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.

 

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by RUSSO
 



SO, BTW.....WHY ARE THERE PHOTOS OF THE LANDING SITES??




Er... what photos? Go on Weed.. post the crap resolution photos... (And get some anger management. CAPS ARE ANGRY)

THERE IS NO HI-RES "look its a lunar module" PHOTO....
edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-5-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You appear to adhere to NASA and believe the OS from them.
That is fine as its your opinion.
Do you think there is a remote possibility NASA recreated some of the Lunar photos on Earth for whatever reason?
Just the slightest possibility... you know... deny ignorance and all that..

I'm just talking about photos.

Or...




posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


IMO
Yeah every picture I have ever seen from NASA regarding moon landings are so fake .. no stars in the background just really dumb ..*snip*

I don’t believe half the stuff NASA has did .. I believe they are truly working on going to the moon and how coincidental is that 1969 no internet so none of us could even dig or check out stuff but back then it wasn’t that easy ..

If in fact it happened in these days like say since 1999 if they said they were going to the moon .. I may look at it differently .. guess what and they know that and that is the reason they have not even tried to go back to the moon cause they know they don’t have it down pat yet ,, and it cant be hidden due to the fact of it leaking out and now we have access to internet people would so find out the truth ..

Now as it stands they cant even do a half good job trying to back up there staged missions. IMO

Mod Note: Please stay on Topic – Review This Link.

edit on Fri May 27 2011 by Jbird because: Removed member directed OT comments

edit on 27-5-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Why?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


Tell us why they can't go to the moon then. Tell us why it's supposed to be so impossible.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


They used an atomic bomb in 1945 and have not since, so they must have never used an atomic bomb because they never have since, is your sound logic?

See how denial proves nothing but your lack of study?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by RUSSO
 


Jay Wiedner is an idiot.

Sorry.

Can't believe you people fall for that crap, every time.

SO, BTW.....WHY ARE THERE PHOTOS OF THE LANDING SITES??

Come one.....spin your best lies, the "hoax believers" excel at that........(learned at the knee of Bill Kaysing, I reckon?).



Sorry

But surely I know that is nothing stupid attacking people instead of focusing on the evidence. It's a great subterfuge (when someone wants to deflect attention from something) attack the messenger and forget the message.

It's a shame this material be copyrighted, because if not, I would be happy to do a video showing the FACTS in there (you would love the faked backgrounds) and not attacking PEOPLE.

But back to the subject, dont you think kinda weird no tracks of wheels in this picture?




Weed... I'm sorry but your analogy of a car tyre is awful. So your saying that dust is covering up the tracks in this photo? Dust kicked up by astronauts?


I will say this AGAIN:



Regarding the "covered tracks", I think the astronauts danced like indians around rover's





And one more thing, if you're calling me a liar, you should wash your mouth out with soap. Never seen anyone who likes so much of diverting an issue as you. YOU have to spin your best lies, the "hoax scepitc" idiosyncrasy.

So answer this:

WHERE ARE THE TRACKS?

If you dont have an good answer, please, DO NOT bother to reply to this post. Thanks.

Ghost tracks in a Spacegate MOON


Horrorshow.

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
Not even you believe in that.

I do, don't try to tell me what I do and don't believe. It's the simplest explanation that also fits with the irrefutable evidence that we went to the moon.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 





Why on earth would NASA hire such a well know director to fake anything



To you, I only want to say one thing:

It's a shame this material be copyrighted, because if not, I would be happy to do a video showing the FACTS in there (you would love the faked backgrounds).


I'm tired of these recursive tactics of yours. If you really want to know what happens on this subject, take your questions and go do some search.

edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
Your deduction and Weed's analogy are nonsense.

Occam's razor. My deduction is the simplest explanation. It's up to you to provide evidence that it doesn't fit.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct? Occam's razor is only meant to stimulate discussion when it is used to eliminate conspiracy theories.

Link


Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[55] (note that the simplest theory could be something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists").

The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[56] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one."

For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.


link
edit on 28-5-2011 by RUSSO because: Where is the track?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
I think the apollo track record is too good (for the many missions that left the launch pad). Look at the shuttle fatalities to see how NASA have seemingly gone backwards with their tech.

I literally shook my head in disbelief when I read this ignorant statement. Apollo killed 11% of the astronauts who boarded its spacecraft, and that's double counting people who flew twice and not counting T-38 accidents. The shuttle has killed less than 4% of the astronauts who have flown on it, and that's not counting repeat flyers multiple times. The shuttle made operations routine that were considered dangerous operations during Apollo, including docking and EVA. It directly benefited from the experience gained performing those tasks during the Apollo program (even today the basic systems used in our spacesuits are the same as they were during Apollo).


I think if it was possible to do it so successfully in the 60s/70s then someone would have recreated the feat as mankind has always sought to recreate its own achievements.

That's because you have unrealistic expectations given the current NASA budget.


I believe Russia was involved in the cover up to secure economic and trade/ food deals.

Amateur astronomers too, apparently. It couldn't have been a hoax unless they were lying too.


It would be possible to fake every part of the mission, including sending an unmanned craft/satellite to the moon to fool astronemers and radio hams.

Nope. Not during Apollo 12 (hence the above statement). Oh, and by the way, you can use the feedback in the mics of the astronauts to measure the eccentricity of the moon's orbit during the later, longer Apollo missions over the course of the mission.


And no-one, since the Apollo missions has gone past LEO through the van allen belts.

Considering the Van Allen belts dip down into LEO at the point of the south atlantic anomaly, a feature the astronauts routinely fly through, that statement is incorrect.


No close up, hi-res,

"Hi-res" is an arbitrary excuse to keep moving the goalposts back any time a satellite image is presented showing the descent stage and other equipment. It's there, it's real, get over it.


No live telescopic images of the moon in high res.

Do you have any clue how large a telescope would have to be to optically resolve the lunar lander's descent stage as even just a single pixel? It's called Dawes' limit, look it up. To get an image with a telescope even higher resolution than LROC's images would require a mirror with a diameter orders of magnitude larger than anything ever built. If, say, you wanted to be able to resolve the stripes on the flag as being at least a single pixel wide each, you would need a telescope about 3.6 miles wide.
edit on 27-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Yep it's 100% certain we just blasted the Apollo 11 off it was in above earth orbit,,,Yipee,, great it traveled around earth a few times and then landed ..

Now that was in 1969... yep it was 41 years ago and we still havn't went back .. but yet we have heard every excuse as to why we cant go back ..cough !cough !.. or couldnt go back??? why couldnt we go back ?? we already had the rocket & launch pad .. doesn't the ISS use the same space shuttle over an over?? .. haha ..

Yet they claim an say ..oh its the money ,, so then what happens they have money to build the ISS oh ok .. blah blah blah .. lies and more lies .. so yeah no one said its inpossible but yet it dont take 41 years to get back to the moon and money was a poor excuse IMO more like they havnt figured it all out yet lol
edit on 27-5-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: spelling and paragraph spacing



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO
The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct?

It means I'm not going to waste any more of my time on the question unless evidence can be presented to call the Apollo photograph into question in a plausible manner. Thus far that has not been done. The burden of proof rests squarely with the hoax believers. I already know Apollo wasn't a hoax, so claims that it was are incredible in nature and likewise require incredible proof.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
we already had the rocket & launch pad ..

Oh for Pete's sake, at least learn the bare bones basics of spaceflight before making claims! No, we don't have a rocket currently in use capable of providing enough delta-V to get any current manned vehicle to the moon. The Saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever successfully flown and it remains the champion to this day. That is the single most difficult part of getting to the moon.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by RUSSO
The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct?

It means I'm not going to waste any more of my time on the question unless evidence can be presented to call the Apollo photograph into question in a plausible manner. Thus far that has not been done. The burden of proof rests squarely with the hoax believers. I already know Apollo wasn't a hoax, so claims that it was are incredible in nature and likewise require incredible proof.


You forget to put the entire quote:




The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct? Occam's razor is only meant to stimulate discussion when it is used to eliminate conspiracy theories.

Occam's razor is not an embargo against the positing of any kind of entity, or a recommendation of the simplest theory come what may[55] (note that the simplest theory could be something like "only I exist" or "nothing exists").

The other things in question are the evidential support for the theory.[56] Therefore, according to the principle, a simpler but less correct theory should not be preferred over a more complex but more correct one. It is this fact which gives the lie to the common misinterpretation of Occam's razor that "the simplest" one is usually the correct one."

For instance, classical physics is simpler than more recent theories; nonetheless it should not be preferred over them, because it is demonstrably wrong in certain respects.



I know the footage was faked. If you want to be with your belief that everything is so simple and beautiful please feel free. Or create goodwill and review with a critical eye the entire shoot again. Surely someone enjoyed the footage of the moon in true colors. NOT US.

And where is the track?
edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by RUSSO

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by RUSSO
The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct?

It means I'm not going to waste any more of my time on the question unless evidence can be presented to call the Apollo photograph into question in a plausible manner. Thus far that has not been done. The burden of proof rests squarely with the hoax believers. I already know Apollo wasn't a hoax, so claims that it was are incredible in nature and likewise require incredible proof.


You forget to put the entire quote:

No, I didn't forget anything. It's site rules not to quote long posts in their entirety, I simply addressed the relevant part and left off your inflammatory attempt to chide me at the end.


I know the footage was faked.

Interesting, since it wasn't. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for games any more.


And where is the track?

Already explained to you, which you yourself already admitted was the more likely explanation, but you choose to ignore it anyway and claim the footage was faked. Like I said, I'm done with the games. Have a nice night.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





No, I didn't forget anything. It's site rules not to quote long posts in their entirety, I simply addressed the relevant part and left off your inflammatory attempt to chide me at the end.


Where is the inflammatory attempt?



The fact that an explanation being simpler, however, mean that it is correct? Occam's razor is only meant to stimulate discussion when it is used to eliminate conspiracy theories.

(dont see any)
The rest is a ex text.



Interesting, since it wasn't. Sorry, I'm not in the mood for games any more.


Interesting, since it WAS. Neither am I.


Already explained to you, which you yourself already admitted was the more likely explanation,


Where I did this?

Put up or ....



but you choose to ignore it anyway and claim the footage was faked. Like I said, I'm done with the games. Have a nice night.


I think you should go to sleep indeed. You're seeing things that do not exist.
Have a nice night too.



PS: Where is the track?
edit on 27-5-2011 by RUSSO because: WHERE IS THE TRACK?



new topics




 
19
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join