Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by superman2012
reply to post by CaDreamer
 

You are so sure that we went? Please debunk as the title states.


They can't debunk so they obfuscate and divert the focus of discussion to other issues.

Classic disinfo lingo.



+4 more 
posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

GE-1, a very high resolution imaging satellite in Earth orbit weighs 1,955 kg and carries...a camera.

The LRO weighs 1,846 kg and carries an array of instruments.

The Moon is a lot farther away than low earth orbit. It takes a lot more resources to put a kilogram in orbit around it than it does around Earth. The LRO is designed to do several things and do them well. It is not designed to convince people that man walked on the Moon. It has better things to do.


edit on 9/4/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yes humans are explorers. However there is only so little one can explore in a barren empty piece of rock and dust. You can send in your own spy sattellite if you care. Meanwhile the people who actually work in the area will keep using equipment they deem necessary for their mission. No point in having 0.0001m / pixel images of dust. Whatever conspiracy theorist believe or don't is irrelevant.
Keep on waiting


Yep, just rocks and dust right?

and here.

and here. uranium is quite abundant.

Uranium uses.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
okay, this might not have the flash or pizazz you're looking for, and I'm quite certain anyone who wants to will arbitrarily decide to ignore this, but what about the lunar laser ranging experiment? mulitple places now have fired off big lasers at the little mirrors we left there, to precisely measure its distance. If what you are actually looking for is rational credible evidence from multiple sources, this is probably your easiest and most verifiable bet, especially given that we still use them to measure to this day.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
and where do you suppose they went until they came back on reentry? you agree they took off and landed. do you also disbelieve that the ISS is orbiting the planet as we type? technologically it is pretty straightforward. there is NO logical reason to believe that we haven't been to the moon.

im telling you that NASA has presented reams and ream upon mega reams of evidence that we have been to the moon. The counter theory that we haven't been has yet to show one single scad of proof that there is even a valid conspiracy to fake ... any of it.
so the burden is upon you not i.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


My grandparents also watched it, doesn't mean it is proof. While we respect our grandparents, unless they were there, they are not reputable sources. Sorry sport.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by theXammux
okay, this might not have the flash or pizazz you're looking for, and I'm quite certain anyone who wants to will arbitrarily decide to ignore this, but what about the lunar laser ranging experiment? mulitple places now have fired off big lasers at the little mirrors we left there, to precisely measure its distance. If what you are actually looking for is rational credible evidence from multiple sources, this is probably your easiest and most verifiable bet, especially given that we still use them to measure to this day.


Soviets also did this before the "mirrors" were "placed" there. Again, not saying there are no manmade objects on the moon, just questioning if man has been there.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Where's this evidence you are talking about?



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by czerro A golf ball is relatively dense, contains no moisture, is made of a single material that is uniform throughout. You are saying, that you have an expectation that astronauts could take a golf-club to the side of their moon-lander and it would shatter into a million pieces...cause it's space and cold and stuff. Ridiculous. Also, the effect you are talking about is intrinsic to liquid nitrogen and is not reflective of what happens to things exposed to cold temperatures. liquid nitrogen /= space.


I'm a chemical engineer. Your logic is ridiculous.

All solids become more brittle when exposed to ultra low temperatures it's fundamental science.

Please show me an example of a golf ball exposed to ultra low temperature that has been hit. I would love to see the results.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
its like saying that Lindbergh didn't fly the Atlantic because nobody saw him en route only saw him take off and land there is no proof that there was a interim journey. your not using logic



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
if object placement isn't enoughfor you, then you asking for the impossible. If proving objects are placed there isn't enough, then I could show you a hotdog cart there and you'd cry photoshop or spacecart, maybe alien hotdog menace. But bootprints, would be characterised the same way, pictures of people actually being on the moon isn't enough for you. Basically, there isn't anything in the world short of going back in time and being on the moon that could prove it to you. You are entitled to beleive whatever you like, but ignoring the data completely isn't exactly a logical way to come to the "Truth" that you claim you are looking for.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Where's this evidence you are talking about?


nasa.gov ... search Apollo

it is all legit..prove that ANY of it is false information please before you make wild assumptions
edit on 4-9-2011 by CaDreamer because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
its like saying that Lindbergh didn't fly the Atlantic because nobody saw him en route only saw him take off and land there is no proof that there was a interim journey. your not using logic

He left and people were there. He arrived and people were there. Logic has nothing to do with it, try some common sense.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Where's this evidence you are talking about?



i know for me, the only proof i need to know that we didn't really do it was the not a spec of dust on the landing feet and absolutely no evidence of the dust being stirred up under the rocket...there would be a huge crater under there, there is nothing....proof enough for me......



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
edit on 5-9-2011 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)
edit on Mon Sep 5 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: --Off Topic, One Liners and General Back Scratching Posts--



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by theXammux
if object placement isn't enoughfor you, then you asking for the impossible. If proving objects are placed there isn't enough, then I could show you a hotdog cart there and you'd cry photoshop or spacecart, maybe alien hotdog menace. But bootprints, would be characterised the same way, pictures of people actually being on the moon isn't enough for you. Basically, there isn't anything in the world short of going back in time and being on the moon that could prove it to you. You are entitled to beleive whatever you like, but ignoring the data completely isn't exactly a logical way to come to the "Truth" that you claim you are looking for.


Object placement doesn't mean that humans were there. Are humans on Mars? By your logic you yourself don't believe that the Mars rover is on Mars.



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
i would also suggest reading this thread and watching the videos, this guy does an outstanding job of proving many many facts that show that we didn't go to the moon....

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by jheated5
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Where's this evidence you are talking about?



i know for me, the only proof i need to know that we didn't really do it was the not a spec of dust on the landing feet and absolutely no evidence of the dust being stirred up under the rocket...there would be a huge crater under there, there is nothing....proof enough for me......


so now your a astrophysicist and an expert at molecular dynamics in a vacuum in low gravity.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Also, relating to the golf ball shattering thing, "brittle" is an extremely relative term. My wedding ring is tungsten carbide. extremely brittle, relative to gold at ambient temp and pressure, but strong enough to not matter generally, could also easily survive a golf club hit. Chemistry isn't actually that relevent to the experiment. physics is. What you are really curious about is the force necessary to shatter a golf ball at low temp/low pressure. and when you take into account an astronauts capacity to swing in a space suit, in low gravity,with almost zero resistance or friction, the likely outcome is not explodey. sorry. Argue if you must, but you can't debunk physics



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
and here's me thinking the moon's made of cheese.






new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join