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: 21
58
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LoneBikerOfTheApocalypse
 


Ahem....where to start?



They got clear pictures of figures and objects with the light source (the sun) behind them?


And this surprises you why, again?!? Errrrmmmmm....ever held a camera? Taken a picture??


There was no dust on the legs of the lunar lander,


Oh, I love this one, straight from the "hoaxists" Bible of Incredibly Bad Information

There is not going to be "dust" on the legs of the LM. Not unless an Astronaut threw some soil on it. The regolith wasn't that fine in consistency, like talcum powder or something, anyway. More like fine beach sand. Of course, because it is incredibly dry, thre can be static electircity build up....


...there was no flame from the exhaust of the LEM,


**sigh** (pinching bridge of nose...) There is no visible flame in a vacuum!!! NOT with the hypergolic fuels used. Which leads to ---

[quotet]...there was no dust kicked up when the engines of it supposedly ignited,

There was movement of some top layers of the regolith, but again, without the atmosphere, there was no "billowing" effect. Particles that were directly affected by the force of the engine thrust moved. The thrust did not have air to displace, which is what causes most of the effects you see when a rocket launches from Earth.

AND...the descent engine was powered down just prior to touchdown. It's NOT like you see in 1950s B-level science fiction.


... that the "astronauts" were moving around at earth gravity, not the moon's gravity,


Oh, now you're just making things up!!!



... and a wind was blowing that flag they were planting on whatever soundstage they were on,


Huh?
WHEN did any of the flags move when they weren't being touched, or bumped in passing, or when vibrations of the passing of an Astronaut were transmitted up through the springy aluminum poles they were mounted on???



and there are no stars visible in the photos...you do know that don't you?


OH!! My favorite!!! Funny thing, IF there had been stars visible, it would have been IMMEDIATELY apparent that the photos were faked!! Of course, being from Earth, you wouldn't know this instinctively. Let's say, you're outside, in a desert at night. LOTS of stars, because your eyes have adapted to the darkness. NOW someone turns on a big ole' spotlight, like the ones tey use at Old Hollywood premiers and sfuff. Guess what? YOU WON'T SEE THE STARS anymore!!! AND, your camera, when set for the brighter lighting conditions, won't either.



It blows my mind that anyone would believe that cockamamie moon landing story these days.


Replace the the words "moon landing story" with the words "moon hoax story" and you get my sentiments exactly.....




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneBikerOfTheApocalypse
Let me get this straight. You're going to take the word of an agency that used a bunch of Nazi scientists brought over under Operation Paperclip, an agency that is responsible for the murder of the three Apollo 1 astronauts on the launch pad,

I almost stopped reading right there. They didn't murder astronauts. You're starting with the assumption that it was a hoax to suggest that we shouldn't believe it was real. Circular logic.

that humans actually landed on and walked on the moon, because of some grainy small photos that could be anything? Such as unmanned probes?

No unmanned probes landed at those coordinates, no unmanned probes have those particular crater formations surrounding them. These photos have to be entirely consistent with Apollo mission imagery and telemetry, they are, and nothing else short of evil conspirators at Arizona State can explain them (about the same as me being in on it), particularly Apollo 14's site with footprints and all.


You do know that Armstrong had to eject from the so-called Lunar lander in flight tests on earth because the p.o.s. was uncontrollable and wouldn't work right don't you?

Wrong, he ejected from a complex training simulator that had to create the feeling of controlling it in 1/6th gravity, but it was not uncontrollable in the vast majority of its flights. It did work right, many times.
www.lunarlanding.info...
Educate yourself before posting.


The moon landings were real? So they managed to protect astronauts from radiation requiring at 6 inches of shielding with a few millimeters of mylar?

The only reason you'd need "6 inches" (the hoaxer claim is 6 feet, not inches lol) of shielding is if you used a poor choice of material like lead, which creates a high amount of bremsstrahlung radiation due to its high atomic number. They used a few millimeters of Aluminum and q-felt fibrous insulation, which are an excellent choice for protecting against the particle radiation of the van allen belts. That leaves only a maximum of 7 rems exposure per 24hrs spent in the belts. They passed through the thickest part within minutes.


They got clear pictures of figures and objects with the light source (the sun) behind them?

Duh? The moon's surface is very bright and provides plenty of indirect lighting. It can even do that on earth at night with long exposures.


There was no dust on the legs of the lunar lander,

Again, duh? There's no atmosphere to allow the dust to float onto the legs.


there was no flame from the exhaust of the LEM,

Since when does Aerozine 50/nitrogen tetraoxide create a flame in a vacuum?


there was no dust kicked up when the engines of it supposedly ignited,

Did you not notice that thing underneath it called the descent stage that deflected the blast?


that the "astronauts" were moving around at earth gravity, not the moon's gravity,

LOL, no they weren't. They were moving in a way that has only been recreated on earth inside vomit comets.


and a wind was blowing that flag they were planting on whatever soundstage they were on,

LOL, again, check mythbusters. "Wind" or air isn't required for a vibration to be trasmitted up a pole, through a rod in the top of a flag, resulting in an undampened flapping motion. Basic, basic physics.


and there are no stars visible in the photos...

Why would there be? They were fast exposures. Where are the stars in my moon photos?
farm4.static.flickr.com...
You can't pick up stars in such fast exposures.


you do know that don't you? It blows my mind that anyone would believe that cockamamie moon landing story these days.

It blows my mind how many long-debunked myths you're perpetuating.


Any photos NASA puts out are fake in support of a phony story.

You mean the ISS and shuttle are fake too?
regmedia.co.uk...

[edit on 21-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
Well that post was in answer to a question on whether or not China was in cahoots..

And a commemorative plaque proves they're in cahoots to cover up the true gravity of the moon? I know it's off-topic, but lol.


But then what does all this gravity stuff have to do with your original OP


It has to do with the moon, and if the gravity of the moon is significantly different than the reported figure, that should have had dire implications for a probe that is aiming for a ~50x50km orbit, don't you think? The gravity stuff doesn't "fit my viewpoint," I strongly disagree with the assertion that the moon's gravity is something other than 1/6th of earth's; if it's not, then we should see that reflected in the orbit of LRO and in the spatial resolution of the later images of the landing sites (assuming it doesn't impact the surface first).

Now, trying to get back directly on topic, something I attempted to do last night and several pages ago, the MRO camera has a resolution of .3 meters, the LRO camera will have a final resolution of .5 meters and cost less. It seems to me the two aren't much different, and that NASA isn't trying to low-ball the quality of the lunar images. Does Baracas or anyone else want to respond to that?

[edit on 21-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



The Gus Grissom conspiracy about him being silenced because he was about to blow the whistle is not hard to find on ATS or the web, same goes with the safety inspector...


Did a search, web-wise.

Story from the Star (??) twice at the top of Google hits. Mostly his widow and son Scott clamoring for more investigation.

Some YT vids...

But, one has to ask....If Thomas Baron was killed in car/train accident, and NASA were behind it, then WHY take out White and Chaffee (and your secret fourth) in such a spectacular way....when the problem was Grissom complaining about the engineering??? I mean, didn't the fire make the Apollo hardware look worse???

OH...and BTW, after pondering this some more. IF you want to go with the "murder" scenario, why not North American? THEY were the contractor being criticsized, after all.

Heck, they could have just spiked Grissom's Tang or something...



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
But is there any actual evidence? Or is it just assumptions and accusations without merit?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by jfj123
 


Again:

Where do I state that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"?

*You must not be able find a statement where I say that I "believe that nobody ever landed on the moon"...


Again,
You wrote the following:

But then again, NASA does make their own luck own in the desert.

Since you wrote it, you must know what it means. You tell me what you mean by this statement. Not sure how much more clear I can ask the question ???????



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
Yep. Safety first.

It is all a lie. They say they went in the 60's with some ancient technology yet they just can't seem to do it again.

You obviously are just not familiar with the subject. I would suggest educating yourself before posting about this.


Because it was fake and they know if they keep faking it they'll get caught.

Really? And I'm sure you have one piece of evidence to suggest it was faked? Anything? Anything at all???? One little shred????


They are buying time until the robot astronauts astrobots can be finalized.

Just curious but how do you explain the retro reflectors?


Then they'll fake a huge tragedy and kill some human astronauts in order to slip in the robots in the name of safety.

Sounds like a bad sci-fi novel.


All this coverage in the media is full of fake simulation and reproduction of the event. It is garbage.

Excellent. PROVE IT!
Surely you wouldn't make a statement this bold unless you could prove it right? If you couldn't back up anything you've said, you'd look pretty stupid so surely you must have some evidence to back up your claim.......right???? Please post it....I'll wait patiently



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1

Originally posted by palg1
The moon has a gravitational effect that is approximately 1/6th that on earth.


....According to NASA.

Have you got an independent verification that the moon's gravity is 1/6th that of Earth's? (ie. one lacking any NASA involvement)

Maybe if you posted that he would reconsider.



[edit on 21-7-2009 by Exuberant1]


Do you have any scientific data that disproves NASA's info?
Anything??? Anything at all???



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


It took me more time than I was expecting, but I found what I wanted.

This photo from Eros that you posted some posts back (photo M0132577092F4)


has a resolution of 4.9 metres per pixel, so, no, it's not a better resolution photo than the ones from LRO.

But as what it shows remains unidentified, it could be a large rock or a bigger lander.


jra

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I don't have enough time to write posts that much lately, but I just wanted to say "good job", to ngc, weedwacker, Phage, jfj123, Soylent and nataylor (and to anyone else I may have forgot) for your insightful replies and for trying to keep some sanity, common sense and logic in this thread.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   


OH!! My favorite!!! Funny thing, IF there had been stars visible, it would have been IMMEDIATELY apparent that the photos were faked!! Of course, being from Earth, you wouldn't know this instinctively. Let's say, you're outside, in a desert at night. LOTS of stars, because your eyes have adapted to the darkness. NOW someone turns on a big ole' spotlight, like the ones tey use at Old Hollywood premiers and sfuff. Guess what? YOU WON'T SEE THE STARS anymore!!! AND, your camera, when set for the brighter lighting conditions, won't either.



What you're saying here about the stars makes sense, however what doesn't make sense is this: Why wouldn't they set the camera to an exposure setting correct for the stars to show up, and take a photo of only the stars? I would think someone would have been curious as to how the stars looked from the surface of the moon.

I am on the fence here with this whole moon hoax theory. I would like to believe that we went, but there are just too many anomalies.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by ampaf707
What you're saying here about the stars makes sense, however what doesn't make sense is this: Why wouldn't they set the camera to an exposure setting correct for the stars to show up, and take a photo of only the stars?

First of all, you're talking about an exposure lasting at the very least, a second or two for film like the kind they used on Apollo, so right off the bat you're going to get streaks from camera shake. Secondly, and more importantly, since such a long exposure would be completely worthless, they didn't bother to design the surface camera's exposure setting paddle to go that high.


I would think someone would have been curious as to how the stars looked from the surface of the moon.

They look just like they do on earth, only had they done this with the handheld photography it'd look worse than most amateur images due to the lack of a tripod. Apollo 16 did bring a small UV telescope though for an experiment, and this is what it saw:
www.astr.ua.edu...
Except for earth being in the picture, you could take this photo on earth pretty easily.


I am on the fence here with this whole moon hoax theory. I would like to believe that we went, but there are just too many anomalies.

There aren't any anomalies, just a lack of understanding.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Why so few pictures with the Earth in the sky?
Would be nice to see an astronaut with the earth in the background.
Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison H Schmitt said The Earth was always hanging above the valley...
www.youtube.com...
Pictures of the Earth hanging over the valley please...


Moon craters...
Here what moon craters look like from low orbit...
grin.hq.nasa.gov...

here the best moon crater pictures astraunauts took, I could find
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
that's some weak craters.
Apollo 14 was right beside The huge Cone crater as seen on google.moon, but they didnt take pictures.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
Why so few pictures with the Earth in the sky?
Would be nice to see an astronaut with the earth in the background.
Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison H Schmitt said The Earth was always hanging above the valley...
www.youtube.com...
Pictures of the Earth hanging over the valley please...


Moon craters...
Here what moon craters look like from low orbit...
grin.hq.nasa.gov...

here the best moon crater pictures astraunauts took, I could find
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
that's some weak craters.
Apollo 14 was right beside The huge Cone crater as seen on google.moon, but they didnt take pictures.


[edit on 22-7-2009 by conar]



A few have the Earth in them YOU said it ,why take many?
Why take pictures of craters at ground level? When they are better seen from above.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:46 AM
link   
This crater pic is nice
www.nasa.gov...

Hmm, the space suit never looks the same


a lot of details on the space suit are missing in this pic, knee protecters etc
This is Buzz Aldrin


round helmet, lots of details
upload.wikimedia.org...

astronaut got a square helmet on....
www.nasa.gov...

[edit on 22-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ampaf707


OH!! My favorite!!! Funny thing, IF there had been stars visible, it would have been IMMEDIATELY apparent that the photos were faked!! Of course, being from Earth, you wouldn't know this instinctively. Let's say, you're outside, in a desert at night. LOTS of stars, because your eyes have adapted to the darkness. NOW someone turns on a big ole' spotlight, like the ones tey use at Old Hollywood premiers and sfuff. Guess what? YOU WON'T SEE THE STARS anymore!!! AND, your camera, when set for the brighter lighting conditions, won't either.



What you're saying here about the stars makes sense, however what doesn't make sense is this: Why wouldn't they set the camera to an exposure setting correct for the stars to show up, and take a photo of only the stars? I would think someone would have been curious as to how the stars looked from the surface of the moon.

I am on the fence here with this whole moon hoax theory. I would like to believe that we went, but there are just too many anomalies.


The easiest way to explain this is:
Try taking a picture of the stars at night in the city.
Do you even see stars at night in a big city?
Same reason.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:11 AM
link   
I think all this is very very funny to me. Personally i have read and seen enough to be convinced its REAL and not a conspiracy but thats just me. As far as proving anything, NASA is wasting its time trying to prove anything because unless you take these people up to the moon and show it to them in person they will never believe. There could be a whole new mission to the moon with film crews aboard etc etc and there will always be people who think its fake and that the government is lying because well they are the government. I love it when people try and prove to the conspiracy thoerists they are wrong because you cant cure paranoia with pictures. LOL



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by fizzy1
I love it when people try and prove to the conspiracy thoerists they are wrong because you cant cure paranoia with pictures. LOL


You may not be able to change the thinking of someone who already has closed her/his mind firmly around a set of personal beliefs. But you may be able to educate those who are willing to consider all the information made available to them from both "sides".

A lot of people read threads even though they don't post in them, you know. And I am sure many of those readers can learn a lot from the discussion and different posts in this thread. If they want to.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Space isn't a vacuum, it's a partial depression. Im not closed to any information, the problem is the debunkers information is just so underwhelming. Droning on and on about scientific understanding or lack thereof proves nothing. The only understanding I have have of science is its not to be trusted. Face it chaps, all your grandstanding still doesnt convince. The only thinking required is critical, if something doesnt feel right then it should be picked apart because chances are it isnt right!

[edit on 22-7-2009 by SOXMIS]



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join