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.

 

What is with the trust of NASA?

page: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Ummm???????
.
.
.




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 


Whaddya mean, "Ummmmm"??

In case you forgot, a snippet from your OP:


...the only graphs I got from anyone were from NASA...they have lied to everyone consistently yet we believe them consistently ...I just don't get it.
Space rocks are now classified look it up...moon landing, call me crazy but that crap was a hoax to strike fear in the minds of other countries during the cold war...



Show where NASA "lied to everyone consistently". You haven't. I offered a reason WHY some people have that impression, and it isn't the huge, nefarious reasons THEY wish to think.

And, your jab at moon landing "hoax" nonsense? Seriously, that junk has been torn apart so many times, it's amazing people still cling to such outdated fantasies.

"...strike fear....during the cold war..." Sorry, but that's way off-track, too.

Down right silly, actually.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by wmd_2008
 
Answer what exactly?
I'm not sure I saw a question...Maybe insults but no questions...You don't ask questions that's the problem with you...I hope you start...Other things are goin on right now that are a hell of a lot more important than this...It is important and basically everything (almost) on that site was the truth whether you accept it or not...This argument gets me nowhere when their is about to be a war without the people's consent...Government loves us right? NASA is a government run agency right? Piece together the puzzle...
and decipher the lies...


[edit on 25-5-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]



The question well this

www.abovetopsecret.com...


That gives a link to this

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

Which is the usual BS DEBUNKED many times before!!!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 

If you follow the-rabbits-hole.com its easy too see where the money went D.U.M.B.S
And why our country is broke they don't care,they know everything is going to be wiped out.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by gamma 49
 
Yup that's right, these people will never learn nothing has been debunked they are just screaming their own insecurity on the subject...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
Great -- but going back to the alleged evidence that you said existed, you posted this:


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
While their is some "questionable" stuff on this site they got this very right atleast on this subject...

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk...

However, you still have not told us which "stuff" on this website you linked you see as good evidence, as opposed to the stuff you say is "questionable".

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
If you'd look because you never seem to do...I said that their is questionable stuff on the site meaning the overall site and I said I was wrong about aulis C...You do nothing more than insult and shout down...




posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 

Well, then if this is all about that thing on the photo that looks like the letter "C", then it should be mentioned that the "C" does not show up on the original image, and only shows up on a later scan of a second-generation print of the original image.

Here's the original image:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


I suppose someone could claim that the "C" was really there all along and airbrushed out of what NASA is "now" calling the original, but here are some of my observations on this:

1. Please provide evidence of this airbrushing.
2. The thing that looks like a "C" does not look like it's engraved in the rock when viewed close-up (in fact it looks like a hair) [Hi-Res enlarged image by some guy named Steve Troy from a second-generation print]

3. It is in fact true that the photo showing the "C" ended up on an "official" Johnson Spaceflight Center website...
HOWEVER, the image without the "C" is on every other NASA website, Plus other independent sources who made scans from the original NASA negatives do not show this anomaly.

Without any evidence whatsoever that the "C" was really ever there (on the Moon OR in the original negatives), it seems much more likely that the "C" is just some stray mark, fiber, or hair that found its way into a later print.

So, unless you have some proof that this was in the original negatives, then I would say the "C" is not evidence at all of a Moon Hoax.

EDIT:
Fixed image link

[edit on 5/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Wow did I not say that I was wrong about that? This is what I mean about listening you just don't...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 

Well, then I'm confused about what specific evidence you believe from that website that you posted...
...I mean, you linked that website for a reason. Could you please expound on that specific evidence, rather than making me guess which evidence you are talking about?



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Like I said I disagree with that....and yes they did airbrush and the proof is in the pictures...and I agree with all of the other stuff the most damning is out of place shadow's and the hills...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Like I said I disagree with that....and yes they did airbrush and the proof is in the pictures...and I agree with all of the other stuff the most damning is out of place shadow's and the hills...



Shadows:
The Moon is reflective. If I can read by nothing but the light of a Full Moon 250,000 miles away (and I can), it seems perfectly logical that the Moon is reflective enough to fill in the shadows of objects on the surface -- especially astronauts clad in white and a lunar lander with perfectly smooth surfaces and reflective insulation.

Depending on the exposure time and the object being photographed, it seems extremely believable that the shadows could fill in.


Out of place shadows:
Hilly ground and the parallax effect would cause shadows lengths to chage, and cause them to look non-parallel.


Hills:
From my front door, I can see a small mountain a few kilometers away from me.

Imagine that I took a picture of that mountain from my front door. That picture would include my front yard, the house across the street, and the trees behind that house.

Now, imagine I go down the street a few houses to a neighbor's house and take a picture of that mountain from his front porch. That mountain would look practically identical in that picture as it would from the picture I took from my front porch -- I hope we could both agree on that.

HOWEVER, in the foreground of the photo, the front yard and the house across the the street would be different than the photo from my porch, plus the trees behind that house would also be different -- i.e., even though the distant mountain looks practically identical in both images, the foregrounds are completely different.

Then,

Say I took a THIRD picture from beyond those trees across the street from my house (maybe 100 or so meters from my house), so that my house, my across-the street neighbor's house, and those trees are behind me. Again, the mountain will look practically identical to the first picture (and even the second picture), but the foreground, again, would be completely different in all three images.

EDIT:
Added an explanation for "out-of-place" shadows


[edit on 5/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Those analogies prove nothing...
and of course you will say "mine don't either"
Like I said your wrong...But being stubborn is human nature....I guess.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 


[SLAP!]


Those analogies prove nothing...


You've got to be kidding?

Those analogies are describing perfectly what 99.9% of normal adults already comprehend, just from life experience.

Only those who wallow in ignorant "moon hoax" beliefs wish to cling to the illogic, in order to remain ignorant and resist learning and education.


[edit on 26 May 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Resist learning and education...haha...nice...
That website shows a hell of a lot more...That I might get a bit of a giggle out of you explaining...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 
Those analogies prove nothing...
and of course you will say "mine don't either"
Like I said your wrong...

I'm sorry, but how can you say my "picture of mountain" analogy explains nothing?

That isn't just a sort-of-related-to-the-issue analogy, but is in fact the REASON that the the foregrounds in some Apollo photos are different, even though the backgrounds are practically identical.

Please explain to me specifically how my analogy fails to to be a relevant one?


Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
...But being stubborn is human nature....I guess.

True. It seems you are too stubborn to understand how the "same hills, different foregrounds" argument among the Hoax believers does not stand up to critical thinking.




[edit on 5/26/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
If NASA are not lying, then they are just incompetently inept.

How many moon missions? and they missed the 'water and bacterial signatures'


...all that wasted money! thank goodness for the 'India' space programme



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOWILLFALL
 


I just wonder why people cling to the (completely discredited, countless times already) "C" rock nonsense??

And, based on SGIP's helpful and spot-on analogies, some people can't sem to comprehend how distant landscape features in Lunar still images can continue to appear almost identical, even when the photos are taken from different points...yet STILL sufficiently far away so that any parallax differences are unnoticeable.

This has not only been explained numerous times, it is completely within the realm of experience HERE ON EARTH, and can be witnessed by everybody...(go for a car drive, on a long straight road in the desert, with mountains well off to the side...you can travel for miles before you see any appreciable change in their appearance, and your angle of view, relative to the distant features).

The reflectivity of the Lunar regolith is also well-documented.

Denying facts? Well, there's a term for that.....



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by nonamoose7
 
Yup that is correct, this is about trust of NASA and yes they have kept that well hidden as with many other things...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by nonamoose7
 


Huh???

You really need to do more studying, and research....really.




top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join