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.

 

Video compilation of NASA admitting they can't fly past low earth orbit

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Thill
So umm if we never went to the moon, could somebody please explain to me who placed those retroreflectors for the ongoing Lunar Laser ranging experiment ? Little grey men ?


I beleive MIT carried out laser ranging on the moon in 1962 before anyone allegedly went to the moon.
So it is actually possible to bounce lasers off of objects without adding man made mirrors.

As probes and the like have been sent to other planets by man, it is not necessary for humans to be present to deliver and deploy man made objects to other worlds.

This is one of the biggest issues with proof. We average people have no way to go and see with our own eyes.
And despite being able to see deep into space with telescopes and such from Earth, it apparently seems impossible to get a good high res image of anything left up there, everything shown to be the machinery left there is always blurry bright dots.

I suppose one day someone will once and for all be able to go there and see if there is a flag etc. But I highly doubt that will be any time soon.

This is the thing for me, I do not know the truth either way and am always seeking to get the real truth.
Sadly I cannot take a Governments or Major companies word as fact or truth. Especially when they've reputations for lying to their own people repeatedly amongst other questionable things, any more than I can say "GOD IS REAL" Because a Christian tells me it is so and gives me a book, or a fragment of wood as proof.

Honestly no one here on either side of the debate can genuinely say they know for 100% certainty there claims are undeniably true.

We're all just guessing here at the end of the day.
Only difference is some are set in their convictions and won't be budged (to the point of being insulting to validate their views) while others are open minded and looking at all possibilities. Because good scepticism like good science is always asking questions, always updating the data, always eliminating false data. Or at least trying to.

edit on 20-1-2017 by AtomicKangaroo because: edity stuff




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

I made no mention of burning and melting, nothing about internal cabin noise. While I appreciate the efforts can you stick to the things I am actually saying so we don't go off on tangents or risk changing the context of my words and questions.

And yes no dust anywhere as you say. Not a speck.



Now from the lander footage the dust was being blown outwards from the middle towards the feet and legs, right until the very end.
So surely some dust if not a decent amount should appear on the feet, normal gravity, low gravity or no gravity.
While no "blast crater" or "scorch mark" should there not be signs of streaking on the soil under the lander from the dust being blown outwards, it's not like it was stopped being blasted outwards while the feet were still completely clear of ground contact and the path of the dust.

Looking at official NASA photos there is no indication of such blowing disturbance of the dust.
Even the lander pads seem to show now sign of impact in the dust, giving a placed appearance more so than one of large flat plates coming down hard (with thrust moving dust added to the mix.)

Does it not seem weird not a single speck of dust seems to be on them? That it appears there is zero signs of disturbance from the landing?

It for me is even harder to understand when you see the astronauts and the rover interacting with the Lunar soil.
That # gets every where and sticks to every thing...... except the landing module and it's feet?
I'd think the lower gravity it would actually be more likely it would be over the legs.

Can you explain the lack of signs of such dust and distubances which seem to contradict what is visible for all in the landing film?

As for the cameras in the capsule.
Maybe this. Maybe that. Maybe.
Maybes are just another word for "I guess".

After such effort to get there and all the work put on the mission and it's importance to mankind and how strictly trained and disciplined these guys were meant to be. With so much attention required because it's the first time this is happening and one of the most dangerous things ever attempted at that point, they get lazy?

As for the stencil I think you misunderstand. I am not saying the clouds are stenciled, or the Earth, that it's a psoter of Earth placed over the window. I am saying the blue, land and clouds are indeed the Earth, but filmed much closer to the planet from being in orbit rather than from being in out of orbit and 'in space'.
ISS orbit vs middle of the Van Allen belt.

That a stencil is used to add a "nights edge" shadow you see on all spheres that make them look spherical and 3D.
e.g taking a circle and slicing off a chunk of it with another crescent.
With the light edge of the planet appearing to actually be the windows frame. An optical illusion.

The land mass that is visible is unidentifiable. Which continent is it? Looks like none I have seen in any atlases or globes or even google maps. Looks like a close up of a section of Earths land. Hence why the clouds also seem less detailed and chunkier than they should be.

Here's a graphic example to try and explain what I mean, excuse the roughness.




posted on Jan, 20 2017 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

So surely some dust if not a decent amount should appear on the feet, normal gravity, low gravity or no gravity.
Gravity doesn't have much to do with it but a lack of atmosphere does. Dust doesn't billow under those circumstances, it just keeps moving away. And don't forget that the engine was shut down before the feet hit the surface.


While no "blast crater" or "scorch mark" should there not be signs of streaking on the soil under the lander from the dust being blown outwards
Like this?
www.hq.nasa.gov...



The land mass that is visible is unidentifiable.
In the picture you posted? That's Central America. This one? That's Central America as well.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here can be seen Central America, South America, Greenland, Spain, and North Africa.
www.hq.nasa.gov...

You don't get that view from low orbit. Like this:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


edit on 1/20/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2017 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo

I suppose one day someone will once and for all be able to go there and see if there is a flag etc. But I highly doubt that will be any time soon.



so let me get this straight..

back in 1969, the USA was so arrogant that they would know that no nation would ever have the capability to image the flag on the lunar surface, not by rovers, not by orbiters, because every single nation is too backwards to be able to do so until the US is capable of planting the flag by really landing man on the moon (which is as of yet still impossible)..

thats what you are suggesting right??

what im getting at is, how did the US know that no other nation would have the capabilities to image the landing sites back in 1969 to take such a risk of faking it? time machine??



new topics

top topics
 
18
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join