Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   


It would reveal the US to be a pack of miserable liars, and the Soviets the champions of truth. They would be fools not to expose the truth if it were a hoax. Even now there are grumblers in Russia who delight in spreading malicious slanders... but they can never offer any evidence
reply to post by DJW001
 


Losers normally do not want to look like to be any more miserable by whining about it without concrete evidence to the contrary. The film was made pretty clever. Not too obvious to call it a fake.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Wow... look at the highly photogenic footprints, so perfect. And look at the tyre tracks from the Moon Rover... oh wait... it has no tracks... what could have happened?


I see... so it's time to play the "I Think There's Something Funny About This Picture Game" again. Hopefully I'll score this point before Nat beats me to it! :
:

Here is your photo, AS-15-82-11121:



Here is the photo immediately preceding it, which shows more of the area behind the rover, where you'd expect to find the tracks it left:



Notice the angle of the Sun:



It is parallel to the track of the rover. What this means is that the light is striking the edges of the footprints at right angles, making them more conspicuous, but is glancing off the tracks making them harder to spot... but lets look anyway:



There they are!

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   


It's called the "Second Act Syndrome." People who have achieved something extraordinary, especially at a young age, find it challenging to find something to "top" their greatest accomplishment. Einstein was frustrated that he could never work out the Grand Unified Theory. Bobby Fisher just went insane. People deal with the syndrome in different ways.
reply to post by DJW001
 


What second act with Armstrong? Did he try to go to the mars? I was talking about the moon landing itself. He was never proud of (or showing off pride) his alleged "moon landing". Never !!!!. Instead, he made mysterious remarks in public comparing himself to a parrot. Repeating words he really didn't want to repeat. Being an honorable man, he couldn't handle the lies he perpetuated to the humanity.

I think at least Einstein was deeply proud of his general relativity by saying his only mistake with it was the cosmological constant. Although there could be more.

Those are the sorry people who had to die with the horrible secret in their heart.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So, how did dust get under landed module?

You'll probably say- hard work and 280$b,
But I need a physical explanation))
edit on 26-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Line added



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



Losers normally do not want to look like to be any more miserable by whining about it without concrete evidence to the contrary


So you are admitting that there is no evidence to the contrary. In other words, all the evidence shows they went to the Moon, and there is not a single scrap of evidence that they didn't.


The film was made pretty clever. Not too obvious to call it a fake.


Is this the film you keep talking about?



Wow! Where did they get all those crazy extras?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The weight of a rover should be much heavier than a weight of man. Why the tracks of the rover tires have so little indentation in the dusted moon soil compared to the human foot print which is so much more pronounced?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



What second act with Armstrong? Did he try to go to the mars? I was talking about the moon landing itself. He was never proud of (or showing off pride) his alleged "moon landing". Never !!!!. Instead, he made mysterious remarks in public comparing himself to a parrot. Repeating words he really didn't want to repeat. Being an honorable man, he couldn't handle the lies he perpetuated to the humanity.


How do you suggest he go to Mars? Run? Are you intentionally confusing modesty with shame? Where does he compare himself to a parrot? How do you know he didn't want to repeat what he said? (Although I must admit it must get rather tired repeating the same thing over and over again... and not really having much of a follow up to add.) At least you admit he is an honorable man; that's we he doesn't lie. It's all true, deal with it.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



The weight of a rover should be much heavier than a weight of man. Why the tracks of the rover tires have so little indentation in the dusted moon soil compared to the human foot print which is so much more pronounced?


The tires are much wider than the astronauts' boots, which distributes the weight more evenly. Also, in the photo in question, the angle of illumination favors highlighting the boot prints while running parallel to the sides of the tracks, making them more difficult to see. Try experimenting with a flashlight if you can't already see how that works.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


There are full of Evidences telling it is a fake. But not obvious enough to make you look like an obvious winner. Dubious and clever. You don't want to be trapped in there.

Belief vs scientific scrutiny. It fails the scientific scrutiny but wins the wishful blinded faith. You have to give in when the majority of the people on earth want to believe it.

We all want to live in a little fantasy don't we?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



There are full of Evidences telling it is a fake. But not obvious enough to make you look like an obvious winner. Dubious and clever. You don't want to be trapped in there.


Provide one piece of evidence, please.


Belief vs scientific scrutiny. It fails the scientific scrutiny but wins the wishful blinded faith. You have to give in when the majority of the people on earth want to believe it.


The Moon landings must be the most scientifically scrutinized events in history; every single scientist on Earth who has examined the data accepts it. Only the people who believe it was a hoax are basing their beliefs on blind faith. They are welcome to do so, just as people who believe the Earth is flat may hold that belief.


We all want to live in a little fantasy don't we?


Speak for yourself. I actively strive to free myself from all delusion. Try it some time.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


The ignorance displayed in this thread is stunning.

The SCIENCE is what proves Apollo.....not the nearly rabid, illogical, NON-scientific nonsense spewed by the "Hoax Believers"....they "believe" much as any religious crackpot would....based on lack of science knowledge, understanding and poor misconceptions of reality.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Over time, people tend to forget what or how things were done in the past. While in the Air Force in the 80's, an NCO went to Supply to see about getting an aircraft part. The Airman behind the counter told him that the computers were down, so she couldn't help him right now. The NCO asked, "How did you get parts before there were computers?" to which the Airman replied, "We've always had computers"

It all comes back to ones personal experiences.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   


How do you suggest he go to Mars? Run? Are you intentionally confusing modesty with shame? Where does he compare himself to a parrot? How do you know he didn't want to repeat what he said? (Although I must admit it must get rather tired repeating the same thing over and over again... and not really having much of a follow up to add.) At least you admit he is an honorable man; that's we he doesn't lie. It's all true, deal with it.
reply to post by DJW001
 


People do not hide behind what they achieve especially when it is a "Moon Landing'. People elaborate what they did and they never get tired of it adding new minute details. It never happened with Armstrong. He hated the fact that he had to talk about it. Why?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



People do not hide behind what they achieve especially when it is a "Moon Landing'. People elaborate what they did and they never get tired of it adding new minute details.


It is clear that you have no idea how people really behave, especially when they are constantly in the public eye. John Lennon retired from music and became a "house husband" at the peak of his career. Bob Dylan keeps popping in and out of retirement. Greta Garbo "vanted to be alone." Sean Connery will bust your chops if you ask him to say: "Bond, James Bond."



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Alan bean talks about his mission, often. So does Ed Mitchell. Buzz Aldrin....and, all the rest who are still alive...

Your FALSE impressions of reality are tragic.....



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   


It is clear that you have no idea how people really behave, especially when they are constantly in the public eye. John Lennon retired from music and became a "house husband" at the peak of his career. Bob Dylan keeps popping in and out of retirement. Greta Garbo "vanted to be alone." Sean Connery will bust your chops if you ask him to say: "Bond, James Bond."
reply to post by DJW001
 


You just admitted yourself that Armstrong was an entertainer not a man of science. He hated the fact that he has become an entertainer for the fun of it ( in the fake moon landing movie). All the people you just compared with Armstrong are entertainers, aren't they?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Oh, that is just beyond ridiculous.

How desperate?? How many straws can you clutch, in just one hand??



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hey, I'm making a reasonable argument.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Somebody please, explain me how dust got under landed module?

I have faith crisis here)))



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Your initial claim (many posts back) about the Soviet landers, and your assertion that "all the dust" was "blown" away, down to "bare rock" is incorrect.

You should take some time to study the data on the Lunar regolith --- it's properties, make-up, various depths and consistencies. Just like on Earth, it is different everywhere.....

And, the thrust from the Apollo LM descent engine dislodged some amounts of regolith, but by no means did the surface get "cleaned off" by those thrust gases, down to "bare rock"....that is just nonsense.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join