Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Apollo 16 Flag is Still Casting Shadows

page: 9
27
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by cestrup
 


Well, they were (and are) by far the highest resolution pics yet taken of the moon from the Earth's surface.

By the way, something I just spotted - further proof that anyone can make mistakes... I've just been puzzling over that VLT image which is captioned as showing the crater Cameron...



I could not reconcile it with the LRO imagery of Cameron... the craters and rilles just didn't match!

And then I glanced a little further to the east and saw that it is actually a nearby crater 100km or so away called Asada. Doh!



(That's very zoomed-out LRO imagery, of course.)

I think they need to hire me to fact-check their press releases...
edit on 15-4-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

wildespace

cestrup
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

@ Rob - the picture you posted of a city scape looks much more resolute to me than the LRO photos.

Without an atmosphere to soften the shadows like on Earth, the Moon images have harsh contrast. LRO images we've seen are also in B&W.

Let's adjust that city image to simulate it being taken in vacuum and in B&W...


Try this one (again, at the same resolution as the LRO images):


What makes this a better example is that there is an actual, full-sized Apollo Lunar Module Test Article (LTA) in this image. Can you spot it? I'll bet most of the Apollo-fans here can spot it quickly, because we are knowledgeable enough to know what to look for.
Here is a ground-level photo of it:



Oddly enough, I lived in this city for a year and never saw this LTA. To borrow a question from the Hoax-Believers, "Why, after so many decades, haven't I ever gone back?" Either I didn't have the money or, if I did, I had other things to spend it on.

Do the above images constitute evidence that an Apollo LTA is sitting in a city somewhere? Yes, yes they do, even if it is blurry and/or pixelated and I did not take the surface photo. They are evidence, and if one were inclined to search further, then one could find even more evidence for this LTA.

Here's a challenge for Hoax-Believers: Can you provide any convincing evidence whatsoever that this object does not exist where these (and other) photographs show it?



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Cosmic rays. You proved it on the other thread, relevant here :-)



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Rob48
 


I don't think a journalist from the Daily Telegraph would have made those errors.


In all honesty, good find.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:10 PM
link   

ipfreely32
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Cosmic rays. You proved it on the other thread, relevant here :-)


Feel free to elaborate.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


I don't think elaborating is one of the things he does freely



Must be those cosmic rays that stick around posing for photographs for 45 years.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by nomickeyshere
 


I would imagine that 200,000 plus miles away from the Earth's atmosphere, the flags planted on the Moon are exposed to a LOT less debris than the ISS, which is a LEO payload, that is basically plowing it's way through a sea of microscopic debris from thousands of space launches by the angry monkeys. Also, another point to consider, The Earth has enough mass to keep a tenuous grip on the Moon, and even then the thing is still slipping away. Wonder how the mass of the Earth impacts say a small metal bolt in LEO? Yeah, the idea that flags on the surface of the Moon would decay at the same rate as a similar flag in LEO is a non-startedr. But a nice try. Space junk. At an orbital velocity of 17,000 MPH, it's definitely a gift that will keep on giving for a long, long, time!



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by tencap77
 


It may be more exposed to extreme temperatures (in flux) on the Moon. I do agree that it may hit more space junk in LEO at high speeds but a flag, without an much of a protective atmosphere and extreme changes in temperature (not to mention the cosmic rays/radiation/micrometeor bombardment) would experience plenty of wear and tear over the 40+ years. It's hard to say what state it's in.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by 999zxcv
 



Time is a thing god made plenty off to waste as we see fit and i did describe what was in the video it was about light and shadows


Oh, okay, I will assume that the video proves 100% that the lunar landings happened based on analysis of light and shadows. Thank you for saving my precious time.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

DJW001
reply to post by 999zxcv
 



Time is a thing god made plenty off to waste as we see fit and i did describe what was in the video it was about light and shadows


Oh, okay, I will assume that the video proves 100% that the lunar landings happened based on analysis of light and shadows. Thank you for saving my precious time.


Not quite just the opposite in fact i happen to think they have go to the moon but not with that tech but that is my opinion no one else's and i could be 100% wrong but i could be 100% right

did you watch the video !



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:51 PM
link   
If we can see a flag shadow, why cant
we see a LRV.



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 16 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Questions on the ascent stages: Apollo 11 they ditched enough weight to lift off, including cameras,shoes, backpacks etc, and only took approx 49lbs of lunar material back with them. On Apollo 15, they report returning back over 213 lbs of rocks. What was changed to allow more weight on the ascent stage?



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:11 AM
link   

ipfreely32
Questions on the ascent stages: Apollo 11 they ditched enough weight to lift off, including cameras,shoes, backpacks etc, and only took approx 49lbs of lunar material back with them. On Apollo 15, they report returning back over 213 lbs of rocks. What was changed to allow more weight on the ascent stage?



They started the until-now secret practice of leaving the lunar module pilot behind.

You'll note that James Irwin's LMP gig is listed as his "only spaceflight". There you go. When they got back, there was a look-alike that was used to perpetrate the hoax. How many lunar module pilots have you ever seen in the limelight since Apollo 14? None. No one remembers who they are. There's a reason. They're ALL STILL THERE.

Landing on the Moon was tough. But a spider monkey could take off and rendezvous - it's all automated, and the command module pilot does most of the docking work. So they traded the useless LMP for more rocks.

Somewhere in the shade of the Hadley rille, there's a well preserved body in a spacesuit and a couple of extra oxygen tanks. On a tag that's attached to one of the oxygen bottles is scrawled:

Under the wide and starry sky,
Dig the grave and let me lie:
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will!
This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:30 AM
link   

ipfreely32
Questions on the ascent stages: Apollo 11 they ditched enough weight to lift off, including cameras,shoes, backpacks etc, and only took approx 49lbs of lunar material back with them. On Apollo 15, they report returning back over 213 lbs of rocks. What was changed to allow more weight on the ascent stage?


Where does it state that Apollo 11 had only just about enough fuel to take off, and that without ditching cameras and other stuff they wouldn't be able to? I have a feeling that's not true. Every Apollo landing mission had enough fuel to take off and catch up with the Command Module in orbit, and the ditching of unnecessary weight was just to be on the safe side.



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ipfreely32
 


Ah, J class



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
There was a lot of talk going back and forth about fuel usage, etc. during and after the Apollo missions that I followed closely I learned a lot. As everyone should know, every celestial body has an "escape velocity"
"In the case of the earth, the escape velocity is 11.2kps/6.9mps; the moon, 2.4kps/1.5mps; Mars, 5kps/3.1mps; and Jupiter, 59.6kps/37mps."
Lets talk about thrust:
The first stage of the Saturn V had five engines. At launch, each engine produced about 1,500,000 pounds (or 6,670,000 newtons, the SI unit of force) of thrust. The five engines therefore produced about 7,500,000 pounds or about 33.4 million newtons.
As the rocket rose through the atmosphere, its thrust actually increased to almost nine million pounds due to the decreasing pressure of the surrounding air. I remember watching it and noticed as the air got thinner, the flames turned into a giant 'ball'. At the same time, it got much lighter as it furiously burned its propellants. This caused the rocket's acceleration to increase to where it could have damaged its structure or the Apollo spacecraft on top. To keep acceleration under 4 "G's", the center or "inboard" engine was shut down about 26 seconds before the other four.
The Apollo crafts spent 8 days total in space, 4 days to get there (don't forget, they are simply coasting and don't need to fire the engine on the service module other than for course corrections. The reason for coarse corrections are due to 'out-gassing' from various components in the complete vacuum of space pushing it around (I work with vacuum systems in the semiconductor industry and all the bolts in the vacuum chambers are 'vented' that is, they have a hole drill through to the bottom to prevent out-gassing thus taking days to reach the necessary vacuum. We wear gloves in the clean-rooms as a single fingerprint will outgas! There was never a problem about IF the Lunar module had enough fuel as it used it ONLY in takeoff from the moon, not landing! The only concern was it HAD TO FIRE or they would have been marooned on the moon. (Nixon had already prepared a speech in case that happened!)
when the lunar accent stage linked up with the command module after going to the surface, it was jettisoned and as the service module with the 3 astronauts and several hundred pounds of lunar rocks swung around the moon, they fired the command module engine to achieve 2.4 kilometers per second to 'escape' from the pull of the moon. during the coast back the command module reached 22,435 mph! That is why the reentry angle was so important, if it headed right for the earth it would slam into the atmosphere and be destroyed, if it hit the edge, it would 'skip' off the atmosphere and travel back into space, it came in and out to slowly bring it to a safe speed where it would be pulled into the earths gravity, falling until the drogue chutes slowed it down, then the main chutes opened for a water landing.
edit on 17-4-2014 by wulff because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2014 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam


They started the until-now secret practice of leaving the lunar module pilot behind.





originally posted by: Bedlam
Somewhere in the shade of the Hadley rille, there's a well preserved body in a spacesuit and a couple of extra oxygen tanks. On a tag that's attached to one of the oxygen bottles is scrawled:

Under the wide and starry sky,
Dig the grave and let me lie:
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will!
This be the verse you grave for me:
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Home is the sailor, home from sea,
And the hunter home from the hill.


It wouldn't be near this crater, would it?


You could say that the 15 crew were fans:
Video
Transcript with commentary
Lagniappe
edit on 17-4-2014 by Saint Exupery because: of a little extra clarification.



posted on Apr, 18 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Saint Exupery

I was beginning to despair. It seemed a fairly blatant literary reference.





new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join