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.
Originally posted by golemina
As conspiracies go...
This one was blown wide open a long time ago TheDangler... unfortunately the pro-NASAs keep dragging out the same rhetorically-based arguments... As if all of the 'discussions' were fair and honest exchanges of ideas... The whole time TOTALLY IGNORING that NASAs credibility was hammered a long time ago.
I asked in a different thread...
'Is there anyone here who can say with a straight face that the apex of what would be science, NASA, has not engaged in 'enhancing' photos?'
snip
Originally posted by tyranny22
Are you serious? In the year 2007 ... all we can come up with are these blotchy photo's as proof?!
We can build a telescope that can peer so deep into space that we can see "back in time", yet we can't build a telescope that can see the moon?
Originally posted by 11Bravo
ONe of the things I used to believe without question was that we went to the moon.
Now, nothing short of a clear photo of the moon buggy with tire-tracks behind it would convince me.
Dont get me wrong, I would like to believe that the mighty USA went to the moon, but I need more then a blotchy photo, a couple of rocks, and a reflected laser to convince me that we actually did make the round trip journey.
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.
Originally posted by Badge01
BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets?
Sorry for the verbosity.
Originally posted by Schmidt1989
I have never believed in the moon landings, not a tiny tiny bit until about a week or so ago i saw a program on television debunking the moon conspiracy but at the same time, reinforcing it as well. the stuff they showed reinforcing it was just too true for me to see so now i am a beleiver that we did goto the moon, and sorry i cant post anything from the show itself, i have no clue what the program it was called or even what channel it was on.
Admiral Karl Dernitz asked for extra U-Boats. Hitler refused, so Dernitz used what he had. Forty-one British supply ships were sunk by German mines and U-Boats. Hitler was building ships in France. British supplies were cut off, so they started sailing in convoy to avoid detection. U-Boats then hunted the seas in wolf-packs. Churchill asked Roosevelt for help. The Lend-lease act was born. Through the Atlantic Charter, Great Britain and America protected the Atlantic together. Two hundred forty-nine of the three hundred U-Boats that Dernitz had originally asked for were made. America was turning out three ships a day. Fifteen hundred in all were made. American ships were being made faster than the Germans could sink them. Ninety-two ships were sunk off the coasts of Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., and Miami. Twenty-five ships were sunk off the coast of Florida because residents fearing that their tourist trade would be hurt, refused to turn off their lights. The war had actually been brought to our shores. This is a little-known fact.
Originally posted by 11Bravo
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.
Originally posted by Badge01
BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets?
Kinda like NASA losing the high-def footage. Simply preposterous, but folks will believe what they want.
Originally posted by Badge01
What we really need is a photograph of the stars and constellations, taken from the moon, using an astrological telescope/camera. That would be nearly impossible to fake.
It would be even easier for NASA to fake a moon buggy using a sophisticated Hollywood-type set with CGI and I wouldn't really trust too many photographs or even movies, since they can be digitally altered.
The best thing would be a moon base that could be seen by terrestrial telescopes.
A radar or laser reflector could easily be placed by a remotely piloted vehicle, like the Russian rover. BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.
BTW, are you aware that NASA faked the viability of the Saturn V rockets? You'll notice that though they were supposedly capable for putting 118,000 kg of payload into Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and 47,000kg into Lunar Orbit, they were not used to launch the Space Shuttle. Why not?
It turns out that the Space Shuttle rockets can only lift about 1/5 that much into LEO. So in twenty years, we are using a vehicle that costs six times as much as the Saturn V, and can only lift 1/5 the payload.
By using the Saturn V, with the SS as the final stage, we could have used the second stage (still attached) to start building a Space Station, back in the 70s. Very suspicious in my book that we did not do this. How is it that we leap-frogged over the obvious step of building a space station and went right to the moon?
Originally posted by 11Bravo
I was not aware of that, but I do remember reading that they lost the blueprints for the saturn rockets and that the only guy who knew how to build them died with the knowledge.
Kinda like NASA losing the high-def footage. Simply preposterous, but folks will believe what they want.
Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Russia now seems to have never been in the race, its rocket had
small thrust engines in a ring that toppled over in a flash.
What a looser of a rocket. If we had any agents in Russia, this
must have been known. There was no race, we just had to show up on the moon some how.
Originally posted by Badge01
It's not just them faking being half-way to the moon from Low Earth Orbit by putting cutouts over the window
or the strange series of deaths surrounding the program, starting with Gus Grissom and his crew.
It's not even just about the way Armstrong won't discuss the mission
It's not just about the failure of the LEM to stay aloft in tests, nearly killing Armstrong
the way Grissom labeled the main Capsule a failure by hanging a lemon on the door handle during testing.
It's also about the background story, the drop in viability and payload of the rocket motors between the early 70s and the early 80s when the SS was put into service (the rockets should have gotten better, not worse).
Originally posted by golemina
It would be quite interesting to be able to get the specs on the 'laser mirror arrays'...
Especially how the arrays AUTOMAGICALLY capture and refocus the diffused 'laser pulses'...
It's a common misconception that mirrors are a superior reflecting surface... The are actually far inferior in reflecting capabilities than even a surface coated with simple white paint.
Hey JRA, what is the reflective percentage of the Moon surface?
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by Badge01
What we really need is a photograph of the stars and constellations, taken from the moon, using an astrological telescope/camera. That would be nearly impossible to fake.
How would this help and what would it prove exactly? If one believes they can fake an entire Lunar program with fake photos and video, then why do you believe that adding stars in the photos would be so challenging and help to prove the legitimacy of the landings?
They could not take photos of the stars for a very few simple reasons. Long exposures needed to get the faint star light to expose on film, No tripod to keep the camera steady for long exposures, The sun was shining and the terrain would have greatly over exposed on the photos.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by Badge01
The best thing would be a moon base that could be seen by terrestrial telescopes.
Read my previous post in regards to spotting things on the Moon with Earth based telescopes.
Uh, I'm not really planning to dig through the whole 71 pages to find one post. Perhaps you could summarize. Even the Hubble, which can and has taken a photo of the moon (despite people saying it couldn't because the moon is too close or too bright or something), does not have sufficient resolution to see anything under about 18 feet, iirc.
Badge: A radar or laser reflector could easily be placed by a remotely piloted vehicle, like the Russian rover. BTW, do you know how small those Apollo laser reflectors were? They were only about 1-2 feet across, not even the size of a small computer desktop. Ask someone who insists that laser reflectors are proof of moon landings to calculate just how wide even a tight laser beam would be when it got to the moon. It's on the order of several tens of meters! The moon's surface is enough of a reflector to bounce back a laser. I doubt if anyone could reliably hit that small of a laser reflector with an Earth-based laser beam.
JRA:You are correct that a remote vehicle could place the reflectors, but what rocket could have got it there? You can't exactly hide a launch. And if you believe that they can get an unmanned probe to the Moon, then why not people? Electronics are more easily affected and damaged by radiation than people are. So what in your mind would prevent people from going there and placing it themselves?
What vehicle, you ask? There have been several unmanned landings, most notably, the Russians, who landed and deployed a Rover. Electronics can be shielded, just wrap them in lead foil.
What would prevent people from going there? Intense hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts. Getting there might be possible, but the first difficult problem is getting back.
Before laser-guided bombs and missiles, which were developed around the time of the Gulf War (1980s), the closest we could come to a target on Earth with a missile, is several tens of yards. Note that 'the Star Wars Defense Initiative (SDI)' back in the 80s failed because we could not reliably get a missile close enough to a test target to destroy it.
Now you're telling me we could, even with human input, launch the LEM at the precise time that the orbiter was going over to allow us to rendezvous, and match speeds and then dock the first time we tried it (under Moon gravity)? We didn't even have GPS devices. If the launch of the LEM for the return was off even by 1/2 a second, we would not have been able to match the orbit and velocity of the Orbiter.
Buzz Aldrin said recently that the chances of success of the mission was only 1 in 3. Well the chances of not being able to re-dock with the Orbiter was a lot lower than that. I think there was one chance in 10 or 20 that we'd make it, though I don't have a cite for that. (I heard it on a documentary that I saw in the 80s).
Going to the moon and coming back is, imo, equivalent to a blind golfer getting more than one hole-in-one the first time he tried it (using 60s technology).
We totally SKIPPED building a Space Station first, for god's sake, man!
Think about it. Imagine how difficult it is even now to rendezvous with another space vehicle. They use computers to match orbits, and even then it's dicey. Of course they had the Gemini series back then, but they weren't trying to do it with a flimsy LEM with the computing power less than that today's wristwatches or a tiny credit card calculator. I'd have to go research the Gemini program again, but I don't think they had success the first time they tried to dock, either.
We'd never been under Moon gravity. So we had to calculate all that out before hand on Earth and pray that the numbers were correct.
Originally posted by Badge01
You tell me why they'd go to the moon and not take a shot of the stars. It's like driving to Mount Palomar and not looking up!
As far as 'proof' over all, you do realize that every expedition on Earth that goes to a previously unexplored location, such as the first expedition to the Antarctic required "Independent Verification". Such as another team going to the spot and seeing a flag of the expedition planted.
However there has NEVER been any independent verification that we went to the moon. None.
Originally posted by Badge01
Originally posted by jra
Read my previous post in regards to spotting things on the Moon with Earth based telescopes.
Uh, I'm not really planning to dig through the whole 71 pages to find one post.
jra said:
In order to resolve extreme detail on the surface of the Moon from an Earth based telescope. The thing would have to be about 200 meters in diameter, if I remember right. Currently the largest telescope has a mirror that's 10 meters in diameter. It's better to use a satellite in low orbit.
What vehicle, you ask? There have been several unmanned landings, most notably, the Russians, who landed and deployed a Rover. Electronics can be shielded, just wrap them in lead foil.
What would prevent people from going there? Intense hard radiation of the Van Allen Belts. Getting there might be possible, but the first difficult problem is getting back.
Before laser-guided bombs and missiles, which were developed around the time of the Gulf War (1980s), the closest we could come to a target on Earth with a missile, is several tens of yards. Note that 'the Star Wars Defense Initiative (SDI)' back in the 80s failed because we could not reliably get a missile close enough to a test target to destroy it.
Now you're telling me we could, even with human input, launch the LEM at the precise time that the orbiter was going over to allow us to rendezvous, and match speeds and then dock the first time we tried it (under Moon gravity)? We didn't even have GPS devices. If the launch of the LEM for the return was off even by 1/2 a second, we would not have been able to match the orbit and velocity of the Orbiter.
We totally SKIPPED building a Space Station first, for god's sake, man!
Think about it. Imagine how difficult it is even now to rendezvous with another space vehicle. They use computers to match orbits, and even then it's dicey. Of course they had the Gemini series back then, but they weren't trying to do it with a flimsy LEM with the computing power less than that today's wristwatches or a tiny credit card calculator. I'd have to go research the Gemini program again, but I don't think they had success the first time they tried to dock, either.
We'd never been under Moon gravity. So we had to calculate all that out before hand on Earth and pray that the numbers were correct.
The stars won't look drastically different from the Moon, yeah less haze and what not, but the main purpose was to study the moon.
Originally posted by Badge01
This is asinine. Yes, the stars will look as different from the moon as they do with the HST.
You can't be serious if you think it makes sense to go to the moon and not take any time exposures of the stars.
The UV telescope was present, but they never released any footage.
Wonder why?