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.

 

Apollo Missions. Deep questions of Logic that remain unanswered

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Sorry If this has been discussed before. If so, since there isn’t any forum for Moon Hoax as there should be imo, like the 9/11 forum gets, Plz post it, Mods, please move this to the appropriate forum…plz! so we can know where to post ALL the CT’s on this subject. Thanks a million!

Ok, I was just re-reviewing my thoughts about the moon hoax…errr Apollo Missions and came across a couple of things that made me question what I was seeing. The more things about the mission I think about the more questions I come up with.

Here they are:

In the visor

You don’t have to look very hard to see the ‘anomaly’ in this pic.
(the light that is coming from behind the person taking the picture as reflected in the visor.)

Since the camera was embedded on the chest of the suits, would it even be possible to take a full picture like this? (angle) if so, how?

Since it’s broad daylight, why all the lighting??
(Source is provided within the website)

Liftoff
(Source is provided within the website)

Where’s the person that is taking this Video, since the Lunar Module was to transport 2/3 of the astronots OFF the surface?

What kind of equipment that is tracking the LM?
~If this is a ‘guided’ camera, what kind of technology is tracking it? Laser?

Why isn’t the LM traveling out of sight of the camera and why does it seem to ‘hang there’?

The function of Apollo climate control

Ok, well, there seems to be some confusion here about how the temperature of the suits and LEM.! Alan Bean says they spent 33 hours…yep, 33 hours, that’s 1 day and 9 hours on the moon. Since that is true, according to Alan Bean, then if the suits could only last 8 hours of oxygen … please explain in GREAT detail in regards to the video above.

~Why would they need air conditioning units if they were freezing in space?? (see video above for reference)

Lunar Rover

Where’s the Lunar Rover on the LM suppose to be attached again??
If not attached then, how long did it take 2 normal men to put it together on the moon?


Enough Fuel & Oxygen?

Could they actually have enough oxygen (air)/fuel to breath to make it there and back?


According to this site, which looks correct, but I haven’t checked the formulas. It looks correct to me. So far in calculating my numbers, it took Apollo 9 days for a round trip. (I cal’d the trip has having a return trip of 4 days.) NASA states 8: Wednesday, 16 July 1969.- July 24, 1969

As for the fuel, perhaps. But, just logically thinking, the amount of air needed for all 3 would weigh a LOT because of the tanks they would have needed to carry with them; which I don't see on the LM or the LR.

[edit on 9-8-2008 by Komodo]



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:22 PM
link   
ummm

didn't they recycle the air?



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
My statement:

I would really really like to believe, but I can fit the amount of people that are true believers of this conspiracy in a classroom.

I have watched the videos reviewed the evidence, and sensed that they never took place.

As a child I was fascinated with space travel. I have been to the Kennedy Space Center about five times during my teens. I have met and talked extensively with Al Warden.

By far the most interesting evidence are the pictures, the shadow angles don't line up. I cannot bring myself to it to dig up the 70's British videos which discuss them extensively.

Such as when you see trees shadows late in the afternoon, they are all pointing in the same direction. Some Apollo pictures have shadows in places there shouldn't be. Why is this important? That means there is more than one light source The only source of light on the moon for the astronaunts was the Sun. Is there another Sun in our solar system?


I have seen the interviews, yet, I cannot bring myself to believe. As a modern conspirator could say:

There's something fishy going on



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by careface
 


not sure.. I've never read that before.. if they did I'd like to see where they did off the NASA site.

Good question!



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by truth_seeker3
 


I hear ya truth_seeker3! Things just don't seem to add up and these are only the tip of the iceberg! There are litterly thousands of other questions I have but, these are the questions that nag the most. One more that I haven't been able to get a clear answer on is, why no stars. Even though it's said that the camera's were 'set' to daylight; but, even in the module that took them back to earth?



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   
To answer the questions:

The fill light is the light that's reflected off the surface of the moon. And yes, it's possible to take a picture like that with a chest-mounted camera. Heck, it's not even a very well composed picture. You can tell the astronaut that took it is actually leaning forward and to the left.

The remote video cameras were operated by controllers in mission control. They had a countdown to the when the ascent stage would ignite, so the controller just had to anticipate the tilt a bit because of the delay in transmission from the Earth to the Moon.

The EVA suits were recharged with oxygen in between EVAs, just like filling a scuba tank. They need air conditioning because while space is freezing, sunlight is not. In the shade, it's very cold. In the sun, it's very warm.

The rover was folded and stored on the descent stage of the LEM. Pictures here: apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp... It folded down and was lowered with a system of pulleys. It took less than 15 minutes to deploy it and power it up.

And yes, they were able to carry plenty of oxygen. They Apollo capsules were filled with 100% oxygen at a very low pressure of 5psi. By comparison, Earth's atmosphere is 21% oxygen and 78% nitrogen at 14.7psi. In Apollo, they used carbon dioxide scrubbers to remove the exhaled CO2 from the air.



posted on Aug, 9 2008 @ 11:29 PM
link   
now tell me again...how much power would it take to run the air conditioning for 33 hours at that temp....must be some huge batteries! what is my temp again? are we cold...or are we hot in deep space....and how many tons of a/c or heat would be needed?



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:42 AM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 





The fill light is the light that's reflected off the surface of the moon. And yes, it's possible to take a picture like that with a chest-mounted camera. Heck, it's not even a very well composed picture. You can tell the astronaut that took it is actually leaning forward and to the left.


Well, with no reference to backup your answers and just inject whatever you deem is good.. I took it upon myself to check out your answers; so far, right off the bat, you fail sir.

In television, film, stage, or photographic lighting, a fill light (often simply fill) may be used to reduce the contrast of a scene and provide some illumination for the areas of the image that are in shadow. A common lighting setup places the fill light on the lens axis, roughly perpendicular to the key light. source




The remote video cameras were operated by controllers in mission control. They had a countdown to the when the ascent stage would ignite, so the controller just had to anticipate the tilt a bit because of the delay in transmission from the Earth to the Moon.


Well, I can say the same thing without any source to back it up.. so yea.. thx.




The EVA suits were recharged with oxygen in between EVAs, just like filling a scuba tank. They need air conditioning because while space is freezing, sunlight is not. In the shade, it's very cold. In the sun, it's very warm.


So you are referring to .. what source again ?? cuz' I don't see it. Or would this Source not be enough????




The rover was folded and stored on the descent stage of the LEM. Pictures here: apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp... It folded down and was lowered with a system of pulleys. It took less than 15 minutes to deploy it and power it up.


Ahh..not sure if that is the Official NASA



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Frankly, your arguments have been rehashed on here so many times, I didn't feel like taking the effort to dig up links to back everything up. A little Google-fu will turn up correct answers to all your questions.. Suffice it to say, your questions come from ignorance (that's not an insult, it's just to say that you simply lack the scientific knowledge that would answer your questions).



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
You don’t have to look very hard to see the ‘anomaly’ in this pic.
(the light that is coming from behind the person taking the picture as reflected in the visor.)

So what? Ever hear of indirect lighting sources? The moon itself reflects scattered light, which is why a full moon lights up the night even on earth.



Since the camera was embedded on the chest of the suits, would it even be possible to take a full picture like this? (angle) if so, how?

The camera was not "embedded" in a permanent fashion, it could be detached for handheld operation.


Liftoff
(Source is provided within the website)

Where’s the person that is taking this Video, since the Lunar Module was to transport 2/3 of the astronots OFF the surface?

Please do a little research first. The video camera pan (which was mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind) was controlled from earth with the operator anticipating the moment of launch so that the command would reach the camera at exactly the right time. This was attempted on previous missions but the timing was always off until the very the last mission.


What kind of equipment that is tracking the LM?
~If this is a ‘guided’ camera, what kind of technology is tracking it? Laser?

No. It's called mission control.



Ok, well, there seems to be some confusion here about how the temperature of the suits and LEM.! Alan Bean says they spent 33 hours…yep, 33 hours, that’s 1 day and 9 hours on the moon. Since that is true, according to Alan Bean, then if the suits could only last 8 hours of oxygen … please explain in GREAT detail in regards to the video above.

LOL! It doesn't take "GREAT" detail to explain this one. They spent most of their time IN THE LEM. They only spent up to 8 hours at a time while out on EVA. The LEM had plenty of extra O2 onboard.


~Why would they need air conditioning units if they were freezing in space?? (see video above for reference)

They used various technologies to regulate their temperature. When in direct sunlight for days at a time on the lunar surface you need to be able to radiate heat away from the spacecraft. While in lunar shadow in orbit you need to be able to keep the spacecraft warm.


Lunar Rover

Where’s the Lunar Rover on the LM suppose to be attached again??
If not attached then, how long did it take 2 normal men to put it together on the moon?

It folds out from one of the LEM's storage bays. Assembly from that point is fairly straightforward for a pair of trained astronauts to do.


Could they actually have enough oxygen (air)/fuel to breath to make it there and back?

Yes.


As for the fuel, perhaps. But, just logically thinking, the amount of air needed for all 3 would weigh a LOT because of the tanks they would have needed to carry with them; which I don't see on the LM or the LR.

You don't "see" them because they're internally carried. And yes they weighed alot, that's why the saturn V was the most powerful rocket ever launched, even to this day. They stored their oxygen in liquid form for both fuel cell and environmental use (where it would be returned to gaseous form before being vented into the cabin, of course), this meant each tank held plenty of oxygen for extended stays in space.

[edit on 10-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
One more that I haven't been able to get a clear answer on is, why no stars. Even though it's said that the camera's were 'set' to daylight; but, even in the module that took them back to earth?

How many pictures have YOU taken with stars in them? Do you realize what's involved, the length of the exposure? If so, how do you propose to keep the camera perfectly steady for such a long exposure while it's floating in zero g on the return to earth? Furthermore, the hassleblad SLRs they used were not designed for such things and the controls could not even be set for such a long exposure. Lastly, if "no stars" is proof that a space mission is a fake, then would you care to explain why stars are not visible in any of the current digital photos taken by astronauts during shuttle missions?
www.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

[edit on 10-8-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


well.. since you provide such great sources .. I have to agree.. wow..



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 



oh and there's a patent for ALL of this right.. if so.. then there s/b a working model SOMEWHERE~!!!! or.. does NASA NOT need to patent .. because it's using OUR tax dollars..



posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
If you really want to doubt the Apollo missions then look into solar radiation. They would need to protect against alpha, beta and gamma radiation. That requires between 6 and 12 feet of earth shielding for a bomb shelter. What did they use? Gold Foil?



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ngchunter
 


well.. since you provide such great sources .. I have to agree.. wow..

I've watched hours of archival footage showing the packing and unpacking of the lunar rover, I've flown simulators running the real apollo guidance computer software and seen how the systems work (including the liquid oxygen storage, as I mentioned before), I've taken pictures of hundreds of thousands of stars at night, I've done the things needed to know what I'm talking about. The question I have for you is why ask the questions if you're not willing to accept the answers?
www.spacecraftfilms.com...
nassp.sourceforge.net...
www.spaceaholic.com... (check out the CRYOGENIC oxygen coupler)
farm3.static.flickr.com...
Dismissive attitude aside, you haven't addressed any of my points.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by ngchunter
 



oh and there's a patent for ALL of this right.. if so.. then there s/b a working model SOMEWHERE~!!!! or.. does NASA NOT need to patent .. because it's using OUR tax dollars..

What are you talking about?! Working model of what, exactly?



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
If you really want to doubt the Apollo missions then look into solar radiation. They would need to protect against alpha, beta and gamma radiation. That requires between 6 and 12 feet of earth shielding for a bomb shelter. What did they use? Gold Foil?

Oh boy, guess that means ISS is a huge hoax too then. I have news for you, gamma radiation is not affected by earth's magnetic shield - ISS gets just as much of a dose as apollo, only they stay up far longer for ISS. You do also NOT need "6 to 12 feet" of shielding for alpha and beta radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by a sheet of paper. Paper. Not lead, not earth, PAPER. Beta radiation gives off dangerous levels of Bremsstrahlung when you try to stop it with heavy metals, so lighter metals like aluminum make for the best shielding. Guess what the command module was made of? Aluminum. Fibrous materials also work well on beta particles, much like the fibrous insulation used in the command module.



posted on Aug, 11 2008 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 


I don''t know if the answer to your questions is in this information, but in the link provided (LINK) the Japanese satelite made pictures of the landing sites comparing them to pictures taken by the astronauts. So unless Japan is joining the scam, this can be sort of prove US was on the moon.



[edit on 11/8/2008 by saturnus1962]



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 01:35 AM
link   
You might have some good questions there, but
there are a lot of pro lunar landing videos on youtube now.

I came across this flag movement video with a 16mm footage
that is supposed to be part of the mission.

Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 2 (Did we land on the moon?)

www.youtube.com...

Didn't think so much film was aboard.
I looks re created.
Studio made.

And we still see tether wire flashes or is it antenna on some video.
The mission has a lot of camera work of 'live' and staged video that
we would most likely believe it actually happened if we only had news
reports and no audio at all.

The TV business needed a boost in the 60s perhaps.
Its getting over played now like all Illuminati video.



posted on Aug, 12 2008 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by saturnus1962
reply to post by Komodo
 


I don''t know if the answer to your questions is in this information, but in the link provided (LINK) the Japanese satelite made pictures of the landing sites comparing them to pictures taken by the astronauts. So unless Japan is joining the scam, this can be sort of prove US was on the moon.



[edit on 11/8/2008 by saturnus1962]



Japan and China should be in on any Illuminati scam.

They owe everything to us (double digit growth) and have much of
our secret technology. Most likely as a token of friendship which
they will regret as they gradually feel sold out and drive out foreign
influences again.

The same secrets were used with Japan by Germany as evidence
of the Foo craft use by Japan.


People do not necessarily feel the need for evidence, they just
look at the waste giving all that money to the Illuminati and getting
nothing in return.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join