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: 27
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by manmental

Like I say... stuff doesn't add up.

Now you could, an no doubt will, ignore these discrepancies and talk about something else... or you could ponder on why there are no Lunar tracks and/or no dust on LM pads.


You guys can discuss the minute details about the dust and tracks till the cows come home.......but what REALLY doesn't add up is the fact that 380KG of moon rock have been brought back to Earth......and yet conspiracy theorists seem to be in denial, that the only way that this could happen is by manned missions to the Moon.
edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


Cool. Why don't you avoid the relevant and valid questions I have brought up and keep banging on about moon rocks?
There is a young Australian film-maker who specializes in proving NASA's stories are mostly just stories, or rather, he does a great job in bringing up enough discrpenancies in the OS that makes one wonder if the OS is true.

He is about to release an EIGHT HOUR LONG documentary on the anomalies about NASA 'moon' rocks which he has been working on for two years. He is taking scientific and independant analysis of his findings on boards and I am looking forward to his findings.

So because I'm sure I can't do justice to the arguement questioning the veracity of NASA's explanations about the moon rocks compared to this researcher's findings I will await his release before i comment on 'moon' rocks.

Until that time I wanted to bring up the discrepenacies that i'm finding in the photos and videos. I wonder if you have an opinion as to why there are no Lunar Rover tracks? Or why there is no dust on the LM pads? Bearing in mind astronaut Cernan talked about the dust adhereing to everything and the NASA videos I posted that display arcs of dust from nearly every footfall. And there are tons of footprints around that LM pad. Yet not a spec of dust on that gold foil.

What is going on? Its an honest question.
edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

Cool. Why don't you avoid the relevant and valid questions I have brought up and keep banging on about moon rocks?
There is a young Australian film-maker who specializes in proving NASA's stories are mostly just stories, or rather, he does a great job in bringing up enough discrpenancies in the OS that makes one wonder if the OS is true.

He is about to release an EIGHT HOUR LONG documentary on the anomalies about NASA 'moon' rocks which he has been working on for two years. He is taking scientific and independant analysis of his findings on boards and I am looking forward to his findings.



So you're banking on this young Australian to provide the "smokin gun" hey!
Well things don't sound too promising do they........2 years to figure out any moon rock anomolies and 8 hours to try and explain what he has found!

Yeah I look forward to the day that he "stuns the world" with his 8 hour documentory!

edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
reply to post by manmental
 


did you really just qoute an astronaut who was "never on the moon" to make a point about how moon dust behaves ? you kinda just made a point for the other side....

and the rover wheel pic, is it possible the rover was just deployed and just hasn't travelled anywhere yet ? is there a description of that pic from NASA ?


I don't know.. did I? Which astronaut? What quote? Does it boost or falter my viewpoint?

Rover pic: NASA believers have reliably informed me that this photo was taken well into the Rover's deployment... as in , yes, it had travelled places. A video clip was posted supposedly at the same time the photo was taken which showed the astronauts walking around the back of the Rover. I disputed the exactness of the timings due to the lack of footprints around the back wheel.

Is there a description from NASA? I have no idea but I bet I know a few NASA lovers who do.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
...He is about to release an EIGHT HOUR LONG documentary on the anomalies about NASA 'moon' rocks which he has been working on for two years. He is taking scientific and independant analysis of his findings on boards and I am looking forward to his findings.

I'm sure if someone wanted, they could produce an eight hour long documentary with scientific and independent analysis that indicates that we DID go to the Moon -- so what's the point here?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

I'm sure if someone wanted, they could produce an eight hour long documentary with scientific and independent analysis that indicates that we DID go to the Moon -- so what's the point here?


Most people wouldn't make an 8 hour long documentory............... unless they were clueless at film making .........opps I forgot........he does make films........kinda says it all really!

edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by manmental

Cool. Why don't you avoid the relevant and valid questions I have brought up and keep banging on about moon rocks?
There is a young Australian film-maker who specializes in proving NASA's stories are mostly just stories, or rather, he does a great job in bringing up enough discrpenancies in the OS that makes one wonder if the OS is true.

He is about to release an EIGHT HOUR LONG documentary on the anomalies about NASA 'moon' rocks which he has been working on for two years. He is taking scientific and independant analysis of his findings on boards and I am looking forward to his findings.



So you're banking on this young Australian to provide the "smokin gun" hey!
Well things don't sound too promising do they........2 years to figure out any moon rock anomolies and 8 hours to try and explain what he has found!

Yeah I look forward to the day that he "stuns the world" with his 8 hour documentory!

edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)


"banking" is your quote, not mine. So... no. You are wrong.

It took NASA 40 years to analyse its moon rocks, 'ooh look, it contains water'



So 2 years to disprove them sounds about right, yes. And eight hours sounds like he's gonna go into some proper detail so you, WW and the others best be very prepared!!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental

So 2 years to disprove them sounds about right, yes. And eight hours sounds like he's gonna go into some proper detail so you, WW and the others best be very prepared!!


Nope 8 hours sounds like it's going to be a sleeper........so yes be prepared......to fall asleep!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by manmental
...He is about to release an EIGHT HOUR LONG documentary on the anomalies about NASA 'moon' rocks which he has been working on for two years. He is taking scientific and independant analysis of his findings on boards and I am looking forward to his findings.

I'm sure if someone wanted, they could produce an eight hour long documentary with scientific and independent analysis that indicates that we DID go to the Moon -- so what's the point here?


The point... because you are obviously extremely stupid... is to try and prove that NASA is lying about the apollo moon missions.

NASA has billions and billions of US government funding over the years to cover up any tracks it wants.

The australian film maker is doing this himself, off his own back, against so much aggression, for no financial gain... because he BELIEVES in what he preaches. Like your priest, pastor or teacher. He has a belief that you may not agree with but that he believes whole heartedly. His is an honest belief.

The point... sir... is that things might not be what they seem.

The point.. sir... is to deny ignorance.

The point sir... is why you and I are on ATS talking about this.

I bless you.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 





The point... because you are obviously extremely stupid... is to try and prove that NASA is lying about the apollo moon missions.

NASA has billions and billions of US government funding over the years to cover up any tracks it wants.


You're only point made is you are rude when in a debate. Causation of one unrelated forum doesn't prove causation of another, argument fallacy, you people call that a 'strawman argument' It's your specialty. I don't understand the energy behind such beliefs.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by manmental
 





The point... because you are obviously extremely stupid... is to try and prove that NASA is lying about the apollo moon missions.

NASA has billions and billions of US government funding over the years to cover up any tracks it wants.


You're only point made is you are rude when in a debate. Causation of one unrelated forum doesn't prove causation of another, argument fallacy, you people call that a 'strawman argument' It's your specialty. I don't understand the energy behind such beliefs.


So the hi-res photos and what i said about them isn't a 'point'? Sheeesh, Nothing pleases you guys. How was I rude in posting those photos and in my post?
And how was I less rude than people who accused me of being a dishonest liar because I dare question NASA's os?
edit on 1-6-2011 by manmental because: spellingggg



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I still contend the photo of the wheel is not sufficient to form an argument over, the shadow areas have zero visual data signatures, none whatsoever which isn’t extraordinary on the moon but tell me since I’ve been using Photoshop since 1.0 in 1989 I don’t have the tools to find the data, there is absence of data in the shadows (that could hide turning radius tracks, pointed out to follow). With the original photo below now let me give you the story our conspirator’s haven’t, maybe because in that segment of the conspiracy site they copy and pasted rapid-fire questions from, was incomplete.




In the full version of the long-distance photo available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal the rover tracks can be seen faintly on the right side of the image.

This is a famous photo of the repair performed on the right rear fender of Apollo 17's lunar rover (It was not even pointed out that this photo is from Apollo 17). It was taken by commander Gene Cernan at the end of the activities at Geology Station 2 during EVA 2, shortly before the astronauts drove off for the next station. His partner Jack Schmitt was already seated in the rover.

Google; NASA: AS15-82-11091. This photo.




Notice the tracks and independent drive of the rover.

Next is a photo (Google image search; NASA: AS15-82-11201) of the rover at the same location taken from a greater distance. The dark areas around the rover indicate where Cernan and Schmitt have walked, preparing the rover for the stay and assembling the equipment they would use to gather specimens.




The EVA video and transcript from this point in the mission show the astronauts working at the rear and sides of the rover, preparing for the scheduled activities at this station. They dusted the television camera lens, assembled sampling equipment, cleaned some equipment, covered the batteries, and took some gravimetric readings. In the photo above you can clearly see their footprints all over where the rover tracks should be.
It is reasonable to believe that the tracks have simply been obliterated by the astronauts' feet during the hour of activity at Station 2.

In the full version of the long-distance photo available from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal the rover tracks can be seen faintly on the right side of the image.



Part of the problem with the conspiracist reasoning is the expectation that rover tracks ought always to be prominently visible. Even when there is no plausible reason for them being erased by subsequent activity, the tracks are simply not as visible to start with as people expect.

The conspiracists argue that the rover may have been lifted into place as a prop. They may be half right. In lunar gravity the rover is not especially heavy. An astronaut can lift one end of it with little difficulty. And since the rover's turn radius, like that of any four-wheeled vehicle, is limited, the astronauts sometimes found it easier to lift one end of the rover and turn it so it pointed in the direction they wanted to go, rather than maneuvering through a three-point turn. When this occurred, there would obviously be no track leading up to the wheels.




Such an argument of course implies that there was a significant layer of dust to be kicked around. Now we're being told that the reason for the lack of tracks is because there was not enough of a dust layer for tracks to have been formed! Which is it? Is there enough dust to kick about, or is there so little dust that tracks can't even be formed?

First of all, not all "conspiracists" believe the rover had to have "been lifted into place as a prop". Why lift the rover into place when you can simply roll it into place? Better yet, why push a prop around at all when composite photography will do the trick? As for the suggestion that the astronauts lifted the rover in order to reorient it for the return trip, this is ridiculous given just how unlikely it is that the astronauts would ever find themselves in a situation in which they couldn't more easily just drive the rover away from a given location. Doe's that make sense to you? Although this may sound complicated to some people, I'm sure that it was actually a pretty straight-forward and easy thing for the Apollo 17 astronauts to manage given their background and extensive training. They did after all manage to make it all the way to the moon!

"Here, for example, the astronauts are high up the slope of a mountain. It is reasonable to expect the dust to be thinner there than in the valley floor near the landing site, or on the plains where Apollo 11 landed. Thinner dust means the tires don't penetrate as far, leaving shallower tracks that aren't visible from a distance."

This aberration of a statement by conspiracist that wont even reference his identity is postulating these absurd explanations, and goes simply by Apolloanomalies, like he has nothing better to do with his life, maybe he gets money from his conspiracy, they usually do, thanks to all of you who flunked science class.


This next picture may just blow the whole argument out of the water, (or moon dust). Tracks not near tires, hmm.


Below is an example of shallow (but still visible) rover tracks.



Here's a final image of the operation finally complete.



I'd also like to offer a couple of different images showing how faint LMR tracks can be.





I didn't link all of the high rez photos due to the time involved and the images are resized by the ATS auto sizer thingy. We do appreciate the good people of ATS to allow us the space to upload photos for easy viewing.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


DID you see the graph link I posted ?..if you did that is what it would resemble,.. as each company has their own details on thier graphs along with the date and time or at least the date and the companys name and trade mark I can show you more graphs from other Companys like from other banks if you like lol ..

I dont see any reason to go on about your enthusiasim about a dumb graph lol .. the point I made was a valid one and you fail to prove that your graph was legit now even if it is from that web site they failed to show the date by croping it out I dont know but to me it is just a graph with nothing on it to say it is the property of that bank

obviously you dont realize that official documents generally have this information on it .....



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   


So there is no friction effecting the rovers horizontal motion, except the wheels touching surface.


Bingo! Congratulations, you now only have one wheel in the sand.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Do you really think air friction has any noticeable effect on videos you see from Youtube on the moon and on the earth with less than a foot difference in altitude? Really? Well it will with dust on earth, just not on the moon, like we clearly see. All particles follow a parabolic ballistic curve.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52I can show you more graphs from other Companys like from other banks if you like lol ..


Are you under the impression the Jodrell Bank Observatory is a bank, as in a financial institution?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I applaud you for adding loads more photos that support my theory that the photos were re-created by NASA on Earth.
Cheers!
ps It wasn't me who said the astronots picked up the Lunar Buggy!



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I applaud you for adding loads more photos that support my theory that the photos were re-created by NASA on Earth.
Cheers!
ps It wasn't me who said the astronots picked up the Lunar Buggy!


May I applaud too?




Ps: He missed that photo marked with the letter C in a "moon rock"




If you have some time, here is a great Zorgon thread with lots of Nasa work

Zeeman Crater - NASA editing at it's finest?
edit on 1-6-2011 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Dude, you respectfully poop and fall back in it. I can't help you anymore, you are on your own and I am officially out of this ridiculous thread until someone actually does any, and presents any kind of data, they show us is impossible. As for you, I don't give a feck what you think. I won't comment on that particular part anymore either.

Tell your friends, tell everybody, you will never get a job in any related aerospace industry for the rest of your life and logic. Feel proud. They don't need you, we don't need you, you offer nothing of value except regurgitation of your pastime of reading conspiracy sites with flawed science and logic, and inferior picture imaging knowledge.

Are you working on a project that you can continue an argument endlessly with circular tactics? Well you fail that too.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Thats ok I do understand .. but by no means am I blind and I can clearly see how the moon dust would in fact be on those lander pads.. now I expect it will go to some other excuse .. or lame story as to why the moon dust aint on the lander pads .. when it is as clear as can be that the foot prints that close would of kicked up teh moon dust on to the lander pads lol getting kinda of silly .. not to admitt that

I just viewed you videos .. and I have to say that if that dust flies that much it indeed would of made it onto the landing pads .. and the tracks well that is way to obvious I dont even need to go there I have seen many pics and I know it is the the persistant objective to discredit and debunk everything or anything anyoe has doubt about .. to almost the extreme level ..

Like I said none of it has convinced me as of yet .. I have given it lots of thought .. even tried to find proof that in fact it was true about the landings .. but I still come up with nothing not even the rock claims and here is the thing about the rocks it has to do with the handling of radio active substance and lots of other stuff that all ties into that issue ....

They have conviently changed images around ,, blurred out images ,, swapped other images to make new images it is just one big mess and of course that was the whole idea to confuse and mix it all up so that the images could come out looking like it was real .. and not to mentiion they had over 40 years to work on all of this .. I just personally disbelive .. it is my view and I have a right to speak my reasons ..

So the debate goes on .. . besides why is it that the landing pads look like they just got out of the manufactor shop .. pretty awesome they are looking like they are flawless even the impact of the landing alone would of covered the landing pads with moon dust it woould of went half way up the legs IMO



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I Love those pictures.

Just a question, the surface of the Moon appears to be covered by a talc like dust. I presume it is a result of millions of years of exposure to Light rays across all the spectrum (gama rays etc), pulverised by eons of meteorite collisions, etc etc.

Then could someone tell me, Why would there be Moon rocks on the surface anyway?

What if most/all of the pebbles and rocks that we see in the photos, are infact, just the reminince of all the Billions of meteorites that have struck the moon since the beginning.

We are told there is no atmosphere on the Moon, so naturally the Meteorites dont burn up with friction, and get hot, so therefore they strike the soft moon surface cold, and perhaps just bounce up and down??

Millions of tons of space dust hits Earth every year, One would assume the same would happen on the Moon?

Is that not a reasonable deduction?

So in efffect, the pebbles and "rocks" that are collected on the Moon's surface, may just be the space dust and debri of the asteroid belt and whatever other junk is out there??

Like the Moon Rock in Holland, that turned out to be Petrified Wood...from Earth?

Also, with all the space junk that must fall on the moon daily, why werent the LMs struck or the Astronauts struck?
When we observe videos of Earth's dark side taken from the various shuttle missions, the Atmosphere is lit up every second or so by meteorites entering Earth, Wouldnt this happen on the moon too..Minus the fireworks of course? Just a thought.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join