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: 15
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by jfj123
No.
Simple answer is NO.


So what you are saying is if I took my old Brownie box camera (about as simple as it gets but it has 120 negatives
) up to the ISS for a space tour it wouldn't work to take pictures out of the window?



Hey have you been on one of those Navy space cruisers yet? Just wondering what the food is like


1. As long as the device can handle the g's during takeoff, which shouldn't be a big deal, and it's in a hardened ship (ie the ISS), there shouldn't be any problems accept possible exposure issues.
2. You couldn't use the same camera and take pictures during an EVA however.
3. It's MRE's pretty much everywhere you go. You know that




posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
No they were seen from the Moon surface...

I should have been clearer (once more...), I was talking about the astronaut's descriptions.

Considering that those images are seen only when the Sun is rising or setting over the horizon, I suppose that the astronauts only saw those images while orbiting the Moon and not from the ground, that was what I wanted to say.

Edit: yes, I remember that thread with the several space crafts.


[edit on 19/7/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 

For the Orbiter image it says the distance between horizontal lines is 220 meters. In the image they used, I make it to be 113 pixels. That translates to a resolution of 1.9 meters. Not quite as good as what we're getting from LROC.

The Orbiter image was made from an altitude of 54.27 km. I can't find the specifics of how high the LRO was when it mad that image but it was in a 40km x 190km eliptical orbit with perilune being at the the south pole so it must have been at 100km altitude (or more) above the surface when it passed over the Apollo 16 site.

About twice as high as the Orbiter yet almost twice the resolution. And yes, it will get better.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage

Well I can see the Surveyor just fine and isn't the Surveyor spacecraft smaller than the LM?

Besides they say they will only image 8% of the moon... not likely my favorite hot spots will make the grade
But I will wait



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Silk
 


I don't see how people think the moon landing was a fake.



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Surveyor 1 has about the same footprint as the LM descent stage. Too bad we haven't seen the Apollo 12 LZ. It would be interesting to see if Surveyor 3 is visible.

It's going to be a 50km circular orbit so presumably they should be able to get the same resolution everywhere (I don't think the Moon is all that oblate). I've wondered about that 8% number too. Maybe it's a matter of resource allocation (bandwidth, etc). Or maybe they're just being mean to you. In any case the full coverage resolution will still beat the Orbiters.

But don't worry, there will be plenty of rocks to argue about.

[edit on 7/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 19 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Can download the full .tif files here...

lroc.sese.asu.edu...

they are 94 MB each



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Do you guys remember a couple of weeks ago? The Japanese SELENE (KAGUYA) shot some images of the Apollo 15 site. They stated that in those pictures you could clearly make out the 'halo of dust' from the engine exhaust plume.
See: Jaxa - Apollo 15 site

But in the new images, it turn out that the brighter area is a hill.



So...what happened to the exhaust plumes? First it is claimed that the exhaust left a clearly visible trail of dust, and now suddenly the exhaust wasn't even able to kick up enough dust to wipe out some footprints?

Can anyone shed some light on this?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dorfl
So...what happened to the exhaust plumes? First it is claimed that the exhaust left a clearly visible trail of dust, and now suddenly the exhaust wasn't even able to kick up enough dust to wipe out some footprints?

Can anyone shed some light on this?


Here is some light....



You tell me?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
you seen the 60 minutes about Man on Moon?

Part 1
part 2



Nixon's advisors told him that they maybe would not be able to transmit the first steps from the Moon.
That made Nixon furious. They had to show the first steps to the world.
Then they proposed that they did the first steps in a TV studio if they failed.
Donald Rumsfeld proposed stanley kubrick to do it.

Part 4
KGB knew within 2 hours the pictures from Apollo 11 was fake. Drastic temperature changes causes chemical changes in the film, and the battery useless, and the film shatters like glass at -80 degrees.
The x-ray from the sun distorts the colors, yet the colors were perfect.
The footprints were too deep for a person weighing 1/6 of the weight of a person on Earth. Plus, you cant make a footprint like that because of no water.

part 5


[edit on 20-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:33 AM
link   
How do they get that video shot of the lunar module lifting up off the Moon? The video pulls back, and then tracks the module upwards. Did they leave somebody on the Moon to film that liftoff?



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
It was remote control from the mission control. Due to the delay from all the liftoffs only 1 (?) was succesfull. The controller had to guess pretty much when to tilt the camera.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Dorfl
 

It's a crater, not a hill. I don't see any footprints.

The "halo" was formed while the lander was slowly descending, not when it tooks off.

In this video you can see the dust being blown away as the lander makes its final descent.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
you seen the 60 minutes about Man on Moon?

Nixon's advisors told him that they maybe would not be able to transmit the first steps from the Moon.
That made Nixon furious. They had to show the first steps to the world.
Then they proposed that they did the first steps in a TV studio if they failed.

KGB knew within 2 hours the pictures from Apollo 11 was fake. Drastic temperature changes causes chemical changes in the film, and the battery useless, and the film shatters like glass at -80 degrees.
The x-ray from the sun distorts the colors, yet the colors were perfect.
The footprints were too deep for a person weighing 1/6 of the weight of a person on Earth. Plus, you cant make a footprint like that because of no water.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by conar]


For god sake !
All this has been debunked.
Please do some research.
Heck Mythbusters even debunked the foot print thing !



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:31 AM
link   
reply to post by conar
 


Regarding "Mankind on the Moon", it was a "mockumentary" made by the French documentary filmmaker William Karel . This is NOT a real documentary in any way.


The premise is that the lunar landing was shot by Stanley Kubrick on his 2001 sets in a suburban London studio. In exchange for his work, Kubrick received a high-tech NASA movie camera that used for the candle-lit shots in Barry Lyndon.

Any film fan would realize immediately that his or her leg is being pulled – characters interviewed in the film are named after Kubrick and Hitchcock characters. But there are real characters playing along with the hoax hoax, including Kubrick’s widow Christiane and Astronaut Buzz Aldrin. National policy players also appear, including Alexander Haig and Henry Kissinger.

Perhaps the funniest moment comes when the faked lunar landing producer, Jack Torrance, describes Astronaut Neil Armstrong’s reaction to reading his iconic famous “One small step…” line from the script for the first time. “Who writes this #?” Armstrong supposedly said. Now that’s funny!

www.scenenewspaper.com...

For those of you who don't know it, "Jack Torrance" was the charachter played by Jack Nicholson in "Shining".

The Shining



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Heck Mythbusters even debunked the foot print thing !


The Mythbusters have altered their shows because of the wishes of various organisations - as they did in their ice/meat bullet show when they were contacted by the CIA. Just watch the episode.

There is no ice/meat bullet... it is actually a dense ceramic designed to mimic bone fragments after impact. Mythbusters omitted this - probably after were they contacted by the CIA.


*This would mean Adam and Jamie are 'Assets'...

Edit: Sufficiently dense water-soluble projectiles can also be created. Mythbusters didn't cover this either.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by jfj123

Heck Mythbusters even debunked the foot print thing !


The Mythbusters have altered their shows because of the wishes of various organisations - as they did in their ice/meat bullet show when they were contacted by the CIA. Just watch the episode.

There is no ice/meat bullet... it is actually a dense ceramic designed to mimic bone fragments after impact. Mythbusters omitted this - probably after were they contacted by the CIA.


*This would mean Adam and Jamie are 'Assets'...

Edit: Sufficiently dense water-soluble projectiles can also be created. Mythbusters didn't cover this either.

[edit on 20-7-2009 by Exuberant1]


Well I can tell you I recorded the original airing and recently saw the rerun and they were one and the same.
To actually believe the mythbusters are on the CIA's payroll is beyond absurd and beyond paranoid.

And what if I pull up 20-30 others who have provided evidence showing the moon landing happened? Are they on the payroll too? What if I find evidence from 1000 different sources? Are they and all their associates in on it?
Where does it stop? Is everyone but you and me in on it?
Come on lets use some basic logic here !



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

And what if I pull up 20-30 others who have provided evidence showing the moon landing happened? Are they on the payroll too? What if I find evidence from 1000 different sources? Are they and all their associates in on it?
Where does it stop? Is everyone but you and me in on it?
Come on lets use some basic logic here !


One good place to start for those who still refuse to believe that there ever were any moon landings, is the "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".

Just browse around a little, look at the hundreds and hundreds of photos from the different missions, read some of the scientific reports, the sample catalogs, technical debriefings and so on.

Then ask yourself: How many "insiders" and professional scientists would you have to employ (and then somehow manage to silence forever) to pull off a GIGANTIC hoax like this?


Really, click the link below and do some reading. Lots of interesting stuff, it may open your eyes a little:
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:27 AM
link   
This is endless just like other denial conversations.
Are you going to throw a bowling ball at da nihilists?

Anybody can deny the Moon landing. It is not illegal. Anybody can deny anything in the history of the world. It is not illegal.

I do enjoy reading the ramblings of the huffy 'we went there' crowd though.



posted on Jul, 20 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggystar60

Originally posted by jfj123

And what if I pull up 20-30 others who have provided evidence showing the moon landing happened? Are they on the payroll too? What if I find evidence from 1000 different sources? Are they and all their associates in on it?
Where does it stop? Is everyone but you and me in on it?
Come on lets use some basic logic here !


One good place to start for those who still refuse to believe that there ever were any moon landings, is the "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".

Just browse around a little, look at the hundreds and hundreds of photos from the different missions, read some of the scientific reports, the sample catalogs, technical debriefings and so on.

Then ask yourself: How many "insiders" and professional scientists would you have to employ (and then somehow manage to silence forever) to pull off a GIGANTIC hoax like this?


Really, click the link below and do some reading. Lots of interesting stuff, it may open your eyes a little:
www.hq.nasa.gov...


Good post but you know that they'll just say that all the info was faked. You make a great point that over the years, it would take 10's of thousands of people to CONTINUE to pull of the conspiracy yet not one of them has every slipped or decided to talk????

Starred your post for using common sense, logic and factual information.
THANKS !!!!



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join