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.

 

Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 22
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snarfbot
theres a few key pieces in the moon hoax theory,

1. is the flag waving video, theres a flag, an astronaut runs past it. and it waves as if being effected by air. this is a video that appears to prove that it was moving, before the astronaut could have physically contacted it.



Not going to debunk flags waving. It's been debunked so many times conclusively that there is no excuse for posting it.


Originally posted by snarfbot

2. the footprints under and around the lunar lander, which were allegedly from a previous apollo mission, which remained even after a rocket was fired over them. some claim there should be a huge crater below the nozzle.

this one seems like a pretty straight forward experiment, put a scale rocket in a vacuum chamber on a pile of dust and see what happens am i right?



This is nonsense. All the Apollo landings were in different places. No "previous apollo [sic] mission" erased the footprints.


Originally posted by snarfbot

3. all that radiation. nasa now claims the cosmic rays and stuff are too deadly for us to send astronauts back to the moon, even though we apparently got away with it 40 years ago. its worth noting that one apollo astronaut did die of cancer, although that cant be interpreted as causality.

so the above in combination with a general lack of evidence, the missing telemetry tapes, the moon rocks that are virtually identical to earth rocks and stuff, that adds weight to their arguments.

but again, who knows right.


Please provide a citation for your claim that NASA is refusing to send astronauts back to the moon due to deadly cosmic rays. Please take into account the long exposures to space during EVA's aboard the space station. Also take into account the fairly detailed science behind the very thin shielding that was used on board the Apollo missions.

The problem with debunking anything around here is that no one is interested in facts. It's all conjecture, misremembered details, continuous recycling of thoroughly debunked arguments and most importantly complete and total disregard of the tens of terabytes of data available directly from the Apollo missions online which give more detail than any one person on this site can have personally analysed.

There's a single story about the moon landing. We went there. But there are hundreds of variations in conspiracy theories. Which do you believe? The single coherent story or the multitude of contradictory and even self-contradictory nonsense which is written by people who "doubt" that we went to the moon.




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kitilani

He deserved being assaulted because he was annoying?
That explains a lot. There are threads on ATS about actual things that matter where no one is advocating violence but this moon landing stuff sure does rile up a few folks huh?

I cannot believe people think violence is ok when questioning the moon landings. Is this what happened because they canceled Babylon 5?


He wasn't assaulted at all. That was pure self defense. Why are people even discussing this?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Nasa has just posted new High Resolution photos of the surface of the Apollo 17 landing site for our viewing they can be seen here www.nasa.gov... have fun seeing that it was made in a Hollywood basement
.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Eeh... hubble now? Hubble cant even come close to taking pictures of the landing sites.


Yes it can't. Hubble needs a bigger expose time than your average camera. The moon is relatively close to the earth, so we would only catch foggy images.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jheated5

Originally posted by Insomniac
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


If no one went to the Moon how did 843 lbs of moon rock get here? Please don't say that it's not moon rock because then you'd have to explain how it's older than any rock found on Earth!

Anyway this link should answer your question for you...

Moon Landings wiki



Older than any rock on the earth, when it's more likely the earth was here before the moon was?


Because earth has plate tectonic and the moon doesn't. The earth may be older, but here the rocks are always being melted and solidifed again, while on the moon they just froze, even if it once had active vulcanoes and tectonic plates.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
This says we went.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL
Not going to debunk flags waving. It's been debunked so many times conclusively that there is no excuse for posting it.


i have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the flag waving in that particular video, if you actually have conclusive proof that that is possible in a vacuum debunk away because i would like to hear it. its the purpose of the thread after all.


There's a single story about the moon landing. We went there. But there are hundreds of variations in conspiracy theories. Which do you believe?


i dont subscribe to either theory 100%, which i thought was clear from my post, i just presented what i felt was the strongest evidence in support of the hoax theory. im not familiar with hundreds of variations of the hoax theory either, as far as i know theres just one, that we didnt go there, there might be several different motives for faking it, but its all basically the same thing.

anyway im open to both sides so proceed.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Your waiting is now over. Here is an article published today 06 September 2011 by the British Broadcasting Corporation. BBC



Apollo 17: The parallel tracks made by the Lunar Roving Vehicle ("Moon buggy") can be seen at centre-right

Probe pictures Moon landing sites



By Jonathan Amos

Science correspondent, BBC News

Remarkable new images of the Apollo landing sites on the Moon have just been released by Nasa.

The pictures clearly show the hardware left on the lunar surface by American astronauts in the 1960s and 70s, including Apollo 17's "moon buggy".

The images were acquired by the robotic Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which has been circling Earth's satellite since 2009.

Such shots have been returned before, but these are the best yet.

LRO has recently lowered its orbit from 50km above the Moon's surface to just 25km.

This makes it easier to see equipment, such as the descent stages that put the astronauts on the surface.

The Apollo 17, 14 and 12 sites are viewed at a resolution of 25cm by 25cm per pixel.

In an extreme blow-up of the Apollo 17 Lunar Roving Vehicle, it is just possible to discern the condition in which the astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt parked the buggy - with its wheels turned to the left.

LRO has been a highly productive mission. It was originally conceived as a robotic precursor to future manned missions, although when Nasa might return to the lunar body is not clear.

On Thursday this week, the US space agency will launch its latest Moon mission - the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (Grail). This is a pair of satellites that will survey the Moon's gravity in unprecedented detail to reveal its internal structure. This will help explain how the Moon formed and why its nearside looks so different to its far-side.

Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk

AVE RAEGINA CAELINA LA DEUS NOSTRA CAELI LA VERA DEUS

edit on 6/9/2011 by CAELENIUM because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by snarfbot

Originally posted by XtraTL
Not going to debunk flags waving. It's been debunked so many times conclusively that there is no excuse for posting it.


i have never heard a satisfactory explanation for the flag waving in that particular video, if you actually have conclusive proof that that is possible in a vacuum debunk away because i would like to hear it. its the purpose of the thread after all.
Vibration transmitted from the astronaut touching it.



There's a single story about the moon landing. We went there. But there are hundreds of variations in conspiracy theories. Which do you believe?


i dont subscribe to either theory 100%, which i thought was clear from my post, i just presented what i felt was the strongest evidence in support of the hoax theory. im not familiar with hundreds of variations of the hoax theory either, as far as i know theres just one, that we didnt go there, there might be several different motives for faking it, but its all basically the same thing.

anyway im open to both sides so proceed.
The problem with hoax theories is that you don't need truth. You can just make up nonsense as fast as you can. Most hoax theories aren't actual theories. They're just pointing at things the Hoax Believer looks suspicious and declaring it proof the landings never happened. The word "anomalies" is used a lot. If it is explained to them by someone who knows what they are talking about, they will immediately rationalize it with more nonsense. They claim to be seeking the truth, whatever it may be, but have usually eliminated the official story from the list of possibilities. When they eliminate the probable, whatever remains, however impossible, must be their truth.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Kitilani

He deserved being assaulted because he was annoying?
That explains a lot. There are threads on ATS about actual things that matter where no one is advocating violence but this moon landing stuff sure does rile up a few folks huh?

I cannot believe people think violence is ok when questioning the moon landings. Is this what happened because they canceled Babylon 5?


He wasn't assaulted at all. That was pure self defense. Why are people even discussing this?
Because harassing an old man is heroic in their eyes. The punch just made him a martyr, in HB eyes.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
NASA just posted this:





posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Hi,
The high resolution moon images of the apollo sites are here:
www.lroc.asu.edu...

And the index file is here:
www.lroc.asu.edu...

They are huge and take ages to download, but you can clearly see the remains of the landers etc



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL


Please provide a citation for your claim that NASA is refusing to send astronauts back to the moon due to deadly cosmic rays. Please take into account the long exposures to space during EVA's aboard the space station. Also take into account the fairly detailed science behind the very thin shielding that was used on board the Apollo missions.

It's are very well being condescending towards hoax believers but you don't do yourself any favours with such a glaring mistake. All space station EVA's occur WITHIN the radiation belts as such the exposure to solar radiation is practically zero. Outside those belts is a different matter and very variable dependant on solar activity.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by malcr

Originally posted by XtraTL


Please provide a citation for your claim that NASA is refusing to send astronauts back to the moon due to deadly cosmic rays. Please take into account the long exposures to space during EVA's aboard the space station. Also take into account the fairly detailed science behind the very thin shielding that was used on board the Apollo missions.

It's are very well being condescending towards hoax believers but you don't do yourself any favours with such a glaring mistake. All space station EVA's occur WITHIN the radiation belts as such the exposure to solar radiation is practically zero. Outside those belts is a different matter and very variable dependant on solar activity.
You do know exposure also depends on length of time, right? It doesn't matter what the base dosage is, if the ISS receives a greater cumulative dose than the one which allegedly would've killed the astronauts.

I like how you accuse Xtra of being condescending over something he's wrong over, and then you make the exact same mistake. I also note a complete lack of the citation Xtra asked for, or mention of shielding.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tony Stark

NASA just posted this:






The shadow of the intrepid descent stage looks way too big. Compare it with all the other shadows in the picture. The shape of the shadow looks photoshopped.

NASA will have to do much better.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
NASA will have to do much better.
Is that your catchphrase?

I like how you don't say how it should look, just reflexively gainsay the evidence.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by Tony Stark

NASA just posted this:






The shadow of the intrepid descent stage looks way too big. Compare it with all the other shadows in the picture. The shape of the shadow looks photoshopped.

NASA will have to do much better.


no, you will have to concede defeat. bad timing for this thread LOL !!!!!!

total nasa pownage



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


I believe we went to the moon.
I see nothing in that picture that proves it though.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by XtraTL

Originally posted by snarfbot
theres a few key pieces in the moon hoax theory,

1. is the flag waving video, theres a flag, an astronaut runs past it. and it waves as if being effected by air. this is a video that appears to prove that it was moving, before the astronaut could have physically contacted it.



Not going to debunk flags waving. It's been debunked so many times conclusively that there is no excuse for posting it.



You are not going to debunk the flag waving because you can't. The flag moves and you have no logical explanation.

The more I investigate the Apollo 12 the more I am convinced they should be renamed the Dirty Dozen.




top topics



 
15
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join