Apollo 16 Flag is Still Casting Shadows

ParasuvO
reply to post by wildespace

 

Not only are the pictures beyond useless, but the actual supposed landing vehicles etc. look completely out of focus or something, like they were added in using a felt pen and a flashlight.

I am terribly sorry but this is like believing the shroud of Turin validates Jesus Christ, you just have incredibly lousy, and also SUSPICIOUS looking squares that are less easy to make out than the supposed FOOTPRINTS LOL.

A classic example of the HOAXER mentality empty your mind of logic or common sense then criticise, the landing sites are well documented, images taken on the surface by the astronauts and DETAILED!!! 40+ years ago can be compared to the LRO images.

Just because YOU can't understand what you SEE in these images, well that can be solved by HOAX believers putting in some EFFORT to do so.

Here is a frame from the DAC camera (top) as Apollo 17 left the Moon compared to the LRO image (bottom)



There are also HUNDREDS of small craters and rocks from Apollo images which can now be compared with what is shown on LRO images.

reply to post by wmd_2008


They have been to the moon. No doubt about that. But since the discussion doesn't stop I don't stop to post my thoughts -and those of a lot of others- about it.

www.evawaseerst.be...

reply to post by ParasuvO


wmd_2008 posted a good reply above. My mind boggles as to how you and some other people on ATS see absolutely nothing significant in those images. Does it really look like an ordinary area of lunar lanscape with nothing but rocks and craters to you?

Granted, some of the LRO images of the Apollo sites are lower resolution and thus look blurrier. But others are at excellent 25 cm/pixel resolution (matching spy satellites orbiting Earth), and provide nice views of the descent module. lunarnetworks.blogspot.co.uk...

Here's a series of images of Apollo 14 site at 0.5 m/pixel, and at different sun angles, showing some structure of the descent module and the recognisable shape of the shadow:



I find it funny how the conspiracy believers see alien structures, bases, roads, and monuments on the Moon, yet the Apollo sites appear completely non-artificial to them... I would call that kind of cognition and logic beyond useless.

This is one that really sells it to me. I've posted it in another thread but it is relevant here.

The image on the left is the view taken by the 16mm camera as the Apollo 15 ascent module launches from the moon to rejoin the CSM - footage that also shows the tracks left by the astronauts and the rover.

The image on the right is the view taken by the LRO 40 years later.



The photograph below is from the National Geographic article (scanned from my own copy) of the same area taken at ground level.



and here is the same area taken at an oblique angle taken by the LRO 40 years later.



The LRO is more than capable at picking out hundreds of little rocks that appear in the Apollo photos. It doesn't have to be hardware and tracks that prove they were there.

Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

Nobody is saying NASA is a cabal of saints, they did mess with Apollo Moon pictures, nobody doubts that,

I do.

Some pictures have been prettied up for public consumption but scans of the originals are readily available.

When a lot of people got excited that when some of the pictures had 'blacked' out sky NASA admitted there was several pictures that had fuzzy lens flare so they (I forget who she was) said they simply darkened the sky to bring out the details for publication. There was nothing sinister going on, the originals are still available from NASA, that was the only Apollo moon photos they were 'messing' with and they admitted it.

reply to post by wulff


While it's true the flags weren't expensive (the were less than $6, and the aluminum tubing was gold anodized $75) the most expense was it was mounted in a container that was on a landing strut so it had to be insulated from the lunar lander rocket motor heat.
They said Nylon was fine as it would last for many years (and they have).
I get so frustrated when people talk of the flag 'waving' all they were doing was flexing from the astronauts moving them, eventually in the airless 'atmosphere' of the moon they became still until the blast from the LEM 'fluttered' them one last time!
On Myth-busters they proved this by using an backup flag that was from a cancelled flight and shook it in a vacuum chamber, the flag 'fluttered' for a very long time because there was no friction from air, exactly what we observed on the moon!
Hoaxers, get over it! How much more proof do you need before you finally say "Well, I guess I was wrong, we really did go to the moon"?
I's childish and unscientific to deny proof right in your face!

wulff

Phage
reply to post by smurfy

 

Nobody is saying NASA is a cabal of saints, they did mess with Apollo Moon pictures, nobody doubts that,

I do.

Some pictures have been prettied up for public consumption but scans of the originals are readily available.

When a lot of people got excited that when some of the pictures had 'blacked' out sky NASA admitted there was several pictures that had fuzzy lens flare so they (I forget who she was) said they simply darkened the sky to bring out the details for publication. There was nothing sinister going on, the originals are still available from NASA, that was the only Apollo moon photos they were 'messing' with and they admitted it.

And it's also important to note that it's the digital ones they do this to. People who have grown up with the internet sometimes forget that digital media weren't always around. The original photographs are still available, were sold in books to the public, and were published in newspapers and magazines. I have lots of these in my collection. No-one has been round to try and divert my attention while they quickly colour in something that shouldn't be there.

deadcalm

LoL....you can't be serious ....google earth has better detail of your neighbor kids bike sitting in the driveway..

This can't be stressed enough. They have spy satellites that can read a newspaper headline from space THROUGH Earth's dense atmosphere....and these photos are the best that NASA has to offer?

Total garbage. Those photos prove absolutely nothing.

That's consistent with what Mark Lowenthal, a former intelligence official, thinks, too. According to Lowenthal, president of the Arlington-based Intelligence and Security Academy, commercial satellite imagery can make out objects that are as small as 20 inches across. But Lowenthal notes that according to various press reports military satellites are about twice again as good, capable of resolution down to 10 inches. The Federation of American Scientists has a great side-by-side comparison of the same image sampled at various resolutions.

www.washingtonpost.com...

So...the US can make satellites that have a resolution of 10 inches potentially....and we are supposed to believe that this is as good as we can do from a spacecraft orbiting at a mere 50 km from the Moon's surface?

Most spy sats are in geosynchronous orbit at a distance of 22,160 mi [35,663 km]....REALLY folks.

And I'm the one thats crazy?

edit on 05America/Chicagoam052014-04-05T11:50:44-05:00amSaturday04 by deadcalm because: (no reason given)

You claim that satellites can read a newspaper headline on Earth and then to back this up you post a quote claiming a maximum resolution of 10 inches. How big are newspaper headlines in your world? In fact how big are newspapers? At 10 inches per pixel An entire newspaper might just about show up as two pixels if it was laid out flat on the ground in good light.

The LRO can achieve a maximum resolution of about 25cm per pixel, which is... 10 inches! So those images you are complaining about are in fact just as good as your beloved spy satellite images. That is what 10 inches per pixel looks like.

The reason Google Earth can see your neighbours' kids' bikes in the driveway is, as has repeatedly been pointed out, because Google Earth high-res imagery is not taken from satellites. It's taken from a light aircraft flying at maybe 1.5km, not a satellite orbiting the moon 50km up!

Most spy sats are in geosynchronous orbit at a distance of 22,160 mi [35,663 km]....REALLY folks.

REALLY folks?

Just FYI, the orbital altitude of a typical imaging satellite such as QuickBird (as used by DigitalGlobe) is about 480km. QuickBird has a resolution of 60cm (24 inches) in black and white and 240cm (94 inches) in colour.

So the LRO isn't doing too badly is it?

reply to post by wildespace

I find it funny how the conspiracy believers see alien structures, bases, roads, and monuments on the Moon, yet the Apollo sites appear completely non-artificial to them... I would call that kind of cognition and logic beyond useless.

You know, I was just about to say...
It's funny, people will use shadow images of Lunar modules & flags but deny that the shadows of structures are evidence of "other things"!!!
So same logic, but other side of the coin!!!

& not you personally OP, but people know who they are!!!

I'm not really a "Hoax" believer by definition... Some of it was falsified I feel, but it still happened...
Let's face it Russia & China & Britain would already have proved if it didn't!!!


What I will say, how did they return with such a lack of fuel???

The Answer;
Vimana's!!!

The shape of the modules that return gives that away, they just shut power off after re-entry & "deploy a parachute" for some added human-effect!!!


Peace Wildespace!!!

CharlieSpeirs

What I will say, how did they return with such a lack of fuel???

What lack of fuel? The LM had plenty of fuel to reach rendezvous with the CSM, and the CSM had plenty of fuel to leave lunar orbit and return to Earth. If you think otherwise then show us the sums!

Once you've left lunar orbit it's pretty much "downhill all the way"

reply to post by Rob48

When the lunar module lands at 4:18 p.m EDT, only 30 seconds of fuel remain.

Well they were cutting it a bit fine if you ask me!!!
NASA.gov!!!

Once you've left lunar orbit it's pretty much "downhill all the way"

Not to sound pedantic or antagonising, but it's not really!!!
Out of Lunar orbit but not within Earth's atmosphere you'd need a lot of thirst between the two, to guide the capsule Vimana


Out of curiosity, (), what do you think was the inspiration for the Vimana shaped capsule???


Peace Rob!!!

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Rob48

 

When the lunar module lands at 4:18 p.m EDT, only 30 seconds of fuel remain.

Well they were cutting it a bit fine if you ask me!!!
NASA.gov!!!

Once you've left lunar orbit it's pretty much "downhill all the way"

Not to sound pedantic or antagonising, but it's not really!!!
Out of Lunar orbit but not within Earth's atmosphere you'd need a lot of thirst between the two, to guide the capsule Vimana

Out of curiosity, (

), what do you think was the inspiration for the Vimana shaped capsule???


Peace Rob!!!

The 30 seconds of fuel left was the decent stage of the lunar lander.

The ascent module tanks were full, and had more than enough fuel to get back up and to the command module.

The command module had more than enough fuel to burn out of lunar orbit, so it was no longer being held by it. At that point, it falls back in the Earth sphere of influence....and yes, literally "falls" back towards the Earth.

The rocket does not thrust during the whole journey.

On the Saturn V, the first 2 stages (which was about 60% of the rocket) was used to simply get the 3rd stage, the lunar lander, the command module to Earth orbit (a lot of fuel was needed to lift that amount of mass to Earth orbit).

Once in orbit around the Earth, the 3rd stage was then burned for about 6 minutes to achieve a Trans-Lunar Injection, which allowed the spacecraft to leave Earth orbit and head to where the moon was going to be. Then the rocket stops burning, the stage then ejected after the CSM separates, turns and docks with the lunar module.

80% of the original rocket is now gone.

The Earth is pulling on the CSM and lunar lander, slowing it down, to where when it finally reaches the moon's orbit (and timed right, encounters the moon), it is going so slow that the moon, with a minimum burn from the CSM is able to slow down just enough to be captured into lunar orbit.

In order to get back, the CSM did the same thing, in that it simply had to burn and accelerate to leave lunar orbit, which with the much weaker lunar gravity, did not take that much fuel to do so.
Once fast enough to leave lunar orbit, you have the burn eject you at an angle to head back towards the Earth.....and then the Earth's gravity is now helping to pull you back. No need to keep burning (if you did, you'd accelerate the spacecraft, if you give it too much velocity, it will not end up in Earth orbit, but will instead sling shot around it and head for a solar orbit).

So once you burn to leave lunar orbit and then stop your burn.....yes, it IS down hill all the way.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Rob48

 

When the lunar module lands at 4:18 p.m EDT, only 30 seconds of fuel remain.

Well they were cutting it a bit fine if you ask me!!!
NASA.gov!!!

That was the fuel in the LM decent stage. The LM ascent stage had enough of its own fuel to take off and reach the CM.

Once you've left lunar orbit it's pretty much "downhill all the way"

Not to sound pedantic or antagonising, but it's not really!!!
Out of Lunar orbit but not within Earth's atmosphere you'd need a lot of thirst between the two, to guide the capsule Vimana

Wrong. In the vacuum of space between the Moon and Earth, any spacecraft will carry on moving without the need for thrust. Basic Newtonian physics.

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Rob48

 

When the lunar module lands at 4:18 p.m EDT, only 30 seconds of fuel remain.
Well they were cutting it a bit fine if you ask me!!!
NASA.gov!!!

30 seconds of fuel for the descent stage! The ascent stage had its own fuel supply.

Not to sound pedantic or antagonising, but it's not really!!!
Out of Lunar orbit but not within Earth's atmosphere you'd need a lot of thirst between the two, to guide the capsule Vimana

The typical trans-earth injection burn lasted only about three minutes, if I recall correctly, and then there are a couple of mid course correction burns along the way each lasting maybe 5 or 6 seconds. Most of the time the CSM is just coasting back to Earth.

Out of curiosity, (

), what do you think was the inspiration for the Vimana shaped capsule???

I don't "think", I looked it up.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, H. Julian Allen and A. J. Eggers, Jr. of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) made the counterintuitive discovery in 1951[5] that a blunt shape (high drag) made the most effective heat shield. From simple engineering principles, Allen and Eggers showed that the heat load experienced by an entry vehicle was inversely proportional to the drag coefficient, i.e. the greater the drag, the less the heat load. Through making the reentry vehicle blunt, air cannot "get out of the way" quickly enough, and acts as an air cushion to push the shock wave and heated shock layer forward (away from the vehicle). Since most of the hot gases are no longer in direct contact with the vehicle, the heat energy would stay in the shocked gas and simply move around the vehicle to later dissipate into the atmosphere.

I don't know about you, but I would use fluid dynamics when designing a re-entry vehicle rather than basing it on "vimanas"

reply to post by eriktheawful

The command module had more than enough fuel to burn out of lunar orbit, so it was no longer being held by it. At that point, it falls back in the Earth sphere of influence....and yes, literally "falls" back towards the Earth.

The rocket does not thrust during the whole journey.

No doubt pal!!!

I wasn't intending to sound as if it's a non stop thrust!!!

But a significant amount at least, would be the difference from a two day journey & a 3week descent!!!

But I'm no Rocket Scientist, so I'm happy to be corrected

On the Saturn V, the first 2 stages (which was about 60% of the rocket) was used to simply get the 3rd stage, the lunar lander, the command module to Earth orbit (a lot of fuel was needed to lift that amount of mass to Earth orbit).

So more fuel would be needed to get out there rather than coming back, due to Earth's pull having much more force than the moon, seems obvious now
Thanks for the info!!!


Peace Erik!!!

reply to post by wildespace

Wrong. In the vacuum of space between the Moon and Earth, any spacecraft will carry on moving without the need for thrust. Basic Newtonian physics.

To be fair it's not basic...
My point is there is no downward or upward in Space... we travel across left & right!!!
But as Erik stated it takes less fuel coming back due to gravitational force being stronger from Earth's position!!!
Thrust is still need in short bursts though!!!


Peace Wildespace!!!

reply to post by Rob48

30 seconds of fuel for the descent stage! The ascent stage had its own fuel supply.

I should have elaborated, I meant fuel to return, not the journey there!!!

The way I see it, & I may very well be wrong here, a lot of the fuel is used to breach the Van Allen belt, not only that but much of the Rocket breaks up and they're left with minimal apparatus!!!
Now this would be beneficial in dropping the load bearing for fuel, but wouldn't it hinder how much could be held to return???

I don't know about you, but I would use fluid dynamics when designing a re-entry vehicle rather than basing it on "vimanas"

The reason I asked you was because I wanted your opinion, not their version of events!!!
As in do you not think it crossed their mind that Vimanas were already designed for that reason, so build a "space age" version???

Me personally, I don't believe in coincidence or random design!!!

But I appreciate the insight pal


Peace Rob!!!

CharlieSpeirs
reply to post by Rob48

 

30 seconds of fuel for the descent stage! The ascent stage had its own fuel supply.

I should have elaborated, I meant fuel to return, not the journey there!!!

So did I. The descent stage of the LM which descended to the moon only had 30 seconds or so of fuel left.

The ASCENT stage, which brought the LM back to rendezvous with the CM, had plenty of fuel. It was a separate rocket.

The way I see it, & I may very well be wrong here, a lot of the fuel is used to breach the Van Allen belt, not only that but much of the Rocket breaks up and they're left with minimal apparatus!!!
Now this would be beneficial in dropping the load bearing for fuel, but wouldn't it hinder how much could be held to return???

Most of the fuel is used to launch the massive Saturn V rocket from Earth. Launching the far lighter spacecraft back home requires far less fuel. It is "downhill" in terms of gravitational potential.

The reason I asked you was because I wanted your opinion, not their version of events!!!
As in do you not think it crossed their mind that Vimanas were already designed for that reason, so build a "space age" version???

Me personally, I don't believe in coincidence or random design!!!

Me neither. The design wasn't random, it was the result of lots of testing. I am quite sure that "vimanas" were not a factor. When you are building a space craft, aesthetics are not a priority!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You have no idea in the world what you are talking about, zero proof and you are using your imagination to tell you those pictures are what they are supposed to be.

If you cannot see that those pictures are beyond terrible it is YOU who is lacking logic , and using predetermined beliefs to spout your truths.

Again you lump yourselves into the group that has to believe in something if you are told...and the people lap it up, without question.


The mentality of those who are so limited in scope and controlled by those beliefs takes away the ability to be objective...it is what allows this world to be controlled by scum, because it is so easy.

Of course you should fill in the blanks for Nasa, it makes you feel alive, you need to feel the Lies deeply so that you can support your baseless hopes for space travel.

Without knowing it, your hate for those who SERIOUSLY ASK, why all the lies and obfuscations, that are coming from these people who tell you all that is going on, is proof enough for me.

ParasuvO
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You have no idea in the world what you are talking about, zero proof and you are using your imagination to tell you those pictures are what they are supposed to be.

If you cannot see that those pictures are beyond terrible it is YOU who is lacking logic , and using predetermined beliefs to spout your truths.

Again you lump yourselves into the group that has to believe in something if you are told...and the people lap it up, without question.


The mentality of those who are so limited in scope and controlled by those beliefs takes away the ability to be objective...it is what allows this world to be controlled by scum, because it is so easy.

Of course you should fill in the blanks for Nasa, it makes you feel alive, you need to feel the Lies deeply so that you can support your baseless hopes for space travel.

Without knowing it, your hate for those who SERIOUSLY ASK, why all the lies and obfuscations, that are coming from these people who tell you all that is going on, is proof enough for me.

edit on 14-4-2014 by ParasuvO because: (no reason given)

You seem to be starting from a baseline of "there are lies and obfuscations" and proceeding from there, so it looks to me that you have predetermined what your beliefs are on these matters. You claim that there is zero evidence for the claim that instigated your little rant but I see evidence in the post you railed against so much. Where's yours? Or does it consist entirely of the the unsupported opinions of people you agree with, as opposed to people you don't?

I'm one of those people you seem to hate so much. I've spent my time and money researching this for some years now not because I'm being fed lies and obfuscations and not because I need to feel alive or have some loyalty for NASA but because I find the ignorance of people, their unwillingness to actually educate themselves, and their blind adherence to conspiracy gurus who are only interested in self-promotion and making money from the gullible offensive. If people want to carry on wallowing in their self-proclaimed pit of stupid that's their business, but I won't have them claiming nobody told them the truth.

In stead of just wading in and hurling belligerent invective, how about discussing what is wrong with the pictures that were posted that you object to so much. If you think they were faked, explain to us who did it, when, where, how, with what. If you think the quality is too poor to tell anything meaningful, find us some better ones. Just telling people to sit in a corner with a dunce's hat on doesn't cut it - tell us your version of it.