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: 30
19
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by Illustronic
BTW, where are all of the Russian moon photos at? Are they any good? Are they real?


Here you go.


I'd like to add another link along with yours. A huge catalog of panoramic photos from both Lunokhod 1 and 2.

www.planetology.ru...




posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by consigliere
 


Dear sonsigliere,

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.

I live in Florida and know nobody who worked on the moon missions. How in the world can you generalize like that. California? Don't you mean Texas? LOL.

And no, humans didn't go to the Moon. It's obviously a hoax.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   

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.


Because they're unmanned missions.

We've sent many rovers to Mars, but obviously we are not capable of sending people there.

The same applies with the Moon.



posted on Jun, 21 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mercurio
 



And no, humans didn't go to the Moon. It's obviously a hoax.


And the Earth is obviously flat. No need for any evidence or thought when you are content with the obvious.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
yupper ..its flat...obamas white and tom and jerry are is running for president, can i go sit down now, felix the cat is on cnn and fox is hosting celebrity republicans at the tea party. lol we can debate all day long about the moon, and everyone will be right and wrong...lets talk about chuck norris.
Peace



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:21 AM
link   

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.


I am reading this thread from page 1 and I am up to page 24.

manmental has asked a rhetorical question about NASA's inability to image any Apollo landing sites in Hi-Def.
ngchunter responded by saying that the NASA/JPL//etc images that have already been made public are sufficient - for a reasonable person.

This is a valid (and popular) criticism of NASA. Why no Hi-Def pics? Why no simple rovers exploring the surface , visiting the landing sites?

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!

lunarscience2011.arc.nasa.gov...



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
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.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

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?


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.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:43 AM
link   

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.


Studying Apollo, or any conspiracy theory, should be an exercise in open-minded inquiry. Open-minded inquiry
is Helping Students Assess Their Thinking.

www.criticalthinking.org...

Aren't we all students of the mantra "Deny Ignorance"?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:14 AM
link   
So if they didn't go to the moon..
You mean the astronauts are simply lying about it?
What about the ufo sightings during the visits?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


So do you also think it is reasonable to call thousands of astronomers around the world that they were clueless in their abilities to telescopically track the Apollo missions to and around the moon and back to earth also? Do you think people were incompetent of their skills in the late 60's?

Tracking of Apollos

Is it reasonable to think Russians, and large telescope operators were incapable of making observations that perfectly aligned with the released NASA flight paths to the moon. Were you unaware that NASA released the Apollo flight paths at the time? Are you unaware that the upper rocket stages of Apollo in solar orbit also have been imaged on close earth approaches this decade? That would be beyond LEO, like achieving earth escape velocity, it must be UFOs, because man has never achieved earth escape velocity, and all of the world's literature is writing fantasy documenting Apollo 10 as the setting the manned space flight speed record.

Calling it all a hoax is calling mankind at the time stupid, duped, and its condescension, for a person now to place himself above the collective skills of all people 40 years ago to be incompetent because you live now and have a demented opinion of the intellect of people before you, or have some delusion of grandeur that you know more simply because you say so. Is it reasonable to believe you above the collective of the thousands of scientists, astronomers, and engineers that they were somehow fooled or their calculations were in error discovered by you?

Is it really reasonable to think the very agency you say is incapable of lunar flights would find it easier to hoax the collective world scientists and observers above actually performing the missions. It would then be calling the world stupid and incompetent, and placing the skills of NASA even higher in that regard of amazing feats. To fool the world, wow, is that rational and reasonable logic?

Of what technical and applied background do you practice that would qualify you to label the collective world stupider than you? In a nutshell that's exactly what you are proposing. Sound reasonable?



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



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.


And yet you consider it reasonable to speculate on what NASA, Richard Nixon, Stanley Kubrick and everyone else would do in 1969.


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.


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.


It's almost as bad as the "400,000 fallacy" which says that Apollo was true because 400,000 people worked on Apollo.


I don't think you understand the argument or the definition of the term "fallacy." That nearly half a million people from all walks of life, all across the country contributed to the program is simply a fact. The argument is that if there was anything "fishy" going on, someone would have noticed. No-one has ever come forward with their suspicions.


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.


I'm not sure what you mean by "self authenticating logic." Would this be an example? "I have an IQ of 120 and you're not qualified to drive a garbage truck." We all know who said that.


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.


And unreasonable people ask frivolous and silly questions about it.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 





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!


Your lack of technical ability to understand why there are no 'hi def' pictures also explains why you don't believe we set foot on the Moon.

Research telescopes. Ask real users of scopes about the limitations of magnification. Or should I say the limits of. Visit a local astronomy club. They love to show off their equipment and answer questions. Visit Celestron or Meade telescope sites. They have help sections for newbies. Once you understand what a telescope can and cannot do your world will open up.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

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...


So when Middle school students and educators across the country requested cameras on the Grail mission, NASA obliged. These students and educators are considered reasonable.

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.


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



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

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.


What launch? Which one? All of them? Will you be able to find 6 different sources for 6 different launch dates to justify your sweeping statement? Now it's time for you to go to work DJW and support your argument.
Sources, please.
edit on 12/23/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

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.

Define "hi-def." Back in the day it was "any" picture, now that there are post-apollo pictures of the landing sites, it's still not good enough. Simply stating "hi-def" is a subjective statement upon which you are free to move the goalpost back as far as you like in the future. Define the resolution you demand in meters per pixel. To me, the resolution we have from LROC is pretty amazing, but I guess I'm just a damn fool...

wms.lroc.asu.edu...

lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/index.php?/archives/454-Skimming-the-Moon.html
edit on 23-12-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

No. The cameras were not requested by students. The outreach project was proposed by Sally Ride.

Students are allowed to request specific targets for the cameras. Pretty cool way to stimulate an interest. The cameras are pretty tiny things.
moonkam.ucsd.edu...

edit on 12/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/23/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunterDefine "hi-def."


HDTV en.wikipedia.org...
Or Ed Mitchell's Data Acquisition Camera, now that NASA has it back in their own custody.



posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter...To me, the resolution we have from LROC is pretty amazing, but I guess I'm just a damn fool...

wms.lroc.asu.edu...


I think it's pretty amazing that we can see the single track made by a tire that was less than 9 inches wide.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 27  28  29    31 >>

log in

join