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.

 

NASA ADMITS: Moon Landing Tapes Got Erased

page: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I love the two brain cells comment!

Why cant the science dudes climb down from the pedestals their over inflated egos elevated them too and join a NASA forum rather than
a conspiracy site!

Time after time,I see the normal patronising response churned out like a production line with the end product being nothing more than to belittle other people

To them there is nothing fishy about NASA recording over these tapes that surely must reflect as mans finest moment in modern history.

How deluded can they get?Surely if they were being honest they would look at this and see why other people are joining the dots together and coming up with hoax




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
So...you've used a normal flacon feather, say 8-9 inches long, held it horizontally, and dropped it in the Earth's atmospere and it fell with no air resistance???


Yup there is a video on youtube somewhere of a falcon feather and hammer dropping in a still room and the both hit at the same time. Myth busters used a downy feather that has a LOT more air resistance than a falcon feather droped spine first

Beside watch the Apollo one closely the feather flutters a little


OH and here is the old NASA chamber... from NASA history site... had the wrong name in search




Toss in the Towel Herr Dandelion Killer... you can't win



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Originally posted by zorgon



Okey Dokey



OK...I'll play along.....

What are the dates on this:


And this:

Oh...nevermind...the date is in the file info...it's 2003. Judging by the clothing, they look fairly contemporary too. NOW, this is the 'door' to the above image, correct? WHEN were they built???


This one is dated 2007....


Here's one from wikimedia, it's the "Dynamics Test Chamber"
Compared to other NASA images from the 1960s, this one is in color. Looks like they are testing a satellite in near-cleanroom conditions??
BIG PICTURE

OH! You found a really old NASA picture of...?



What is it supposed to be, without a caption?

If it is indeed a 'vacuum' chamber, are you seriously going to tell us that they put a live Astronaut into this chamber, in full EVA gear, evacuated the atmosphere (oh, and had a full LM mockup as set dressing) just for the feather drop?

AND, then the uninterrupted EVA video continues??? HOW? Just how big was that thing, anyway??

Originally posted by zorgon

Green screen back drop




'Green Screen" wasn't invented yet, not in the 1960s. Disney innovated the "Yellow Screen" technique for Mary Poppins (early Chroma Key)...I can't find reference to it. 'Blue screen' Chroma Key techniques had been used in films prior to 1969, replacing the 'travelling matte' method, or in combination. There was 'roto-scoping' too...but, the green Chroma Key was best for digital video at first, such as news casts and such. Refined in recent times to replace the blue...don't know why one is better than the other.



Studio at Langley being reused to show how it was done in a new IMAX movie


Yeah....IMAX? Could be.....but I see Tom Hanks in one of the pictures. He was the producer of the HBO miniseries From the Earth To the Moon. Could one of these 'green screen' shots be from that production? OR, did Mr. Hanks also work on an IMAX project co-incidentally?

Your crater field implication? Red herring, herr zorgon. IF you're implying it was a set for filming (faking) Lunar EVAs. You've included it in a series of training images, no???

Finally...LRO pictures!!!

Come on, admit it! You enjoy this stuff to much to let it go, right????



The stuff we see on the Moon tapes is easily no less that half G Listen to them panting and struggling...


OR....they are wearing bulky, awkward suits pressurized to about 3.2 PSI, and they aren't all that flexible at the joints????? Makes the "Michelin Man" look like a ballet dancer in comparison...




[edit on 17 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Beside watch the Apollo one closely the feather flutters a little...


I put the YT video up, above. The feather isn't dropped quill first, and it 'wobbles' as a sort of pendulum effect left over from an imperfect release fromthe gloved hand. A feather in an atmosphere would twist and turn and exhibit some horizontal movement.

Sheesh!



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Moon Landing Hoax-Hammer Feather

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Moon Landing Hoax-Hammer Feather

www.youtube.com...


[edit on 17-7-2009 by webstra]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by noangels
 


"How deluded can they get?Surely if they were being honest they would look at this and see why other people are joining the dots together and coming up with hoax"

Apparently us "science guys" (realists) would like some evidence from the conspiracy theorists and all we get are tall tales and excuses that just don't stand up to scrutiny.

Balance of probabilities = NASA's evidence (herein referred to as "The Programme") is significantly stronger than that from the doubters.

This is mainly because - The Programme operated to a specific goal which was conceived, produced and implemented. Consequently, they have a vast body of work which is provable. The theorists have misinformed speculation and conjecture.

NASA didn't set out to prove they went, they simply went. Had they known about the theorists I'm hoping they wouldn't have done anything differently - they know they went, most of the rest of the world know they went. There'll always be a few who are sceptical of everything and that is their problem.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Fox did a nice job on the Hoax theory...

Documentary - Moon Landing Hoax - Conspiracy Theory - Did We Land On The Moon (Fox TV)

Part-(1)



Part-(2)
One in here... Where is the engine noise in the recording of the descent module



Part-(3)



Part-(4)
Gus Grissom about to blow whistle. The Apollo 1 capsule is still classified on a military base to this day



Part-(5)




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Day One EVA




Day Two Eva 17 miles away..



Superimposed...



NASA explainer extraordinaire Brian Welsh says

'Bad editing error...'

How do you explain this Oh wise and all knowing wacker of weeds?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


You show stills labeled "Day One" and "Day Two"...

Mission?

Dates?

(The hotel computer here has no sound...it is shared, just off the Lobby, so they've disabled it, keeps the kids from playing video games --- and me from hearing the YT videos...
)



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by webstra
Moon Landing Hoax-Hammer Feather


Thanks
Saved it this time. Much obliged



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
You show stills labeled "Day One" and "Day Two"...


Irrelevant which mission ... would be the same even if it was two missions

Irrelevant you have no sound in your hotel room..

Only thing that matters is two backgrounds are identical
and you cannot explain it better that the 'editing error' that NASA uses...

Editing error? but but NASA doesn't edit moon tapes do they?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by webstra
Moon Landing Hoax-Hammer Feather


Thanks
Saved it this time. Much obliged


Taken from a very good doc : What Happened on the Moon

Almost 4 hours in length



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Just thought i should throw a wrench into the works,


(click to open player in new window)



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Apollo 14



www.nasa.gov...



[edit on 17-7-2009 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Irrelevant which mission ... would be the same even if it was two missions
.......
Only thing that matters is two backgrounds are identical....


Not irrelevant if it was really the same EVA. I see the foreground as being the same....so it simply can't be from two different EVAs, same mission...or two different missions!

Since I'm not familiar with what the NASA bloke says...or even if he is referring to the same pictures shown...I have to take your word for it.



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Good one!!

Originally posted by jra

And I know it's been mentioned earlier in the thread, but just a reminder that the LRO is still in an elliptical commissioning orbit (199km X 40km) and all 7 instruments have been under going testing and calibration. Some of these images could have been taken weeks ago while they were still calibrating the LROC. Once the LRO is in it's normal circular orbit of 50km, we should be able to get images of the landing sites at double the current resolution. These current images seem to be at 1m/pixel or higher. When the LRO is in it's normal orbit, it should be producing images at about 50cm/pixel and we should be able to see some more details.

This thread:www.abovetopsecret.com...

Page 6.
My emphasis...

[edit on 17 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
What i uploaded was what NASA claims to be a clean up of the video with digital filter's.

What i would like to draw your attention to is the astronaut to our right, just above the horizon we can see a small white dot.

Has it not been established from experts and non experts that due to the camera equipment at that stage in history that it was impossible to captures stars or planets ?

Or is this image just a random dust particle on the lens or is it another planet ?




posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Day Two Eva 17 miles away..

Don't they say 2.5 miles in the video?



posted on Jul, 17 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Good one!!


So NASA says its a spacecraft and all the little Skeptic run and create a page that says "See" Its not a rock, its proof..." and now they tell me "Oh yeah but this" Yuppers its a SPACECRAFT"



But when Zorgon says "Its an artifact on Eros, and Zorgon's picture is much better resolution than NASA's, those same skeptics say "Its just a rock"



Funny how the Lemmings operate isn't it?




new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join