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: 158
29
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

big brain, if we could not control a rocket, then we could not control any other spacecraft!!!! It is actually more difficult to keep a missile under control than it is to 'soft-land' while keeping it under control. The dynamic forces are very different, ESPECIALLY in a vacuum!!!
...



In fact your missiles going to Mars, Saturn, against Tempel 1 in its right eye are all fake.
It seems that there are a lot of missiles going to the space, but it's fake because they are the same rockets telecasted from different places.

Your missiles fall off into Pacific Ocean or disperse against some celestial body.

You never tested on the earth your unmanned probes that you sent to Mars, Saturn, Titan because your probes, like LM, are not able to land going backwards.
You, that are not able to land LM on the earth, how can you land probes that you can't see in the deep universe remote controlled with radio waves that arrive by several minutes delay?




posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


OK....'Big-Brain'....you have just gone off the tracks, so to speak.

I wish I could understand what you are saying....I wish I didn't waste server space to even respond...

To the Owners...

Had to respond, just for others to see.

Best, WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by weedwhacker
...

big brain, if we could not control a rocket, then we could not control any other spacecraft!!!! It is actually more difficult to keep a missile under control than it is to 'soft-land' while keeping it under control. The dynamic forces are very different, ESPECIALLY in a vacuum!!!
...



In fact your missiles going to Mars, Saturn, against Tempel 1 in its right eye are all fake.

If the deep impact mission to tempel 1 was so fake, why was I able to observe its effects on the comet? Why were other amateurs able to take pictures of the impact as it happened?




It seems that there are a lot of missiles going to the space, but it's fake because they are the same rockets telecasted from different places.

Oh right, so all those rocket launches I witnessed were "fake" too? Or am I just a liar? Doesn't that make the shuttle fake as well? It has to fire its rockets "going backwards" as well in a controlled fashion.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   


You, that are not able to land LM on the earth, how can you land probes that you can't see in the deep universe remote controlled with radio waves that arrive by several minutes delay?

LM wasn't designed to function in earth's gravity, the nozzles were not designed to function at optimum efficency in an atmosphere, and deep space probes that are light minutes away operate on a pre-determined course with pre-determined actions sent to the probe hours ahead of time. The probes land themselves automatically using a set of predetermined actions that are adjusted as necessary to maintain the right speed and altitude during descent. When we fail to program them properly they crash because you're right, we can't correct it if an error happens because unlike apollo, we're not there in person, and they do sometimes crash.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

If the deep impact mission to tempel 1 was so fake, why was I able to observe its effects on the comet? Why were other amateurs able to take pictures of the impact as it happened?




I think your image is photoshopped in plain evidence.

However, before I said Tempel 1 had a face of a bad animal, at NASA web site there was this image:

spaceflightnow.com...

My image that has unmasked NASA swaggerers is this:

www.geocities.com...

Now you can see this one:

www.nasa.gov...
www.cnn.com...

NASA swaggerers have rotated the image 90 degrees.


LM wasn't designed to function in earth's gravity, the nozzles were not designed to function at optimum efficency in an atmosphere, and deep space probes that are light minutes away operate on a pre-determined course with pre-determined actions sent to the probe hours ahead of time. The probes land themselves automatically using a set of predetermined actions that are adjusted as necessary to maintain the right speed and altitude during descent. When we fail to program them properly they crash because you're right, we can't correct it if an error happens because unlike apollo, we're not there in person, and they do sometimes crash.


How many nonsense are you saying?

Now you have invented that there was a problem with NOZZLES.
But you are talking about NASA engineers, the best scientists in the world.
Were they unable to build suitable nozzles?
But this is not possible. Nothing is impossible for NASA scientists.

You say: “ The probes land themselves automatically using a set of predetermined actions that are adjusted as necessary to maintain the right speed and altitude during descent”.

If it's so easy, why don't they test probes on the earth before sending them into Pacific Ocean?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Big-Brain
 


Sorry folks, nothing to see here....move along, move along....

I want to thank the Mods for all of their patience on this thread, but I'm afraid I have used up my short supply.

This nonsense has gone on long enough, and it has turned into a huge waste of time.

I realize that if I were posting in a forum and using a language other than my native English, I would have difficulty conveying my exact meaning, and I would have difficulty reading and comprehending the responses from others.

But something here is gone so far off the rails, it defies description. Am I the only one thinking these thoughts?

Thanks, but guess it's time to hang up my shingle on this one,

WW



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter

If the deep impact mission to tempel 1 was so fake, why was I able to observe its effects on the comet? Why were other amateurs able to take pictures of the impact as it happened?




I think your image is photoshopped in plain evidence.

So you're calling us amateur astronomers liars... nice, care to explain a motive? Or how about proof? Can you prove he faked this? Here's more evidence, another picture taken by amateurs with an ST-9 camera and 14" SCT telescope from the Arizona Sky Village (a gathering place for serious amateurs) during the impact:






However, before I said Tempel 1 had a face of a bad animal, at NASA web site there was this image:

spaceflightnow.com...

My image that has unmasked NASA swaggerers is this:

www.geocities.com...

Now you can see this one:

www.nasa.gov...
www.cnn.com...

NASA swaggerers have rotated the image 90 degrees.

So what? Astronomers rotate images for public display all the time, rotation is not fraudulent...


LM wasn't designed to function in earth's gravity, the nozzles were not designed to function at optimum efficency in an atmosphere, and deep space probes that are light minutes away operate on a pre-determined course with pre-determined actions sent to the probe hours ahead of time. The probes land themselves automatically using a set of predetermined actions that are adjusted as necessary to maintain the right speed and altitude during descent. When we fail to program them properly they crash because you're right, we can't correct it if an error happens because unlike apollo, we're not there in person, and they do sometimes crash.



How many nonsense are you saying?

Now you have invented that there was a problem with NOZZLES.
But you are talking about NASA engineers, the best scientists in the world.
Were they unable to build suitable nozzles?
But this is not possible. Nothing is impossible for NASA scientists.

The nozzles were only suitable for an airless environment, they cannot be suitable for both atmospheric and vacuum flight, it's impossible. from wikipedia:
"The optimal size of a rocket engine nozzle to be used within the atmosphere is when the exit pressure equals ambient pressure, which decreases with altitude. For rockets travelling from the Earth to orbit, a simple nozzle design is only optimal at one altitude, losing efficiency and wasting fuel at other altitudes."
en.wikipedia.org...
You obviously haven't studied up on basic spacecraft design or you'd know that that is the problem which the aerospike engine was supposed to solve. A nozzle's bell shape determines what kind of efficiency it gets, and you either design the shape to work in an atmosphere (as with the first stage of a launcher like the shuttle or other rocket) or you design it to work in airless space. Aerospike didn't have a bell at all and used the surrounding atmospheric pressure (or lack thereof) to determine the shape of the engine plume. Would have worked well if they could have mastered the fuel tank problems.


You say: “ The probes land themselves automatically using a set of predetermined actions that are adjusted as necessary to maintain the right speed and altitude during descent”.
If it's so easy, why don't they test probes on the earth before sending them into Pacific Ocean?

Uhh, they don't send probes into the pacific, and you can't test a probe on earth that was designed to operate under martian, lunar, or any other gravity lower than earth's.



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yeah, I hate to say it, but big brain is just in denial. Once he decided that amateur observations must also be faked because his theory can't possibly be wrong or false I realized that there was no way to change his mind. How can you convince someone who's already convinced that average civilians are "in on it"?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed.






I don't see any piece of evidence about that phantom white area where Apollo 11 never landed.

You should be oriented towards the truth more than to ludicrous faked images.

In this image



What are those bright points?

Luminous points photoshop effect?



posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
See, the thread remains. Because I said "I could close this thread", did not equate to "I would close this thread. As long as there is interest, and reasonable questions, it remains a viable thread. But such decisions are up to staff, not the posters who want to argue endlessly without new material.

big_brain, big-brain, whatever you call yourself these days, all is well. The ban happened because you have in the past been a disruptive member, and a mod saw you as a returning banned member, and lowered the ban hammer, unaware that we had decided to give you a second chance, provided you could be civil. It was just a human error, given your past track record. And now you're back.

But, BB, I would not be surprised to see more and more people on this thread start to ignore you, if you fail to give new, and at least simi-logical, reasons for your beliefs. It may get to the point that you're talking to yourself.

Let us return to the subject.


jra

posted on Apr, 3 2008 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
In this image



What are those bright points?

Luminous points photoshop effect?


Those bright points are the comet itself I believe. The image is actually a collection of stacked images put together. Since the comet is moving, its position has changed from the previous exposure, so it ends up creating a dotted line in the final image.

Astrophotography requires long exposure times and generally requires stacking dozens, some times hundreds of images. If you're going to start calling amateur astronomers liars and fakes, without so much as a reason, then there is really no hope for you.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Big-Brain
In this image



What are those bright points?

Luminous points photoshop effect?


Those bright points are the comet itself I believe. The image is actually a collection of stacked images put together. Since the comet is moving, its position has changed from the previous exposure, so it ends up creating a dotted line in the final image.

Astrophotography requires long exposure times and generally requires stacking dozens, some times hundreds of images. If you're going to start calling amateur astronomers liars and fakes, without so much as a reason, then there is really no hope for you.


Hit the nail on the head, of course. The image shows the motion of the comet against the background of stars, which are the other bright spots. The comet's brightness suddenly increases at the point of impact. Deep Impact was real and these images prove it.



posted on Apr, 4 2008 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed.






I don't see any piece of evidence about that phantom white area where Apollo 11 never landed.

You should be oriented towards the truth more than to ludicrous faked images.


It's a white area with no crater to explain its high albedo as ejecta, so what caused it? Of course, even if a probe was sent the moon with a high enough resolution camera to resolve all the apollo hardware you'd still claim it was faked, wouldn't you? It's a foregone conclusion to you and no amount of evidence will ever convince you otherwise. You'll just throw up the 'faked' flag without any thought or proof of fakery. What I can't understand, however, is how you can be so convinced that average citizens with telescopes MUST have been faking their results too without a shred of proof or a motive to lie. I'd also like to say it's pretty tasteless to call average citizens liars without any proof to back up your slander.

[edit on 4-4-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 5 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed.





I have found a very interesting photo from Japan's lunar orbiter made by LOJDVC (Lunar orbiter japan digital virtual camera).



Then it is true that NASA's swaggerer astronauts had moon buggies on the moon.

So stupid I was thinking the contrary.

But, wait a moment: craters look like bubbles.
Then we are not on the moon.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by Big-Brain]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
So they could fake video and pictures enough to fool people for years in 1969, but in 2008 they can't make craters look right? If this was a fake picture then they would have done a MUCH better job of faking it and would have fooled you easily.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Returning to the subject, we all know that landing on the moon even in 2008 is very difficult and needs a suitable astronauts’ training to learn how to land going backwards and a suitable technology to build a rocket that can do it.
Well, we all can agree about this reasoning.
NASA’s swaggerer engineers with Apollo 10 tested LM in orbit close to the moon 13 km.
What is the logical sense of that test?
Stafford and Cernan could have died in that test because ejection seats don’t work on the moon.
Stafford had the ability to stop LM crazy gyrations and saved their life.

They want to test docking and undocking operations between LM and CSM.
If those operations had failed, Stafford and Cernan would have died.

They could not test the various operations to land on the moon in a safe manner for the astronauts. Apollo 10 was a useless enterprise.
Stafford and Cernan would have been able to land on the moon since they were close to the ground - 13 km

The only way to test moon landing was to land on the moon.

Another illogical thing: Stafford, Cernan and Young made all the operations to test landing on the moon with big ability. They have understood and were able to solve all the problems, all the difficulties.
Why did NASA’s swaggerers send Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins?

Ferrari today has triumphed in Formula 1 by Massa and Raikkonen.
Why don’t Ferrari change its pilots?

By the way, why doesn’t Ford ask NASA’s swaggerers to build a race car with a suitable technology to triumph over Ferrari?

If you have not even technology to beat Ferrari, how can you go to the moon?


jra

posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain
NASA’s swaggerer engineers with Apollo 10 tested LM in orbit close to the moon 13 km.
What is the logical sense of that test?


To test the LM in Lunar Orbit.


Stafford and Cernan could have died in that test because ejection seats don’t work on the moon.


Firstly, what ejection seats? And yes, being a test pilot is a dangerous job. They are aware of that fact. Any test pilot, be it in space or on Earth in a plane, could die.


Stafford had the ability to stop LM crazy gyrations and saved their life.


Thanks in part due to there training no doubt.


They could not test the various operations to land on the moon in a safe manner for the astronauts. Apollo 10 was a useless enterprise.
Stafford and Cernan would have been able to land on the moon since they were close to the ground - 13 km


Apollo 10 was not useless. And the Apollo 10 LM was an earlier version then the ones used in the later missions. It could not land on the Moon, as it was too heavy to take off from the Lunar surface.


The only way to test moon landing was to land on the moon.


Which was the goal of Apollo 11.


Another illogical thing: Stafford, Cernan and Young made all the operations to test landing on the moon with big ability. They have understood and were able to solve all the problems, all the difficulties.
Why did NASA’s swaggerers send Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins?


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.


By the way, why doesn’t Ford ask NASA’s swaggerers to build a race car with a suitable technology to triumph over Ferrari?


I think Ford is quite capable of designing cars themselves. I don't think NASA would be of much help, seeing as how there focus is on Aeronautics and Space flight and not racing cars.

Oh and Ford did make a car that beat out Ferrari once. It was called the GT40


If you have not even technology to beat Ferrari, how can you go to the moon?


Why are you comparing two completely different industries? It makes no sense.



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Big Brain --

The one thing you can't seem to comprehend (and jra pointed this out) is that even though Apollo 11 landed on the Moon, it was a TEST FLIGHT flown by TEST PILOTS. Test pilots knew the job was risky (there was a time in the 1950s and early 1960s that test pilots were dying at the rate of one per week). All of the early Moon landings were TEST FLIGHTS.

So if you think that the early Moon landings were extremely dangerous and involved quick thinking to survive unknown dangers, then you would be right -- it was VERY dangerous. But if you think that it was so dangerous that no astronaut would want to do it, then you would be very wrong -- Neil Armstrong was a TEST PILOT whose job it was to risk his life testing new flying machines in very dangerous situations, like landing the LEM on the Moon, and Buzz Aldrin was a fighter pilot who knew that he could be killed every time he went into combat.

The fact that it was dangerous does not mean that it couldn't be done.


Originally posted by Big-BrainIf you have not even technology to beat Ferrari, how can you go to the moon?

I don't think Ford ever tried to go to the Moon -- that was NASA.

[edit on 4/6/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Apr, 6 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Hi SGIP and jra!!!

I intended to drop this, since I could see no point....and I've held my tongue until now, to see your responses....but....BOOM! Out it comes!

OK, over-dramatic...but go take another look at our guy's post a few up above, re: the alleged LRV tracks. Notice a glaring error, and what I consider a major attempt to just be punking us?

.......got it yet?

OK....'Apollo 11'....'LRV'....(hint, hint)

Thanks, WW



posted on Apr, 7 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big-Brain

Originally posted by ngchunter
...

Well, I would like to add one more new piece of evidence to the heap that says we went to the moon; here's a new photo from Japan's lunar orbiter. It shows a white area of disturbance at the exact spot Apollo 11 landed.





I have found a very interesting photo from Japan's lunar orbiter made by LOJDVC (Lunar orbiter japan digital virtual camera).



Then it is true that NASA's swaggerer astronauts had moon buggies on the moon.

So stupid I was thinking the contrary.

But, wait a moment: craters look like bubbles.
Then we are not on the moon.



[edit on 5-4-2008 by Big-Brain]


So let me get this straight, you highlighted a VERY wide stretch (a single pixel here corresponds to at least 10 meters) of uneven slightly darker terrain, probably darkened by relative elevation, and called it "moon buggy tracks"? Very funny, but since it's not consistent in width nor is it small at all it could not be anything manmade. By the way, since the sun is positioned "east" of the camera in this image, those ARE craters. The shadows on the right side of the craters are due to the crater wall blocking the sun on the east side. If they were "bubbles" then why the heck do their shadows end abruptly at the edge of the "bubble"? They should cast onto the rest of the surface if they were "bubbles," they don't, so they must be craters. There's even a slight highlight present at the eastern edge of the crater in some cases, indicating a raised section receiving more direct sunlight as would be expected when a crater rim is present. This is also consistent with the assertion that your supposed "moon buggy" tracks are actually slight dips in the terrain - they're slightly shadowed to the east and highlighted very slightly to the west.

[edit on 7-4-2008 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 155  156  157    159  160  161 >>

log in

join