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.

 

Obama already admitted we have not been beyond lower earth orbit

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

why cant we use a better method? Its not like millions of Americans don't believe in the landings, right? I'm not the only one. We can send probes to Pluto but we cant get a clear picture of a simple artifact on the moon from one of the many landings?




posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The LLRV is the one that crashed?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Saint Exupery

Must be impossible to get clear images nowadays? Not clear at all


Just because it is not clear to you, that does not mean it is not clear to anyone who understands what they are looking at.

I get the very strong impression that you will not believe, or will willfully refuse to understand anything posted here. Why are you here asking questions if you reject all of the answers?



So if i question something that means i refuse now?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

You can get better pics.

Find the money to build a space probe to put in orbit about the Moon with a larger telephoto lens on it's camera and send it there in orbit and take pictures.

The pictures that we do have are more than enough to show artificial objects and tracks in the lunar soil not made by anything natural.

Several of them even match images taken by the crews as they lifted off from the Moon to meet with the command module and return to Earth.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

why cant we use a better method? Its not like millions of Americans don't believe in the landings, right? I'm not the only one. We can send probes to Pluto but we cant get a clear picture of a simple artifact on the moon from one of the many landings?


Because people who believe it was hoaxed are so entrenched that they will not believe ANY picture, no matter how clear it is, so why bother?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

They use our money all the time. On tax payer dime! Yours too
edit on 17-3-2017 by gmoneystunt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

why cant we use a better method? Its not like millions of Americans don't believe in the landings, right? I'm not the only one. We can send probes to Pluto but we cant get a clear picture of a simple artifact on the moon from one of the many landings?


Because people who believe it was hoaxed are so entrenched that they will not believe ANY picture, no matter how clear it is, so why bother?


I guess I am suppose to accept grainy pictures as proof? If i don't i am ignorant?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

It's "our" not "are"

and.....your point would be? You are the one demanding higher resolution images and proof. You should be the one to spend the money then.

For most of the rest of us, the LROC images are not only more than enough, they completely prove what is already overwhelming evidence that we did go to the Moon.

Moon Hoaxers tend to not have any evidence contrary to that, and what little they do produce is debunked pretty quickly.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery




On the other hand, one slip-up when perpetuating a hoax - one turncoat, one leaked document, one communications gaffe (you can't know who will be listening, or with what equipment), one special effect that's less than perfect - and you are the center of a national disgrace for all time. America's credibility is shot and very senior officials in the government will be convicted of felony fraud and go to prison for years.


Well, depending on your point of view all of that DID happen, and still people believe we went to the moon, America's credibility was not shot, and no one was convicted of anything.

The counter argument to your's is the incredible ability of humans to refuse to accept an unwanted truth. Especially if that involves admitting that you have been fooled. (Just look at scam victim's reactions).


Personally I would still say that your argument holds water though - the the risks were just too severe for the pros to outweigh the cons. Unless new information is brought to light, such as hitherto unknown insights into the mental states of the decision makers or access to currently secret assessments on the impact of losing the space race, I can simply not see why the decision to fake it was worth making.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
So if i question something that means i refuse now?


Questioning something with understanding and a reason to question is one thing.

Not understanding what the limits are for telescopic image resolution, not wanting to understand and refusing to believe they exist are another.
edit on 17-3-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery




...which, I think is quite adequate for identifying recognizable objects. In this image is a full-sized Apollo Lunar Module mock-up (one of the test articles, actually). Can you find it?



It's on the bottom left in a field next to some trees just south of the big building.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerminalVelocity
a reply to: gmoneystunt

It's "our" not "are"

and.....your point would be? You are the one demanding higher resolution images and proof. You should be the one to spend the money then.

For most of the rest of us, the LROC images are not only more than enough, they completely prove what is already overwhelming evidence that we did go to the Moon.

Moon Hoaxers tend to not have any evidence contrary to that, and what little they do produce is debunked pretty quickly.


Thanks for proof checking my vocabulary. I will be very careful next time for you. lol

I pay taxes and so do the millions of other Americans that don't believe we landed on the moon!

Moon landing believers believe everything you tell them
edit on 17-3-2017 by gmoneystunt because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
So if i question something that means i refuse now?


Questioning something with understanding and a reason to question is one thing.

Not understanding what the limits are for telescopic image resolution, not wanting to understand and refusing to believe they exist are another.


why do you need a telescope the size of 5 football fields when we have probes that can go right to the moon as close as you want?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt

originally posted by: Saint Exupery

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: TerminalVelocity

why cant we use a better method? Its not like millions of Americans don't believe in the landings, right? I'm not the only one. We can send probes to Pluto but we cant get a clear picture of a simple artifact on the moon from one of the many landings?


Because people who believe it was hoaxed are so entrenched that they will not believe ANY picture, no matter how clear it is, so why bother?


I guess I am suppose to accept grainy pictures as proof? If i don't i am ignorant?


Convince me that you would accept a clear picture as proof.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
why do you need a telescope the size of 5 football fields when we have probes that can go right to the moon as close as you want?


Apparently not as close as YOU want. You don't get to just zoom in to whatever level you'd like. It's sort of fixed by the aperture and distance. Beyond that you shall not pass.

eta: as I'm off to bed, see also: Rayleigh's limit, Sparrow's limit, Dawe's limit. All set various limits on how much detail you can get from a lensed magnification system such as a telescope or microscope. And it's a function of the aperture, because the aperture's edges are an imperfection in the lens that causes diffraction effects. Beyond Rayleigh's limit, you cannot get more detail, no matter how perfect the lenses or how magnified the image is.

also: here is a longer winded explanation without math
edit on 17-3-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Actually from your sentence structure, I'm guessing English is not your first language, but that is off topic, and fine.

Moon Hoaxers try to find any and everything they can to make things fit what they already believe, which is that we did not go to the Moon.

That in itself is certainly not objective thinking, nor does it follow the scientific method for discovery and learning.

One does not first believe in something and then try to force the issue by only using certain things to make their belief true.

If you're objective about something, you look at all the evidence, and see if it either does or does not support the claim.

All the evidence that has been put forth overwhelmingly supports the claim that we landed on the Moon.

Very little evidence supports the claim that the Moon landings were faked.

It's not a mater of belief. It's a mater of critical thinking and looking at the evidence.

For example, your statement of "Moon believer believe everything you tell them" is untrue.

It's the same type of thinking as: Elephants are grey, therefore everything that is grey must be an elephant.

Looking at the LROC images, if the objects shown in them are not the equipment left behind, what are they then?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

how about just close enough to prove we were there. Not just me but for the millions that dont believe. We crash probes on tax payers dime a bunch of times anyways, put it to use and get a picture proof for a change. We can use a satelite to zoom though clouds and even roofs but we cant find the American flag on the moon?



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: gmoneystunt

Sounds like you do not understand the physics behind the law of optics, and it also looks like you do not have a firm grasp on orbital mechanics.

As for understanding how resolution of telescopes work, I recommend you start with this thread here to understand that.



posted on Mar, 17 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: gmoneystunt
a reply to: Bedlam

how about just close enough to prove we were there.


The entire historical record is proof we were there. One new, clearer picture is only one tiny new piece of evidence. Educate yourself about the historical record, and you will understand the pictures.
edit on 17-3-2017 by Saint Exupery because: clarity


(post by gmoneystunt removed for a manners violation)

new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join