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.

 

Smoking Gun - Apollo 11

page: 7
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I
For instance there is no doubt in my mind that the gravity on the near side is .64% of Earth's gravity. So that would make it impossible to use the rocket allegedly in the lunar lander. There just wasn't enough fuel to accomplish that.

Also, whether or not the rocket was throttled back to 10%, and whether or not there is one sixth "G" or 64%, there is no evidence directly under the lander that would indicated any rocket was firing at any thrust, period.




1/6 G = .1666% G NOT .64% G


BIG differance 100 pounds would weight 16 Pounds @ 1/6 G NOT 64 Pounds




posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
Originally posted by dismanrc




1/6 G = .1666% G NOT .64% G


BIG differance 100 pounds would weight 16 Pounds @ 1/6 G NOT 64 Pounds



.64% is not 1/6 G dismanrc. It's about 2/3 rds of 1 G. 100 pounds would weigh 64 pounds. Please refigure your math. If you can't figure it out U2 me and I will explain it.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Originally posted by DogHead




With total crooked scum like LBJ and Nixon running things, is it really such a mystery why they would have cooked up a success story video so that come what may a success could be announced?



You may be misinformed here Doghead or at least informationally challenged.

LBJ and Nnixon were Presidents of the United States. They, either of them, didn't 'run' anything.

Presidents are figureheads. They are there for 'pretend'. Presidents can't actually 'run' anything because they don't 'know' anything.

They don't know anything because they don't have a 'need to know'.

Not to mention that both elected and appointed officials are generally disliked by intelligence agencies.

Your disdain for LBJ and Nixon may be misplaced, as they were probably crooks but they certainly didn't 'run ' anything.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by dismanrc




1/6 G = .1666% G NOT .64% G


BIG differance 100 pounds would weight 16 Pounds @ 1/6 G NOT 64 Pounds



.64% is not 1/6 G dismanrc. It's about 2/3 rds of 1 G. 100 pounds would weigh 64 pounds. Please refigure your math. If you can't figure it out U2 me and I will explain it.

Thanks.



@ 1/6 G 100#(1g) would = 16# (100 * (1/6))


1g on Eath = 9.80665 m/s²
1g on Moon = 1.622 m/s²

Of course these are averages and can change slightly from place to place.

Here is a nice simple page to see:

www.exploratorium.edu...


100 # @ 1 G ~ 16# @ 1/6 G



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

For instance there is no doubt in my mind that the gravity on the near side is .64% of Earth's gravity. So that would make it impossible to use the rocket allegedly in the lunar lander. There just wasn't enough fuel to accomplish that.



Here you stated that the gravity on the moon is 64% of earth.

What I stated is that the moon is 16% of eath gravity NOT 64%.



posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dismanrc

Here you stated that the gravity on the moon is 64% of earth.
What I stated is that the moon is 16% of eath gravity NOT 64%.


New here I see huh.?



In these parts its .64 not 1/6th.... I suggest you do a little research





posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by dismanrc

Here you stated that the gravity on the moon is 64% of earth.
What I stated is that the moon is 16% of eath gravity NOT 64%.


New here I see huh.?



In these parts its .64 not 1/6th.... I suggest you do a little research





And made of green cheese?



posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 12:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Manincloak
 


Manincloak,
I took the time to read your lengthy post but I have to disagree. I still am a believer that the apollo11 landing actually took place.

People say that stars should be visible on the moon but many experts, on the national geographic channel and otherwise, have stated that the conditions were such that the probability of stars being in any of the photos is extremely low. Even if this were somehow filmed in a desert or an open environment on earth then why would there be no stars showing up if they should be showing up on the moon? If you take a normal photograph at night and use a flash no stars will show up. It isn't really solid IMO.

The most likely answer is not that it was filmed in a studio but rather that the lighting conditions in the photographs were not sufficient for them to become apparent.

As for the markings on the rocks that you mentioned, I have only seen one photograph of a moon rock with a "stamp" on it (just like props are in some instances). Some people claim that it was a mistake made by the crew filming this whole thing (in a studio?) and that it wasn't meant to be seen. Evidence of a conspiracy? Or is it just a coincidence? I can't answer that.
If we had a different alphabet or spoke in a different language, perhaps we would see all kinds of letters and numbers on rocks in moon photos. It is not solid evidence and it may never be? Even if someone comes forward after all these years and sais "this is the rock with that marking", it wouldn't really matter unless you could somehow verify that it was made back around that time (is that even possible?). You would also have to deal with the verifiability of the individual and whether or not they are credible, truthful, etc.

There are alot of different theories as to how it was done, where it was filmed, why, and who got rich off of tricking the american public. But I don't know of one instance of conspiratorial evidence that cannot be explained by perfectly normal/conventional means.

I made a post previously about my thoughts on the rense.com Ted T photos, but IMO Nothing that I have ever seen in any moon photo screams conspiracy.

-ChriS

[edit on 30-1-2008 by BlasteR]



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
An anomaly is shown on the following ATS related site

www.thelivingmoon.com...

However that is not the anomaly I wish to point out. Look at the edge of the darkness of space, it does not match the edge of the moon in most places, there is a thread of moon edge sandwiched in space.

Not enough for you; download the original from NASA and flood fill the right and left sides different colors. Clicking almost anywhere in the darkness of space on the left and right side will do. You will find the most uniform black in history except for some curious artifacts. There are actually a few pictures on NASA's site which do this trick. One has a bar down the middle and a square box of black space remaining around the Earth. Presumably where the earth was pasted into the picture.

Here is a hint for finding such pictures. There are almost no stars visible in space. How Bizzare!



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
You will find the most uniform black in history except for some curious artifacts. There are actually a few pictures on NASA's site which do this trick.


Thanks for that I will look into it when I get some time... I will post the results..




posted on Mar, 5 2008 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
An anomaly is shown on the following ATS related site

www.thelivingmoon.com...

However that is not the anomaly I wish to point out. Look at the edge of the darkness of space, it does not match the edge of the moon in most places, there is a thread of moon edge sandwiched in space.

No joke, what's the name of this image? a11pan5913-16 - do you realize what that means? It's a panoramic that was stitched together in post. It says clearly in the filename so that there is no confusion; there are going to be some stitching artifacts since this panorama was taken by hand, that's the nature of handheld panoramas. NASA doesn't even stich these images, other people do it, submit it to the Apollo image archive, and the archive decides to host them giving credit to the stitcher. Erik van Meijgaarden was the person responsible in this case, if you see artifacts in this panoramic, you can blame him. Here's the original untouched image of that sandwiched section, no artifacts, no fakery:
history.nasa.gov...



Here is a hint for finding such pictures. There are almost no stars visible in space. How Bizzare!

Not bizzare at all. Images shot to expose daylit scenes will never, ever record stars. Just try it yourself with an SLR camera at night set for 1/250sec if you don't believe me. It's basic photography 101. The same still applies to the ISS. Daylight spacewalk pictures never have stars either. Is the ISS also a "hoax"?




posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlasteR
People say that stars should be visible on the moon but many experts, on the national geographic channel and otherwise, have stated that the conditions were such that the probability of stars being in any of the photos is extremely low. Even if this were somehow filmed in a desert or an open environment on earth then why would there be no stars showing up if they should be showing up on the moon? If you take a normal photograph at night and use a flash no stars will show up. It isn't really solid IMO.

The most likely answer is not that it was filmed in a studio but rather that the lighting conditions in the photographs were not sufficient for them to become apparent.


I don't really care what NASA says about the photographs. Their only excuse is the exposure setting, which could have been easily adjusted to take pictures of stars.


Originally posted by BlasteRThere are alot of different theories as to how it was done, where it was filmed, why, and who got rich off of tricking the american public. But I don't know of one instance of conspiratorial evidence that cannot be explained by perfectly normal/conventional means.


Is that so? Why don't you start explaining all of the stuff I wrote.



posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak


I don't really care what NASA says about the photographs. Their only excuse is the exposure setting, which could have been easily adjusted to take pictures of stars.


Perhaps you'd care to explain why in God's name they would want to try to take handheld pictures of stars in a fully sunlit environment?! They don't do that on the ISS, so why would they be expected to do it for apollo?! Your logic is sorely lacking; if they had set the cameras to expose stars with exposures at least 1-30 seconds long it would have WAY overexposed the surface of the moon and anything else of interest. Your whole premise is wrong anyway, it's NOT that easy to take pictures of the stars with a handheld camera. It's impossible to hold a camera steady enough to not cause the stars to streak. NO useful scientific data would come out of it and the surface would be so overexposed that you wouldn't be able to see any detail. Incidently though, Apollo 16 brought a special UV camera set up on a special tripod that took a long exposure picture aimed back at earth and captured stars as well. science.ksc.nasa.gov...
But as I mentioned before, if they don't go out of their way to expose for stars in ISS and shuttle pictures, why would they have done so on a lunar mission where every single picture was that much more expensive to take?!
apod.nasa.gov...


jra

posted on Mar, 7 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
I don't really care what NASA says about the photographs. Their only excuse is the exposure setting, which could have been easily adjusted to take pictures of stars.


Can you hold a camera perfectly still for 30 seconds to a minute? You would need to if you were trying to expose the stars onto film, but then all of the lunar surface would be completely blown out and way over exposed. And as far as I can tell, the longest one could adjust the shutter speed to was 1 second and a maximum of 1/500th of a second. 1 second isn't long enough to expose stars.

If you have a digital camera. I urge you to go play with it at night and see how it works and what kinds of settings you need to use to get stars to expose.



posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
if they had set the cameras to expose stars with exposures at least 1-30 seconds long it would have WAY overexposed the surface of the moon and anything else of interest.


Not if they pointed AWAY from the Lunar surface... Considering how magnificent the stars should look from the Moon (considering yawl think there is no atmosphere
) you would think that in all those missions they would have taken just ONE image of the stars...

Just ONE astronaut would have thought it was of interest... especially considering the fuss raised over the issue since Apollo 11 returned...

Surely they could have taken JUST ONE PICTURE to prove you actually CAN see stars from the moons surface... or from orbit...


All he had to do in orbit is point it AWAY from the Moon... as you guys think there is no atmosphere there would be no problem pointing away from the moon and the guy in the command module could easily have done this...


Google Video Link


jra

posted on Mar, 8 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Surely they could have taken JUST ONE PICTURE to prove you actually CAN see stars from the moons surface... or from orbit...


But you still would need an exposure time of around 30 seconds. You can't do that without a tripod and from what I've read. The longest you can open the shutter was only 1 second that's not long enough.

There was no need to prove that one could see stars from the Moon or in orbit. The stars wouldn't look much different either. The went to the Moon to study the Moon and to document it. Not to take photos of the stars.

But seeing as how Venus is brighter than the stars and more likely to show up on a faster exposure. Would you find that as acceptable proof that one can see stars from the Moon? Because some people on another forum found it in some Apollo 14 photos. Go here to read the thread. Read "Data Cable's" last post on the first page (third post from the bottom).


All he had to do in orbit is point it AWAY from the Moon... as you guys think there is no atmosphere there would be no problem pointing away from the moon and the guy in the command module could easily have done this...


I do recall seeing some photos of stars taken from the Command module. I believe they were photos of the Sun corona (with the Moon blocking the Sun itself). They had a super light sensitive film with them. It was Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. I'll be damned if I can find those images now though.

EDIT: Found one.

history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 8-3-2008 by jra]



posted on Mar, 10 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by ngchunter
if they had set the cameras to expose stars with exposures at least 1-30 seconds long it would have WAY overexposed the surface of the moon and anything else of interest.


Not if they pointed AWAY from the Lunar surface... Considering how magnificent the stars should look from the Moon (considering yawl think there is no atmosphere
) you would think that in all those missions they would have taken just ONE image of the stars...

Wish granted, in UV light anyway
science.ksc.nasa.gov...


Just ONE astronaut would have thought it was of interest... especially considering the fuss raised over the issue since Apollo 11 returned...

As mentioned already, the modified Hassleblads they used weren't even capable of the feat, the astronaut could not have held it steady enough to see anything "magnificent" and it's not like the atmosphere makes stars dimmer, it just make them "twinkle," something that doesn't affect much of the quality of widefield shots anyway. The question I want answered is "what fuss" and why should NASA waste one of the most expensive frames of film of all time on lay people's misunderstanding of astrophotography?


Surely they could have taken JUST ONE PICTURE to prove you actually CAN see stars from the moons surface... or from orbit...

Granted above, but why is this such a big deal? Why don't astronauts on the ISS waste time taking shots of the stars from orbit? Because it doesn't produce useful results! To pose the question "can you do x,y,z" is a waste of time unless x,y, or z is designed to accomplish something useful. It's no different than asking why don't the astronauts hop on one foot on the moon while putting a hand on their helmet to prove that you can hop on the moon's surface while holding your hand on your head...


All he had to do in orbit is point it AWAY from the Moon... as you guys think there is no atmosphere
There isn't or I would have seen its effects in my high magnification astrophotography of the moon...

there would be no problem pointing away from the moon and the guy in the command module could easily have done this...

Google Video Link

Well JRA already provided this, but again I have to ask, what's the point of asking in the first place? It's a totally arbitrary goalpost that has no relevance to the goals of Apollo, therefore it shouldn't be assumed to exist if Apollo is real. The only reason JRA's photo was taken was because the solar corona was of interest scientifically, not the stars which happen to show up when you shoot for the faint corona. At that time it was rare to be able to see the corona at all. Our atmosphere makes it impossible to see it, even just after sunset (consequently this photo is another proof that the moon is airless) so they took the opportunity to use the moon as a giant coronograph. Normally we have to wait for a total lunar eclipse to see it on the ground.

[edit on 10-3-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Several times now you've asserted that the moon's gravity on the near side is ".64", presumably 64% of one earth gravity.

My fascination with mathematical pathology compels me to ask for your detailed derivation of this figure. Why is it not .63 or .65?



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Henry Deacon also mentioned some type of high-tech radiation shielding of light weight and thin composition. Possibly nano tech related or from alien support technology. For the Lunar programs.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 04:54 AM
link   
reply to post by baynard
 


Not necessary. As anyone who has worked with radiation will tell you, even an ordinary sheet of paper can stop alpha radiation and a sheet of aluminum can stop beta radiation. Most laboratories that use radiation do not need nano technology, let alone thick lead, for protecting its workers. The apollo command module used both aluminum and fibrous insulation in its design, partly for the sake of radiation shielding. The only forms of radiation that kind of shielding is useless against are cosmic rays and EM radiation, both of which can penetrate earth's magnetic field anyway and are encountered by ISS astronauts today.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join