more things that match up, with little not matching, or none at all. That would be a perfect match. Most are not perfect, though, as shown in our example.

Images from lunar orbit show a feature that is not shown in any surface images. This is simply not possible. It must match up, or it cannot be genuine.

How can you show it is genuine?

You've tried to invent a phenomenon that doesn't exist, as an answer.

You've claimed it is replicable on Earth, as well...

We need to have a crest, though. Fat chance...

Another excuse will soon come to you folks, so don't y'all worry now!..



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos


Some of them are, by making a footprint some of the regolith is pressed down some are pushed to the side.

The regolith pushed to the side generally gets pushed upwards due to the surrounding resistance, this creates a small crest.


I'm not talking about the undisturbed regolith.. You asked how disturbed regolith can be more or less invisible from the surface but visible via shadows from above.


You have completely misunderstood my explaination...

I am saying the small crests can hide the shadows from the disturbance blending the sunlight surfaces with the distant undisturbed surface making disturbed surface easily seen from above but not from the surface..

What a rant from not understanding what I'm saying




You first assume that an actual disturbance is found in surface images. That the LM caused this disturbance, which is seen under the LM, and beyond it, outward, for a few km , with undisturbed soil beyond it...

And, where is this disturbance of soil actually found, to begin with, in those surface images?

I just cannot see this 'disturbance' of soil, under the LM, and out beyond it. Some footprints are seen, not this large disturbance of soil being claimed, by your side.

Disturbed soil that I don't see, but you claim can be seen, is not proven to exist, anywhere.

This area of disturbed soil exists, while not seen to exist, others say it can be seen, is not proven to exist.

Now, why is it even taken as real?


You claim the area of undisturbed soil cannot be seen from the surface, while you claim there is an area of disturbed soil that can be seen!!

What is seen by you cannot be seen by me, so it must be proven to exist, or you have no claim. So your claim fails.

Another claim is that undisturbed soil is not seen from the surface, and is only seen from orbit. No proof of any sort, once again.


Any claim can be made, you are an expert on this..

Now, to see you actually support any of those claims....would be a real treat!



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 05:26 AM
link   
With your unseen crests, we cannot see any undisturbed soil.

Much better argument, than the undisturbed soil being unseen, while the unseen crests were causing it to be unseen!!!

Makes perfect sense, now!!


Sheesh..



posted on Aug, 27 2016 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Houston we have a problem with the Thirteenth Element



Element Thirteen



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And those genuine rocks and craters in LRO images also appear in Apollo 16mm, live TV and Hasselblad photos. They do not appear in any pre-Apollo images. You still haven't coughed up the photos where claimed they were visible, so I can only assume you made it upossible.

The Apollo hardware and evidence of surface activity is exactly where it should be, and India and Japan confirm it.

And no, it's not my only proof - it is one of many, including lunar rocks, data sent back for years after the missions finished, 1/6 G motion impossible to replicate on Earth, and meteorological data in several satellites providing confirmation of every aspect of Earth''s appearance.

All you have is confirmation bias of "well I think they didn't go so they must have made it up. I don't know how but they must have so there."

Not good enough. Got that?
edit on 28/8/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: Typo



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

Uh-huh - you think this adds something? It''s what's been under discussion for some time. Do keep up.



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Talking about assumptions...

have you noticed how when I was describing the shadows in the disturbance it in reference to the footpaths or footprints?? Have you noticed that there was no mention at all about the lunar module??
Have you noticed that previously while explaining the disturbance of the lM I said refractive index but no mention of shadows???

Are you just going to assume that the disturbance created by the lunar module and a footprint is exactly the same??

What I'm getting at here is that the nature of the lunar module surface disturbance is different in nature to a footprint.

Where as the lunar module is blowing lunar revoking away and depositing rocket exhaust a foot print does not do that.

the reason you see the disturbance of the lm from the lro and not so clearly from the surface (even though they have close up images of the disturbance from the LM) is because of the refractive index, which I have already told you,
so I have no idea why you are assuming that the explain action for the footprint/paths shadow being concealed from the surface and visible from above is the exact same reason for the lm disturbance explaination...

but good job on your incorrect assumptions and running with them, like you do with everything else
edit on 28-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2016 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

As choos points out, there are two different things being discussed here.

Apollo 11 photographed areas of ground that were discoloured under the LM engine bell:



109:26:16 Armstrong: Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount



110:48:05 Aldrin: (Going east of the strut) I'll get a picture of the plus-Y strut taken from near the descent stage, and I think we'll be able to see a little bit better what the thermal effects are. Seem to be quite minimal. (Long Pause, then turning to look under the spacecraft) There's one picture taken (pause) in the right rear of the spacecraft looking at the skirt of the descent stage, shows a slight darkening of the surface color, a rather minimal amount of radiating or etching away or erosion of the surface. On descent, both of us remarked that we could see a large amount of very fine dust particles moving out.


www.lpi.usra.edu...

The fact that there was dust being blown away by the engine as it landed is a pretty clear indication to anyone thinking straight that the engine did have an effect on the surface.

This is not the same effect being discussed in terms of the impact of the exhaust plume no the wider area as the LMs landed.

Your comments about crests are nonsensical.

Just in case my comments previously were a little garbled by typing on a phone on a train, I'll re-iterate them:

Photographs, TV and 16mm images taken by Apollo missions show rocks, craters, the position of mission hardware and the paths taken between them. These features are confirmed by subsequent orbital probes - including those taken by probes from other countries. These features and hardware can also be seen in photographs taken from lunar orbit by Apollo. The TV, 16mm, and still images have all been public domain long before any of the later probes arrived at the moon.

These features were not known about prior to Apollo. If you are going to continue to claim that they did, please produce the photographs. Claims that the LRO is not capable of photographing hardware on the surface and the trails left by them are completely disproved by images of eg Lunokhod and Chang'e-3.

If you believe that the features imaged by LRO are not actually there, then produce some evidence to support that.



posted on Aug, 29 2016 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Studying the VA Belts now is to gain further knowledge, nothing fishy there!!

First of all, that is a silly argument. Let's apply your argument to something here on Earth: We have known about our oceans for thousands of years, and we had even done detailed scientific studies on them for a couple of centuries -- yet we still study the oceans today because we have more to learn about them.

Secondly, the VABs were NOT safe for Apollo to pass through at any place they pleased. They needed to take a round-about trajectory through a thin part of the VABs (wasting precious fuel in the process), and even then the area they passed through still exposed them to risky amounts of radiation -- i.e., amounts that would not necessarily make them sick, but would raise their lifetime risk for later health issues, albeit at a lifetime risk level that was deemed "acceptable".

So why not still study them? Why not find out as much as you can about the belts in order to find a more fuel-efficient path through them that, when using today's spacecraft technology, would still not increase the crew's health risk above acceptable limits?

Heck, I think it would be more ludicrous for NASA to say "We learned everything that we possibly need to learn about the VABs in the 1950s and 1960s, and no longer need to study them at all".


edit on 2016/8/29 by Box of Rain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 03:15 PM
link   
For me I believe that we went to the moon multiple times via Apollo missions. No one can organize a conspiracy of that magnitude and expect hundreds of NASA employees to keep mum about it. It's just a logistical impossibility.

Plus what was learned from those missions we are now applying to other current space missions.

Whether our astronauts had an alien encounter there... That's a different story altogether.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   
No surface images show any disturbance, which is simply not possible, if it were the exact same area...

No excuses work for your side.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
No surface images show any disturbance, which is simply not possible, if it were the exact same area...

No excuses work for your side.


assuming you are referring to the disturbance caused by the LM, even you know that is a lie.

you know for a fact that they have taken close up images of this disturbance.



posted on Aug, 31 2016 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1
No surface images show any disturbance, which is simply not possible, if it were the exact same area...

No excuses work for your side.


assuming you are referring to the disturbance caused by the LM, even you know that is a lie.

you know for a fact that they have taken close up images of this disturbance.


So, the only problem is that we don't see it in those close up images, but it is there, we all know that, and it's a lie to say it isn't there!!? Sure, nobody sees the disturbance in any of the close up images, but it really does exist, as we all know!!!



Fantasy-land, as usual..

Do you claim to see this disturbance, in surface images?
If so, what is your evidence?

You cannot see any difference in the undisturbed area, from the surface images, but it's there, right?

To you, there must be crests or something, which obscure the area beyond the disturbance..

No crests are seen, but who cares, right??

An unseen disturbance is surrounded by an undisturbed area that looks exactly the same as the unseen disturbed area!!



posted on Sep, 1 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

So, the only problem is that we don't see it in those close up images, but it is there, we all know that, and it's a lie to say it isn't there!!? Sure, nobody sees the disturbance in any of the close up images, but it really does exist, as we all know!!!

Fantasy-land, as usual..

Do you claim to see this disturbance, in surface images?
If so, what is your evidence?
You cannot see any difference in the undisturbed area, from the surface images, but it's there, right?



AS11-40-5921

AS11-40-5918

compared with


AS17-136-20815HR


To you, there must be crests or something, which obscure the area beyond the disturbance..

No crests are seen, but who cares, right??

An unseen disturbance is surrounded by an undisturbed area that looks exactly the same as the unseen disturbed area!!


already explained to you that the disturbance cause by the lunar module is different..

but again you have deliberately fused the explainations together...

you arent going to see a blast crater from the lunar module engines because it was NOT a kinetic impact sort of disturbance, it is merely blowing away dust and depositing rocket exhaust making the disturbed area have a higher refractive index..

the footprint/paths disturbance is the one that can be hidden by crests depending on the sun and viewing angles.

now get over it.
edit on 1-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 02:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

So, the only problem is that we don't see it in those close up images, but it is there, we all know that, and it's a lie to say it isn't there!!? Sure, nobody sees the disturbance in any of the close up images, but it really does exist, as we all know!!!

Fantasy-land, as usual..

Do you claim to see this disturbance, in surface images?
If so, what is your evidence?
You cannot see any difference in the undisturbed area, from the surface images, but it's there, right?



AS11-40-5921

AS11-40-5918

compared with


AS17-136-20815HR


To you, there must be crests or something, which obscure the area beyond the disturbance..

No crests are seen, but who cares, right??

An unseen disturbance is surrounded by an undisturbed area that looks exactly the same as the unseen disturbed area!!


already explained to you that the disturbance cause by the lunar module is different..

but again you have deliberately fused the explainations together...

you arent going to see a blast crater from the lunar module engines because it was NOT a kinetic impact sort of disturbance, it is merely blowing away dust and depositing rocket exhaust making the disturbed area have a higher refractive index..

the footprint/paths disturbance is the one that can be hidden by crests depending on the sun and viewing angles.

now get over it.


Someone here needs to get over it, alright!

Crests are not even there, to begin with.

You make them up, as an excuse, but I'm supposed to prove invisible crests aren't really there?!!

In reality, you are the one who must prove that these 'crests' are actually there, at all.

Your images don't show a disturbance, or crests, obscuring the undisturbed area beyond it.

Many other images don't show anything, either.

What we have to explain is how images from the 'surface' cannot be genuine, because nothing can explain it, otherwise...

You assume they did land on the moon, so anything suggesting otherwise must always have some sort of valid explanation...

If you can't explain it, first time, you change it to something else, again, and so on...

Nothing will ever explain it, but it doesn't matter, since it changes all the time, your only problem is finding it!!

You proclaim it is an 'answer', since everything is 'already answered', in 'Apollo-land'....

Real answers would be preferred, in Apollo-land, of course...
Sometimes, there is no real answer. But magically, any sort of excuse is deemed to be an 'answer', too!


Look...

This feature found on the lunar surface actually exists.

This feature is not found anywhere in any of the 'surface' images.


Without any doubt, it proves the surface images were all faked.

It would match up to the images from orbit, if the images were genuine.


You claim that 'crests' have obscured it from all the surface images, from every viewpoint, and every angle of sunlight, at close range, or long range, so forth...

You have shown nothing at all to prove your claim, however..

Now, you suggest it is due to some unknown phenomenon, unique to the lunar environment?

Anything Apollo-ites cannot logically refute is claimed to be about some unknown phenomenon within the lunar environment....

There is no proof, of any kind, for these claims.

The apollo-ites proclaim it is an 'answer', somehow....


I've shown proof of my claim.

The Apollo-ites claim is that an unknown phenomenon came into play. Something which is entirely unique within the lunar environment, mysteriously causing disturbed soil to appear completely undisturbed, from the lunar surface, while having no 'vanishing' effect when viewed from lunar orbit!!

Your argument goes like this...

The disturbance can't be seen as a distinct feature from the surface, and that is a very common effect in such vast areas, as we all know!

It was then pointed out to you that the surface images show the area beyond this region of disturbance.

You changed your argument, as it failed, miserably.

Your claim was that crests were causing it.

I said there were no crests seen in the images, as you've claimed.

And now, your argument is that some sort of unknown phenomenon is in play?

It's come full circle, no doubt!



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
I've also wondered about how these 'crests' would be able to hide everything from view, beyond the disturbance....

Such crests would have to be very high, in order to hide our view of all the surface beyond the disturbance, right?

And the high crests would need to circle around the entire area, as well...true?


It'd be hard to not see them, I'm sure!!



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Someone here needs to get over it, alright!

Crests are not even there, to begin with.

You make them up, as an excuse, but I'm supposed to prove invisible crests aren't really there?!!


how many times do i need to tell you that the disturbance from the lunar module is NOT ABOUT CRESTS??

the visibility of the FOOTPRINT/PATHS are about the crests.. sheesh..


In reality, you are the one who must prove that these 'crests' are actually there, at all.


no i dont, because in reality you have not been reading my posts just completely mixing two explainations for two different things into one.


Your images don't show a disturbance, or crests, obscuring the undisturbed area beyond it.


the first two images show dust that was blown away.. prove that it doesnt.
the first two images show a relatively hard compounded surface with cracks showing.

the last image shows none of these.



What we have to explain is how images from the 'surface' cannot be genuine, because nothing can explain it, otherwise...

You assume they did land on the moon, so anything suggesting otherwise must always have some sort of valid explanation...


oh yea thats a completely 100% reasonable argument, becausewith your confirmation bias you dont assume that havent landed on the moon at all..


If you can't explain it, first time, you change it to something else, again, and so on...

Nothing will ever explain it, but it doesn't matter, since it changes all the time, your only problem is finding it!!


which is still within reality therefore making my excuses still plausible.. unlike your explainations such as "centrifugal force doesnt exist without gravity"



You proclaim it is an 'answer', since everything is 'already answered', in 'Apollo-land'....

Real answers would be preferred, in Apollo-land, of course...
Sometimes, there is no real answer. But magically, any sort of excuse is deemed to be an 'answer', too!


no im not saying it is THE answer, im saying it is ONE OF THE answers.. because my explainations are plausible..

your explainations are not plausible because your explainations cannot at all tie in together within the larger picture, you can only attempt to explain things within extremely isolated circumstances and even then you struggle to stay within the realms of reality.


Look...

This feature found on the lunar surface actually exists.

This feature is not found anywhere in any of the 'surface' images.

Without any doubt, it proves the surface images were all faked.

It would match up to the images from orbit, if the images were genuine.


i just showed you it does, you refuse to see that hardened surface and the radial dust trails underneath the LM.

thats just your denial.. you cant even offer an explaination to what it is you can only deny deny deny.




You claim that 'crests' have obscured it from all the surface images, from every viewpoint, and every angle of sunlight, at close range, or long range, so forth...

You have shown nothing at all to prove your claim, however..


once again, i claimed that the crests conceal the shadow from FOOTPRINTS/PATHS, not the disturbance caused from the LM.

until you understand this your argument is just a waste of time.


Now, you suggest it is due to some unknown phenomenon, unique to the lunar environment?


what??


Anything Apollo-ites cannot logically refute is claimed to be about some unknown phenomenon within the lunar environment....

There is no proof, of any kind, for these claims.


as opposed to your explaination which was that the footprints dont exist and they had to add it into the images from satellites because NASA knew no one wold ever send a rover to the moon to image the landing sites right?

or in the case of the lunar module disturbance its just deny deny deny.


I've shown proof of my claim.


opinion is not proof.


Your argument goes like this...

The disturbance can't be seen as a distinct feature from the surface, and that is a very common effect in such vast areas, as we all know!

It was then pointed out to you that the surface images show the area beyond this region of disturbance.

You changed your argument, as it failed, miserably.

Your claim was that crests were causing it.

I said there were no crests seen in the images, as you've claimed.

And now, your argument is that some sort of unknown phenomenon is in play?

It's come full circle, no doubt!


if thats your understanding of what im explaining to you then you failed..

i dont really know how many times i have to distinguish between the two different types of disturbances.. its no wonder your understanding of the moon landing are that they are faked.
edit on 3-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:21 AM
link   
a reply to: choos




i dont really know how many times i have to distinguish between the two different types of disturbances.. its no wonder your understanding of the moon landing are that they are faked.

You have put the cart before the horse.

Starting from the latter, the former must conform.




top topics



 
57
<< 90  91  92    94  95  96 >>

log in

join