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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 121
29
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatbrain

Originally posted by jra

The “Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?” thread is stickied, meaning that it's fixed to the top, it won't move. “An End To The Moon Conspiracy” is not stickied, so it will drop when their are no replies.


This is a bad beginning. I have a great brain and you must explain your assertions.

Why the first thread is stickied and the second one drops?


OK, I'll try. The thread was "stickied" in place so it never moves so people can find it easy, without having to ask the same questions over and over every few weeks or months as new people come to this forum.

It's a guide of sorts, in the event you see a light in the sky that you can't identify. It lists the type of things you'll need to know about what you saw so that you will have something to go on to ask intelligent questions of others in an effort to figure out just what it was.

Often people that don't spend a lot of time looking at the night sky will all at once notice Venus or Mars or something, and assume it's a UFO or a super nova or a comet or the ISS, and get really excited.

If you have the sort of information outlined in the "sticky", then you can use some of the links there to see what it is before you post and maybe embarrass yourself for mistaking Jupiter for a reptilian mother ship headed for earth.

That thread never moves because it's needed fairly often.

Edit to add: The second one drops because people lose interest in the subject, or the information becomes obsolete, or we were bombed by those pesky Draconians again and lost our server.


Does this explain things?

[edit on 24-11-2007 by NGC2736]



jra

posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
1. No Stars in the Pictures.

If you took your camera with shutter speed settings for daytime pictures, then snapped a photo of the starriest sky on the darkest night, I suspect you would see no stars also (except possibly an extremely bright object such as Venus.)


Earlier this year, in another forum, Venus was spotted in some B&W Apollo 14 photos (B&W film is generally more light sensitive than colour film). It was in the correct position relitive to the Earth for that time and date when view from the Moon. And to be sure that it wasn't just a spec of dust that was on the scanner, they looked at about nine consecutive photos and it was in the same spot in each.

here is the thread for anyone who may be interested.



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
...been trying to go through this thread from the top for awhile now, not even halfway done, wanted to bring this photo to everyone's attention. Should you 'zoom in' on the reflection in the helmet, the Moon itself looks kind of strange. Apologies should this of been discussed already; plus, the Earth looks 'shopped as well when zoomed in, anyone around w/ some Photoshop to get a closer look?



[edit on 24-11-2007 by anhinga]



posted on Nov, 24 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


Hello anhinga, OK...I'll bite. What do you see in the helmet's reflection that seems odd? Admittedly, I cannot 'zoom' in, but anyway I don't see why it would be necessary. Secondly, the orientation of the Earth in this picture is completely consistent when you understand where the Sun was in relation to both celestial bodies. (Hint: Apollo landings were timed and sited to occur at local Lunar 'morning'...question/logic test for you: can you use science to understand why?).

Cheers


jra

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


What looks odd about the lunar surface in the reflection?



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:38 AM
link   
anhinga, friendly warning: do not react to jra and the likes - they are only trying to make it hard for the average reader to research the issue. They are NOT here to research anything.

There are MANY people like jra on this site. TOO MANY.

Mod Note: Please Stay on Topic– Please Review This Link.

[edit on 25-11-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
...you can 'zoom in' on the photo -- just click in the image and it has a closer view. The reflection of the Moon seems really 'small' -- I don't know how else to phrase that, the sun in the upper left, um, no comment -- but the Moon itself doesn't look right, there seems like a dimensional/curvature issue there.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by anhinga
 


You're right. It does look strange...but that is because the astronaut's "helmut bubble" is curved. The reflection off of the glass of his helmet is like the reflection in a convex fun-house mirror. I fully expect the reflection to look "odd" -- like a "fish-eye lens", or the reflection you get when you look at a christmas tree ornament.


[edit on 11/25/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by NGC2736

The thread was "stickied" in place so it never moves so people can find it easy

It's a guide of sorts, in the event you see a light in the sky that you can't identify

Often people that don't spend a lot of time looking at the night sky will all at once notice Venus or Mars or something, and assume it's a UFO


You are right, now I've understood: if ten people every day

read "Astronomy: So You See a Bright Light?" it means that we are in

front of a biggest thread, very interesting.

On the contrary instead "An End To The Moon Conspiracy!" is a poor

thread with few replies and every day very few people read them.

I have a great brain and I hope I've understood well.


jra

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by anhinga
but the Moon itself doesn't look right, there seems like a dimensional/curvature issue there.


I think I see what you're getting at. You feel that the curvature of the horizon is more than what it should be on the reflection?

Looking closely, I see a mountain in the reflection (larger image here ) To me it looks like North Massif. Apollo 17 landed in the Taurus-Littrow region which sits between three large massifs, so ones sure to have one of them reflecting off the visor.



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   


That man close to that cement-mixer is Armstrong. Then it's true that

astronauts used Langley crane to learn landings.

But, hey, there is no film that shows Armstrong flying suspended from this

crane.

Why? Because those cement-mixers were not able to fly. Very simple.

Americans built Langley crane as they were trustful their engineers would

be able to build a spacecraft capable of landing going backward.

But no one is able to land a rocket going backward not even today:

www.space.com...



posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by greatbrain
 


bigbrain --

Even if you're assertion that the LEM wasn't able to fly was true (which isn't true, since the LEM could land backwards), what does that have anything to do with the Langley Crane?

By the way, the gantry at Langley is still in use today for testing of aircraft and the new Orion space capsule. The Langley gantry WAS used as a practice area for Moon landings, although many of the astronauts thought that the experiences they learned there were not that helpful...so in some respects the testing there was a bit disappointing.


jra

posted on Nov, 25 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by greatbrain
But no one is able to land a rocket going backward not even today:

www.space.com...


Your link disproves your claim. Armadillo Aerospace has successfully landed there rocket many times, like it says in the article, but accidents happen. The reason why the rocket failed was due to mechanical problems and nothing to do with landing a rocket backwards.

They had several problems. One was that the igniter kept clogging and later on a "hard start" cracked the graphite combustion chamber. On there final attepmt a violent "hard start" caused the engine to explode.

As you can see, the problems had nothing to do with taking off and landing vertically with the rocket, it was just mechanical issues.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

As you can see, the problems had nothing to do with taking off and landing vertically with the rocket, it was just mechanical issues.



NASA swindlers would have gone to the Moon 6 times in 3 years with no mechanical issue. Very strange.



That man close to that cement-mixer is Armstrong.

WHY THERE IS NOT AT LEAST ONE VIDEO THAT SHOWS AT LEAST THAT

CEMENT-MIXER CLOSE TO ARMSTRONG FLYING SUSPENDED FROM THAT

BIG CRANE LANDING GOING BACKWARDS?

DEAR JRA, THINK BEFORE TALKING. DON'T MAKE ME THINK AN ASS IS

MORE INTELLIGENT THAN YOU.

------------------------------------

please read Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and The Use of ALL CAPs All Members Please Read

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as well as, from the terms and Conditions;

2) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, hateful and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.

www.abovetopsecret.com...








[edit on 26/11/07 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by greatbrain
 


Could you please explain (instead of talking in riddles) what a video showing the test LEM attached to the gantry will prove? If you state your point clearly, maybe we could have a normal debate.

...and by the way, I know your new here (
), but please read the board's T&C regarding foul language and abusive laguage towards other members.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by greatbrain
 


...and by the way, I know your new here (
), but please read the board's T&C regarding foul language and abusive laguage towards other members.


Am I the only one who sees a very distinct similarity between 'greatbrain' and skeptic-friend? Their 'writing' styles are nearly identical and so is their use of non-sensical rhetoric and hyperbole.

[edit on 26-11-2007 by AugustusMasonicus]



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 


It was nasa that invented the hoax of not landing on the moon. It was a pure disimformation from the very begining. Read the book "Dark Mission " and it expains it in great detail!



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by greatbrain
 


You do realize that using all caps is not favored here on ATS, don't you? Or using abusive terms, which I think you're doing with your comment?



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by greatbrain
 


Could you please explain (instead of talking in riddles) what a video showing the test LEM attached to the gantry will prove? If you state your point clearly, maybe we could have a normal debate.

...and by the way, I know your new here (
), but please read the board's T&C regarding foul language and abusive laguage towards other members.


I think greatbrain AKA SKEPTIC-FRIEND is trolling under a new name. I really wish it would be possible to have a civil debate but he never seems to learn.



posted on Nov, 26 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Don't sweat it, he's gone. The ban hammer fell on that great brain of his that never learns. Why people can't just come back with a different attitude, and start over if they want to be a part of this is beyond me.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join