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: 95
57
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

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?












The papers suggest this, as a theory.

They "presume" that lunar soil must have unknown properties that cause reflectance, which is only visible from orbit, not from the surface.

It is a theory, without anything to support it...

But nothing else can explain it, as landing sites, so that is their best theory for it..

It is a unique phenomenon, that cannot be explained by the soil, that cannot be replicated in any way, but there is no other explanation, yet nothing else would account for it, so there is no other option.

Assume the lunar soil must have this unknown, unique phenomenon in effect, which we now find to exist.




posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The papers suggest this, as a theory.

They "presume" that lunar soil must have unknown properties that cause reflectance, which is only visible from orbit, not from the surface.

It is a theory, without anything to support it...


are you assuming that its an isolated phenomenon specific to the Apollo landings??


But nothing else can explain it, as landing sites, so that is their best theory for it..


oh apart from the spacecraft landing in that location, surface images identifying that they landed in that location, footpath imagery from orbit confirming human activity, other equipment left on the lunar surface imaged from orbit to confirm human activity, surface images that show equipment in the same spots as orbit images.

and the thing you like to ignore the most, craters and rocks from surface imagery aligning exactly to where orbit imagery shows it to be that was not previously known about prior to the landings.

all this as opposed to your view that its a coincidence and they randomly pick out these 6 locations 40 years later from the LRO images.. who cares that all craters and rocks match up to surface images taken 40 years ago thats just a very lucky coincidence.


It is a unique phenomenon, that cannot be explained by the soil, that cannot be replicated in any way, but there is no other explanation, yet nothing else would account for it, so there is no other option.

Assume the lunar soil must have this unknown, unique phenomenon in effect, which we now find to exist.


the explaination is not unique with its application to the Apollo landing site.

edit on 7-9-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You have not read the papers.

You have not answered the questions put to you.

No surprises.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The papers don't explain it, they have a theory for it, which you support.

Indeed, the papers admit this is only a theory. It is not claimed to be fact or anything.

You take it as fact, not as a theory, then...

A way to get out of any problems that cannot be resolved for Apollo-ites.

Something unique to the lunar environment, such as lunar soil, will always back up Apollo.

Of course, this phenomenon can never be proven wrong, being unique to lunar soil.


Get serious.

The phenomenon has no proof of even existing, first of all.

The papers are trying a theory, to explain it, but nothing supports it.


What they are doing, with these papers, is assuming it already known as true, in all ways. That we landed on the moon, and that is one of the landing sites, and that unidentifiable little blob is exactly where the LM landed on the lunar surface. Images from orbit show it has a soil disturbance, caused by the LM during the descent.

So they must explain what would allow for such an oddity..

It must be unique, for sure.

The reflectance must be unique, specifically.

To show why the lunar soil is more reflective when subtly disturbed, while not visible on the surface, only seen from orbit...

It must be more reflective, but only in an upwards direction, then..

It does not reflect more in any other direction, though.


Nobody knows, sadly.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
The papers don't explain it, they have a theory for it, which you support.

Indeed, the papers admit this is only a theory. It is not claimed to be fact or anything.


"Admit"? Quote us some words to show you have actually read and understood it.



You take it as fact, not as a theory, then...


Show us your facts. So far we have just your opinion. Those papers use actual data.



A way to get out of any problems that cannot be resolved for Apollo-ites.

Something unique to the lunar environment, such as lunar soil, will always back up Apollo.


Well gee, I wonder why that is? Is it because a unique environment was visited by Apollo missions, along with a whole bunch of unmanned probes that created the same type of observable features?




Of course, this phenomenon can never be proven wrong, being unique to lunar soil.


Why is that? Is it because the lunar environment is unique, and the data are genuine? Prove the data wrong.





Get serious.

The phenomenon has no proof of even existing, first of all.

The papers are trying a theory, to explain it, but nothing supports it.


Apart from the data.




What they are doing, with these papers, is assuming it already known as true, in all ways. That we landed on the moon, and that is one of the landing sites, and that unidentifiable little blob is exactly where the LM landed on the lunar surface. Images from orbit show it has a soil disturbance, caused by the LM during the descent.


You're missing out the fact that they aren't just discussing the LM engines.



So they must explain what would allow for such an oddity..

It must be unique, for sure.

The reflectance must be unique, specifically.

To show why the lunar soil is more reflective when subtly disturbed, while not visible on the surface, only seen from orbit...

It must be more reflective, but only in an upwards direction, then..

It does not reflect more in any other direction, though.


Unsurprisingly, you have totally failed to understand the idea of "phase change ratio". You also seem to have a problem with reflection and angle of incidence. Pretty basic physics I learned at school.



Nobody knows, sadly.



You certainly don't, but the people who wrote the papers do.

You asked for evidence, you were given it, now the goalposts have moved. You seem to think they only apply to Apollo engines when the papers also discuss those from other spacecraft, which you have ignored. Just like you ignored the questions you were asked and have made no attempt to answer, just generate some steam with your windmilling arms. You've made no attempt to answer the questions because you have no answer.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Also worth pointing out, in case you missed the idea above, that these "theories" about which you are so dismissive are used to explain an observable phenomenon. If there wasn't something to observe, there would be no theory.



posted on Sep, 7 2016 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have not read the papers.

You have not answered the questions put to you.

No surprises.


The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.

It does not claim to be factual, however.

The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have not read the papers.

You have not answered the questions put to you.

No surprises.


The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.

It does not claim to be factual, however.

The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..


the regolith has been explained.. and has been written and noted about since the landings.. it is not a new phenomenon first discovered from LRO images..

also if you think this is a theory with no evidence and not factual, exactly what do you think your theory is??? you know your theory that none of these things exists and that they need to photoshop in blobs and footpaths.. is that "factual" in your opinion hmm



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'm confused. How is this current discussion evidence supporting the moon hoax?

The fact that disturbed soil DOES look different than undisturbed soil is not in question. Why does in matter what specific physical properties of disturbed soil are that cause this difference in appearance? No matter what the specific physical properties of this disturbance may be, the only thing that matters is that the soil looks disturbed.

Specifically for the moon hoax, why does it matter why disturbed lunar regolith has a different appearance that undisturbed regolith? What matters is that it was disturbed.



posted on Sep, 8 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have not read the papers.

You have not answered the questions put to you.

No surprises.


The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.

It does not claim to be factual, however.

The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..


A theory about what, specifically?

What is it that all these papers are trying to explain?

You were claiming before that there was nothing to see, now you are saying that the explanations for the thing you claimed wasn't there are just theories.

Why are there theories to explain the existence of something you claimed didn't exist?



posted on Sep, 13 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You have not read the papers.

You have not answered the questions put to you.

No surprises.


The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.

It does not claim to be factual, however.

The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..


A theory about what, specifically?

What is it that all these papers are trying to explain?

You were claiming before that there was nothing to see, now you are saying that the explanations for the thing you claimed wasn't there are just theories.

Why are there theories to explain the existence of something you claimed didn't exist?


They are assuming we landed on the moon, and this has to be explained from being 100% fact..

And why would they need to explain anything, if they'd already proved Apollo landed on the moon?

To prove we landed on the moon, you must explain how everything is possible, while it has no proof, it cannot be disproven either, so writing papers follow up, without any proof, but is legit, to give unsupportable theories, which suggest there must be something 'unique' about the lunar environment, not known to exist, but appears to exist, and nothing else can explain it, right?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

They are assuming we landed on the moon, and this has to be explained from being 100% fact..


and your point of view is so much better and makes so much more sense.. because its your personal confirmation biased opinion right??

also if these things didnt exist in surface images (as per your argument) there would be no attempt at explaining it..
so why is it that there are papers explaining this since the landings??

how can they possibly know about something, to even attempt to explain, that doesnt exist?
Before flight was even thought possible, were they explaining super sonic flight???



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Everything has been explained, it is possible, and people from many countries have seen, examined and discussed all the data, all of which is public and always has been. You're refusal to believe them and inability to understand it is your problem, not ours.

You claimed there was no evidence of what we were discussing, once the evidence was produced yoy jumped ship and are now saying they are just theories explaining the evidence you said wasn't there to explain.

Still waiting for answers: can the LRO see Chinese and Soviet probes? Yes or no?



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   
What if.....

We went to the moon.

Obviously no self respecting government is just going to air whatever on national TV. The most logical conclusion-- fabricate some footage ahead of time just in case.

Most likely, everything turned out fine, but the pre-screened footage is all we have.

Fast forward almost 50 years, perhaps point out some flaws that have become obvious over the years.

I don't understand how this is still under contention.
TBH I was a bit skeptical until my brother graduated from Mines and gave me an excellent overview on the Van Allen belts. I have heard that radiation argument so many times, and I'll admit for a while I believed it wholeheartedly, but the fact is that not all radiation is the same.

If this has been covered before, I sincerely apologize lol. This is page like 95 soooo...



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Akaan011

The problem with faking the footage is that it was simply not technically possible in the 60/70s even modern CGI would struggle to do it. 1/6g in a vacuum isn't easy to pull off.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Everything has been explained, it is possible, and people from many countries have seen, examined and discussed all the data, all of which is public and always has been. You're refusal to believe them and inability to understand it is your problem, not ours.

You claimed there was no evidence of what we were discussing, once the evidence was produced yoy jumped ship and are now saying they are just theories explaining the evidence you said wasn't there to explain.

Still waiting for answers: can the LRO see Chinese and Soviet probes? Yes or no?



The probes are not relevant to this issue, same as everything else that matches up is not relevant...

Where it does NOT match up is the only thing relevant, as I said..

The whole intent of a hoax is trying to make everything look absolutely real, when it is not...

Matching up to everything is crucial, because anything not matching could expose the hoax, if it's noticed...


That is the problem, here...

Noticing that it did not match up, when it must match, to be genuine..

They had to explain why everything was a match, except one thing which did not match...

Some type of unique phenomenon is behind it, they assume...

It is an unknown phenomenon, but we assume it exists, anyway..



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Akaan011

The problem with faking the footage is that it was simply not technically possible in the 60/70s even modern CGI would struggle to do it. 1/6g in a vacuum isn't easy to pull off.


They did not pull off 1/6 g, actually..

Apollo 11 was at 50% speed, and then, they changed it to 66.66% speed for all the other missions.

Being at exactly half-speed and 2/3 speed, while in the same environment, is quite a miracle, not known in any science...

It is nonsense.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1



Apollo 11 was at 50% speed, and then, they changed it to 66.66% speed for all the other missions.

False.



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

How many times does this need to be proven wrong before you, and others, stop trotting this lie out?



posted on Sep, 16 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

And why is it then whenever you've been previously asked to provide evidence of this absurd claim you outright refuse? Why is it when shown that video sped up by the factors you yourself suggest looks incredibly unnatural with fast, twitchy movements, you flat out ignore the fact that you've been proven wrong and wait a year before bringing up the same nonsense again?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 92  93  94    96  97  98 >>

log in

join