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.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1
Got any proof?
No?
Didn't think so.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Since you didn't think your 'invisible disturbance' needed any proof....
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
Again, the specific disturbance claimed to be seen in orbit images is NOT seen in any of the surface images.
This is an absolute fact.
this is the same as saying that this phenomenon was not known about until the first LRO images were returned..
is that your understanding??
I asked you to quote me on this, because, if you could NOT quote me, it would prove that you were lying...
such a bad memory.....
originally posted by: turbonium1
I admit I was wrong, and so are you....
www.abovetopsecret.com...
originally posted by: turbonium1
What the *&(?
See below...
"I admit I was wrong, and so are you....
They are not theories, at all. They are only hypotheses"
You're going into loony-land, it seems.....
Maybe you should take a few deep breaths, and try to relax...
originally posted by: choos
it isnt invisible, just harder to see..
originally posted by: choos
already shown you the differences in the surface around the landers, which would cause a more reflective and which would cause a less reflective surface.
originally posted by: choos
already shown you the differences in the surface around the landers, which would cause a more reflective and which would cause a less reflective surface.
this has been written about since atleast 1972.. this isnt a new phenomenon that was first realised from LRO images, it is only further confirmed by LRO images..
you cannot claim that it doesnt exist on the surface if it was written about in 1972. unless you can provide some orbit images from 1972 or before that shows such details such as the LRO
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You really really still don't get it.
There is a difference between soil being physically disturbed and it having a property altered that changes the way it can be observed.
Get it into your head that we are talking about two different things here.
The alteration of properties that causes the subtle change visible from orbit has been replicated, it has been replicated on the moon at other landing sites by other probes and it has been replicated on Earth. Check those links.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
I already did, not going through them again. It's in the thread and I specifically drew your attention to it.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Reflecting more or less light is a very common phenomenon, and is easily provable. It can also be replicated, to prove the phenomenon at any time.
Not a bit like your 'phenomenon'. It defies all the facts, it can't be replicated, it cannot be rationally explained, and it certainly cannot be proven, in any way, shape, or form.
They have numerous samples of the lunar soil - so what did they find out?
originally posted by: turbonium1
Why do you think they've written papers on this issue?
They are trying to explain something, right?
It's claimed that the LM, and a disturbance caused by the LM, are seen in images taken from orbit.
So what's the problem, now?
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
Not my job to keep you up to speed with what's being posted.
Hire a secretary or something.
originally posted by: choos
originally posted by: turbonium1
Why do you think they've written papers on this issue?
They are trying to explain something, right?
It's claimed that the LM, and a disturbance caused by the LM, are seen in images taken from orbit.
So what's the problem, now?
the problem with the argument of yours is that explainations began from atleast 1972.
if it was unseen from the lunar surface than the explainations would only begin after the LRO images..
but you see, they have been explaining this since 1972, atlteast perhaps earlier.. which means it was known about from the the lunar landings.