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.

 

China's Chang e4 moon photos, obvious airbrushing, missing rocks.

page: 3
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Still nothing that remotely supports anything you claimed then. Still nothing that indicates you have any in depth understanding of a report that primarily exists merely to make suggestions to governments about the social and political implications of human activity in space and only mentions alien life in passing as an afterthought. Even the quote you give means nothing in the context of your belligerent, arrogant and ill-informed replies. In fact, it is more supportive of my stance: there is no evidence of alien activity anywhere, never has been, still isn't.

All the report does in the paragraphs after that report is suggest the likely impact of such a finding in the unlikely event that it occurs. Nowhere does it stipulate to those in authority that everything should be suppressed or that it absolutely would cause widespread panic and fear. Anyone who claims that it does has self-evidently not read the document properly and has not understood the big words in it.

Now, where is the evidence that any imagery from China, or indeed anyone else, taken on or near the moon or indeed any other body in our solar system has bee doctored to hide anything? Where is the evidence that there is an international high level conspiracy to coordinate such an activity?




posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 01:23 AM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder

Sums it up perfectly.

The universe is amazing enough as it is, as are our efforts to explore and understand it. There is no need to sprinkle fairy dust on it to make it more interesting.



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 05:18 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Really, this makes sense to me, they all in it together, although how do you know this.



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 05:37 AM
link   
This thread shows that there is no point arguing with a mindset in which a poster knows that the Govt/NASA are lying because they are "awake" and anyone that disagrees is not "awake" like them and are therefore wrong or a NASA/Govt/Shill/Debunker or both.

Things like verifiable facts and evidence are ignored.

Seems to me that people who like to proclaim how "awake" they are are often the most gullible and closed minded people going.



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Wow comparing two different moon missions and claiming there fake because they are not the same. Then when the mistake is pointed out you double down trying to say you made the mistake because they are so similar now.

Bottom line no need for China to fake the images. They are real and they are spending a lot of money on their space program.If they did it would send up a huge red flag for NASA who would quickly point out they were faking it. Why the sudden interest to return to the moon simple China wants to go. Same as before bragging rights are on the line.
edit on 1/24/19 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr
I wonder what the odds are of landing on the moon and not a rock in sight...

I find that unusual... No?
edit on 24-1-2019 by ManyMasks because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 09:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

Where is there not a rock in sight?



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

Right, so do you mean 1 photo of a bit of the Moon that has no rocks visible is in some way unusual? Are rocks compulsory in every photo of the Moon, or something? Is there a legal minimum quota?



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

No rocks?

Apart from all the ones I circled here:



You can do the same on all the other ones.

How many rocks should there be?

The Soviet images from Lunokhod 2 show a very similar pattern:

www.planetology.ru...

as do many of the Apollo images.

Some areas are very rocky, some aren't.



posted on Jan, 24 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Hey your right, there's much more than you have highlighted also, you can see that there is loads that looked to have been covered by a blanket of what looks like moon dust, cool, cheers for correcting me.... Best to be proved wrong than thinking your right when actual fact your wrong, learning is my aim so cheers.



posted on Jan, 26 2019 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: ManyMasks

No problem


To be fair to you there are many photographs on the moon that show large numbers of rocks, and they are arguably more interesting than photographs that show what looks to be a very smooth and relatively uninteresting surface which is why they grab the eye more. Like Earth, however, the moon has many different landscape types and some of them can be quite dull!

I'm pretty sure that they chose the landing site because it seemed to show relatively few surface hazards. They will definitely have studied LRO imagery of the area very closely - they certainly looked at it afterwards:

www.jors.cn...




top topics



 
9
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join