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.

 

Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 10
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
I am suspicious of computer graphic simulation.

All these years later and they show the Apollo 14 footpath! The freaking footpath is still visible from such a long distance away after all these years!!!! Come on.




The "footpath' could have been created using a probe with pulse-detonation engine or even a Dynamic Pulse Detonation unit mounted on a conventionally powered probe.

NASA has a lot of data and papers on dynamic pulse detonation engines for use in lunar orbit.

The 'footpath' effect could also have been created using lasers here on earth. Such as the ones at Whitesands.


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]




posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


And of course there is the tiny, weeny, small issue of the fact the moon is only a couple of hundred thousand miles away from Earth, whereas the nebulae, say the Eagle nebula, is about 40 TRILLION miles away.

So, yeah...can resolve objects up to hundreds of trillions of miles away, in glorious colour and detail, but can't resolve objects only a couple of hundred thousand miles away...hmmm.

Then of course, Hubble is old hat these days...in fact it has been for a number of years now.

The best resolving telescope array in the (or out of) the world, by far, is the ESO's VLTI array in Chile.

This beast has 4 x 8.2meter telescopes that are opticaly linked to produce a resolving power of around a 32 meter telescope.

Let's get the info from the horses mouth shall we?

The ESO says: "...the ESO Very Large Telescope Interferometer, allowing astronomers to see details up to 25 times finer than with the individual telescopes"...

And: "With this kind of precision the VLTI can reconstruct images with an angular resolution of milliarcseconds, equivalent to distinguishing the two headlights of a car at the distance of the Moon".

They also said sometime around 2001 (Given to the UK telegraph's chief science reporter during an interview), that they: "will image the lunar surface and prove, once and for all that the NASA lunar landers are in place, and put an end to all the silly conspiracy theories surrounding the lunar landings" (Yes, this was actually said by the VLTI project leader)

Despite repeated emails from me over the years since, directed to both the ESO in general, and the lead scientist on the VLTI project at the time, a Dr. Richard West, who 'left' the VLTI project very soon after making that statement to the reporter, despite being the lead since it's inception, I never recieved an answer...and they never imaged the lunar landers either (never publicly anyway)

Mysteriously, he (Dr. West) seems to have dropped off the face of the Earth since, and i cannot track him down anywhere.

So really...come on...all that above AND the fact that there are Earth orbit satelites, that can resolve an individual car license plate number from orbit...yet, we cannot resolve a several meters wide space relic from 60 odd miles altitude on the moon with the various probes (costing multi millions) that have been sent?

Pull the other one...it's got bells on it!

And for the record, i DO think that the landings took place, and yes, i do think that a LOT (not all) of the record has been altered and masked and just plain 're-enacted' to hide what was found on the moon, why it should be hidden is anyones guess...



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by werk71
Angular resolution
Hubble's angular resolution is 0.05 arcsecond. This is the "sharpness" of Hubble's vision. If you could see as well as Hubble, you could stand in New York City and distinguish two fireflies, 1 m (3.3 feet) apart, in San Francisco.




Yes it can resolve 2 points of light against a dark background but the say it would struggle to see objects less than a couple of hundred feet across due to other photographic problems contrast etc due to using the highest magnification.

Something to digest!

Angular resolution formula:

a = 250000 x W / d, where:
a = angular resolution in arc seconds
W = wavelength in meters (500 nanometers for green light)
d = telescope diameter in meters

E.g.
a = 250000 x 500E-9 / 2.4 (HST mirror size)
a = .05208 arc seconds

Linear resolution formula:

s = tan (a) x d, where:
s = linear resolution in units determined by d
a = angular resolution in degrees
d = distance to object

E.g.
s = tan (1/(3600/.05)) x 240000 miles x 5280 feet per mile
s = 307 ft resolution at 240000 mile lunar distance



So 307 FT a bit larger than a foot print flag or lander


[edit on 18-7-2009 by wmd_2008]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solar.Absolution
Yeah I don't think I'd believe anything NASA has to say on the subject.. What has always bothered me is.. They had the technology for live uninterrupted footage of the moon landing in the 60's ? Me thinks not!


Oh thats new... at least to me
You are of course aware that when TV came around in the 50ies and 60ies *ALL OF IT* was live because the technology to record, store and transmit later was not availiable/horribly expensive?

But it *was* quite an effort to squeeze a video signal into the apollo transmissions. (IIRC they dropped every other line and every other frame. Google is your friend)



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by dampnickers
 


And of course there is the tiny, weeny, small issue of the fact the moon is only a couple of hundred thousand miles away from Earth, whereas the nebulae, say the Eagle nebula, is about 40 TRILLION miles away.



*sigh*
and of course there is the teeny weeny little thing that those objects emit light and are a tad little bit bigger than a small car....



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by dampnickers
 


And of course there is the tiny, weeny, small issue of the fact the moon is only a couple of hundred thousand miles away from Earth, whereas the nebulae, say the Eagle nebula, is about 40 TRILLION miles away.



*sigh*
and of course there is the teeny weeny little thing that those objects emit light and are a tad little bit bigger than a small car....


Leave off mate...do the maths.

100's of trillions of miles away and millions of miles across, a couple of hundred thousand miles away and meters across. And if i'm not mistaken, the lunar surface has a highly bright and reflective surface, since how else would all of those perfectly lit images of astronauts in the shadows come out so detailed and bright. You seem to have forgotten that when making your point about the nebulae emitting light...

*Sigh*

Noticed you didn't mention the VLSI or the military/spy sats we have in orbit and their resolving power (and these things have to contend with an atmosphere too)

Why don't you debunk those points too, why let a patronising frame of mind go to waste eh?


[edit on 18/7/2009 by spikey]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Saturns rings are up to 3km thick
They are 300 times as big as the ascent stage of the LEM
Saturns rings are 73000 km wide
They are 7.300.000 (thats 7.3 million) times as big as the LEM ascent stage
Andromeda is 220000 light years in diameter.
Thats about 2.200.000.000.000.000.000 times larger than the LEM ascent stage.

...
You do the math

The reader may have noticed that i estimated the LEM dimensions with 10m. I know. It is smaller than that.


jra

posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by dampnickers
The astronomers have been photgraphing the moon from earth for a long long time, and have telescopes that are so powerful that they can resolve small objects sitting on the moon... Do the research and learn. Deny ignorance, you'll find it quite enlightening.


How small of objects are we talking about here? Because you can't see the Apollo hardware with Earth based telescopes. The largest telescope on Earth has a mirror that's 10.4m in diameter. If you want to see the left over Apollo hardware from Earth, you'd need a telescope with a mirror that's about 200m in diameter or more.


Originally posted by heineken
why is it so difficult to get nice images of the moon??


As has been stated numuros times, LRO isn't in it's final orbit yet. Just wait a bit and you'll see these images with double the resolution.


...this photos are rubbish even the LRO Live feed pass on the moon was rubbish


That was LCROSS, not LRO. A completely different Orbiter. The camera on LCROSS wasn't a high resolution camera either.


Was it Nixon president at the time Apollo 11?..then yes it might be a hoax


That's funny. I some times use Nixon as an example of how the Apollo landings couldn't have been a hoax because of him. How could he have pulled off something as enormous as faking 6 moon landings and 3 Lunar flybys and keep secret when he couldn't even prevent the whole watergate scandal?

[edit on 18-7-2009 by jra]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by RageO
Hi all, This is my first post here but I have been lurking for a long time.

For the skeptics. Dont know if this was mentioned before...

There were mirrors that were left behind from the Apollo missions that astronomers can hit with a laser since the position is known. This for me is more than enough proof of the moon landings
Here is a link detailing the mirrors.

Link about mirrors



Those cant be left there by an unmanned mission?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar


Those cant be left there by an unmanned mission?


They can be placed using unmanned missions.

That is how the Russians got their reflectors on the moon.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by conar


Those cant be left there by an unmanned mission?


They can be placed using unmanned missions.

That is how the Russians got their reflectors on the moon.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]


I thought so


National Geographic finishes their conspiracy documentary with the mirror talk, like its conclusive evidence...
youtube



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by dampnickers
 


I have never ever seen a photo taken from earth that shows 'small objects' on the moon. Care to share some?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar

National Geographic finishes their conspiracy documentary with the mirror talk, like its conclusive evidence...



Many debunkers on ATS also finish their spiel with the very same mirror talk...



I want you to look at something - tell me what you get from these images:





(DOD over a Russian Flag with a camouflaged [stealth] shuttle....hmmmmm)

STS Contingency Support Office
Department of Defense


(This is a Russian Shuttle on a DoD patch)


* One of the reasons the Russians didn't blow the whistle on Apollo was because we have dual systems - a dual relationship. There is a secret space program and this is part of it.

America and Russia are (and were) more like rivals than enemies when it comes to space - like an A-team and a B-team, but we work towards the same goal.

And remember, NASA is under the umbrella of the DoD...


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by heineken

Why do you even try then?? thats our point...if you want to proof something why dont you go with the right equipment?...Imagine this..Champion League Final and you see the referees going out with tennis balls ...we are feeeling the same


I'm not sure what you mean by this? Aren't the NASA going with the right equipment now with the prope?



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I've said this before. Those blue streaks look exactly like moisture damage to the negative before development.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


I've said this before. Those blue streaks look exactly like moisture damage to the negative before development.


But you didn't know about moon fountains back then did you?

*If any photographer saw moon fountains in a moon image and didn't know about moon fountains, they would attribute the effect to something other than moon fountains....


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   
Yeah they still look like that. Would need to take a look at the original negatives to make sure.



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
What do you make of this interview with Niel Armstrong (2 min in)
Youtube video

REPORTER
when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?

ARMSTRONG
We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
ALDRIN
I don't remember seeing any

Just found the press conference transcript

the full Apollo 11 press conference video


[edit on 18-7-2009 by conar]

So being on the dayside of the Moon, is like being on Earth when watching stars.

[edit on 18-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Nice find Conar


It seems the astronauts were allowed to talk about the stars they saw from the far side.

Here is what Armstrong said about the stars being visible on the far side of the moon:





"Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we are able to see the stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. The sky is filled with stars, just like nights out on Earth."

-Armstrong's Book, 'For All Mankind, pg. 128


Here is what Collins said about the far-side in his book Carrying the fire:




"Outside my window I can see stars — and that is all. Where I know the moon to be, there is simply a black void; the moon's presence is defined solely by the absence of stars."


But as soon as they are anywhere else but the far side, they are struck with star-blindness....


[edit on 18-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 18 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 



They can be placed using unmanned missions.

That is how the Russians got their reflectors on the moon.


Xubieee....why don't you tell the full story of the 'Russian reflectors'???

Hmmmmm?????



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join