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.

 

Regarding the whole moon landing conspiracy and the flag on the moon

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


Didn't they land on the back-side of the Moon. That part that we can't see from up Earth?







posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Melyanna Tengwesta
reply to post by Discotech
 


Didn't they land on the back-side of the Moon. That part that we can't see from up Earth?





Does the moon not rotate like the Earth ? Or does the backside only come out in daylight so we can't see it ?



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Melyanna Tengwesta
 


Nope, perhaps you are thinking of the Pink Floyd album.


www.boulder.swri.edu...

Regards...KK



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Discotech
Does the moon not rotate like the Earth ? Or does the backside only come out in daylight so we can't see it ?




Because of the effect on the Moon of tidal forces due to the Earth, the same side of the moon always faces the Earth. In other words, it takes the Moon the same amount of time to rotate around once as it does for the Moon to go around the Earth once.


Source



[edit on 14-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Thanks, at the very least this thread is providing some education on things I didn't know!

So back to the whole telescope is there no way at all to spot anything, be it tracks left in the moon dirt, landing craft etc with something we have on Earth or are we left to trust NASA until an outside source comes to our rescue ? (even then the conspiracy theorists will still likely call it a hoax)



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


From Earth, you can only see one side of the Moon. This is because of the way the Moon spins as it orbits the Earth. The side that faces Earth is named the near side of the Moon. The other half of the Moon (that half of a sphere that always faces away from Earth) is called the far side of the Moon. The same side of the moon always faces the Earth. In other words, it takes the Moon the same amount of time to rotate around once as it does for the Moon to go around the Earth once. Therefore, Earth-bound observers can never see the 'far-side' of the Moon. Tidal forces cause many of the moons of our solar system to have this type of orbit.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Regarding telescopes / resolution etc.

This was posted by Phage: (He is the Master.)

www.aerospaceweb.org...


Earth-based telescopes have similar difficulty trying to resolve manmade objects on the Moon. The best telescopic technology available today is interferometry that allows the images of multiple telescopes around the world to be combined together....Unfortunately, even this capability is not yet sufficiently advanced to resolve objects as small as the Apollo landers....


on this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I only know what I've learned on ATS.




[edit on 14-7-2009 by kinda kurious]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Discotech
 


Yes, but the point I am trying to make is that for whatever reason, and in what ever way, the landing site could have been corrupted and going there or looking through a telescope wont prove contrary, notice I said could, sometimes misinformation is a tool in its own right.

"Sometimes 2+2 make 4 sometimes 5 sometimes 3, and sometimes all three at once"

O'brian, 1984.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by dan steely
 


Yes I do see what you mean, better yet to fuel fire to the conspiracy they get there and all they find is a crater and NASA say "oh a meteorite must have hit the landing zone and destroyed everything" it's plausible (Is it ?) that a meteorite could hit or they have nuked the area to make it seem plausible.

In all honesty, when we get these pictures the skeptics will still not believe that we landed there



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Im in China at the moment (where it seems most people dont believe America went to the moon) and my Chinese wife pulled a story a few weeks back reporting the Chinese space agency had been photographing the areas reported as the various Apollo landing sites and could find no evidence of equipment left behind. India too has been photographing the moon and nothing to my knowledge has come forward. I think the whole thing was a Cold War scam, lots and lots of money was pumped into it and the only thing of any value to come out of it was a few rocks.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   
I don't believe there is a conspiracy, the shadow could have easily come from a light on the camera, and as for the flag 'blowing in the wind' could that not just have been the material floating in the gravity??



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SOXMIS
 



news.softpedia.com...

This will enable it to make high resolution pictures of the surface. Most of the images of the surface of the Moon have resolutions of about 30 to 100 meters; however, Chandrayaan will produce images with details up to 5-10 meters.


The Lunar Module descent stage is not much more than 3 meters wide.

The Indian Chandrayaan satellite wasn't designed to look for NASA's Apollo equipment! It was looking for signs of water ice.

www.moondaily.com...

A radar imaging camera on board Indian lunar orbiter, Chandrayaan-1, has sent back some amazing images which will give scientists definite clues about the presence or absence of water on the Moon surface, according to a report by local tabloid Mail Today Friday.
The camera, known as Mini- SAR, is one of the key payloads of the mission and has been developed by scientists from the United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The instrument has finished its first mapping season and scientists are currently evaluating the data.
*skip*

...
The radar camera works by sending radio pulses to the Moon and then very precisely recording the radio echoes bounced off the surface along with their timing and frequency, according to the report.

From this information, scientists construct images of the Moon that not only show physical nature of the surface but also terrain that could not be otherwise seen such as permanently shadowed areas near the pole, said the report.
*skip*

...
The current mapping season began in the middle of February and since then the camera has mapped about 85 percent of the polar areas on the Moon, said the report.


Apollo did not land anywhere near any of the pole areas.




dogsounds.wordpress.com...

»Proof that Apollo missions were not faked.

Right, you’ve had a few days to watch all the films purporting that the Apollo missions were faked, and that we never went to the moon.
*skip*

...

Observations of the lunar surface made by the Japanese JAXA Kagyua orbiter were made in February 2008 that clearly show the landing sites for Apollo missions 15 and 17. Visit the site and have a look – it’s actually a very pretty little presentation, proving that dudes who do Science are not dry and boring. Or maybe it’s just those loveable crazy Japanese doing their thing.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
in 2002, the head researcher at the VLT (very large telescope), in the chilean andes, stated that his team would focus all twelve of the 10m mirrors onto the apollo landing sites, and end the conspiracy once and for all, stating that the VLT had the power to focus on smething the size of a human hair. After that press release, nothing more was reported on the subject.

In 2009 (January I believe), I contacted Dr. Oliver Halivaut (i'm not sure if I'm spelling his name right), and asked him what ever became of the research. He stated that they never said anything of the sort, to which I referenced the news articles and the wiki entries that contradicted this. He then replied that he would have to get back to me because the researcher who stated that had since retired, but he said that he didn't believe his old boss had ever made those comments as the VLT wouldn't be able to focus on somethng that small.

I went back and forth with this scientist for nearly twelve emails, and by the end, I just felt that maybe it was a big coverup. I had the feeling that perhaps someone at NASA heard the original claim and for whatever reason, had told the researchers at the VLT not to release their data. I posted my original emails with the good Dr. here on ATS somewhere, although they are buried withing another moon conspiracy thread, which I probably couldn't find again if my life depended on it.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by eightonefive
 


en.wikipedia.org...


The VLT 8.2 meter telescopes was originally designed to be operated in three modes[1]:

as a set of four independent telescopes (this is the primary mode of operation). With one such telescope, images of celestial objects as faint as magnitude 30 can be obtained in a one-hour exposure. This corresponds to seeing objects that are four billion times fainter than what can be seen with the unaided eye.
as a single large coherent interferometric instrument (the VLT Interferometer or VLTI), for extra resolution. This mode is occasionally used, only for observations of relatively bright sources with small angular extent.
as a single large incoherent instrument, for extra light-gathering capacity. The instrumentation required to bring the light to a combined incoherent focus was not built. Recently, new instrumentation proposals have been put forward for making this observing mode available[2]. Multiple telescopes are sometimes independently pointed at the same object, either to increase the total light-gathering power, or to provide simultaneous observations with complementary instruments.
The VLTs are equipped with a large set of instruments permitting observations to be performed from the near-UV to the mid-IR (ie a large fraction of the light wavelengths accessible from the surface of the Earth), with the full range of techniques including high-resolution spectroscopy, multi-object spectroscopy, imaging, and high-resolution imaging. In particular, the VLT has several Adaptive optics systems, which at infrared wavelengths correct for the effects of the atmospheric turbulence, providing images almost as sharp as if the telescope were in space. In the near-IR, the Adaptive Optics images of the VLT are up to three times sharper than those of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the spectroscopic resolution is many times better than Hubble. The VLTs are noted for their high level of observing efficiency and automation.

The principal role of the main VLT telescopes is to operate as four independent telescopes. The interferometry (combining light from multiple telescopes) is used about 20 percent of the time for very high-resolution on bright objects.

Additionally, the four 8.2 m telescopes are accompanied by four smaller Auxiliary Telescopes of 1.8 m each (two operational in 2005, the other two in 2006), which can be placed on different positions around the four big telescopes in order to provide better interferometric observations.

The VLT is operated by the European Southern Observatory.

In 2004, VLT telescopes produced some of the first infrared images of extrasolar planets GQ Lupi b and 2M1207b. Among the more recent discoveries is the discovery of the farthest gamma-ray burst and the evidence for a black hole at the centre of our Galaxy, the Milky Way. The VLT has also discovered the candidate farthest galaxy ever seen by humans, Abell 1835 IR1916.




Interferometry and the VLTI
In its interferometric operating mode, the light from the telescopes is reflected off mirrors and directed through tunnels to a central beam combining laboratory. The VLTI is intended to achieve an effective angular resolution of 0.002 arcsecond at a wavelength of 2 µm. This is comparable to the resolution achieved using other arrays such as the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer and the CHARA array. Using the big telescopes the faintest object the VLTI can observe is magnitude 7 in the near infrared for broadband observations, similar to many other near infrared / optical interferometers without fringe tracking2.

Because of the many mirrors involved in the VLTI system, about 99 percent of the light is lost before reaching the detector.
Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only of objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted. Only targets which are at temperatures of more than 1,000°C have a surface brightness high enough to be observed in the mid-infrared, and objects must be at several thousands of degrees Celsius for near-infrared observations using the VLTI. This includes most of the stars in the solar neighborhood and many extragalactic objects such as bright active galactic nuclei, but this sensitivity limit rules out interferometric observations of most solar-system objects.

Although the use of large telescope diameters and adaptive optics correction can improve the sensitivity a small amount, this cannot extend the reach of optical interferometry beyond nearby stars and the brightest active galactic nuclei.


Answer you question?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Apollo 11 Moon landing: conspiracy theories debunked The following reasons have all been offered as proof that the Moon landings which began with Apollo 11's touchdown on July 20 1969 were faked.

NEWSWEEK

1) When the astronauts are putting up the American flag it waves. There is no wind on the Moon.
The flag is held up by a horizontal bar and simply moves when it is unfurled and as the pole is being fixed into position by the astronauts. The flagpole is light, flexible aluminium and continues to vibrate after the astronauts let go, giving the impression of blowing in the wind.
2) No stars are visible in the pictures taken by the Apollo astronauts from the surface of the Moon.
The Apollo landing takes place during lunar mornings, with the Sun shining brightly. Exposure time on the cameras is set very rapid so as not to let in too much light and obscure detail. The stars, whilst being visible to the naked eye on the Moon, are not bright enough to be captured in the photographs.
3) No blast crater is visible in the pictures taken of the lunar landing module.
The landing module touches down on solid rock, covered in a layer of fine lunar dust, so there is no reason why it would create a blast crater. Even if the ground were less solid, the amount of thrust being produced by the engines at the point of landing and take off is very low in comparison to a landing on Earth because of the relative lack of gravitational pull.
4) The landing module weighs 17 tons and yet sits on top of the sand making no impression. Next to it astronauts’ footprints can be seen in the sand.
The layer of lunar dust is fairly thin, so the landing module sits on the solid rock. The dust, whilst blown away by the blast from the descent engines, quickly settles back on the ground and is under the astronauts when they begin their moonwalk.
5) The footprints in the fine lunar dust, with no moisture or atmosphere or strong gravity, are unexpectedly well preserved, as if made in wet sand.
The lack of wind on the moon means the footprints in fine, dry lunar dust aren’t blown away in the way they would be if made in a similar substance on Earth.
6) When the landing module takes off from the Moon’s surface there is no visible flame from the rocket.
The rockets in the landing module are powered by fuel containing a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide, which burn with no visible flame.
7) If you speed up the film of the astronauts walking on the Moon’s surface they look like they were filmed on Earth and slowed down.
The best you can say is: yes, a bit, but not really.
8) The astronauts could not have survived the trip because of exposure to radiation from the Van Allen radiation belt.
This claim is largely based on a claim from a Russian cosmonaut. The short time it takes to pass through the belt, combined with the protection from the spacecraft, means any exposure to radiation would be very low.
9) The rocks brought back from the Moon are identical to rocks collected by scientific expeditions to Antarctica.
Some Moon rocks have been found on Earth, but they are all scorched and oxidised from their entry into the Earth’s atmosphere as asteroids. Geologists have confirmed with complete certainty that the Apollo rocks must have been brought from the Moon by man.
10) All six Moon landings happened during the Nixon administration. No other national leader has claimed to have landed astronauts on the Moon, despite 40 years of rapid technological development.
This is a favourite among conspiracy theorists because it needs no evidence but points the finger at the presidency of Richard Nixon. The fact is that after the Apollo landings, the race had been won and the money dried up. The USSR has no interest in coming second, and politicians on both side realised that lower-orbit missions had much greater commercial and military potential.
Do you agree? Are there any other theories which stand up to scutiny?



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RapTek
 


Raptek,

That's a good link...those questions and answers can also be seen at www.clavius.org... and www.badastronomy.com...


It is still sickenly disheartening to see some of the uneducated comments some people leave....



[edit on 15 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by eightonefive
 


en.wikipedia.org...


The VLT 8.2 meter telescopes was originally designed to be operated in three modes[1]:

as a set of four independent telescopes (this is the primary mode of operation). With one such telescope, images of celestial objects as faint as magnitude 30 can be obtained in a one-hour exposure. This corresponds to seeing objects that are four billion times fainter than what can be seen with the unaided eye.
as a single large coherent interferometric instrument (the VLT Interferometer or VLTI), for extra resolution. This mode is occasionally used, only for observations of relatively bright sources with small angular extent.
as a single large incoherent instrument, for extra light-gathering capacity. The instrumentation required to bring the light to a combined incoherent focus was not built. Recently, new instrumentation proposals have been put forward for making this observing mode available[2]. Multiple telescopes are sometimes independently pointed at the same object, either to increase the total light-gathering power, or to provide simultaneous observations with complementary instruments.
The VLTs are equipped with a large set of instruments permitting observations to be performed from the near-UV to the mid-IR (ie a large fraction of the light wavelengths accessible from the surface of the Earth), with the full range of techniques including high-resolution spectroscopy, multi-object spectroscopy, imaging, and high-resolution imaging. In particular, the VLT has several Adaptive optics systems, which at infrared wavelengths correct for the effects of the atmospheric turbulence, providing images almost as sharp as if the telescope were in space. In the near-IR, the Adaptive Optics images of the VLT are up to three times sharper than those of the Hubble Space Telescope, and the spectroscopic resolution is many times better than Hubble. The VLTs are noted for their high level of observing efficiency and automation.

The principal role of the main VLT telescopes is to operate as four independent telescopes. The interferometry (combining light from multiple telescopes) is used about 20 percent of the time for very high-resolution on bright objects.

Additionally, the four 8.2 m telescopes are accompanied by four smaller Auxiliary Telescopes of 1.8 m each (two operational in 2005, the other two in 2006), which can be placed on different positions around the four big telescopes in order to provide better interferometric observations.

The VLT is operated by the European Southern Observatory.

In 2004, VLT telescopes produced some of the first infrared images of extrasolar planets GQ Lupi b and 2M1207b. Among the more recent discoveries is the discovery of the farthest gamma-ray burst and the evidence for a black hole at the centre of our Galaxy, the Milky Way. The VLT has also discovered the candidate farthest galaxy ever seen by humans, Abell 1835 IR1916.




Interferometry and the VLTI
In its interferometric operating mode, the light from the telescopes is reflected off mirrors and directed through tunnels to a central beam combining laboratory. The VLTI is intended to achieve an effective angular resolution of 0.002 arcsecond at a wavelength of 2 µm. This is comparable to the resolution achieved using other arrays such as the Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer and the CHARA array. Using the big telescopes the faintest object the VLTI can observe is magnitude 7 in the near infrared for broadband observations, similar to many other near infrared / optical interferometers without fringe tracking2.

Because of the many mirrors involved in the VLTI system, about 99 percent of the light is lost before reaching the detector.
Additionally, the interferometric technique is such that it is very efficient only of objects that are small enough that all their light is concentrated. For instance, an object with a relatively low surface brightness such as the moon cannot be observed, because its light is too diluted. Only targets which are at temperatures of more than 1,000°C have a surface brightness high enough to be observed in the mid-infrared, and objects must be at several thousands of degrees Celsius for near-infrared observations using the VLTI. This includes most of the stars in the solar neighborhood and many extragalactic objects such as bright active galactic nuclei, but this sensitivity limit rules out interferometric observations of most solar-system objects.

Although the use of large telescope diameters and adaptive optics correction can improve the sensitivity a small amount, this cannot extend the reach of optical interferometry beyond nearby stars and the brightest active galactic nuclei.


Answer you question?




I didn't have a "question" I've been in contact with the VLT group personally, my only question went out to them, as to why they stated that they were going to prove conspiracy theorists wrong, by targeting the apollo sites with the VLT.

They ran me around in circles as well. I don't know how you, who obviously don't work at the VLT, and just pulled up wiki info (which I've already read in the past), would be able to answer the question of why they made such a statement and then didn't follow through. Obviously you are an expert, and better suited to answer the questions they themselves can't.

Perhaps you didn't read my full post? Perhaps you think because you can quote a wiki entry that you are some kind of internet genius? Who knows.

Here is a link to a reproduction of the original article I was referring to.
VLT ARTICLE



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Hi eightonefive, forget about it, if they were able to give you a credible answer, they would have by now.

I am not saying the LEM is not there but by showing the lander in all its glory, we the public would demand equally high definition pictures from other locations on the surface, which may, or may not open a huge can of worms, [not nanomites]

As I have stated before for what ever reason, proving we went there may be more damaging for the powers to be, than to admit we did not.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Hi eightonefive, forget about it, if they were able to give you a credible answer, they would have by now.

I am not saying the LEM is not there but by showing the lander in all its glory, we the public would demand equally high definition pictures from other locations on the surface, which may, or may not open a huge can of worms, [not nanomites]

As I have stated before for what ever reason, proving we went there may be more damaging for the powers to be, than to admit we did not.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
If people believe something, they will look high and low for any piece of evidence or _anything_ to build up their case, and will ignore absolutely EVERYTHING that doesn't fit... it's called "sifting through loose change", where you will take the silver coins and leave the mountain of brass because it's worthless to you personally.

The new pictures from the Orbiter probe of the landing sites and the higher res ones coming soon, pretty much put an end to it... but it doesn't matter, people will ignore it, say it's fake evidence put out by the conspirators, photoshopped or something (which you have to ask them afterwards, why would they wait so bloody long to photoshop images?) and persist believing it. And you know what, that's perfectly fine, if you want to believe things that contradict reality, that's totally your right, but where it becomes a problem is where you try to spread nonsense beliefs to other people, and do it by nitpicking evidence and not telling them about everything that contradicts your position.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join