It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by consigliere
Next generation to take us there not the last generation that we used 40 years ago. If you live in California or Florida then you know people that worked on the moon missions, they happened. If you consider how many people worked on them, how many people saw them in person and how many people would have to be lying, it would blow your mind.
If we had not been there, the Russians would have been the first to point it out before the world. It was very expensive to go there and with all our technology, we could do it better today; but, to what end? Should we return to the moon without a plan and without it providing something useful? I am willing to consider developing it to allow us to go further into space; but, we are not ready to go far enough. Technology has to catch up to make traveling 20 light years make any good sense.
Originally posted by Illustronic
Thanks, I knew the Russian photos were out there in public display, I've seen them before and it's odd hoax believers never dispute the Russian photos, huh.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Illustronic
40 years since man apparently landed on the moon. We have the technology to see millions of miles into space, to go to Mars, to build a space station...
..but we can't take close up images of the LM on the moon.
Half meter resolution images have already been provided. I'd say that's close up enough for a reasonable person.
Why? maybe because theres nothing to see... maybe NASA won't take/release hi-res photos because they know there is nothing there.
LRO has already proven you wrong about that. Thanks.
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by NorthStargal52
Ignorance is bliss, enjoy yourself. You never told us what the Russians had to gain to lie about it, have you?
Originally posted by yourmaker
so after 30 pages, did we go to the Moon?
I just watched a bunch of videos and i'm still not entirely convinced. as much as I want to be.
And this old ruse from page 28. Pretending to know what the "Russians would do" in 1969. It is absurd and unreasonable for anyone to speculate.
All we can rely on is what the Russians actually did according to historical sources. All we can do is check those sources and determine the credibility. That's it.
It's almost as bad as the "400,000 fallacy" which says that Apollo was true because 400,000 people worked on Apollo.
This is the same kind of self-authenticating logic that Phil Plait uses when he disparages people who don't fit in with his reality. Phil's apology was published on aulis.com after he disparaged David Percy for his photographic analysis website.
In 2011, there are still good reasons to ask serious and difficult questions about Apollo. That's why reasonable people continue to ask reasonable questions about it.
I think it is reasonable in 2011 to ask NASA to provide Hi-Def pics of Apollo landing sites. But what have they done? KeepOut Zone!
The space agency's Grail moon probe mission, made up of twin spacecraft called Grail-A and Grail-B, are carrying special cameras that will photograph specific areas of the lunar surface, as requested by middle school students and educators across the country. Source www.space.com...
The attitude of open-mindedness is embedded in the Socratic idea of following the argument where it leads and is a fundamental virtue of inquiry. Source Helping Students Assess Their Thinking by William Hare
Originally posted by DJW001
Correct. Russian "fishing trawlers" were present at the launch. They monitored the radio transmissions from their ground stations. They reported the landings in Pravda and Izvestya, though in much smaller print than elsewhere. As you yourself have stated, it is absurd and unreasonable to speculate beyond those facts.
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
But when NASA critics (anywhere on ATS) insist that NASA provide better images of the Apollo sites in Hi-Def .... we are considered unreasonable and we are attacked with straw man arguments and appeals to authority.