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.

 

NASA to Take Photos of Abandoned Equipment on Moon

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
This is supposedly going to prove they went to the moon In 1969, what do you guys think of this?

I think this is just plain stupid, it's like me being caught murdering someone then saying like 20 years later ohh wait I can prove someone else did it! Then i go grab a knife and stick it in the persons back and take a picture of someone else standing near the crime scene.

I mean how do we know these pieces of equipment haven't been planted there recently? Why has it taken so long?

I am not a person who believes the Moon Landing was faked, but This is NOT evidence against the conspiracy IMO.




posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
NASA is stupid for doing this. Its worse then when they reimaged cydonia because of the face.

There will always be crazy conspiracy people. Ignore them and use the money for something worth while for us scientist.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   
it would be easy to disclaim, however nasa is not going to go threw the trouble, time, and money to symply prove to a small poppulace of conspiricy theorist that we in fact DID land on the moon...it would be worthless, and a waist of resorces.

I personally know for a fact we Have landed on the moon, I work for the government, and am at NASA on a regular basis, and have met both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alderin. trust me, we were really there.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
The reason for the mission is NOT to prove that we went to the moon.



Better pictures are coming. In 2008 NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter will carry a powerful modern camera into low orbit over the Moon's surface. Its primary mission is not to photograph old Apollo landing sites, but it will photograph them, many times, providing the first recognizable images of Apollo relics since 1972

....

LROC's main mission is about the future. According to NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, astronauts are returning to the Moon no later than 2020. Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is a scout. It will sample the Moon's radiation environment, search for patches of frozen water, make laser maps of lunar terrain and, using LROC, photograph the Moon's entire surface. By the time astronauts return, they'll know the best places to land and much of what awaits them.


NASA press release

All the arguments I've heard can be debunkd with simple rational thought and scientific realities.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123
it would be easy to disclaim, however nasa is not going to go threw the trouble, time, and money to symply prove to a small poppulace of conspiricy theorist that we in fact DID land on the moon...it would be worthless, and a waist of resorces.

I personally know for a fact we Have landed on the moon, I work for the government, and am at NASA on a regular basis, and have met both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alderin. trust me, we were really there.


That is not a strong argument my friend. How do you explain the massive amounts of technical anomalies in the moon landing videos and pictures?



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:33 AM
link   
The problem with this is that those who can't believe that there were moon landings will never accept the truth even if you can offer photo's.

The joy is not in knowing the truth, its in beliving you have been lied to and now know the truth, and the rest of the people don't. Its the joy of having secret knowledge. Photos won't pop that balloon.

The simplist evidence that the moon landings happened is the reflector the astronauts set up on the moon that is still being used today to measure distance. It sure didn't get there by itself.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Everyone keeps coming back to that particular piece of evidence.

It would be interesting to having a non-NASA vested person(s) actually examine the workings of this irrefutable proof.

So far, what has been served up in our various threads is stuff that looks curiously like an artists conception. As to the lunar receiving end, the only visual offered up is file footage of this 'reflector' sitting in the dust.

Yes, I know we sound like the ultimate doubters, but quite frankly the people harming the perception of the reality of the Moon landings is the endless outpouring of poorly manipulated pictures.

Look at the proof you are offering up...

Does it EVER bother anyone that pictures of the objects in the shadows are ALL curiously backlit?

Ah... The reflector... I WANT to be convinced.

Convince me.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quest
Its worse then when they reimaged cydonia because of the face.



I take it you agree with me then?

Cydonia is real!!!!!


Mic



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
Everyone keeps coming back to that particular piece of evidence.

It would be interesting to having a non-NASA vested person(s) actually examine the workings of this irrefutable proof.....

Convince me.

I doubt you will ever be convinced, unless I took you up there and showed you. Even if that was posible you'd probably say that they planted that stuff there on some covert lunar mission.


en.wikipedia.org...

www.csr.utexas.edu...

www.iers.org...

www.moontoday.net...

just type lunar laser ranging experiment in google, and read...



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Davood

That is not a strong argument my friend. How do you explain the massive amounts of technical anomalies in the moon landing videos and pictures?


There are no "technical anomolies." Just people who don't understand photography.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark

Originally posted by Davood

That is not a strong argument my friend. How do you explain the massive amounts of technical anomalies in the moon landing videos and pictures?


There are no "technical anomolies." Just people who don't understand photography.



I dont undesrtand photography.. do you? can you explain why the people who do, are wrong baout their analysis? I personally cant support either way as I dont have the skills required.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by umwolves123
it would be easy to disclaim, however nasa is not going to go threw the trouble, time, and money to symply prove to a small poppulace of conspiricy theorist that we in fact DID land on the moon...it would be worthless, and a waist of resorces.

I personally know for a fact we Have landed on the moon, I work for the government, and am at NASA on a regular basis, and have met both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Alderin. trust me, we were really there.


Obviousley spelling and gramar aren't a prerequisite for working in the US government.



posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
>'There are no "technical anomolies." Just people who don't understand photography.'

You're right. Cartoonists are now much more sophisticated...

Still researching 'An End...'. Got my hands on a copy of Novas 'To the Moon'. I was looking for some more pro-NASA supporting documentation.

It's kind of ironic that the back cover picture has the flag flapping in the breeze, with the wire being perfectly straight... The astronaut standing several feet away.

The front cover has a picture of the LEM, heading away from the command module. If you look at about the 10 o'clock position, there is one of those 'technical anomolies' towering over the adjacent terrain casting a huge shadow...

You are right HowardRoark! Some people really don't understand photography...





[edit on 23-7-2005 by golemina]


jra

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
It's kind of ironic that the back cover picture has the flag flapping in the breeze, with the wire being perfectly straight... The astronaut standing several feet away.


So you see a picture of a wrinked flag and you assume it's flapping in the breeze? Even if it were filmed in a studio, there would be no breeze. It just doesn't hang perfectly straight and smooth on the moon and why should it? It's fabric.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
I can see you want to dive right in to the discussion... pros & cons...

But I'm still gathering info.


What makes the flag wave, furl, curl is the fact the tension that is it exerted on it because it's in a medium.

Patience, we WILL conduct that particular experiment.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
What makes the flag wave, furl, curl is the fact the tension that is it exerted on it because it's in a medium.


What a rediculous assertion.

Go buy a flag RIGHT NOW. Bring it home, go into a room, close all doors, shut off your air conditioning and furnace, close all your vents. Set up a video camera in the room. Hang your flag from the ceiling (so it hangs straight down) and point your video camera at it. Now start filming. Walk out of the room, and place a towel under the door so there is no draft coming into the room. Wait about 30 minutes so any air movement from your leaving the room calms down. Wait another 30 minutes worth of filming. Now go back in, get your tape and start watching it from 00:30:00. Tell us how many times that flag moves "because it was in a medium" (the air is a medium right?).

I bet you one date with Howard's sister that flags don't move because they're "in a medium" they move because some force is acted upon them (wind, some object pushing on it, etc).

And, now that you're an expert on how flags don't move because they're in a medium, go review the photos where you think you see the flag moving (how a flag can move in a stationary photo is beyond me but hey I'll play along). Now, to prove to yourself that the flag is indeed moving, go watch all 327 hours of video footage of the moon landings and edit them down to just images that include the flag.

If you can come back with VIDEO FOOTAGE that shows the flag moving (other than when the luner lander takes off to return to the orbital) I will double the date with Howard's sister to include a free dinner on my credit card.


jra

posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Some flag pics to take a look at.

The first shot here: AS11-37-5468 and then 12 shots later there is this pic here: AS11-37-5480

Note that the flag is hanging in the exact same position, bent the same way and everything. Since it's in space and in a low gravity environment, the flag will pretty much stay bent and wrinkled in the position you leave it in.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
As we have copious threads on ats on the topic of moon hoax, how about adding to those instead of hijacking this thread to discuss the endless arguments.



posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 08:39 PM
link   
in all honesty with the new Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter with a 1/2 meter resolution all you will be able to pick out is the blast of the LM launch, the landing/decent module, an abandonded rover, and maybe the trails the rover made. if your luck you might find where the astronauts scuffed the surface, and some left over instraments.

Even that evidance is not going to shake the anti-moon landing nutcases, because they will jsut think it is NASA doctoring photos to further the conspiracy.

the Anti-moon landing nutcases never want to be proven wrong, because of they are so wrapped up in thier ideology that they cannot understand anything that is contray to what the KNOW to be right.... even if it is really wrong

In fact, they probly have a lot more in common with President Bush jr then they would like to admit



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join