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.

 

NASA have released photos and video of footprints on the moon

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


I guess you didn't read the post right above yours.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by WhiteHat
 


I guess you didn't read the post right above yours.


You right, it must have popped up while I was writing.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteHat
Interesting comment from the article:




Makes no difference either way if they did land on the moon or they didn't as this all happened so long ago, however, one thing does spring to mind, where are the lunar rovers? They were supossedly left behind so shouldn't they be visible?


I would love to find out the answer too.


Did you look at the pictures ??

That would be no



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
The theoretical maximum magnification of Hubble is 2304x.
So if you can make out the tires of a car at a distance of 4 miles in the desert using only your eyes, then using Hubble you should be able to see the exact same image at a distance of 9216 miles.

Now bump the distance up to 238,000 miles. How much could you see? The tires would be 25 times smaller.
It’s simple math formulas available at many places online.

No conspiracy here.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


I can't help but be amused when something like this happens. The question is asked "Why can't we do *insert some activity here*?". A few posts later, someone provides a concise, scientific explanation (with references) of why we can't do whatever-it-was, and the near-immediate response is "That sounds like a bunch of techno-babble! It doesn't prove anything!".

The motto of ATS is "Deny Ignorance". When someone tries to provide you with facts, even if you don't agree with them, you might at least *consider* them. I get the really sinking feeling that most of the "We didn't go to the Moon" crowd aren't interested in facts, or in science, and wouldn't accept *any* form of proof. Any photograph will be a shop-job, any film will be the creation of a studio, any physical items will be created props, and any personal testimony will be the result of bribes and coercion.

If you want to honestly discuss whether or not we went to the Moon, then we need to set a few conditions for the debate/discussion. The first and most important is to fix the goalposts. If you want photos, and someone provides photos that fit your criteria, don't then move the goalposts and demand color photos, or video...only to move the goal once more when whatever you requested is provided. A close second to that would be to accept that some things simply are not possible...and failure to do the impossible does not, in itself, constitute proof for either side of an argument. If I sound a bit exasperated, it's because the whole Hubble-seeing-the-lunar-landing-site issue comes up with astounding regularity, and has been covered in depth not only on ATS, but on several other web sites. Do we really need to go through yet another iteration of Introduction to Optics - 201? I took that course twenty years ago in college, and don't really care to sit through it again.

It is the fact that people can scientifically explain every single element of discrepancy in the moon landing with scientific facts, I could probably explain everything that has ever happened ever scientifically, if you dissect it and rebuff it and make it sound the way you want, science is almost like magic you can easy cover lies with scientific facts.

Each discrepancy may be able to be individually explained away one by one by scientific facts and "debunked" as people like to say, but if you add everything together all the different things and put it into one big fact can there really be that many discrepancies in one moon mission, if you look at it like a crime scene, we have means, motive, opportunity, and many facts and it certainly fits their M.O

Also why only go on about Hubble, there are satellites that have travelled well beyond the moon with very powerful telescopes attached that could have easily taken pictures of the moon, there are loads of other telescopes that could have taken shots of the moon, what about that thing they sent up that took samples of the moon soil that they found evidence that there was once water there a few years ago, could that not have had some kind of camera fitted to it, or the other things they have sent to the moon could they not have had a camera attached, they know exactly where the landing site of the Apollo mission was so why not send something there to take pictures to study the place where the Apollo missions happened and look for any changes since their visit, this I think would be scientifically important, I think a lot of people would like to see the lunar buggy and the flag as it is now all covered with dust, the greatest thing man has probably ever done and they aren't interested in getting shots of it over the years to add to the archives???

edit on 7-9-2011 by DEV1L79 because: .



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 



Each discrepancy may be able to be individually explained away one by one by scientific facts and "debunked" as people like to say, but if you add everything together all the different things and put it into one big fact can there really be that many discrepancies in one moon mission, if you look at it like a crime scene, we have means, motive, opportunity, and many facts and it certainly fits their M.O


Correct, in a way. If landing on the Moon were a crime,NASA would certainly be found guilty. NASA had the means to land men on the Moon, they had the motive to land men on the Moon, they had the opportunity to land men on the Moon. No question, building rockets and sending people into space is NASA's M.O. I don't see the point in your trying to get them off on technicalities.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 


All this was released afeter the weekend Apollo 18 opened at the theatres? I saw the movie, it was creepy, and one wonders if it was fiction or not......



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by DEV1L79
 



Each discrepancy may be able to be individually explained away one by one by scientific facts and "debunked" as people like to say, but if you add everything together all the different things and put it into one big fact can there really be that many discrepancies in one moon mission, if you look at it like a crime scene, we have means, motive, opportunity, and many facts and it certainly fits their M.O


Correct, in a way. If landing on the Moon were a crime,NASA would certainly be found guilty. NASA had the means to land men on the Moon, they had the motive to land men on the Moon, they had the opportunity to land men on the Moon. No question, building rockets and sending people into space is NASA's M.O. I don't see the point in your trying to get them off on technicalities.
I was referring to them faking it, as in the crime scene, was it a crime if they did fake it I'm not sure if it would be hmm I will have to look into that, would faking a moon landing be a crime?


edit on 7-9-2011 by DEV1L79 because: .



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by DEV1L79
 



I was referring to them faking it, as in the crime scene, was it a crime if they did fake it I'm not sure if it would be hmm I will have to look into that, would faking a moon landing be a crime?


If it were, they would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Where's your evidence?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by DEV1L79
 



I was referring to them faking it, as in the crime scene, was it a crime if they did fake it I'm not sure if it would be hmm I will have to look into that, would faking a moon landing be a crime?


If it were, they would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Where's your evidence?
you obviously don't know much on the subject, as there is a lot of video evidence, also scientific evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join