It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: truthnlies
its just too bad we "accidentally" threw away the technology to get there or we could have went again and agian beings i have more technology in my pocket then they did back then , but yea i totally believe we went to the moon
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
If you don't think whether or not you've looked at the most original scans affects your point, then you are completely missing my point that it matters a great deal.
I think if you're going to raise your concerns it's only fair if you show some examples, otherwise I don't get your point in mentioning your concerns at all.
originally posted by: firerescue
a reply to: wildespace
Supposedly when Nixon shut down Apollo programs ordered that the jigs and tooling for SATURN V be destroyed
so that could not be restarted
I guess we'll never know what you were really looking at then with no examples, but hopefully you can understand in a science forum that when you say some NASA photos don't pass muster, people are going to be curious to know what you're talking about. NASA has photos they doctored on their own website by the way, they just aren't labeled as originals. For their "doctored" photos, the amount of explanation provided about how the image was doctored and why varies.
originally posted by: SlapMonkey
That's not what I said at all, I said MAYBE I didn't look at the originals...
I cited some concerns, and I don't care enough to take the time to sift through the images to find them at this point in my life.
Nothing could be further from the truth...it's not "just speculation", it's a model. Is the model a perfect representation of reality? No model is, but models can be very close if the inputs are not speculative but fact and measurement based which the inputs to this model are. What are the inputs and are they known or speculative?
originally posted by: lSkrewloosel
"It turns out there is a lot of information about the astronomical bodies floating out there in space," he explains. "Starting with the sun. The sun itself is 128,500 lux -- that's lumens per square meter - but it turns out the moon is a crappy reflector of light." Daly discovered that the moon is only 12-percent reflective, and absorbs most of the sunlight hitting it. On the other hand, 12-percent of 128,500 lux is quite a lot. "It's the equivalent to ten 100-watt lightbulbs per square meter of light bouncing off the moon." More than enough make Aldrin visible under the lander's shadow.
While this exercise showed that the moon was reflective enough to highlight Aldrin, something was still wrong. Daly noticed that the astronaut's side wasn't lit the same in NVIDIA's simulation as it was in NASA's photograph, but he wasn't sure why. "A couple of people really into the moon landing told me, 'by the way, you should take into account Neil Armstrong and the light coming off of him.' At first I was like, yeah, whatever -- the sun is doing all the work -- something the size of a guy in a space suit isn't going to contribute much light." He quickly learned his assumption was wrong: the material on the outside of the astronaut's suits is 85-percent reflective. "Sure enough, we put him in there, adjusted the reflectivity of his suit, put him in the position where the camera would be... and it contributed another 10% or so of light to the side of Buzz Aldrin."
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
It's interesting that one of Nvidia's directors apparently had some doubts about how brightly lit Buzz Aldrin was in that scene, and it sounds like a number of nvidia folks were surprised by how much light Neil Armstrong's space suit reflected into the scene. They didn't have to speculate about that either, it's about 85% reflective.
Yes, it was NASA engineer Kelly Smith rather than an astronaut, who talked about the need to test Orion electronics in the Van Allen belt. However your reference to the auto industry vastly understates the changes in the electronics industry where auto measures are somewhat stagnant relative to measures of progress in electronics. Intel mentioned this example to highlight the contrast:
originally posted by: captainpudding
a reply to: firerescue
I'm about 99% sure their claim was that since they have to test new equipment (Orion) it means the old stuff didn't work (Apollo) the same way we can prove the Model T was fake because Ford tests its new models before they put them on sale. It's been 50 years and ignorance and lies is still all they're capable of. I agree with you, I still laugh at the 9/11 people when they try and claim the official story is that the buildings melted.
What does annoy me is people who state FACT that we DID go to the moon. They know as much as the rest of us.
Either way, it's a fascinating topic to talk about.