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: 131
29
<< 128  129  130    132  133  134 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Zorgon, my friend,

Thanks for answering. Please read my entire post, the one right above this one a few levels...someone else wrote in, and THAT confused me big time!

Cheers!




posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   
seriously for anyone who doesn't think nasa went to the moon watch this sky at night episode. ( 30 mins long)

Do you honeslty think Eugene Cernan is acting/lying?

www.bbc.co.uk...

pay attention to his words from 21 - 26 mins

[edit on 15-12-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
pay attention to his words from 21 - 26 mins


He says we don't have the capability today to go to the Moon...

And he says he still flies Lear Jets...

Made a big point of the black sky and no mention of stars...

Patrick Moore and the missing BBC Moon Tapes...

During the Apollo program, he was one of the presenters of BBC television's coverage of the moon landing missions. The tapes of these broadcasts no longer exist: conflicting stories have circulated as to what precisely happened to them, or whether the broadcasts were recorded at all."


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 15-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:23 AM
link   
Zorgon its disapointing you cant even quote him correctly.

he said " we dont have the capability to go back to the moon today"

capability is not the same as having the technology, or technological know how. You let yourself down with a complete lack of basic comprehension skills.

you also missed him say they were standing in bright sunlight (lunar morning) why dont you see stars in the sky during the day on earth? last post becuase its not even worth it

[edit on 15-12-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
...
Do you honeslty think Eugene Cernan is acting/lying?
...


www.youtube.com...

Do you honestly think Armstrong, Aldrin, Collins are acting/telling the

truth?

Where is the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON?


Originally posted by yeti101
...
why dont you see stars in the sky during the day on earth?
...


On the Earth we don't see stars in the sky during the day because the

atmosphere refracts light of the sun (our sky is blue).

Instead on the moon light of the sun is not refracted, then astronauts also

in plain light of the day could look at the upper sky and see a spectacular

view of the stars (sky is black on the moon).



[edit on 15-12-2007 by jra-2]


jra

posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra-2
Instead on the moon light of the sun is not refracted, then astronauts also

in plain light of the day could look at the upper sky and see a spectacular

view of the stars (sky is black on the moon).


If that were true, then I should be able to see lots of stars at night in the city, but I don't. I have to go out into the countryside, where there is very little light, so that I can see lots of stars.

If standing under a streetlight, while looking up at the night sky can prevent me from seeing most stars, just imagine how much the Sun would prevent one from seeing them. Also don't forget that the astronauts have there gold visors down the majority of the time, so that makes it even harder to see them.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by jra]



posted on Dec, 15 2007 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...

If standing under a streetlight, while looking up at the night sky can prevent me from seeing most stars, just imagine how much the Sun would prevent one from seeing them.
...


My dearest friend jra, how are you?

Try to understand, please: tonight go out and look at the moon. The sun

lightens it but the sky is black and you can see a lot of stars. When you

see the moon lightened during the night, light of the sun is not refracted

because of the atmosphere.

On the moon there is no atmosphere and astronauts, looking up in the

sky, could see a lot of brilliant stars during the day as we can see a lot of

stars during the night.




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


I'm sorry,

How long can this go on?? Why can someone come in, co-opt another ATS user's screen name just by appending a [-2] after it, then continue to post nonsense?

Yes, this is a conspiracy site, yes it welcomes everyone...but, my friends, ATS is NOT YouTube. ATS has a standard of civility, and dare I say, erudition, that puts it many levels above (no pun) most other Internet sites. Continued postings by certain members who foment nonsense just wastes server space...I know, there has to be a standard of free speech, and if the T&C aren't violated...it is a slippery slope.

Well, my soapbox is put aside for now, thanks for listening...

Thanks for your posts...



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   
People who think that humans landed on the Moon are writing obvious nonsense...I agree. When SO MANY facts prove that no such thing ever happened. Continuing to defend such an obvious "historical" JOKE is against basic logic, and insults intelligence of ATS members and all readers.

Thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:12 AM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


[jra-2]....you are probably not a fool. Yet, things you write, and post, sound foolish. Sorry, don't mean to offend...but let's use your last post as an example...

Imagine you are in the desert, on Earth, at midnight local time. You just crawled out of your tent, your eyes are fully night-adapted...oh, lots and lots of stars!! (We are assuming it's a new Moon, or the Moon is still below the horizon...hence, it's really dark, no 'light pollution').

Now, out in this desert, maybe the Gobi, the Sahara, wherever you imagine...suddenly a very bright light comes out of nowhere...your eyes will adjust to the immediate, and intense brightness of this light...and they will stay that way in order to protect your puny eyes from the bright light. You see, your retinas can be harmed by bright light if your irises didn't contract, or in photography terms, 'stop down' to make a smaller opening, thus allowing less light.

Let's think of a piece of film, in a camera, and try to imagine that is the retina in your eye. Have you ever heard of the term 'over-exposed'? That, in simple terms, would apply to a piece of film that was damaged by too much light. Same thing would happen to your retina, if exposed to too much light for too long...ever try to stare at the sun? Evolution has built in the blink reflex...our eyes are adapted to see a certain part of the EM spectrum.

jra-2, hope I haven't lost you yet, with all this science...oh, sorry, that tended to sound a little sarcastic. The Mods may have to warn me...but funny, I'm not trying to be sarcastic, just using real hard science here, just everyday knowledge that any middle school child should understand......

Biology...Human eye...cornea, iris, scelera, vitreous, retina...really basic stuff. Again, the focus here (no pun) is on the iris, in the human eye, since it is equivalent to the aperture on a camera. Big aperture, more light, shorter exposure time, less depth of field. Smaller aperture, less light, longer exposure time, more depth of field.

Back to the point of what a human, on the Moon, would tend to 'see'. More, how his/her eyes would respond to the brightness of the environment.

Yeah...you're there, on the Moon, in your EVA suit...It is not a very flexible suit, remember...if you lean back too much you risk falling on the PLSS...that is your life support, don't want to damage that!! SO, let's take several minutes as we try to gaze up, darn that bright Lunar surface!! Even when I tilt back my head, it is still very bright....and I really don't have eight minutes to waste trying to look at the stars. There is no significant parallax from Earth to Moon, only about 300,000 km away, compared to the stars...closest is 4.3 LY, and can't see with the naked eye...point is, the visible stars as seen from the Moon, or from Mars, or from Jupiter will look no different, in terms of their orientation, than when seen from Earth.

Finally, the photos, the Apollo photos. Well, if you've stayed with me so far, and have understood the science and the optics, the you'll understand a little bit about how photography works...and how the Human eye works, as well.

Post Script...I always am amused when I see people taking 'flash' pictures of a night scene...and the 'subject' in the picture is hundreds of yards [metres] away. OR, funnier still, the tourist with the camera, taking a 'flash' picture through a window that is right in front of them!!!

Anyway, thanks for reading, sorry if I went on too long, just trying to explain the obvious, to some who may not understand.....



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hehe...and you think that you are using "hard science"...that is really a good joke.


You are far, far away from any science. You are just irritated by jra-2, because science is not your strongest side...to say the least.

Hehe, I can't believe that you called your simplistic explanation "hard science"... poor thing, that is your level?




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by jra-2
Instead on the moon light of the sun is not refracted, then astronauts also

in plain light of the day could look at the upper sky and see a spectacular

view of the stars (sky is black on the moon).


If that were true, then I should be able to see lots of stars at night in the city, but I don't. I have to go out into the countryside, where there is very little light, so that I can see lots of stars.

If standing under a streetlight, while looking up at the night sky can prevent me from seeing most stars, just imagine how much the Sun would prevent one from seeing them. Also don't forget that the astronauts have there gold visors down the majority of the time, so that makes it even harder to see them.

[edit on 15-12-2007 by jra]



Not so, nasa explains.


antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Explanation: If you could turn off the atmosphere's ability to scatter overwhelming sunlight, today's daytime sky might look something like this ... with the Sun surrounded by the stars of the constellations Taurus and Gemini. Of course, today is the Solstice. Traveling along the ecliptic plane, the Sun is at its northernmost position in planet Earth's sky, marking the astronomical beginning of summer in the north. Accurate for the exact time of today's Solstice, this composite image also shows the Sun at the proper scale (about the angular size of the Full Moon). Open star cluster M35 is to the Sun's left, and the other two bright stars in view are Mu and Eta Geminorum. Digitally superimposed on a nighttime image of the stars, the Sun itself is a composite of a picture taken through a solar filter and a series of images of the solar corona recorded during the solar eclipse of February 26, 1998 by Andreas Gada.


This with the stars are not visible on the moon during the day light is not true, even more nasa explains that with out the blue sky it's more than posible during the day time.


[edit on 16-12-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Hehe...and you think that you are using "hard science"...that is really a good joke.


You are far, far away from any science. You are just irritated by jra-2, because science is not your strongest side...to say the least.

Hehe, I can't believe that you called your simplistic explanation "hard science"... poor thing, that is your level?



Gee, Swimmer...

I know I'm asking for trouble from the Mods here, but I had to pull your full post into my response, since you wrote, in quotation marks, that I had somehow refered to 'hard science'. Please provide an example from my post up above where I wrote that phrase. You put it in quotes....

Another point, if anyone else cares to comment...when does the standard of discourse on ATS fall to the level of "Hehe" used not just once, but twice?

All sniping aside...what, exactly, is your point, Swimmer? Did I post something that is unscientific? Did you bother to refute, and find a problem with, any specific thing I wrote? Or, are you just using another Strawman argument, ad hominem, as it were, to attempt to engage in debate, but to deny the chance and instead throw a grenade and then run for cover of the anonymity of being 'offline'?

Well...thanks for your contribution............

[post script]

Subject of 'trolling'...am I the only one to smell it here?



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Thanks Pepsi I have been looking for that picture (was just trying to find it now ) I posted it in another thread and lost the link...

Isn't it great how NASA contradicts itself?

Here are a few choice lines from the Condon report...



In addition to this restricted field of vision, the windows themselves were never entirely clean, and the difficulties imposed by the scattering of light from deposits on the window were severe. The deposits apparently occurred during the firing of third-stage rockets, when gases were swept past the windows. Attempts were made to eliminate the smudging by use of temporary covers jettisoned once orbit was achieved, but even then deposits were present on the inside of the outer pane of glass. Another source of contamination was apparently the material used to seal the glass to the frames. The net result was that the windows were never entirely
clean, and scattered light hampered the astronauts' observations.




The astronauts who had relatively clean windows often referred to the appearance of the night sky as seen in orbit, as similar to that seen by the pilot of a jet aircraft at 40,000 feet.


These were Gemini and Mercury so they had dirty windows... but the ones that had clean windows saw stars...

Now here is another quote...


The Night Airglow

The first American to go into orbit, astronaut John Glenn, (MA-6) reported observing an annular ring around the horizon during satellite night. It appeared to him to be several degrees above the solid earth surface and he noted that stars seemed to dim as they "set" behind the layer.


Okay this one says Glenn saw the stars.... so does this one...


It is especially noticeable when there is no moon in the sky and the solid earth surface is barely discernible (Plate 14.); as a matter of fact it is easier to use the airglow layer than the earth edge as a reference in making sextant measurements of angular elevations of stars.



Now on page 292 we get...

The Visibility of Stars

Satellite orbits are at a minimum height of about 160 km. where the "sky" above is not the familiar blue as it is from the earth's surface. Since the small fraction of the atmosphere above the space-craft produces a very low amount of scattering, even in full sunlight, it was anticipated that the day sky from a spacecraft would therefore display the full astronomical panoply. This was decidedly not the case. All the American astronauts have expressed themselves most forcefully that during satellite daytime, i.e., when the sun is above the horizon, they could not see the stars, even the brighter ones. Only on a few occasions, if the low sun was completely occulted by the spacecraft were some bright stars noted. The inability to observe the stars as anticipated is ascribed to two reasons; (1) the satellite window surfaces scattered light from the oblique sun or even from the earth sufficiently to destroy the visibility of stars, just as does the scattered light of our daytime sky at the earth's surface; and (2) the astronauts are generally not well dark-adapted, as mentioned in section 5 of this Chapter.

www.ncas.org...

Now in the image Pepsi shows above... NASA shows you what the daytime sky would look like with NO ATMOSPHERE... so since there is supposed to be no atmosphere on the Moon I would expect the sky on the Moon to look like the above image




posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I know I'm asking for trouble from the Mods here,


Well instead of 'Mod Baiting' or more off topic needless remarks perhaps you could apply your 'science' to the question of why NASA thinks the DAYTIME sky would look like the image Pepsi linked to... oh heck you guys never look at links...



So why do thet say that THIS is what the sky would look like if there was no atmosphere... then tell us at the same time that the sky on the Moon would be pitch black without a trace of even the brightest star?

And I am NOT talking Camera...


"All the American astronauts have expressed themselves most forcefully that during satellite daytime, i.e., when the sun is above the horizon, they could not see the stars, even the brighter ones. "


And how about it care to tell us what the stars look like at 40,000 feet?



[ezx]
OMNI: What's the best part of being in space?

Musgrave: The view of the heavens: the stars are brighter and you see the entire celestial sphere. On an EVA, your helmet is fairly panoramic. But if you don't think about having these experiences they won't happen to you. At the last astronaut reunion, someone said, "Story, you know something I really regret? I had three space flights and never saw the stars."

Why? because he didn't look


[edit on 16-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:17 AM
link   
its a function of the magnitude , you idiot

contrary to the utter twaddle posted by certain people - it is not the refraction of sunlight in the atmosphere that prevents daytime viewing of stars - but thier magnitude [ brightness ]

the proof of this is daytime observations of the moon and more rarely venus

the reson thes two bodies are visible in daylight is obvios , they are the 2nd and 3rd brightest objects in the skies

it really is that simple

as JRA [ the real one ] points out even @ night if someone shines a light in your face - you lose sight of stars and dim objects

this is because in lo light your puplis expand [ letting in more light ] and in bright light they contract

it is not rocket science



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
ZORGON :

please stop quote mining selective passages out of context and miss reading them

2 of the quotes you use speciffically state night and satelatie night when refering to visibility of stars

you are dishonestly lumping all quotes - from different missions , different conditions , day AND night and for some reason pretenting that the results should be identical



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 04:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
its a function of the magnitude , you idiot


Sea level dark moonless night no city light pollution you see many stars of higher magnitude through the atmosphere

Top of Bryce Canyon dark moonless night no city light pollution
You see millions of stars many of low magnitude

I am willing to bet if I go higher into space I will see even more and more clearly

But I have an idea... I will contact Robert Bigelow to fly me up a camera and see what happens...




for some reason pretenting that the results should be identical


Nope not pretending anything... just pointing out the discrepancies in the visibility of stars...



[edit on 16-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:35 AM
link   
zorgon , you can see stars in space as long as your not looking at anything bright ie earth, sun or a bright surface of the moon. Astronauts on the shuttle say they need to look away from everything and let their eyes adjust b4 they can see any stars, unless u think the shuttle is fake too?

why is there no stars in this picture? www.jaxa.jp... are you saying this picture is not real? or this video no stars again www.youtube.com...








[edit on 16-12-2007 by yeti101]



posted on Dec, 16 2007 @ 05:39 AM
link   
The stars should be present in day time on the moon, there is no blue sky to distort the light coming from the stars, this with the sun light made the stars not visible is a lie, none of the astronauts managed to give an answer, all they said is we don't remember, simply because they would not know what the outcome of the answer would produce, so they played it safe, they stated we don't remember.
The camera also should pick up the stars, there are no stars in the background, the theory with "the sun did it" is not valid anymore, little by little those so called debunked points are going to fall.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 128  129  130    132  133  134 >>

log in

join