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: 45
29
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
There is at least one video of the Rover being deployed, I only checked quickly, here is a video from Apollo 15:

www.hq.nasa.gov...



High-speed, time-lapse video of the rover deployment. Irwin climbs up to the porch to pull a lanyard to release the rover. It tilts a little away from the lunar module. He descends to the surface and the astronauts release the car onto the ground by pulling on other lanyards. They set up the rover then lift and turn it to its left, pointing east behind the lunar module. Scott climbs on and drives away behind the lunar module, going off-camera to the left, or north.

www.hq.nasa.gov...


I'm not sure why some people think there isn't one, but it seems a common misconception.




posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   
"No manned spacecraft now exists that can withstand the radiation from the Van Allen belts, through which a craft must traverse to make it to the moon. And most importantly the U.S. Clinton administration and congress as well has shown little interest in manned flights beyond the space station program."

www.spacedaily.com...

and what is this supposed to mean?



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 09:15 AM
link   
More importantly on the previous note, there was no lunar rover on the early missions anyway, including Apollo 11.

In your old article it says "No manned spacecraft now exists...", which means exactly what it says. There are no craft in operation which are up to the task.

If you are interested in learning about it then I suggest reading this thread and the many sites it links too.

[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
article is written in 1998. what do they mean? at 1998 there were no spacecraft to cross the van allen radiation belts?

another thing. How can you see this crater on the hill www.ufoarea.com...


near the jeep, on the back www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2-12-2005 by Wind]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Yes that's exactly what it means, in 1998 and now even we do not have any manned spacecraft that can even leave orbit, let alone worry about Van Allen belts. The Apollo spacecraft stopped being in service many years ago and the Saturn V doesn't even exist anymore, unless there's one on display somewhere maybe.

What's your point exactly? - I think I know where you're heading, but you're so off the mark you can't even see it.

What else are you on about? Are you pointing out there is a crater next to the astronaut and next to the rover? It is the moon you know..
Look do everyone a favour and read all of this thread and the following sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.badastronomy.com...

www.apollohoax.net...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Granted, there is no atmospheric resistance on the moon, but gravity still does apply, lol.

And, did anyone bother to think that perhaps he didnt swing the club that hard? I mean, c'mon, how many hours of practice do you think he had 'moon golfing'?

As for the flag waving, that is a really rediculous thing to point at and say its a fake.
The thing with no air resistance... is THERE IS NO AIR RESISTANCE... which means, the slightest movement of the flag is going to cause the flag to move, and it wont stop until the friction of its own fabric stops it.

Anyone who claims that the flag was waving due to 'wind', has obviously never seen a flag before. lol.

The problem is, the average layman cannot comprehend what a flag without wind resistance acts like. That flag reacted EXACTLY as it should with no atmo.


As for the argument about 'no mannor of spacecraft today can break orbit'...
Actually no, most shuttles sent up are fully capable of breaking orbit, they simply arent designed for the task of heading to another planetary body.

The question is as rediculous as asking, well if diesel trains are so good, why cant they run on coal? Why? Because theyre not steam trains. lol

We havent had the need to go to the moon since the apollo landings... hence, we havent built another craft to do that.

Why build a space craft you have no intention of ever being used?

[edit on 2-12-2005 by johnsky]


jra

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
article is written in 1998. what do they mean? at 1998 there were no spacecraft to cross the van allen radiation belts?


The day the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn Rockets were retired was the day we were unable to go out past the Van Allen belts. But it's not due to any technological limits really. NASA's shuttle is an orbiter. Meaning it was designed only to orbit the Earth. It can't go to the moon. It's just not designed to do that. NASA has no other space vehicles, so that's why the article states, "No manned spacecraft now exists that can withstand the radiation from the Van Allen belts."


another thing. How can you see this crater on the hill www.ufoarea.com...

near the jeep, on the back www.hq.nasa.gov...


I don't understand what you're saying/asking.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
where is the apollo spacecraft? can't they use it again? maybe not. maybe you are right about that and they intended what you said and were not tong-slipping. I can take that, but the photos of the craters...I mean.. the crater in the first photo is the same as the crater infront of the jeep...The first photo taken on the hill makes sense , the background makes sense, but the second photo,...I am afraid to say it is absurd to have the same crater there...
Anyways, I have noticed that this is an offensive issue for people's beliefs. I prefer not to speak about it as it is offensive


jra

posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wind
the crater in the first photo is the same as the crater infront of the jeep...The first photo taken on the hill makes sense , the background makes sense, but the second photo,...I am afraid to say it is absurd to have the same crater there...
Anyways, I have noticed that this is an offensive issue for people's beliefs. I prefer not to speak about it as it is offensive


You mean the hills in the background? Why is it absurd to have the same mountain in the background? I live in a valley, surrounded by hills and mountains. I can drive to one side of my town to the other and still see the same hills and mountains. The biggest mountain that's close to my town is called Mt Baker. I can drive anywhere around town and see it. I live about an hour east of Vancouver. It's roughly 50km away. Mt. Baker can be seen from there (assuming there is nothing blocking the view and that it's a clear and sunny day with little polution in the air).

The Apollo 15 rover didn't cover nearly that much ground. Here's a map that shows where they went and about how far. It looks like the furthest distance they got from the LM was roughly 4km. My town is over 10km at its widest points. If I can see the same hills and mountains covering 10km or more. The Apollo Astronauts would have too.

This is not an offensive issue. It's an absurd issue.



posted on Dec, 2 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
This is not an offensive issue. It's an absurd issue.


Exactly, I don't get 'offended' I get annoyed with people not bothering to check before bringing up the same tired issues. A couple of weeks ago we were at a stage of discussing the accuracy and methods used to measure Gamma Rays being emitted from by Moon, caused by the bombardment of Cosmic Rays (or more accurately particles) and their potential effect on the Lunar missions.. Today we are onto the misunderstanding of the British Language and craters again.
Having to dredge through this once more, is like a University Graduate being forced to sit through Kindergarten all over again - please read the information!
We covered this basic stuff a long time ago, it gets annoying having to repeat every couple of weeks when people come diving in and don't think that maybe, just maybe, this stuff might have just been covered QUITE some time ago!!!

I don't mind helping and I did say that the answers to your questions can be found in this thread or in one of the many links I provided for you, all in one place.. So please USE THEM!
I don't want to kill your enthusiasm or curiosity, but if you are genuinely interested then be prepared to do a lot of studying!
If you still find you have questions unanswered then please feel free to ask, but please, please don't make us go through it all again, if you're prepared to read through any replies then save us all the hassle and read the previous ones to much the same questions. The answers havn't changed!

Thank You.


[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
You did not get my question. There is nothing related to my point that was discussed, but it is pointless to speak to fanatical people who have their minds set on something. The crater inthe first pic shows behind it the slopy hill way infront of the jeep, however, the same crater appears just infront of the jeep. There is no slope near the crater infront of the jeep, this slope is certainly the onein the middle of the pan. I am tired of ppl misunderstanding my points, so if you don't know the answer, you don't have to repeat your stuff again.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by Wind]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 03:21 AM
link   
So what - arn't they allowed to take pictures of the same objects more than once? Maybe the picture was taken at a different angle too.
They moved aroundon the moon and took pictures at different angles of different things at different times. It wasn't a still life you know.

What is your point exactly?


[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:44 AM
link   
Agent smith
look at the mid of the pan shot. there is a slopy hill. the astronuat in the first pic is ON that slopy hill, the crater is On that slopy hill.
The pan, however, shows the crater near the jeep, away from the slopy hill. Understand or I have to repeat?



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
You're assuming that it was taken from the same angle - which it probably wasn't.
I don't see any smoking guns or anything suspicious anyway.

If you check the sequence here:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Then you can see that the picture was taken from a different angle by the shadows. Don't forget too that the montage is not the horizon as you would see it straight on, but is basically curved as the astronaut turned to take the shots -see what I mean?



[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]

[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
Lets keep this great thread going in a civil manner.

Thanks.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Agent, in the first photo, where do you think the crater is? on the slope or not?
It is surely on the slope. However, the slope in the pan doesn't have the crater, maybe was brushed out. That same crater that was supposedly on the slope appears behind ,next to the jeep. You can't have a crater on the slope and a crater away from the slope.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
I think what's confusing you is the fact the panned shot is not the horizon as you would see it straight on. That's why in the middle you can see the sun shining towards the camera and at the ends you can see the shadow of the astronaut becasue the sun is behind him.

The close-up photo is taken from the left side of the crater as you see it in the panned shot, not the same angle - these sequences should help you understand.

Close-up sequence



Panned view sequence



Images from: www.lpi.usra.edu...


If you look in the close-up shot the Sun is in front of the Camera, but in the Panned shot you posted, looking at the crater it is too the right - hence the image was taken to the left of the crater facing the right - from the perspective of the panned shot ypu posted.

What you have to remember is that the shots are taken with the astronaut standing in one place and rotating on the spot.

Sorry for my rudeness beforehand by the way, you didn't deserve it - I'm a bit of a miserable git sometimes.

[edit on 3-12-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
eithr I did not understand or I understood but disagree with you. You are saying that the photographer took the photo from a different angle. However, the pan shot, and I bet that you know what pan shots are, consitute Different pieces of the land. No matter where the photographer goes, the crater on the slope should not appear somewhere else. I guess you are saying that the crater in the pan shot is on the slope, however, there is no slope nest to it in the pan, but the slope is in the mid of the pan, where the close up photos are. I don't know if anybody out there gets what I mean.


jra

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Ok so I misunderstood what you were talking about. Even now I don't really know. Do you think you could point out which craters you're talking about exactly? Your descriptions haven't been to clear. Not for me anyway.



posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
jra
look at the photo pan I posted.
look at the second close up photo agentsmith posted. the crater is on the slope. the pan shows a portion of land separating the slope from where the rover is. Now, where the rover is, the SAME crater appears.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 42  43  44    46  47  48 >>

log in

join