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.
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and gave each other a star , for your attacks.
Apparently (i really don't know)
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Still the moon landing was an hoax.
Funny how quickly you two attacked me, and started each other, for your attacks.
[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]
Pity doesn't work here, sparky. You make a false statement, you're going to get smacked. The reason we both "attacked" you (really? attacked? are you that pathetic?), is because your "proof" has been debunked on this thread multiple times already.
You really believe LRO is your best proof of the moon landing was real? Rolf! your laughably
debunked? nope it wasn't debunked
[edit on 29-5-2010 by Agent_USA_Supporter]
Originally posted by nonamoose7
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.
So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?
ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Because they didn't land at the poles. And that is where all the detectable water is.
[edit on 29-5-2010 by Tomblvd]
Originally posted by nonamoose7
The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.
Originally posted by nonamoose7
Apparently (i really don't know) the concentration of water molecules gets much more concentrated as you go out to poles, with there being millions of tons suspected at those poles (again i don't really know), which seems logical.
So again 3rd time, why didn't NASA with 6 landings and other missions not find the evidence of water ? and why wasn't it a priority over doing things like driving a buggy and playing golf ?
ps, please don't answer me with just a question, i could talk to my wife if i wanted that
Originally posted by nonamoose7
The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by nonamoose7
The molecules are found all over the moon along with bacteria, with obviously the majority found on the poles. With 6 missions they should of nailed that one, sorry.
WOAH!!! Like Tom said - definitely LINKS required for that claim!!!
(I'm happy to supply links for my post above, if required.)
Originally posted by Tomblvd
reply to post by CHRLZ
Buzz killer.
I was interested to see just how long it was going to take him to realize just what the "water" they found in the Apollo rock really was...
Originally posted by zvezdar
So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.
Originally posted by zvezdar
Fantastic, the hoaxers are now going round and round in circles in their attempts to avoid explaining exactly how a hoax could have been executed.
I'll ask again: Explain how NASA faked the live TV feed that was broadcast from the moon. There were 4 radio telescopes/tracking stations that received the feed from the LM. One was not part of NASA's official network, while another received the feed without NASA's knowledge at the time. The press watched the live feeds coming in directly at these stations before being sent to NASA. The Australian stations were run by the CSIRO, and not NASA.
So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by zvezdar
So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.
You'll never get an answer. But I would say that, as asked earlier in the thread, this is the best evidence that we actually went. There would be no way to fake the telemetry transmissions without the astronauts actually being on the spacecraft.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
I am delighted...
I have a list... if anyone would like a copy...
it is more than enough...
I have a personal series of videos...
Hi, Un4g1v3n1, welcome to ATS!! Lovely to see you have just joined, and immediately began arguing by Youtube.
You'll notice above that I have trimmed your post a little - anything that wasn't actually an argument, I got rid of.
Oh wait. There's nothing left. What a terrible shame.
And given your 'stuff' has been deBUNKed elsewhere, why would anyone bother to debate anything you post, given that you can't be bothered to explain it in your own words or actually CITE credible sources (no, that does not include your own stuff, or Youtube).
I've never seen so much handwaving in a single post.
Now if you have the guts to actually debate A SPECIFIC TOPIC and go through it point by point, I CHALLENGE you to do so. Pick your VERY BEST proof. (I'll be very happy if it's radiation...) And we'll go through it, using scientific principles and proper methodology.
Rules are simple:
- all points must be agreed/conceded before proceeding
- only credible information from expert sources is admissable
- videos from anonymous Youtube users are not admissable
- videos from credible sources may be used, but only if they are properly cited and the points are made by way of 'screenshots' and annotations.
- handwaving and personal opinions are not allowed - claims must be measurable
- any ad hominem attacks will result in the appropriate action from moderators.
I agree in advance to all the rules. If you don't like any of them, explain why.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by FoosM
Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?
Here, I'll help ole Charlie out on this one FoosM...
Moon Rocks. Rock solid evidence....
Wait for it...
Moon Rock?
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Originally posted by FoosM
Now can you cite any irrefutable proof that man landed on the moon?
Here, I'll help ole Charlie out on this one FoosM...
Moon Rocks. Rock solid evidence....
Wait for it...
Moon Rock?