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 captainpudding
reply to post by Riposte
Front screen projection can't do black since black is the absence of light so a light based projector just can't produce a deep black colour like we see in almost every lunar shot. This is a very old, long debunked theory that just holds no water.
Originally posted by seabhac-rua
Originally posted by trig_grl
What ive been asking for years and no one has given a solid answer is WHY? Why did they fake the moon landing? Ive seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax but im still confused as to why?
If you've seen enough evidence to believe it was a hoax then you are a gullible person.
Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by Riposte
Everyone single one of those pictures shows sunlight diffusing through an atmosphere. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Edit: comment removed due to lack of decorum. But I still don't care what you think.
Originally posted by Xtrozero
Originally posted by MysterX
A simply explanation for no tracks could just be due to the track being obscured behind a small lip or ridge a couple of inches high in the surface...that would effectively hide a track.
Also I'm sure things would look different as to how fast they traveled....traveling very slow might leave tracks and a few miles per hour might be enough for the dust to fill back in. Kind of hard for ANYONE to say with the tires being totally different to what we would see as tires.
Originally posted by Wide-Eyes
reply to post by seabhac-rua
Edit: comment removed due to lack of decorum. But I still don't care what you think.
PM me the original.edit on 28-11-2012 by Wide-Eyes because: To add quote.
Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):
You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...
So anyway, there are strange anomalies.
Originally posted by jimmyx
i always like the "debunkers" who say, that due to the rocket blasts on decent, it blew away all the dust from the landing leg pods, and that is why there is no dust on the feet of the landing legs....but....looking at nasa photos...there are boots prints (in this supposedly blown away dust) around the landing leg pods. big fail
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):
You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...
So anyway, there are strange anomalies.
You can still see rays in that picture
Originally posted by Riposte
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by Riposte
Also another issue with the photographs of the sun: when you take a photograph of the sun, you get a ray effect like this (I just randomly chose images from a Google search for 'sun photo'):
You don't get a perfect circular impression like this:
www.aulis.com...
So anyway, there are strange anomalies.
You can still see rays in that picture
You can't actually. And there are many other Apollo photos of the sun with no rays.
These are what the rays should look like:
images.nationalgeographic.com...edit on 28-11-2012 by Riposte because: (no reason given)