The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

Regarding the flag that is moving in the video that donhuangenaro posted, I think there may be a very simple explanation for it.

Just before the flag starts moving, at 2:36, one of the astronauts passes the flag, and it looks like he is running. In this part of the video the picture is zoomed in, and you don't see the bottom of the flagpole, the ground around it or the astronauts legs/boots. But I think it is quite possible that the astronaut kicked up some dust or perhaps a little rock that hit the flagpole, and that the flag moves because of that impact.

In this video astronaut Jack Schmitt is running down a hill during the Apollo 17 mission, using a 'kangaroo hop' technique. You can clearly see how much dust/dirt is kicked around:




[edit on 14/12/08 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


Unfortunately, the wave does not radiate from the pole out. It begins at the outer end and works in.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I understand perfectly what you mean, but you have to remember that when the astronaut runs past the flag, he does it between the camera and the flagpole. In that brief moment, the flag and the pole is hidden from sight, so there is no way of telling excactly how and where the movement began.

I still believe that dust or a little rock hit the pole and caused both the pole and the flag to move. It is what makes most sense. In my humble opinion. of course.

reply to post by ziggystar60


What I am saying is if you watch the wave, you can tell what end it begins on. If you were saying a rock flew up and hit the end farther from the pole, maybe I could buy that. I am saying that the wave is not coming from the pole no matter how you slice it. Waves travel in a direction, that one is going toward the pole.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


I respectfully disagree.

The whole point is that the movement could have begun in the brief moment when the astronaut passes the flag. I think it is just moving/swinging BACK AGAIN when you see it "waving" after the astronaut has passed it.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Well then I guess that is where that ends. You do know that waves travel in one direction right? I am just asking here because you seem to be avoiding that part. If you do not see it, fair enough. We see different things. I am just wondering if you have even looked at it to really pay attention to the direction the wave is traveling in. Of course I could be wrong but I am just curious if you eve considered looking at that.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


Yes, I have looked at the video repeatedly, over and over, and I still stand by my explanation. Or "theory", to be more correct, since there is no way I or anyone else can know for sure what really happened.

And please believe me when I say that I think there was A LOT going on during the Apollo missions that we have not been told about. I also firmly believe that many of the photos taken on the moon has been manipulated to hide things we are not supposed to see or know about.

I just don't think this waving flag is very significant, that's all.

Since we have the size of the moon and can take a rough estimate of its composition, shouldn't we be able to callculate the actual surface gravity of the moon?

Just like scientists have been doing with just about every other exo planet?

reply to post by ziggystar60


So what do you think they are hiding? Bases? Alien life? Ruins? Please tell me what could be on the moon worth disguising from us that is more believable than the idea that that video was shot somewhere with an atmosphere.

-dont get me wrong, we see different things, ok I get it. I am just curious now what you think would be worth covering up that is not as crazy as air or a stage.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]

Originally posted by thematrix
Since we have the size of the moon and can take a rough estimate of its composition, shouldn't we be able to callculate the actual surface gravity of the moon?

No because a better understanding of gravity has lead to less understanding of gravity. Calculating by simply calculating a spheres surface area does not work. Knowing the actual mass of the moon is impossible with any technology we have today.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo



I do not know what they are hiding, I am not a psychic. (Wish I was, though!) But I will advice you to take a close look at the Apollo images yourself, especially the photos taken on the moon's surface. For some reason most people are not very interested in the surface images, but they are indeed very, very interesting.

For starters, you can begin with looking at two panoramas from the Apollo 17 mission. These images are WAY to big to post here, but here are the links:

www.lpi.usra.edu...

www.lpi.usra.edu...

Take a look at the hills/massifs in the background all the way around in the panoramas. They are identical, except for some shadows. In one panorama, the Lunar Module is there. In the other panorama, it is not.
Rather strange, don't you think?

reply to post by ziggystar60


Yes, that is strange. You know what might cause that? Fake backdrops on a soundstage. The kind of place where passing a flag will cause it to then wave in the wake left by you. Interesting indeed.

It may have been already mentioned but I just read in on this long thread so . As to the OP I dont think you accounted for the weight of the suit itself. Astronaut 180 + suit 180 = 360 pounds.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


You may be right, the photos could have been staged here on Earth.

Personally, I believe that we went to the moon, and that photos were taken there during the Apollo missions. But I have come to the conclusion that the photos which have been made public are only partially real.

In the two panoramas I gave you links to, I think the hills/massifs have been faked and pasted in to hide what is really there in the background.

reply to post by ziggystar60


Ok, please stay with me. I am trying but you are wandering off. Stop looking all over the place and just hang with me for one moment, PLEASE.

You are saying -

Faking it on a stage is far fetched.
The idea that there is an atmosphere on the moon is far fetched.
The idea that there is an atmosphere on the moon because it was faked is far fetched.

but...there is something up there so huge that they need to put in fake mountains to hide it?

Ok, please can you tell me what it could even possibly be that is not as far fetched as air.

Are you getting this?

I do not want to have to ask again, slower, with more short words.

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


Please do not patronize me in that way. I have been nothing but polite and respectful towards you, and I expect you to return the favour.

I have NOT, not once, said that it is far fetched that there is an atmosphere on the moon. There may be, for all I know. All I did was to give a logical explanation for the waving flag in the particular video posted here in this thread, and I still stand by that explanation.

I have already said that I think that humans went to the moon, and that photos were taken there. I do NOT believe that all the moon landings were faked or that all the photos/videos were taken here on Earth on a soundstage. But I do believe that the footage we have seen from these missions are only partially real.

And why do you expect me to KNOW what NASA is hiding? How can anybody know, except for the people involved in the mission, the astronauts themselves and the people who manipulated the photos?
You are demanding answers I simply can not give you.

reply to post by ziggystar60


I guess I am just at a complete loss when someone proposes a theory that they cannot even begin to explain.

You do not like the idea that the flag is waving due to atmospheric disturbance caused by close passage of the astronaut. You argued the point in 3 posts so that part we can agree is what you believe. That flag is not waving due to an atmosphere. You said it 3 times. I am just curious then, when you see two different pics with the same backdrop...why do you conclude they are put in to hide something instead of just the same backdrop on a stage?

What makes you lean one way or the other? Is there something else you have seen to make you believe they would put in vast mountainscapes just to hide something from view or is it just a random thought that you like? I am sorry if I am being patronizing but I am really trying to understand how you are coming at this.

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by ziggystar60

 

That flag is not waving due to an atmosphere. You said it 3 times.

No. Please pick a direct quote from any of my post where I said that. Again, there may be an atmosphere on the moon. But I do not think an atmosphere was the explanation for the waving flag IN THIS PARTICULAR VIDEO POSTED IN THIS PARTICULAR THREAD.

And to adress your other points, yes, I have seen things in the Apollo images that makes me think that NASA is hiding something. (The panoramas I linked to are prime excamples, and you do not even have to zoom in on anything in them to understand that something doesn't add up.)

I have spent over a year reading scientific NASA rapports and documents, and studying VERY closely hundreds and hundreds of Apollo images. I have in my collection a large amount of photos which show things I have not been able to find any explanation for. These things do not look like anything made here on Earth. So yes, I think the photos were taken on the Moon. (Do not ask me to provide links to all of those photos. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.)

It seems to me like you want me to say that the photos were taken here on Earth, on a soundstage. I can not say that, because that is not what I believe. What I have been saying over and over again, is that I believe NASA has manipulated many, many of the images to hide certain features/objects/artifacts they discovered and photographed on the Moon. They do not want us to know about them. This is my personal belief, based on my own studies and research.

I honestly do not understand why you seem to get upset about that?


[edit on 14/12/08 by ziggystar60]

reply to post by ziggystar60


No, I do not want you to say anything in particular. As far as saying it 3 times, your first 3 posts to me, go read them.

I am interested in what you have seen. The problem you are having is that what I see, is a staged set.
You do not.

Fair enough.

Then, you go on to say that you do think something is up though.
OK, I am with ya.
You say the pictures seem deceptive.
Uh huh, still here.
You show me pics of the same backdrop used twice.

hmmmmmmm....now seeing as I already thought the video looked like it was a set on earth, what do you suppose two scenes with one backdrop will look like to me? Especially since if it were photo tampering, they could have gone with any contour they wanted. There is a perfect horizon line though, which is what happens on a huge set with forced perspective like that.

So, when you say, nah it aint on earth but it is strange because these pics look like earth too....I get a little thrown. Yes, those are my words.

You have my curiosity up though. Do you have a better example of them covering up something in the photos that does not lead me to conclude it was a set on earth?

reply to post by angel of lightangelo


Regarding the two large panoramas I gave you links to, I have not explained myself good enough, it seems. I will try again.

I think what you see in the FOREGROUND in the photos that were put toghether to make the panoramas (the astronauts, their EVA equipment, the boulders, the Lunar Module and so on) were photographed on the moon. THOSE parts of the photos are real.

The background, however, is fake in my opinion. The identical hills/massifs have been pasted in to hide what is really in the horizon. (It is possible that the hills/massifs is just a backdrop which was made and photographed here on Earth, I agree with you on that part.)

I also understand that you are curious about the images I have in my collection, but it is impossible for me to give you links and explanations for all of them. They are just too many, and they are also from different missions. I do however plan to present and discuss some of them in future threads. (You can trust me on this, I think my past history here on ATS will tell you that I am not in the habit of lying.)

I have already given you the two panoramas to explain why I think many of the photos are manipulated, that will have to do for now. I do not wish to derail this thread any further than I have already done.
(Sorry, Mike!)