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.

 

Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


Go stand under a street light and look up and see how many stars you can see. The reflectivity of the moons surface blocked out the stars in the pictures. One of the reasons that the astronauts didn't see stars is because they would have had to lean back to look up above them. If they did that with the backpack on they would have toppled over, and once they were on their back it would have been extremely difficult to get up again.


Hehe, that is not what Im talking about, I see it every time some one is claiming an fake moon landing, and that is there is no stars in the photos, is that the fact or isnt it ?? Im not coming forth with what I saw untill I get an solid YES or NO on the issue, is NO STARS in the moon photos a proof of an Fake moon landing or not ? I think it is of great importance..


I do not accept Maby's or wierd camare excuses, caus this has to apply for all or none space photograph's




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ChemBreather
 


No stars doesn't prove anything. I've seen a lot of space pictures that show stars, and I've seen a lot that don't show stars. It depends on what's around the camera. I can't recall any moon photos that show stars in them, but I haven't seen every single photo from the moon, so I can't say with 100% certainty that there aren't any.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
just a note on the "footprint" thing. Dry cement, powder in consistancy, holds a print much like the moon footprint. Fresh from the kiln, I know it has no moisture left in it.

Just my opinion, but if we had faked the whole moon landing, I would think that the Soviets would have been insistant on fronting us out. China at that time also. I would say it is an easy bet that they both had plenty of spies in NASA, keeping them abreast of our progress.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
wierd camare excuses, caus this has to apply for all or none space photograph's

No, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's basic photography and it's not an all or nothing dilemna. The cameras that went on the apollo missions were only designed for daylight exposures, because the moon was always illuminated in daylight on EVAs. At daylight exposure speeds you will almost never see stars (the only possible exception is with Venus when it's far enough from the sun to not blind the camera, and only if the camera is set to a very slow daylight exposure with fast film, even then it's sketchy). This is true even with modern pictures from ISS spacewalks. So in short, no stars does not provide any evidence of a hoax. If it did, ISS would have to be a hoax too.
www.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
There's more than backdrops to setting up a movie set,

Ahh, thank you for bringing up the so-called "identical backdrops" argument. That argument actually provides some of the strongest evidence that we DID go to the moon. By taking two photos with "identical backdrops" and different foregrounds we can put them side by side and make a 3d stereo image of the distant mountains. Why? Because the truth is that the astronauts actually did move large distances in the later missions and the mountains exhibit parallax. By putting them side by side we can view them cross eyed and allow our brains to reconstruct a 3d image out of the hidden parallax in the images.

i319.photobucket.com...

photobucket.com...

Cross your eyes until the images overlap to see the 3d shape of the "identical backdrops."

Had they been filming on a soundstage, the mountains in the background should appear flat, not 3d. Instead, it correlates perfectly to the true shape of the real lunar mountains, which is why when Selene mapped out the apollo 15 landing site in 3d, the 3d model fit perfectly with apollo mission photography:
www.youtube.com...

[edit on 21-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
www.youtube.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

Here's a NASA film talking about exploratories with unmanned satellites to check out the moon some more concerning the radiation so that perhaps in 2020 they might attempt a moon voyage.

Does this sound like people who went to the moon six times in the early '70s?

Not to me it doesn't.

And has anybody taken a close look at the lunar lander, the one that was supposed to have descended from the mother ship while the mother ship orbited the moon waiting for the right moment to hook up again with the lunar lander?

Have you looked at this thing? Do you really think that thing could have landed on anything, let alone the moon, in those goofy spider legs with the big pads and the gold foil and all the rest? The hokey ladder coming down?

75,000 miles of van allen belts. Think of it. Just getting anyplace near them is severe radiation according to the Shuttle people and they see stars when they close their eyes from the atoms blinging off their retina. And they are only 300 miles or less above the earth.

The whole thing is a giant hokey scam. Come on. Just like 110 foot skyscrapers made of concrete and reenforced steel don't go SPLAT at the speed of gravity because a couple puny fires are going (actually burning out with black smoke, oxygen starved and going out).

We need to not listen to the whopping lies the government tells us at the behest of the Zionist banksters who give them their orders from London, England.

We need to wake up and realize this world is indeed owned and run by Satan and Satanists. They permeate our government, our military, and they totally own the money, use the money to buy off and corrupt everything, the media, medicine, education, you name it.

NASA is their baby. They are laughing at us, plotting how to fool us and trick us again. It amuses them to lie to us, to kill us, to control us, to mold us to behave the way they want us to.

Take the red pill. Wake up.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Have you looked at this thing? Do you really think that thing could have landed on anything, let alone the moon, in those goofy spider legs with the big pads and the gold foil and all the rest? The hokey ladder coming down?

My great uncle helped build that lander, so you can drop the childish insults at his creation. It was only designed to fly in the vacuum of space, it didn't need to look sleek to fit your approval. The spider legs with big pads were designed to act as giant shock absorbers, not to impress the layman with sporty looks.

The van allen belts are not concentrated enough to kill a person quickly, they spent less time in it than space station astronauts do in the south atlantic anomaly. The command module was also shielded against particle radiation of the kind that is trapped by the belts.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Here's a NASA film talking about exploratories with unmanned satellites to check out the moon some more concerning the radiation so that perhaps in 2020 they might attempt a moon voyage.

Does this sound like people who went to the moon six times in the early '70s?

Not to me it doesn't.


Actually READ my post in the other thread about why they're studying the radiation on the moon. Apollo 11 was on the ground for less than 24 hours. Apollo 15-17 was there less than 72 hours. The next mission will start with being on the ground for 7 days, and go up to as long as 6 weeks.

Radiation exposure is cumulative. Exposure for less than 72 hours wouldn't be harmful, where exposure for a week could be. That's what they're trying to figure out.



75,000 miles of van allen belts. Think of it. Just getting anyplace near them is severe radiation according to the Shuttle people and they see stars when they close their eyes from the atoms blinging off their retina. And they are only 300 miles or less above the earth.


I bet you didn't know that the person that the belts were named after said that it was safe to go through them, did you. Do you even know anything about them? The Van Allen belts have thicker more dangerous parts over the equator, and much thinner parts towards the poles. Apollo went through them quickly, through the thinner areas of the belts. The reason that the shuttle astronauts see stars from it is because they're staying in them for their entire period in orbit.

A mere 3mm aluminum shielding will expose an astronaut to a total of 2500 rems a year. That's if they stayed in the Van Allen Belt.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I bet you didn't know that the person that the belts were named after said that it was safe to go through them, did you. Do you even know anything about them? The Van Allen belts have thicker more dangerous parts over the equator, and much thinner parts towards the poles. Apollo went through them quickly, through the thinner areas of the belts. The reason that the shuttle astronauts see stars from it is because they're staying in them for their entire period in orbit.

A mere 3mm aluminum shielding will expose an astronaut to a total of 2500 rems a year. That's if they stayed in the Van Allen Belt.


Shuttle never went through the belts, just near them. 75,000 miles is not something you can go through quickly. Since when did we hear of any Apollo mission or any other mission finding the "thinner" parts of the Van Allen belts to go through? The belts were never discussed because it is an embarassment to NASA to try to explain them away. Please document that the moon voyages went through the "thin" portions and how "thin" these were. This sounds like made up claptrap to me. I've read a lot about the moon landings, so called, and never heard anything about any special routing to avoid the "thick part" of the Van Allen belts.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
America's tax dollars at work -- paying government disinformation Moon hoax debunkers to come on threads like this and post lame excuses for an obvious hoax.

Same when you go on Google now. Pages and pages and pages of government debunking sites.

Won't work. People are waking up. Money will only go so far and people's good will and good faith trust in scoundrels and scammers get pushed just a little too far and then bam, down comes the house of cards.

But some people will do anything for money.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Yes, Please expand on the thicker radiation belts around the equator and thinner at the equator. Apollo launched from Florida around the equator. A Northern launch throungh the thin Van Allen would have been from Vandenberg. Correct?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Shuttle never went through the belts, just near them. 75,000 miles is not something you can go through quickly. Since when did we hear of any Apollo mission or any other mission finding the "thinner" parts of the Van Allen belts to go through? The belts were never discussed because it is an embarassment to NASA to try to explain them away. Please document that the moon voyages went through the "thin" portions and how "thin" these were. This sounds like made up claptrap to me. I've read a lot about the moon landings, so called, and never heard anything about any special routing to avoid the "thick part" of the Van Allen belts.




Their shape and size vary somewhat with the shape of Earth's magnetic
field, which is influenced heavily by the solar wind. The inner belt
is fairly small and sharp; things start to get warm beyond about 1000 km
up and are really hot between about 3000 and 5000. This is at the
equator; the hot part only extends about 20 degrees north and south,
although things are still warm out to considerably greater latitudes.

The hot part of the outer belt starts at about 15000 km and ends at
about 20000, but again these numbers are at the equator; the shape in
cross-section is a crescent, with the high-latitude "horns" rather closer
to the Earth. The warm parts extend much further; Clarke orbit is in
the outer fringes of them, and the whole area between inner and outer
belts is somewhat warm. To avoid the belts, one must stay low, stay
a long way out, or operate only at the extreme poles (which is tricky
since polar orbits do cross the equator).

yarchive.net...


The Earth's atmosphere limits the belts' particles to regions above 200-1000 km, while the belts do not extend past 7 Earth radii RE. The belts are confined to an area which extends about 65� from the celestial equator.



Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, still alive and living in Iowa City, has dismissed these ideas.

In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

www.crystalinks.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
To expand on my previous post:


The populations of energetic particles trapped in Earth's magnetic field have come to be known as radiation belts because the doughnut-shaped regions within which they are confined encircle Earth like huge belts. There are two distinct belts: an inner one whose lower boundary is at an altitude of about 250 mi (402 km) and whose less-well defined outer boundary is at a radial distance of about 10,000 mi (16,100 km) and an outer one which extends outward from 10,000 mi (16,100 km) to over 50,000 mi (80,500 km). Both belts encircle Earth in longitude and have the greatest concentration of trapped particles at its magnetic equatorial plane. The concentration diminishes with increasing latitude north and south of the magnetic equator and falls to nearly zero over the north and south polar caps at latitudes greater than about 67°. Each trapped particle spirals around a magnetic line of force, oscillates between magnetic "mirror" points in northern and southern hemispheres, and drifts slowly in longitude. This defines a doughnut-shaped region.

science.jrank.org...

They launch as close to the equator as they can, because it gives them a boost. The earth is spinning faster at the equator than at the poles. But you notice that after launch they are heading more northerly. By the time they get into orbit they're in the more northern region of the belts.

As for the shuttle not being in the belts, the belts start at about 250 miles. Depending on the mission, the shuttle orbits anywhere from 185 miles to 230+ miles when they're at the ISS. The Hubble service missions are at 350 miles.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
You have a lot of impressive quotes from an "external source."

May I ask why you get your material from a metaphysician, psychic?

A person who believes in aliens?


Originally posted from this website by Zaphod58
www.crystalinks.com...


Text Everyday legions of fans are drawn to Ellie Crystal's remarkable digital Internet oasis, Crystalinks.com. Ellie's down-to-earth, engaging, and humorous writing, places her daily blog "Ellie's World" as the "must read" website for her worldwide fans, while drinking their morning coffee. Ellie is the founder, author, webmaster, and creative artist behind this extraordinary one-of-a-kind website, Crystalinks. Her website, which debuted in August 1995, is a compendium of over 6,000 integrated files and has evolved into a major educational tool and vital resource for the metaphysical community. Simply put, Crystalinks is perhaps the largest, most comprehensive and ambitious metaphysical and science website on the Internet today, averaging an amazing one million + unique visitors each day, with no signs of letting up! Crystalinks is an endless journey that is spiritually, mentally and emotionally in tune with the audience's lifestyles, needs, zeitgeist and the transcendental quest of humanity. Ellie's meticulous files, archives and articles cover an abundance of diverse, current and relevant topics. A search engine and directory allows the reader to find answers to their most pressing concerns, such as: "What is my mission? Where are we going as a race? Are we destined for evolutionary change?" A Google search for "Ellie Crystal" produces well over 100,000 website links. People have remarked that no matter what they are searching for, regardless of the topic, all roads ultimately lead to Crystalinks. From a very young age, Ellie developed her abundant, intuitive and natural psychic abilities. At age eleven, Ellie experienced an otherworldly encounter that abruptly changed her life and shaped her future. In the Nevada desert, a spirit named Zoroaster, lovingly called Z, appeared to her. He became part of Ellie's daily life, bringing her to a destiny set in motion from the beginning. Those who know Ellie, or have read about Ellie and Z, have suggested that their ongoing repartee and adventures would itself make a humorous, magical, and heartwarming movie. During her early years at college, Ellie was a double major in Psychology and Special Education. She later became a licensed hypnotherapist and eventually received her PhD in Metaphysical Studies in 1992. Naturally gifted and talented, Ellie has continuously been educating and counseling individuals in need throughout the course of her life. Ellie produced and starred in the television talk show, "The Metaphysical Experience," from 1991-1993. During that time she interviewed many world renowned researchers in the metaphysical world. She was known as the "Psychic in the Pyramid", ending each show with a meditation in her nine-foot pyramid that "rocked" the studio and occasionally totaled power lines! Ellie next became the "Satellite Psychic" reaching a global viewing audience, through satellite television.



[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

 
Mod Note: How to Quote– Please Review This Link.

[edit on Sun Mar 22 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

They launch as close to the equator as they can, because it gives them a boost. The earth is spinning faster at the equator than at the poles. But you notice that after launch they are heading more northerly. By the time they get into orbit they're in the more northern region of the belts.

As for the shuttle not being in the belts, the belts start at about 250 miles. Depending on the mission, the shuttle orbits anywhere from 185 miles to 230+ miles when they're at the ISS. The Hubble service missions are at 350 miles.


Not the shuttle. The moon launches. What can you show to document that NASA aimed the rocket to either of the poles in order to evade the Van Allen Belts?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


What does it matter what my source is. You aren't going to believe it anyway, and are going to find fault with any source that I can find. NASA sources are lying because they have to cover up that we never went to the moon, according to you. That source is unacceptable because it's not a scientific site.
Nothing to say about the other two links? I notice you could only go after one of my links.

[edit on 3/21/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/21/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


The inclination of the Apollo translunar trajectories varied from 28 to 32 degrees. Which allowed the spacecraft to avoid the inner Van Allen belt and pass quickly through the thinner region of the outer belt which is far less energetic.
history.nasa.gov...
www.daviddarling.info...

[edit on 3/21/2009 by Phage]


jra

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather
I see it every time some one is claiming an fake moon landing, and that is there is no stars in the photos, is that the fact or isnt it ?? Im not coming forth with what I saw untill I get an solid YES or NO on the issue, is NO STARS in the moon photos a proof of an Fake moon landing or not ? I think it is of great importance..


"No stars" is not proof of the Moon landings being fake. Like Zaphod said, it has to do with the camera exposure settings. Since it was day time on the Moon during all the missions, everything was fully illuminated by the Sun. So the shutter speeds were set to normal day time speeds (around 1/250 of a second). Star light is very faint, it can take a good 30 seconds or more to get stars to appear in a photo.

If you have a digital camera, try playing around with it. If you can manually set the shutter speeds, try taking photos at night with a setting of 1/250 and see what happens.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I suggest everyone watch the MythBusters moon landing special.

Parts 1 - 5

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...


They debunk the major issues the conspiracy theorists have, and as far as i know, they are the only one that have done this. Part 5 is most convincing IMO.

SO....We went to the moon, landed on it, walked on it, drove on it, took pictures it, filmed it, And it was so unbelievable....Some people dont believe it.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by spacecowgirl
 

Really?
Which part of the Nevada desert?



Everyone knows it was done in a studio.


BTW the image you linked is a perfect example of a painted black sky (or the use of a strong de-noise filter). It's interesting that some individual frames in this panoramic assembly are de-noised and some aren't.
Compare:
history.nasa.gov... (noisy shadows)
and
history.nasa.gov... (black sky without noise)




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join