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: 98
57
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1
Please point out the flaws which make the theory untenable. In your opinion.
At least then there might be something to discuss rather than you just saying "nuh uh."
edit on 9/18/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Your claim is that the LM landed on the moon, causing a disturbance of soil, that cannot be seen from the lunar surface, yet can be seen from lunar orbit.



so you are convinced that it cannot be seen from the lunar surface right?

why is it that they are discussing this phenomenon when it is not even known to exist?

for arguments sake lets say they claimed there was elephants on the lunar surface and you are claiming that there is no elephants.. where are all the papers explaining the existence of the elephants on the lunar surface??

it would make sense that there are no papers to explain elephants on the lunar surface because there is no such thing, no visible evidence to suggest they need to explain it.
so why is it that they have a need to explain something that you claim doesnt exist?

why is it that they have been describing this effect since they first landed on the moon??



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

nuh-uh is basically all there is to the argument against an actual moon landing, or all of the moon landings.

Because the evidence is essentially incontrovertible.

All the deniers have is obfuscation.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: seagull

All the deniers have is obfuscation.


Nuh-uh!

There's like, sped up recordings, and, you know, Van Allen belts and stuff.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Yeah, stuff!

Who can argue against stuff?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 01:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

How could I have forgotten "stuff"?

Welp, that takes care of that...it's official, Moon landing was faked.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
The first flaw is in being a theory.

There is no proof for it, as I said, because it is only a theory.


At least, we can agree on that...

But there are many more flaws in this theory...

A viable theory must have a fundamental basis, which supports it in some way.

What is the fundamental basis for this theory?

That there is an area of disturbance, which was created by an Apollo LM, but cannot be seen from the surface.

It is based on things they assume to be true, and everything else must follow from there...

They cannot even prove any of this to start with, yet take it as absolute fact, which is a major flaw in this theory.

A feasible theory works from something already proven, which is provable again, and again, forever after.

This theory assumes what is said by others as true, as proven, as being provable at any time..yet they have no proof of any kind, and it is not provable at any time, either.

Here is another flaw with their theory...

It is based on lunar soil. We ALREADY HAVE lunar soil samples. We've studied them for decades now. They have never found anything in the lunar soil which causes such an effect. The soil itself undermines their entire theory, as pure nonsense. It is a scientifically flawed theory.

And finally, they would be able to prove their theory with the soil samples. They don't try to prove it, though.


Why would they not do that, now?


Still think it's a decent theory?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

"..not doing your leg work for you."??!?

Are you serious?

This is YOUR argument, not mine. I asked you to support your argument, by explaining what specifically in lunar soil causes this phenomenon.

I didn't find an explanation for this in your sources, so that's why I asked you about it.

You say "it's all there", so you should have no problem pointing it out, right?



I found it, I found it by searching and reading the papers, links to which I provided.

You are also still confusing disturbing the soil as a result of moving it around (with engines, feet or wheels) and altering a property of the soil that changes the way it can be recorded from orbit.

The fact that you still don't get that, or what things like "phase reflectance" mean shows that you really just have not read the papers or understood them or even tried to find out any information for yourself. I'm not here as your substitute google.

What you need to to do is what you demand everyone else does: answer questions and provide evidence.

You insisted that this phenomenon visible from orbit produced by engine exhausts didn't exist, and couldn't be found away from Apollo sites. You demanded examples of it and you got them. Some of those examples include replications of the phenomenon on Earth, which you also said didn't exist.

You have done nothing whatsoever to discuss the content of those papers and show no indications of having even clicked on them. If you'd actually read what you were given, you'd know the things I am saying are in there. Clearly you haven't so why should I hold your hand through it at your insistence again?

Evidence. Provide some. I've done my bit, do yours.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You really don't have a ****ing clue what you're talking about and the subject under discussion is way over your head. Give up.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You know all of what you just said? Got any proof?



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 03:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Still think it's a decent theory?


still think it doesnt exist???

all this arguing makes me think you acknowledge that it exists, just that you think there is a better explaination..

weird coming from someone that claims it doesnt exist at all.



posted on Sep, 18 2016 @ 04:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1Applies to your lame excuses, anyway...

Prove what? Prove the original claim, that's what..

Do you know what the original claim is?

That images from lunar orbit show a disturbance of soil, caused by
the LM, but that this disturbance cannot be seen in surface images, because of the disturbed soil only reflecting upwards.

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to prove it.

To whom? To everyone, that's who...

A very simple concept to understand, is it not?



Dude I hate to say this, but you've already been slapped six ways from Sunday. Coming back for more will only earn you a few extra bruises.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

I found it, I found it by searching and reading the papers, links to which I provided.

You are also still confusing disturbing the soil as a result of moving it around (with engines, feet or wheels) and altering a property of the soil that changes the way it can be recorded from orbit.

The fact that you still don't get that, or what things like "phase reflectance" mean shows that you really just have not read the papers or understood them or even tried to find out any information for yourself. I'm not here as your substitute google.

What you need to to do is what you demand everyone else does: answer questions and provide evidence.

You insisted that this phenomenon visible from orbit produced by engine exhausts didn't exist, and couldn't be found away from Apollo sites. You demanded examples of it and you got them. Some of those examples include replications of the phenomenon on Earth, which you also said didn't exist.

You have done nothing whatsoever to discuss the content of those papers and show no indications of having even clicked on them. If you'd actually read what you were given, you'd know the things I am saying are in there. Clearly you haven't so why should I hold your hand through it at your insistence again?

Evidence. Provide some. I've done my bit, do yours.


You've never shown examples of this phenomenon on Earth.

What, specifically, can you cite on Earth which replicates this phenomenon? Because I've asked you over and over for examples of this, and have yet to see you post anything of the sort....

As for the papers, it's quite ironic that you want me to discuss their content, since you cited the papers yourself, and have the burden of showing how they support your argument, but try to make excuses for not doing so...


You keep saying it is all due to "phase reflectance". But, in the papers, it is merely a THEORY!!

It is not even supported, with facts, or scientific experiments, or anything at all....


This theory is suggesting that lunar soil can, and does, reflect sunlight only upwards, to become visible only from orbit, as a phenomenon of a subtle disturbance in the lunar soil..

They have no proof of such a phenomenon even existing...

It doesn't exist on Earth, of course.

But they have no other way to explain it, as an effect of a LM....

Reflectance is able to make the surface appear more, or less, bright, depending of angles, this is quite true...

The problem is explaining how it could render it totally invisible to see from anywhere on the surface, while being a distinct physical feature only seen from orbit, as well....

So it is a theory, and nothing proves it wrong, because we can't go to the moon.

This is nonsense, based on a theory that must support the official story...

Every particle of soil must be blown out everywhere around the LM, for miles, and each and every particle will reflect en masse, as one, to reflect upward, and only upward..

They never say this, of course, and who would, but it's a fact..


You hardly need any facts, though...



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


You hardly need any facts, though...


Says the person who hasn't provided any evidence for how long?

Oh, that's right, your opinion is more accurate than facts lol.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 10:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: turbonium1Applies to your lame excuses, anyway...

Prove what? Prove the original claim, that's what..

Do you know what the original claim is?

That images from lunar orbit show a disturbance of soil, caused by
the LM, but that this disturbance cannot be seen in surface images, because of the disturbed soil only reflecting upwards.

This is YOUR claim.

YOU have to prove it.

To whom? To everyone, that's who...

A very simple concept to understand, is it not?



Dude I hate to say this, but you've already been slapped six ways from Sunday. Coming back for more will only earn you a few extra bruises.


Saying it's a phenomenon on the moon, which doesn't exist, must be proven to not exist, or it exists, right?
It cannot be replicated on Earth, only on the moon!

Slapped with lame excuses, dude...



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Their theory is suggesting that disturbances of lunar soil wash over the surface, at random, at varying distances, over several km, every particle landing the exact same way, to reflect more light than untouched soil....only in an upward direction, never seen on the surface, only from orbit...


Such a miracle is not known to exist, but it can't be proven otherwise.

Flying pink elephants might exist, too!

So what?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


Flying pink elephants might exist, too!
Yes. But unlike the phenomenon you are talking about, they have not been observed.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:40 PM
link   
This theory is not supported...

Not proven wrong means nothing, btw.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:42 PM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

So prove it wrong.

With evidence, I might add, not opinion.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1


Flying pink elephants might exist, too!
Yes. But unlike the phenomenon you are talking about, they have not been observed.


Sure, and they also become invisible, when we are near to them, right?



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 95  96  97    99  100  101 >>

log in

join