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: OneBigMonkeyToo
originally posted by: turbonium1
You have nothing to support your argument.
You keep saying that the disturbance is so subtle that it cannot be distinguished from undisturbed soil from the ground.
Because it's true
In orbit, these subtleties can be identified. It's 'reflectance' differs from the 'reflectance' of undisturbed soil.
The problem is that there is nothing to support that claim.
Apart from the work carried out by many many different scientific organisations from many nationalities, which you don't seem to be able to refute.
You have no sources to support your claim.
Apart from the ones I provided links for above.
You cannot replicate it, in any way.
You can't find one example of it ever existing before.
I can't find one example of a change in surface reflectance from a spaceship landing on the moon before a spaceship landing on the moon? Apart from the nonsensical implications of your statement there, I suggest you go back and read the links I provided, which refer to several unmanned probes from both the US and USSR that occurred before Apollo.
You cannot explain what specific properties of lunar soil cause reflectance, or what would change its reflectance, when disturbed subtly, in a way that only can be identified from orbit.
Go back and read the papers, there are several that clearly outline what causes it and how to measure it. There is at least one reference to the second lunar science conference held after Apollo 12 - I have a copy of the conference proceedings.
Having proved that you have not read, and clearly have no intention of ever reading, any of the papers I linked to above, I'm guessing you have absolutely no intention of answering any of the perfectly simple questions I asked you above? The ones you carefully missed out of your quote of my post:
Meanwhile, is the LRO capable of imaging the much smaller Chang'e-3 and Lunokhod probes and their tracks on the surface, yes or no?
Do you have, as you claimed, photographs that show the level of detail seen in Apollo images taken before Apollo, yes or no?
Or that anyone has asked you, like choos' post above?
Or any questions asked of you ever?
originally posted by: turbonium1
The papers suggest this, as a theory.
They "presume" that lunar soil must have unknown properties that cause reflectance, which is only visible from orbit, not from the surface.
It is a theory, without anything to support it...
But nothing else can explain it, as landing sites, so that is their best theory for it..
It is a unique phenomenon, that cannot be explained by the soil, that cannot be replicated in any way, but there is no other explanation, yet nothing else would account for it, so there is no other option.
Assume the lunar soil must have this unknown, unique phenomenon in effect, which we now find to exist.
originally posted by: turbonium1
The papers don't explain it, they have a theory for it, which you support.
Indeed, the papers admit this is only a theory. It is not claimed to be fact or anything.
You take it as fact, not as a theory, then...
A way to get out of any problems that cannot be resolved for Apollo-ites.
Something unique to the lunar environment, such as lunar soil, will always back up Apollo.
Of course, this phenomenon can never be proven wrong, being unique to lunar soil.
Get serious.
The phenomenon has no proof of even existing, first of all.
The papers are trying a theory, to explain it, but nothing supports it.
What they are doing, with these papers, is assuming it already known as true, in all ways. That we landed on the moon, and that is one of the landing sites, and that unidentifiable little blob is exactly where the LM landed on the lunar surface. Images from orbit show it has a soil disturbance, caused by the LM during the descent.
So they must explain what would allow for such an oddity..
It must be unique, for sure.
The reflectance must be unique, specifically.
To show why the lunar soil is more reflective when subtly disturbed, while not visible on the surface, only seen from orbit...
It must be more reflective, but only in an upwards direction, then..
It does not reflect more in any other direction, though.
Nobody knows, sadly.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You have not read the papers.
You have not answered the questions put to you.
No surprises.
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You have not read the papers.
You have not answered the questions put to you.
No surprises.
The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.
It does not claim to be factual, however.
The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You have not read the papers.
You have not answered the questions put to you.
No surprises.
The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.
It does not claim to be factual, however.
The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
originally posted by: turbonium1
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
You have not read the papers.
You have not answered the questions put to you.
No surprises.
The papers offer a theory about it, as a possible explanation.
It does not claim to be factual, however.
The soil is not explained, but it has to, in any supporting of your case, for sure..
A theory about what, specifically?
What is it that all these papers are trying to explain?
You were claiming before that there was nothing to see, now you are saying that the explanations for the thing you claimed wasn't there are just theories.
Why are there theories to explain the existence of something you claimed didn't exist?
originally posted by: turbonium1
They are assuming we landed on the moon, and this has to be explained from being 100% fact..
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1
Everything has been explained, it is possible, and people from many countries have seen, examined and discussed all the data, all of which is public and always has been. You're refusal to believe them and inability to understand it is your problem, not ours.
You claimed there was no evidence of what we were discussing, once the evidence was produced yoy jumped ship and are now saying they are just theories explaining the evidence you said wasn't there to explain.
Still waiting for answers: can the LRO see Chinese and Soviet probes? Yes or no?
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: Akaan011
The problem with faking the footage is that it was simply not technically possible in the 60/70s even modern CGI would struggle to do it. 1/6g in a vacuum isn't easy to pull off.
Apollo 11 was at 50% speed, and then, they changed it to 66.66% speed for all the other missions.