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.

 

Bart Sibrel on Coast To Coast AM last night: Wow! Just... Wow!

page: 16
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Was the photo in Mexico taken with a full moon?

Here's a photo of the moon. Even though the moon is overexposed there are still no stars visible. Notice the lights on the horizon though. Boats? An island? Whatever they are they are brighter than the stars.


Here's a properly exposed photo. No stars.



The Moon is much brighter than the stars and, because of its clouds, the Earth is brighter than the Moon. The only way the stars would appear in a photo of Earth is if the Earth were extremely overexposed.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


It's NOT "total darkness". It might be outside the capsule, but there are still light sources inside the capsule that can block the stars out. I can take a picture out my window of the night sky, and not get any stars in it, because of internal light sources. If the capsule had been totally blacked out then I MIGHT expect to see stars, but there was still too much light to see stars.


The question then arises, why did the astroNOTs no CARE enough to turn out the lights so they could at least take a gander at the heavens they were supposedly travelling through? Couldn't one hold the other so he could stretch his head up to take a look once on the moon? These excuses are so incredibly lame as to make the astroNOTs appear to be helpless idiots with no interest in their surroundings and no ingenuity to figure out a way to check out the scenery they were travelling through, scenery that no man had ever witnessed before.

Imagine if the early explorers had spent their whole time looking at the ground and never looked around or up to see what they could see.

The reason they didn't look to see anything is becausea they were never there. If they had been there they would have been looking, not at moon rocks so much but at the whole scenario. And they would have been awestruck and would have conveyed that. And they would be writing books and sharing their experience.

But they had no experience to share, saw nothing, and did nothing.

They were pawns used by the Illuminati to promote the belief that interplanetary travel is possible so the Satanists can pull out their genetically modified monster creatures they create in their underground laboratories and convince us these are "aliens" -- and that we of course must submit to their great wisdom, being so wise as to be able to build the kind of spaceships and share the kind of technology they will dump on us all at once, so smart and advanced past what we are, that we must unite under their guidance. The One World Government, the big delusion the Bible talks about.

Grand delusions, fostered by liars and frauds and hocus pocus, scams.

All the world is a stage, and these guys do not win the Academy Award. They get the award for hubris, and that's all they get.

Either they were zombies without feelings or emotions, or they just didn't do what we're told they did.

Or maybe a little of both.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Was the photo in Mexico taken with a full moon?

I honestly don't remember the moon phase. It was while we were driving to the tip of Baja to witness the last complete solar eclipse seen from North America. What I do remember is taking a low-angle picture of my friend to show how bright the stars were. We were actually a little surprised to see them plainly visible in the background with an automatic flash-metered subject less than 10 feet away. My point is, his facial exposure was a much higher f-stop than the background stars, but they were still well within the contrast ratio. Why would a tiny photo of the earth with much less contrast ratio be any different?

Let's compare apples to apples:

Apollo 11 earth photo

Space.com photo, courtesy of John Catraham



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Strange that image does not appear in the Apollo archives. Could provide a direct link to it? I have a hunch it may be a composite.

BTW, it's probably copyrighted. Do have permission to host it?

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Space.com photo, courtesy of John Catraham


You're comparing apples to artwork here. Did you even bother to look up who John Catraham was? He's a space ARTIST. He does ARTWORK of space, not photos. That picture is artwork of space as seen from the moon.

BTW, I like how the bottom was cropped so you can't see his signature. Here's a link to the FULL artwork, including where he signed it.

www.astronomyandspace.com...

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 3/26/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth


They most definitely had stones. It takes a lot of gall to sit in front of billions of people by way of television and say with a straight face that they saw no stars on the moon. Check out the trailer on Bart's website and watch them squirm as they tell their whoppers. Yes, it does take stones to do that, gallstones.


Hmmm, the Sun just went down here in Vegas, it's still light out, looking up, I don't see any stars. (And no, I won't swear on anyone's holy book)

Were they on the dark side of the moon??? No. There's no way they could see stars ( except for the Sun ) on the non-dark side of the moon.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

I didn't crop the image -- that's done automatically by ATS.

If it's artwork, it's listed under the category of "Space Photos."

There are many other examples of actual photos that are easy to find. If I can find the photo of background stars from my trip to Baja, I'll post it.



[edit on 26-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


That's why I said "how it was cropped".

John Catraham is listed under "Wallpapers" on space.com. Notice that his "photos" are all signed in the bottom corner. When was the last time you saw a photo taken with a camera that was signed? Also take a look at some of this other "photos". They are views of things that I've NEVER seen a picture from space.

Here are some of his other art pieces:

www.space.com...
www.space.com...
www.space.com...
www.space.com...
www.space.com...

It took me one google search of his name to find out he was a space artist. About 5 seconds or so. You might want to check into the people that did the pictures before you post them as being legitimate pictures.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:14 PM
link   
OK, fair enough, but as I said, there are many actual photos with a much higher contrast ratio than that Apollo 11 photo.

I'd expect it to look more like this photo that was imaged last month:



BTW, the contrast latitude of electronic CCD imagers has only recently equaled film. Most Hollywood DPs still prefer to shoot 35mm.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


That comet was at the limit of human vision; I couldn't even see it at all naked eye from where I live and I've spent years practicing seeing things dimmer than that. That is NOT apples to apples.

HERE is apples to apples, a long exposure of the moon to capture the last sliver of an eclipse (clouds kept me from seeing the rest of it):
farm3.static.flickr.com...
Note, the moon is casting a nasty blue glow beyond itself due to internal reflections of moonlight in my telescope, yet there are still no stars in the image. Now, just try to imagine enough of a contrast ratio to include an earth which is bigger and brighter than the moon is to us, and stars as well without overexposing the earth. It's never been done; the only time it's done with the moon is during totality of a lunar eclipse.

Side note, as promised here are some pics from a sim of apollo 11's landing. Note the time stamps (visible in the full image links) and how quickly the terrain changes from cratered to flat:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...

files.abovetopsecret.com...
Bear in mind that I was using software which renders the moon's surface in 3d in real time using real lunar topography data, but as a consequnce the texture (color) is dynamically generated as well and not accurate.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:21 AM
link   
I consider ATS' own Jim Marrs to be the world's most knowledgeable conspiracy author. In addition to his NY Times bestseller Crossfire, which the film JFK was based, Rule By Secrecy (2000) is my favorite -- a fascinating and painstakingly researched examination of the world's most carefully guarded secrets. In the ATS Jim Marrs forum, Mr. Marrs was asked if there were any conspiracies that he didn't believe in.

This is a portion of his response:


Originally posted by Jim Marrs

There are things that I believe and then there are things I know. I BELIEVE in a God but I KNOW that JFK was killed as the result of a conspiracy. Early in my career in journalism there were many conspiracy theories that I dismissed out of hand, such as the one about we never went to the moon, that JFK was killed to prevent him from revealing the reality of UFOs and that people were being abducted by aliens.

But as I got older and gained more experience, I came to understand that things are not as black and white as they seem when one is young and unaccustomed to the ways of the world. Most of my colleagues in journalism would never venture past the conventional worldview of the day but I was always inquisitive and curious about life.

Today, there is an abundance of evidence calling our initial moon landing into question, not the least of which is the question of how our astronauts managed to survive the Van Allen radiation belt without heavy shielding on their space capsule. Although I am still not absolutely convinced that we never went to the moon, I recognize that there are many hard questions which have not been satisfactorily answered.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Today, there is an abundance of evidence calling our initial moon landing into question, not the least of which is the question of how our astronauts managed to survive the Van Allen radiation belt without heavy shielding on their space capsule.

Does anyone have any evidence that the van allen belt would require "heavy shielding" to survive? The command module WAS shielded, both by aluminum and q-felt fibrous insulation materal, each capable of stopping electron and proton radiation respectively. But just how much radiation is there, is it even a short-term threat to begin with? Well we know the shuttle and space station pass through the south atlantic anomaly routinely, which is a low hanging section of the more concentrated, "dangerous" inner belt (www.oulu.fi...). How much radiation would one receive if you put yourself in an elliptical orbit to continually pass in and out of the van allen belts for a full year though? For a 200x20000 mile orbit, the radiation dose is 2,500 rems per year with 1/8th" aluminum shielding. (www.cosmos.ru...) How much is that if you spent a full day in the belts (much longer than the astronauts did)? About 6.8 rems. No symptoms, maybe a slight increase for risk of cancer in the long-run.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





Does anyone have any evidence that the van allen belt would require "heavy shielding" to survive? The command module WAS shielded, both by aluminum and q-felt fibrous insulation materal, each capable of stopping electron and proton radiation respectively. But just how much radiation is there, is it even a short-term threat to begin with?


I've heard this nonsense about the Van Allan belts before. Even Van Allan discounts the conspiracy theorists bunk of astronauts receiving fatal doses of radiation as being due to sloppy science. I've heard the belts being compared to the X-ray department in any hospital. When you go in to have an x-ray you lie there covered in just one of those embarrassing smocks with your buttocks hanging out the back of it while the nurses who are in there all day are protected by lead sheeting and a specially protected area. The astronauts are the equivelent of the patient having an x-ray! They just aren't there long enough for the radiation to do much damage.
However, one of the Apollo missions was in deep space between the earth and moon when a solar flare erupted which threw fatal amounts of radiation off into space. The spacecraft simply turned it's backside, engines etc, towards the direction of the flare which protected those inside.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
However, one of the Apollo missions was in deep space between the earth and moon when a solar flare erupted which threw fatal amounts of radiation off into space. The spacecraft simply turned it's backside, engines etc, towards the direction of the flare which protected those inside.

Basically, there were no truly major solar particle events during an apollo mission. Here's a chart showing all the events during the apollo time period, there was only one detected during apollo 16:
www.cru.uea.ac.uk...
Even had they been in their space suits on EVA the expected dose would have been 10 rems - no symptoms, less than half the amount specified as a maximum safe single emergency dose for radiation workers. Here's a univeristy of colorado report on that lone solar flare:
adsabs.harvard.edu...
It originated on the far side of the sun and all we recieved was a delayed aftershock. Not only must a flare occur for it to have a chance of being dangerous, it must be directed at earth.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jim Marrs
Today, there is an abundance of evidence calling our initial moon landing into question, not the least of which is the question of how our astronauts managed to survive the Van Allen radiation belt without heavy shielding on their space capsule.

I knew people would seize upon the Van Allen part of Marrs' response, even though he correctly stated it was "not the least" of "an abundance of evidence."

What people forget is that James Van Allen was very opposed to manned space flight his entire life.

Obituaries from Van Allen's University of Iowa Physics Department and MSNBC state:


Though he was an early advocate of a concerted national space program, Van Allen was a strong critic of most manned space projects, once dismissing the U.S. proposal for a manned space station “speculative and ... poorly founded.”

and

Ever a critic of manned space flight, Van Allen the scientist described himself as "a member of the loyal opposition" when it came to discussions of big-budget space programs.

How much radiation is contained in the Van Allen radiation belts? No one knows for sure because no astronaut has traveled through the radiation belts in the 40 years since Apollo missions. Isn't the fact that NO COUNTRY has sent a man to the moon in the last 40 years curious in itself?

Whatever the radiation levels, they are FAR GREATER than an "x-ray." The Detailed Timeline of Manned Space Flight states:


• May 1, 1958: Scientific findings from the two Explorer satellites disclosed an unexpected band of high-intensity radiation extending from 600 miles above earth to possibly an 8,000-mile altitude. The radiation was described by Dr. James A. Van Allen as "1,000 times as intense as could be attributed to cosmic rays."

Another nuclear physicist who has over 10 years background in nuclear physics, especially dealing with the effects of radiation on the body says:


* The Federal limit for exposure to US workers is 5 REM/year (10CFR835). Did NASA's Apollo astronauts get special permission to exceed this limit for the Apollo missions? 25 Rad = 25 REM. Their travel through the Van Allen Belts and the amount of time they spent outside the Belts would have given them doses far beyond this limit.

* NASA has never directly addressed how the Apollo astronauts were shielded. Lead is the only effective shielding (which was not used during these missions). The radiation levels outside the Van Allen Belt far exceed the 200-300 RADs inside the belts. Again how were they shielded? Regardless, their doses would at least have made them sick from radiation exposure to skin and organs even if it didn't kill them. None of them suffered any ill effects.

* Apollo astronauts were not protected from solar flares which were at their worst during this period. There is no way that the dose reports from the missions are accurate.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Another nuclear physicist who has over 10 years background in nuclear physics, especially dealing with the effects of radiation on the body says:



Funny, he doesn't seem to call himself a nuclear physicist, he just says:

I have over 10 years background in nuclear physics, especially dealing with the effects of radiation on the body.
Sound's like he could be a radiotherapy technician.

Didn't you like the answers given to his questions?

Here are quick answers to your doubts:

1. I suspect that the Apollo astronauts did exceed EPA permissible doses of radiation--not by enough to pose danger to life, but above the level accepted for the population in general. Knowing NASA's concern with bureaucratic protocol, I would not be even surprised if astronauts were made to sign a waiver.

So what? If I were an astronaut candidate, I would sign such a waiver in a heartbeat. If I am about to be launched atop a giant rocket into the vacuum of space, perhaps to the Moon, certainly facing a fiery reentry before returning home--then the risk from a moderate dose of radiation ranks far below other dangers!

2. The actual dosage may be 25 Rad in the inner belt, (though probably less, see below). The radiation rates in the outer belt are smaller, not larger. Lead, by the way, is not an especially good shield: it is wonderfully efficient in excluding x-rays of, say, 100 keV, but radiation in space consists of particles, fast electrons and ions. The inner belt is mostly protons of about 50 MeV and is not very penetrating--the spacecraft heat shield, tanks etc. may shield the occupants somewhat, the interior of their bodies gets less radiation, too and lying close together during the belt passage they also shield each other somewhat.

Electrons of MeV energies in the outer belt are more penetrating, but there are not enough of them. Remember--communications and weather satellites operate in synchronous orbit, in the heart of the outer belt, year after year!

3. Solar flares can emit ions of 0.5 to 5 GeV, and these are bad, if intense enough. Such events however are rare, and when they occur, the dosage is usually not lethal, though the margin is smaller. For the Apollo astronauts, this was another calculated risk, and nothing happened.

BTW, for those who might have missed the source of the external quote: www.mig.rssi.ru...

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I knew people would seize upon the Van Allen part of Marrs' response, even though he correctly stated it was "not the least" of "an abundance of evidence."

That's changing horses though. One issue at a time please, not wiggling out by handwaving to ambiguous issues.


What people forget is that James Van Allen was very opposed to manned space flight his entire life.

He also said the van allen belts wouldn't be a problem for astronauts just passing through. His biggest beef was with a constant presence, hence his criticism directed at a "manned space station." Ironic that we now have just that.

once dismissing the U.S. proposal for a manned space station “speculative and ... poorly founded.”

Quite the important distinction.


How much radiation is contained in the Van Allen radiation belts? No one knows for sure because no astronaut has traveled through the radiation belts in the 40 years since Apollo missions.

Satellites with detectors travel through it all the time. Since when does it take a man to hold a glorified geiger counter?


Isn't the fact that NO COUNTRY has sent a man to the moon in the last 40 years curious in itself?

That's handwaving, and considering the giant costs, not really.


The Federal limit for exposure to US workers is 5 REM/year (10CFR835). Did NASA's Apollo astronauts get special permission to exceed this limit for the Apollo missions? 25 Rad = 25 REM. Their travel through the Van Allen Belts and the amount of time they spent outside the Belts would have given them doses far beyond this limit.

I already quantified the amount here and I was quite generous to you in my assumptions. A full day spent traveling through the belts wouldn't amount to more than 7 rems.


* NASA has never directly addressed how the Apollo astronauts were shielded. Lead is the only effective shielding (which was not used during these missions).

Wrong. NASA has directly addressed how they were shielded. Aluminum and q-felt insulation. Lead is a poor shield against proton and electron radiation of the belts, it results in heavy backscatter due to its high atomic number unless you use thick shielding. Aluminum and fibrous insulation how comparably low atomic numbers and do not result in heavy backscatter. These are the ideal shielding materials, NOT lead.
en.wikipedia.org...

the Bremsstrahlung produced by shielding this radiation with the normally used dense materials (e.g. lead) is itself dangerous; in such cases, shielding must be accomplished with low density materials, e.g. Plexiglass (lucite), plastic, wood, or water [1]; because the rate of deceleration of the electron is slower



The radiation levels outside the Van Allen Belt far exceed the 200-300 RADs inside the belts.

For what period of time and what shielding? This person has already arrived at their conclusion before asking the question, let alone specifying the parameters. For one day's exposure you'd get 7 rads, not 200-300.

* Apollo astronauts were not protected from solar flares which were at their worst during this period. There is no way that the dose reports from the missions are accurate.

There was only one "major" (boy is that a stretch of the term, no optical flare was even detected) solar flare during any mission, which I already documented here. The flux of the flare received by earth was far too low to have caused more than 10 rems of exposure in the worst case scenario (which didn't happen). By the way, since it was so minor that no optical counterpart was detected, if NASA had the power to lie about the flux of such a flare (they didn't), why even report it happened at all? They could have just denied it ever happened had they had the power to lie about flux.

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Yep, everyone seems to agree that just from the inner Van Allen belts, the astronots would've been exposed to a MINIMUM of 25 RAD of radiation! Five times the annual federal limit and more than enough to induce radiation sickness.

Not to mention that solar cycle 20 was at it's maximum in 1969.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Phage
 

Yep, everyone seems to agree that just from the inner Van Allen belts, the astronots would've been exposed to a MINIMUM of 25 RAD of radiation!

Oh really? Because the numbers I found show 7 rems for a full day, not 25. Your numbers are under the assumption of no shielding whatsoever.
www.wwheaton.com...
Aluminum and q-felt make for fine shielding as previously documented.
Apologies for the OT:
I'm gone for the weekend, take it easy all, don't get over-rem'ed!

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You're neglecting the shielding provided by the spacecraft and spacesuits while traversing the belts.

A number of years ago I underwent radiotherapy. I don't exactly recall the dosage I received but it was in the neighborhood of 3,000 RADS over a period of a few months. It wasn't deadly. It put my cancer into remission and saved my life.

BTW, can you provide a source for that 5 RAD limit?

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join