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: 94
57
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Turbonium is still wriggling like a worm on a hook and is still avoiding discussing the point:

Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings - not just hardware and the disturbance caused by astronauts around that hardware and by their exploration, but small rocks and craters. Subsequent images have confirmed those details - including those taken by countries other than the USA. How do you explain that?

Turbonium claimed to have pictures that did show the surface features, but has failed to produce them. Why is that?




posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:03 AM
link   
A disturbance of soil is surrounded by undisturbed soil.

If the disturbance can be identified from orbit, it would not only be visible from the surface, it would likely be MUCH MORE visible, and distinct from the area beyond it.

How would you not be able to identify a disturbance of soil from the ground, having first created this disturbance while you were on the ground?

How can you possibly do this?

You can't.


Soil that is disturbed in a way that makes it distinct from all the soil around it, must differ in physical form, obviously.

Angle of light can make it more distinct than it was before, it doesn't make the disturbance vanish. It is a physical difference, at any angle of light, it is present.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Turbonium is still wriggling like a worm on a hook and is still avoiding discussing the point:

Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings - not just hardware and the disturbance caused by astronauts around that hardware and by their exploration, but small rocks and craters. Subsequent images have confirmed those details - including those taken by countries other than the USA. How do you explain that?

Turbonium claimed to have pictures that did show the surface features, but has failed to produce them. Why is that?


It doesn't matter how much it matches to images, it only matters that one thing does NOT match up.

You seem to think everything else needs to be explained, or something!!



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



You seem to think everything else needs to be explained, or something!!

You seem to have a lack of understanding of the word irony, or something.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 06:40 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You have yet to demonstrate that the 'one thing' doesn't exist. Please provide your considered refutation of Japan's work on the surface changes as a result of the LM exhaust. Please also demonstrate why you think these changes should have a marked boundary visible from the ground.

Your inability to understand the nature of the effect under discussion does not provide you with an excuse to ignore everything else. Got that?

You can't answer my question but have to provide a distraction to divert people away from your failure.

Why is that?
edit on 3/9/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:46 AM
link   


Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings



An overwhelming consensus exists that the exact technical proficiency of delineated lunar representations during the interval has yet to be acknowledged. Ergo concordantly exposing capabilities could lead to an enviable analysis of the acquisition, thus potentiality compromising the continuum of additional operations of nefarious variety...

Black Apollo and the Gambit Cover Story



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

That's nice.

Still, doesn't disprove Apollo went to the moon though, does it?
edit on 392016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation



Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings



An overwhelming consensus exists that the exact technical proficiency of delineated lunar representations during the interval has yet to be acknowledged.


No such consensus exists. The technical capabilities of the probes sent to the moon prior to Apollo are extremely well documented in hard copy from the period and online since Prove otherwise.



Ergo concordantly exposing capabilities could lead to an enviable analysis of the acquisition, thus potentiality compromising the continuum of additional operations of nefarious variety...


Gibberish non-sequiter




Black Apollo and the Gambit Cover Story


And?

Do you imagine this somehow disproves Apollo? Or that this is news to anyone? Intent to use a secret spy camera by a manned lunar mission somehow disproves Apollo's manned lunar mission and that did actually use a spy camera?

Maybe you missed this:



The agency determined that it had enough high-resolution images from the first two Lunar Orbiters to make a landing site decision for Apollo. Suddenly, the original reason for Upward, lunar site certification, had disappeared.


Those photographs from Lunar Orbiter are all they had, and they do not show the level of detail in Apollo surface images. The Panoramic Camera did do some very good, very detailed images - good enough to show the EVA's from Apollo 15-17 and also the remains of Apollo 14's LM, see here:

onebigmonkey.com...

but they are still not as good as LRO and they still don't show all of the details visible in Apollo surface images. So even when you look at Apollo's use of classified spy cameras, those classified spy cameras aren't as good as modern probes or the surface images, and (and it's worth repeating in case you don't get the irony of your post):

They actually used the camera in orbit around the moon.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:38 AM
link   


Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings



your hypothesis has been shot down, it is based on conjecture and speculative at best ....



now get over it.



posted on Sep, 3 2016 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Misinformation

No, it hasn't, not by anyone.

Show me where I'm wrong in my interpretation, Show me images taken prior to Apollo that show the same level of detail as can be found in Apollo images.

All you did was reference an article that said that proposed Apollo missions to the moon might use secret spy cameras to take images of the moon and that somehow this is evidence that Apollo didn't take secret spy cameras to the moon to take images from lunar orbit.

See how that doesn't work?

Oh, and the Panoramic Camera images taken by those secret spy cameras showing Apollo hardware on the surface were public long ago - check the page I linked to to see.
edit on 3/9/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have yet to demonstrate that the 'one thing' doesn't exist. Please provide your considered refutation of Japan's work on the surface changes as a result of the LM exhaust. Please also demonstrate why you think these changes should have a marked boundary visible from the ground.

Your inability to understand the nature of the effect under discussion does not provide you with an excuse to ignore everything else. Got that?

You can't answer my question but have to provide a distraction to divert people away from your failure.

Why is that?



You would know about providing a distraction, with your latest example above.

Here you suggest I don't "understand the nature of the effect".

Not that you even have any sort of proof of some "effect", that makes physical disturbances appear to completely vanish, when viewed from anywhere on the ground, and look the same as undisturbed soil, with the creation of invisible 'crests' hiding the area beyond.

As the non-existing 'effect' was explained to common-folk like me, who are unable to grasp the "nature of the effect", it is actually there, and it caused this illusion.

Right. Of course.


Invent something that doesn't exist, say it does exist, and caused the whole thing, so if I can't understand it, that's my problem!!


You don't need to prove this 'effect', by replicating it here on Earth, or by citing any other examples of it, because you understand the nature of this effect, and I don't.

In reality, everybody understands that replicating it, and/or showing any other examples of it, would be required to support your claim.

It is also understood that you have not done this, because you cannot.

Now you understand bs excuses won't work, too..




any other examples,



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You still haven't managed to demonstrate why the effect would be visible on the ground to someone in bright sunlight looking through a visor.

The effects have been observed at many sites, not just Apollo

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

meteorites.wustl.edu...

www.researchgate.net...

Why not show us the effect you claim should be visible in some of the Chang'e-3 images. Any time you like.

And those photos you claimed showed detailed images of the lunar surface comparable with Apollo images. Where are they?

Speaking of Chang'e-3, are you still standing by your claim that the Chinese probe an its tracks, as well as those from the Lunokhods, would be invisible to the LRO? All three of those craft have been photographed by it, all three of them smaller than the LM and with tracks narrower than the LRV.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   


Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings


They were "not known about"??

Apollo-ites try this spin all the time.

Something they 'knew', or 'was not known', as if it were a fact...

You have no idea if they knew about those surface details prior to Apollo.

You simply assume they didn't know, because they don't show images with those details.

You assume they would have shown all their images, because you are sure they'd have no reason to hide any of them from the public.

So, when you claim the details 'were not known about', you don't have a clue about it..


If they were hoaxing the moon landings, it would make sense to hide images with more details, and only show images without the details. And I think they did just that.

The images with all the details become 'landing site equipment', and are shown after the 'landings' as 'proof'. The earlier images show no details, no 'landing site equipment', and that is how the
trick is done...


The problem is, they got caught.

And you have no way out of it.




posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


Apollo images show surface details that were not known about prior to the landings


They were "not known about"??

Apollo-ites try this spin all the time.

Something they 'knew', or 'was not known', as if it were a fact...

You have no idea if they knew about those surface details prior to Apollo.


You claimed you knew. You claimed you had seen photographs showing the same level of detail. No sign of you providing that proof yet. Why is that?




You simply assume they didn't know, because they don't show images with those details.

You assume they would have shown all their images, because you are sure they'd have no reason to hide any of them from the public.

So, when you claim the details 'were not known about', you don't have a clue about it..

If they were hoaxing the moon landings, it would make sense to hide images with more details, and only show images without the details. And I think they did just that.

The images with all the details become 'landing site equipment', and are shown after the 'landings' as 'proof'. The earlier images show no details, no 'landing site equipment', and that is how the
trick is done...


And you are just assuming that because you can't produce any images with that level of detail (which, I'll remind you again, you claimed you could but haven't) then they must have hidden them. Where is your evidence that there was a better camera available? Where is your evidence that there are photographs with a higher resolution. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

When Armstrong landed long it was because he hit a boulder field no-one knew about. Why is that? That boulder field does exist - it's easy to find on the LRO images but you won't see it on the Lunar Orbiter ones - as I show on this page:

onebigmonkey.com...

The fact is that even with the best spy camera available stuck in the Apollo Panoramic Cameras they still didn't get the samr level of detail as can be seen in the surface imagery and the LRO.



The problem is, they got caught.

And you have no way out of it.



The only one getting caught is you with your inability to answer questions, understand the data you have been given or produce evidence you claim exist but magically never appears.

Here, have some more reading you won't understand:

www.universetoday.com...

www.nasa.gov...

www.workingonthemoon.com...

www.sciencedirect.com...

meteorites.wustl.edu...

ascelibrary.org...

Again, please explain to us how a phase change ratio in surface reflectance will be identifiable on the surface.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
Oh, and as a reminder, can the LRO see Chang'e-3 and the Lunokhods from orbit? You forgot to answer that.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 02:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You still haven't managed to demonstrate why the effect would be visible on the ground to someone in bright sunlight looking through a visor.

The effects have been observed at many sites, not just Apollo

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

meteorites.wustl.edu...

www.researchgate.net...

Why not show us the effect you claim should be visible in some of the Chang'e-3 images. Any time you like.

And those photos you claimed showed detailed images of the lunar surface comparable with Apollo images. Where are they?

Speaking of Chang'e-3, are you still standing by your claim that the Chinese probe an its tracks, as well as those from the Lunokhods, would be invisible to the LRO? All three of those craft have been photographed by it, all three of them smaller than the LM and with tracks narrower than the LRV.


You still have to support your original claim.

Your claim is that some 'effect' made the disturbed area undistinguishable from the undisturbed area beyond it, but only from the ground. In orbit, there is no such 'effect' , and the two areas are distinctly identified.

This is the claim you have to prove.

Of course, the problem is that you cannot prove your claim.

What you must show is simply not possible to replicate.

An area of soil, or dirt, or grassland, etc. Is disturbed, while all the soil, etc. around it is not disturbed.

However, this is the problem you have...

You must disturb the soil in a way that nobody, not even you, are able to see any of the disturbance, from the ground. It must look the same as the undisturbed soil.

If you can do this, you would not only support your claim, you would be the first human to achieve this miracle..

Let's just start with the soil itself.



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 04:52 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not claiming that there is some 'effect' obscuring the subtle change visible from orbit not from the ground. I have never claimed this.

What I have consistently stated is that the difference is too subtle to be seen from 5 feet away, but much more easily visible from orbit. There is also not going to be a distinct and obvious boundary line because of the way the engine descended and began to impact the surface. Again you have papers I linked to above so that you can look at what the impacts are and how the effect is manifested.

This is not a difficult concept for people who go outside regularly. It is why archaeologists often use aerial surveys to identify features from the air that are not seen at ground level.

historicengland.org.uk...



Archaeology has long benefited from the use of aerial photography, revealing sites that are often difficult or even impossible, to see on the ground.


Why is that a difficult concept for you?

The change in surface brightness at Apollo 15's site was identified at the time (try reading the PSR) and confirmed by Kaguya. Please show your workings that disprove Japan's findings. Please tell us what the astronauts should have been able to see, where, and where the boundary is?

Many of the other effects of the exhaust plume are identified not so much by obvious change but by changes in the phase ratio over time. Apollo's astronauts were not on the surface long enough to identify that. The effects have also been identified for China's lander - please identify (in your own time) the change in surface brought about by the exhaust plume in the surface images. You have a couple of papers above to help get you started as to where you need to look.

Meanwhile, is the LRO capable of imaging the much smaller Chang'e-3 and Lunokhod probes and their tracks on the surface, yes or no?

Do you have, as you claimed, photographs that show the level of detail seen in Apollo images taken before Apollo, yes or no?



posted on Sep, 4 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

lets see your explainations on these subjects


in this above image ive circled two things, explain to me why they are so different.

in the lower left circle especially, explain to me how there is a large bright area (labelled 1) and within that bright area there is a patch of darkened area (labelled 2) surrounding another smaller very bright area (labelled 3) right next to a very dark area (labelled 4).
edit on 4-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

I am not claiming that there is some 'effect' obscuring the subtle change visible from orbit not from the ground. I have never claimed this.

What I have consistently stated is that the difference is too subtle to be seen from 5 feet away, but much more easily visible from orbit. There is also not going to be a distinct and obvious boundary line because of the way the engine descended and began to impact the surface. Again you have papers I linked to above so that you can look at what the impacts are and how the effect is manifested.

This is not a difficult concept for people who go outside regularly. It is why archaeologists often use aerial surveys to identify features from the air that are not seen at ground level.

historicengland.org.uk...



Archaeology has long benefited from the use of aerial photography, revealing sites that are often difficult or even impossible, to see on the ground.


Why is that a difficult concept for you?

The change in surface brightness at Apollo 15's site was identified at the time (try reading the PSR) and confirmed by Kaguya. Please show your workings that disprove Japan's findings. Please tell us what the astronauts should have been able to see, where, and where the boundary is?

Many of the other effects of the exhaust plume are identified not so much by obvious change but by changes in the phase ratio over time. Apollo's astronauts were not on the surface long enough to identify that. The effects have also been identified for China's lander - please identify (in your own time) the change in surface brought about by the exhaust plume in the surface images. You have a couple of papers above to help get you started as to where you need to look.



You have nothing to support your argument.

You keep saying that the disturbance is so subtle that it cannot be distinguished from undisturbed soil from the ground. In orbit, these subtleties can be identified. It's 'reflectance' differs from the 'reflectance' of undisturbed soil.

The problem is that there is nothing to support that claim.

You have no sources to support your claim.

You cannot replicate it, in any way.

You can't find one example of it ever existing before.

You cannot explain what specific properties of lunar soil cause reflectance, or what would change its reflectance, when disturbed subtly, in a way that only can be identified from orbit.

And you convince yourself it works, anyway.



posted on Sep, 5 2016 @ 04:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

You have nothing to support your argument.

You keep saying that the disturbance is so subtle that it cannot be distinguished from undisturbed soil from the ground.


Because it's true


In orbit, these subtleties can be identified. It's 'reflectance' differs from the 'reflectance' of undisturbed soil.

The problem is that there is nothing to support that claim.


Apart from the work carried out by many many different scientific organisations from many nationalities, which you don't seem to be able to refute.



You have no sources to support your claim.


Apart from the ones I provided links for above.



You cannot replicate it, in any way.

You can't find one example of it ever existing before.


I can't find one example of a change in surface reflectance from a spaceship landing on the moon before a spaceship landing on the moon? Apart from the nonsensical implications of your statement there, I suggest you go back and read the links I provided, which refer to several unmanned probes from both the US and USSR that occurred before Apollo.




You cannot explain what specific properties of lunar soil cause reflectance, or what would change its reflectance, when disturbed subtly, in a way that only can be identified from orbit.


Go back and read the papers, there are several that clearly outline what causes it and how to measure it. There is at least one reference to the second lunar science conference held after Apollo 12 - I have a copy of the conference proceedings.

Having proved that you have not read, and clearly have no intention of ever reading, any of the papers I linked to above, I'm guessing you have absolutely no intention of answering any of the perfectly simple questions I asked you above? The ones you carefully missed out of your quote of my post:




Meanwhile, is the LRO capable of imaging the much smaller Chang'e-3 and Lunokhod probes and their tracks on the surface, yes or no?

Do you have, as you claimed, photographs that show the level of detail seen in Apollo images taken before Apollo, yes or no?



Or that anyone has asked you, like choos' post above?

Or any questions asked of you ever?














top topics



 
57
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join