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: turbonium1
They just wrote papers offering various hypotheses, in trying to explain it...
Why do you think they'd explained it back in 1972?
I think until they either actually start doing real space flights for the general public (space tourism) and or they begin going back to the moon regularly and or allow the general public to go, then I believe it's somewhat safe to assume none of it is real. Or at least there's a good chance all of it is faked.
originally posted by: choos
explain what??? according to you it cant be seen from the surface at all..
originally posted by: choos
meaning it would be completely unknown about until the LRO images became available.
originally posted by: choos
so why do they feel the need to explain something that cant be seen..
originally posted by: choos
satellite imagery from 1972 was not good enough to image this phenomenon like the LRO does. unless you can prove otherwise???
First of all, unless you can prove they could NOT have taken images of this feature back in 1972, or anytime before the LRO came along, your claim is worthless.
Man caused changes in albedo, observed for the first time from lunar orbit, which include: brightening of the surface area beneath the LM, probably due to compaction during descent
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: greg302
Do liars often smile, crack jokes and laugh? Or are you saying you've never actually watched the entire press conference and were just shown a 20 second clip and told what to believe?
Here's my personal favourite joke from the conference, but there's a few. youtu.be...
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Twice in that post you claim that surface images taken by Apollo show no disturbances of the surface around the LM. You need to clarify whether you are talking about physical disturbance or an alteration of the properties of the surface by the rocket exhaust plume.
You obviously missed the post where I showed that the surface images did show physical disturbance and that the physical disturbance was photographed form orbit by LRO. That physical disturbance has also been photographed by Japan and India.
Btw - there are several cuts throughout this clip, which means it does not show the entire conference.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Japanese and Indian images are actually confirmation of a physical feature on the lunar surface. And this only further confirms that all of the Apollo 'surface' images are fake.
You claim there is a physical disturbance caused by an Apollo LM.
I see no disturbance in any Apollo 'surface' images. Not a physical disturbance, nor an alteration of soil, nor any other variance in that area.
originally posted by: turbonium1
'Could you see any stars, while on the lunar surface?'
'I don't recall seeing any stars, without using the optics'
'I didn't see any stars', said the other astronaut, unwittingly forgetting his role in the script...
PATRICK MOORE I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect. And, secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the starsin the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. The footprint would penetrate a half an inch or sometimes only a quarter of an inch and gave a very firm response. In other regions near the edges of these craters we could find that the foot would sink down maybe 2, 3, possibly 4 inches and in the slope, of course, the varlous edges of the footprint might go up to 6 or 7 inches. In compacting this material it would tend to produce a slight sideways motion as it was compacted on the material underneath it. So we feel that you cannot always tell by looking at the surface what the exact resistance will be as your foot sinks into a point of firm contact. So one must be quite cautious in moving around in this rough surface.
ARMSTRONG We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS I don't remember seeing any.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Some more reading for you:
ntrs.nasa.gov...
onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
www.redorbit.com...
adsabs.harvard.edu...
Man caused changes in albedo, observed for the first time from lunar orbit, which include: brightening of the surface area beneath the LM, probably due to compaction during descent
You can find more about that in the Apollo 15 PSR. So there you are, noted before 1972.
originally posted by: turbonium1
'Could you see any stars, while on the lunar surface?'
'I don't recall seeing any stars, without using the optics'
'I didn't see any stars', said the other astronaut, unwittingly forgetting his role in the script...
originally posted by: turbonium1
However, they know that none of the 'surface' images support their claim of a disturbance, caused by the LM.
Ignore the evidence which doesn't support Apollo, like usual.