Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

New smoking guns in Apollo moon hoax: White cloth canvas on floor clearly seen!

page: 45
73
<< 42  43  44    46 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by exponent
 


Yes, I think it could add credence to the moon landing hoax theory. However we were debating whether the photos had been desaturated or not. Upon showing you proof of this you called me a liar.




posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
reply to post by exponent
 


Yes, I think it could add credence to the moon landing hoax theory. However we were debating whether the photos had been desaturated or not. Upon showing you proof of this you called me a liar.


I called you a liar because you deliberately left out the part where the person explains he only desaturated to remove inaccurate colour tints. You started this whole thing complaining that the ground is brown and that NASA were faking it. Now you're complaining about him removing blue tints.

It's almost as if you consider yourself right at all points and can't comprehend being wrong. The page repeats exactly what I have been telling you for the last couple of pages. The moon is grey with hints of brown, orange, green etc. Film can cause colour casts and without a calibration shot it's not possible to balance them.

What more would you ask of me? I've patiently and diligently explained every single thing you've brought up. I've told you what would need to be faked for the moon to be brown, I've even linked papers that detail the composition of lunar soil.

I've done my best to show you the truth at all points but throughout you've remained steadfastly ignorant, convinced you are correct despite failing at every single point. I don't think I can do any more.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:45 AM
link   
The quote I posted mentioned desaturating inaccurate blue tints. I would ask that you don't call me a liar when I haven't.

Correct me if wrong but I don't think moon landing hoax theorists pressume NASA's official position would be to admit manipulating the photos to cover up a hoax.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortPenguin
The quote I posted mentioned desaturating inaccurate blue tints. I would ask that you don't call me a liar when I haven't.

Why did you leave out the paragraph I quoted?


Correct me if wrong but I don't think moon landing hoax theorists pressume NASA's official position would be to admit manipulating the photos to cover up a hoax.

Frankly moon landing hoax theories cover a huge range that doesn't make much sense.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
I posted the link and the relevant parts of the quote. Particularly the part that said the photos were intentionally desaturated to 'neutral' grey. As I had already pointed out the images are indistinguishable from a black and white photo. You find this appropriate, I do not. This seems very suspicious to me when there is full colour photos that present an entirely different scene. These colour photos appear very natural. We disagree. Live with it.



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
Soviet Lunokhod was an unmanned mission which installed a reflector as useful for research purposes as the ones brought by the Apollo missions. This means that there is no direct connection between installing a reflector on the moon and sending people there. It could all be done using an unmanned remotely controlled rover.
edit on 8-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit


Yes, it COULD have been done by an unmanned mission. The evidence overwhelmingly shows the U.S. reflectors were put there by astronauts. What is your evidence to the contrary? What the Soviets did shows nothing about what the U.S. did. And the specific details of the Lunokhod construction and missions are readily available; what are the details of this alleged unmanned U.S. probe?



posted on Dec, 8 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen

Soviet Lunokhod was also equipped with a similar reflector, and it was an unmanned mission.


You're missing the most important part. There are blueprints for Lunokhod, there's a paper trail of its existence. There's a list of names of people who worked on it, there are people who saw it launch, there are records of the USA detecting a launch, there's records of the data it beamed back from the moon. Lunokhod exists, there's undeniable proof that it exists . . . where is ANY proof, even a doodle on a napkin that this unmanned american launch took place?



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anunaki10

They for example say >>The photo of the American flag on Lunar surface shows that that flag is flattering, and there is NO air on the Moon, so the Moon mission must be hoax!



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by I1Am1Ready1Are1You
after watching this myth busters episode I have ruled out the lunar landing is a hoax.

You have ruled out, you mean you believe it's hoax, right?
I have to correct you here, you need to say >>I believe the lunar landing is hoax



posted on Dec, 9 2012 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


Not sure if... well, anyway your point about scandinavia is absolutely 100% wrong. To begin with it's a crude generalisation and to boot the majority here actually are well educated and smart people who dont buy into the hoax theories.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


I mean I now believe we did land on the moon
makes me question a lot of my "other" crazy conspiracy beliefs.



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
You're missing the most important part. There are blueprints for Lunokhod, there's a paper trail of its existence. There's a list of names of people who worked on it, there are people who saw it launch, there are records of the USA detecting a launch, there's records of the data it beamed back from the moon. Lunokhod exists, there's undeniable proof that it exists . . . where is ANY proof, even a doodle on a napkin that this unmanned american launch took place?


When did the Lunoknod blueprints become available to general public? I believe no sooner than the collapse of the USSR. Hadn't it collapsed, nobody would be able to take a peek at the top secret blueprints. Also NASA admitted losing several Apollo tapes, and obviously forgot how to build Saturn V class rockets. For example, Atlas rockets use Russian RD-180 engines, and NASA outsourced future space launch technology completely to third-party commercial companies like SpaceX. Considering all this, one can't be sure there was no unmanned lunar probe, for this should be either classified or lost documentation. Or the well-known lunar landing module and rover could be modified to support unmanned operation by installing remote control circuitry. Again, I am not using this as a proof that people weren't on the Moon in the 60s. As I said this topic does not interest me as much as the ability or inability to go to the moon in the foreseeable future. I am just replying to your post where you said there could be no unmanned mission which could install a relfector.
edit on 10-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit



posted on Dec, 10 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrkeen
Or the well-known lunar landing module and rover could be modified to support unmanned operation by installing remote control circuitry.


Then who designed this "remote control circuitry," who built and tested these modified craft and who operated them? Did the conspirators just call up Grumman and say "oh, by the way, could you secretly install some remote control circuitry in the Lunar Module?" Did they have a separate mission control for landing remote controlled LMs on the moon? Who were those people and what happened to them?


Originally posted by mrkeen I am just replying to your post where you said there could be no unmanned mission which could install a relfector.
edit on 10-12-2012 by mrkeen because: minor edit


No one has said that. What is being asked is where is the evidence that this is what happened.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Not sure if... well, anyway your point about scandinavia is absolutely 100% wrong.

Nope. As i previously said, a some of the people who live in Scandinavia believe the Moon landing was hoax, while other Scandinavian people don't know whether the Moon landing was hoax or not hoax, while other Scandinavian people believe or are aware that the Moon landing did take place, that's what i said.



posted on Dec, 13 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by I1Am1Ready1Are1You
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


I mean I now believe we did land on the moon
makes me question a lot of my "other" crazy conspiracy beliefs.

Good choice
By the way, Apollo 11 had technical problems during the mission which you can see from the facts from this site www.garvandwane.com... but they did manage to land on the Moon. But, Apollo 13 had to cancel their Moon landing mission
>>Houston, we have a problem>We have company.>Say again?>I say we have company.>You were told not to make transmissions such as that! Put it on the flight recorder and we’ll discuss it when you get back!>God, what is that out there?... What the h... is that???... But this is unbelievable!






top topics



 
73
<< 42  43  44    46 >>

log in

join