It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is wrong with the Apollo 12 SUN? (Warning to dialup users: large images)

page: 8
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 02:11 AM

Originally posted by Skunky
but it would be ridiculous to presume all they were built from was card and foil, Blue Peter-style.

Just as it would be ridiculous to presume otherwise if one's judgment were not clouded by NASA propaganda.

Shielding was provided to protect the Apollo astronauts from micrometeoroid bombardment. Due to their low mass, only a thin layer of material was necessary to stop these dust-sized particles. For example, the Lunar Module was protected by a thin aluminum outer shield a few thousandths of an inch thick. In addition, the astronauts' spacesuits included a micrometeoroid garment to protect them while performing activities on the lunar surface.

How utterly ridiculous. If the particle can't even penetrate a soda can then why would they be worried about it?

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 03:19 AM

How utterly ridiculous. If the particle can't even penetrate a soda can then why would they be worried about it?

The danger is from constant bombardment, an effect, over time, akin to sandblasting. I'm no expert (like you, I guess
) but this info can easily be dredged up from the web. I guess the necessary thickness was calculated according to the minimum required to absorb the amount of bombardment the craft would take over the duration of the mission offset against the weight penalty of the shielding. You'd think if they (whatever agency/agencies we mean by that) were hoaxing the largely ignorant public they would whack thick business-like shields onto their spacecraft 'props' to look the part.

Look at the image in webstra's post a few posts back. Do you think the officials coordinating the hoax would look at that on the floor of the soundstage and say "good job, guys, that looks like a spacecraft that people will believe could land on the moon!"

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 04:42 AM
I don't know how I double-posted...

[edit on 26-6-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 04:59 AM
I've done it again ...

[edit on 27-6-2007 by Skunky]

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 08:12 AM
I have looked at the Apollo evidence for a long time. That looks like a standard lens effect to me. I never saw any evidence that survived scrutiny, as far as it supporting the arguments that the moon landings were faked:

That is not to deny that there is plenty being covered up about what lies beyond earth:

but all the sturm und drang about the moon landings being faked is one of the many dead ends and time wasters in the “conspiratorial” world.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by greatlakes
By your requirement of proof, gee anyhting and everything can be questioned, from the moon landing to out existence to whether or not YOU WENT TO THE 7eleven this morning or not.

Going to, and landing on the Moon is an extraordinary claim. This requires some (independent) proof.

In addition I'm just asking for some explanations for some things that seem strange.

A culture of dissention and lack of communication up and down the chain at NASA (see Feynman's criticism of the Challenger disaster);

Relatively primitive electronic technology;

Inability to reliably launch a rocket without blowing it up on the landing pad only a few years earlier;

Comments made by Von Braun;

Comments made by Gus Grissom;

Cancellation of any space station that was previously considered an essential step into spaceflight;

Inability to deal with harsh radiation; questions that continue to this day:

See video #25:

No time exposure pictures of the star field from the Moon on ANY of the six landings. For my dollar, I AT LEAST want a coffee table book 'The Starfield From the Moon')

Comments made by Brian O'Leary, and additional comments where he says he still has some 'residual doubt' about landings;

Chance of a mission rated at .0017 percent in a study done in the early 60s; 70% chance of failure stated by Armstrong himself, contrasted with the normal 80% chance of success as a NASA mission parameter.

The oddies just keep going.

Thus, I think a request for independent verification is not unreasonable.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:16 AM
Those "anomalies" do not add up to much. I removed O'Leary's residual doubt several years ago:

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:33 AM

Originally posted by wadefrazier3
Those "anomalies" do not add up to much. I removed O'Leary's residual doubt several years ago:


From: "Brian O'Leary"
To: "James A. Conrad"
Sent: February 18, 2001 2:30:49 PM GMT
Subject: Re: Fox special - selectively quoted?

Dear Mr. Conrad,

I didn't see the show (I never know about these things
until after they happen), but I believe Apollo did
happen in its entirety (I was there), but have a small
residual doubt about the landings themselves, because
I didn't go, so who am I to know for sure, besides the
official word and comments from my friends and
colleagues who did go? Answers to my questions about
activity on the lunar surface were answered strangely
at times--hence a bit of doubt. These things are
tricky to phrase right, and of course shows such as
these do quote out of context.

In this sense I guess you could call me a skeptic.

Brian O'Leary, Ph.D.

Since you claim he was certain, (your words, not a quote from him), I think my actual email from O'Leary trumps your claims.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 09:45 AM
You are going to have to do WAY better than that. For one thing, you might want to look at the date of your quote and when I stood in the California governor's office with Brian. You are quickly losing cred with me.

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:21 PM

Originally posted by wadefrazier3
You are going to have to do WAY better than that. For one thing, you might want to look at the date of your quote and when I stood in the California governor's office with Brian. You are quickly losing cred with me.

The date doesn't matter. It's revisionist. He said he had doubts, asked again and repeated he had doubts.

Screw your cred, btw.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:16 AM
Brian O’Leary DID have doubts about the moon landings at one time. Nobody disputes that. For the record, his doubts were more around if footage was staged because of logistical issues, not so much if we went or not.

After I co-discovered Armstrong’s Leap with Jay Windley,

it removed Brian’s residual doubt.

Those new to the lunar controversy may not understand why that evidence was compelling. I provide some background here:

and here:

Has anybody else in this forum removed an astronaut’s doubt about the moon landings? If so, I will eagerly read your posts.

I first met Brian in 1991, when I ferried him from the airport for a new science conference, and partly because I was part of the most significant effort yet made to bring alternative energy to the American marketplace:

Brian invited me to be a founding board member of the New Energy Movement:

They still link to my site:

although I stepped down three years ago. I suggest that if anybody really wants to test their Apollo mission evidence, they submit it to Jay Windley’s site:

For the record, once Brian’s residual doubt was removed, I got Jay in touch with Brian, which resulted in this on Jay’s site:

Badge01 dismisses Brian’s testimony today, preferring to promote the Brian O’Leary that once had doubts, not the Brian O’Leary who had his doubt removed long ago. For those who like to assess real EVIDENCE, just look at Badge01’s date of Brian’s email (February 2001) versus my account (August 2001) and that correspondence date that Jay puts on his site (August 2001). But Badge01 dismisses all of that because it is “revisionist.” Of all the irrational responses I have seen in ATS, Badge01’s “logic” here might be the topper. Brian is still alive and can be asked today what he thinks, instead of presenting something from long ago that does not reflect his views today.

Jay and friends are some real experts on the issue, and Jay is very good at just dealing with the evidence – the best I have seen on the Internet. Your evidence will receive a fair, professional assessment, but if you merely recycle the tired old hash that people like Badge01 serve up, the responses may sting a little. When people have approached me over the years with their “evidence” that the moon landings were faked, I send them Jay’s way. It has proven to be an enlightening experience for those who have done so. For those who prefer clinging to their delusions, submitting their “evidence” for professional consideration has proved too daunting a task.

Again, the lunar landings are a real time waster, if somebody is looking for evidence that the moon landings never happened. The “evidence” that Badge01 has presented is all at about the quality of Brian’s “residual doubt” that vanished several years ago. If anybody wants to aspire to any cred on these issues, they need to do their homework. I spent ten years, on and off, looking at the Apollo evidence. Teenage boys surfing the net and posting up their “research” is not going to advance the issue. I have tried raising the bar for evidence that the moon landings were faked:

There ARE cover-ups regarding NASA. My father worked in the Mission Control Room with his top-secret security clearance. There was definitely a quasi-military atmosphere at NASA during the Space Race. However, the moon landings really happened. Or, stated another way, no evidence put forth of faking the moon landings has ever withstood scrutiny, and I have analyzed ALL the lines of evidence put forth, and nothing of substance has appeared on the lunar hoax scene (as far as supporting the argument that the lunar landings were faked) since I found what I was looking for in 2001.

While the process of analyzing the Apollo evidence was educational and I am glad I did it, it has been astounding and disheartening to continually see the same stuff recycled on the Internet ad naseum, and people like Badge01 ignore new evidence coming to light because it invalidates his “evidence.” There are much better ways to spend your time than looking at continually recycled “evidence” that the moon landings never happened. Of course, for people who just love dreaming about “conspiracies,” even where none exist, then by all means keep serving up and “analyzing” this stale stuff. While getting to the bottom of “conspiracies” can be very good work indeed, conspiracism is a disease of the mind and spirit.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:25 AM
That's a lot of words, Wade.

The point is Brian O'Leary said he had some doubt and offered that some of the photographs may have been put together on Earth if some film might have been ruined.

When someone who is a member of the program offers this 'veiled comment' in public and on videotape, it's pretty easy to read between the lines. You don't say this unless you know of some photos that were done on Earth (for whatever reason).

Then, when confronted with the documentary in which he is quoted, he doe he say that it was totally out of context and -wrong-? No, he says he still has some residual doubt.

Again, if someone is part of the program you don't come out in the PRESS and in EMAIL and say this unless you know of something substantive. You know you are on the record and you know NASA is reading it.

He had a chance to totally put down the comments, and he STILL said he had residual doubts that there was a LANDING.

I have those in PRINT and on a video.

All you have is heresay. You said, he said.

Now someone may have shown him a vid with someone jumping but it still does not change the original reasons he had doubts about the photos and reasons he had some doubt about the actual landing.

OK, why would he suddenly change his opinion after having two chances to go on record, and both times he mentions doubts?

Well you might say there's only one reason and that's because he saw someone jumping. But what about pressure from some other source? Maybe he'd been subjected to ridicule and decided this was a good chance to retract and remove that pressure. I don't know.

But generally, the FIRST response you get from someone is the truthful response, not some heresay that some geek on a website alleges he said.

I don't see Brian making a press release that now after all these years he has changed his position, and give the reasons he had 'residual doubts', and what made him change his mind.

Maybe he tells people a different story now. Maybe his memory has faded. Maybe he's getting senile? Maybe he wanted to suck up to the person who showed him the jumping at the time.

I'll type this last part slowly....

I have a video and a written email with his opinions on two occasions. You have nothing except a comment that you allege he said and you don't know why, nor do you know why he changed his mind.

But keep trying. Perhaps if you typed an even LONGER post it would make it more true. LOL.

posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 12:03 PM

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 06:26 AM
Jay Windley is such a ditz. He claimed he was a certified Foy technician and as such was authorized to dress Peter Pan, or something equivalent to that.

top topics

<< 5  6  7   >>

log in