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: 22
58
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SOXMIS
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]


Seriously? Science cant be trusted? Wow then i guess you live in a grass hut and coconuts and fish you catch with your hands? lol
You can thank science for everything you have in your life from the electricity you use to the wonderful medicines you take to fix you and all the wonderful life saving stuff we use in the hospital to treat you when your broken. If it wasnt for science you would probobly not have made it to the age you are now.




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SOXMIS
Space isn't a vacuum, it's a partial depression...

Right. It is common knowledge in science that space is not an absolute vacuum but it's about as close as one can get. Therefore, for all practical purposes it could be considered a vacuum.



I'm not closed to any information,

Neither are scientists.

I think you'll find that many scientists have some pretty wild hypothesis in their heads that they would love to find a way to test. However, science isn't about publishing wild hypotheses -- it's about trying to prove hypotheses through testing. Therefore, if a scientist cannot find a test or evidence to help prove a hypothesis, then it would not be published (and thus you probably would never hear about it).

That's not to say that the wild hypotheses do not exist in science -- it's just that they have not found enough evidence to support those hypotheses or found ways to test them.

Science is (and always has been) very conservative when it comes to publishing theories.

But have no fear -- there are probably groups of scientists out their who are working on trying to prove some pretty wild theories. If they ever do find evidence to support their ideas, we may someday hear about them.



Originally posted by SOXMIS... The only thinking required is critical...

That's funny...you just defined what science does.



[edit on 7/22/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   
i think this deserves its own thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 22-7-2009 by conar]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Ooops




[edit on 7/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by SOXMIS
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]


OK maybe we can take a different tact.
What specific issues do you have with the science behind the moon landing and/or the moon landing itself? As example, the flag waving, boot prints, no stars, etc..



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by oldno7brand
 


You know that they have little links that say Larger Image, right?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by conar
Apollo 14 was right beside The huge Cone crater as seen on google.moon, but they didnt take pictures.

I read once (but I don't remember where and what was the mission) that at least one astronaut was not too keen on getting close to a larger crater near their landing site because of the steepness of the crater walls. With lower gravity crater walls and mountain slopes can be steeper than on Earth (something also noticeable in Mars), so they were afraid that if someone fell inside a crater they could not get back to the crater rim and out of the crater.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
About stars, there are some photos showing stars taken while orbiting the Moon.

As expected, they were taken in different conditions.

AS15-98-13311 (just before "sunrise")


AS15-98-13400


AS15-98-13399



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


You wanted source data references, here you go....

www.moonconnection.com...

The moon is 1/4 the size of Earth, so the moon's gravity is much less than the earth's gravity, 83.3% (or 5/6) less to be exact. Finally, "weight" is a measure of the gravitational pull between two objects. So of course you would weigh much less on the moon. Imagine how far you could jump on the moon! The Apollo astronauts apparently had fun :-)

and
hypertextbook.com...

Bibliographic Entry Result(w/surrounding text) StandardizedResult
Hecht Eugene & Frederick J. Bueche. College Physics. USA: McGraw-Hill, 1997. "On the Moon, the free-fall acceleration is 1.6 m/s2." 1.6 m/s2

"Moon." World Book Encyclopedia Online Reference Center. World Book, 2004. "Because the moon has less mass than Earth, the force due to gravity at the lunar surface is only about 1/6 of that on Earth." 1.6 m/s2

Astronomy (The Moon). Johnson Space Center. NASA. (NASA, "The Solar System," ASEP, 1989, p. 4.) "The Moon has only one-sixth of the Earth's gravity." 1.6 m/s2

Baldwin, Ralph. A Fundamental Survey of the Moon. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. "Acceleration due to gravity at moon's surface162 cm sec-2 or 5.31 ft sec-2" 1.62 m/s2

Moon Facts. Moon Mania. Louisiana Educational Television Authority, 2000."Gravity on the moon is only 1/6 as much as Earth's." 1.6 m/s2



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 

The astronauts of Apollo 14 actually tried to get to the rim of Cone Crater. They were on foot though and had trouble actually finding the rim because of the uneven terrain and low broad slope up to the rim. Remember they had no way to accurately navigate on the surface.

With no familiar landmarks -- no trees or buildings -- the men had trouble judging distance. A rock up ahead could be 50 feet away or 500. They had brought along a photo map of the area, but the undulating terrain, resembling desert sand dunes, confused their efforts to locate any recognizable features. Each time they came over a rise, expecting to see the rim of the giant crater, they saw only an expanse of ridges and rocks.

www.space.com...

They got tired ( they were hauling a cart full of moon rocks), Houston got worried about their heart rates and oxygen. They finally gave up.

[edit on 7/23/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


OMG!!!


Don't tell the "hoaxists" that story, it'll just have to be another bit of data to ignore, and their cupboard is getting so full already!

Because, everyone who knows that it was faked knows that everything was "scripted" and went entirely according to plan.....




posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Nice info Phage, luckily that they didnt get lost on their rover



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 10:07 AM
link   
What I find amazing is that so many people blindly trust the same government they denounce in other forums re. GWB and WMDs.

Why the blind trust? Selective blind trust perhaps, because they want to believe in men on the moon and they do not want to believe Iraq violated any number of agreements with the US and UN.

It is a matter of trust.

Not one person on this site has been to the moon. Or been launched in a rocketship. Or likely witnessed a rocket launch.

I say this not to mock you but to demonstrate the "believers" case is entirely one of second- or third-hand or even more removed eye witness reports from a governmnet that is a known and frequent liar.

It is a matter of credibility and the US government has almost no credibility.

I hope we landed on the moon. I watched television coverage of all the Apollo missions and even saw a Saturn Ib on the pad before a Skylab mission.

But with such circumstantial and missing evidence such as:

- Richard M. Nixon (whom I liked, by the way) was president during the entire Gemini and Apollo era,

- all the obviously faked/staged publicity photos that were palmed-off as legit,

- the "unfortunately degaussed" supposed archival copies of the original medium-scan TV signal that would have proven the provenance of the video itself, but leaving us with horrible over-exposed, low-res movies-from-a-TV screen instead

- the troubling even perplexing behaviour of the astronauts themselves (notably the valiant Armstrong and whom all are military men subject to discipline and oaths I might remind you) and

- now these rather useless fuzzy photographs that wouldn't document your own vacation to Moon Crater Arizona

and I have to say,

"Sorry NASA. Your claim does not pass the Watergate test."

At the moment, I would not believe NASA if they told me it was going to rain this afternoon.



Originally posted by Blaine91555

...The real conspiracy is claiming we never landed on the Moon to sell books and tapes. That is a genuine conspiracy by people who are probably trusted by their customers.

No doubt there are those who would deny the truth even if they were personally flown to the Moon and viewed the landers first hand. Pretty sad actually.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by joeofthemountain
Not one person on this site has been to the moon. Or been launched in a rocketship. Or likely witnessed a rocket launch.

Excuse me? I've witnessed well over a hundred rocket launches and viewed many of them in orbit, all first hand. You can call me a liar if you want, but I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who's seen those things.


I say this not to mock you but to demonstrate the "believers" case is entirely one of second- or third-hand or even more removed eye witness reports from a governmnet that is a known and frequent liar.

It's easy to speak in generalities, meanwhile I see no substantive evidence to disbelieve Apollo or any other space program occured. I do see mountains of evidence that would have been impossible to fake in 1969, as well as first hand reports of spacecraft sightings right where they should be to and from the moon.


- Richard M. Nixon (whom I liked, by the way) was president during the entire Gemini and Apollo era,

So what?


- all the obviously faked/staged publicity photos that were palmed-off as legit,

Well gee, when the conclusion of "faked/staged publicity photos" are your starting point to prove something is faked (I can only assume you're not talking about real publicity photos, like this one I have an autographed copy of at home:
www.erau.edu...)
then there's no room for discussion because the logic is circular.


- the "unfortunately degaussed" supposed archival copies of the original medium-scan TV signal that would have proven the provenance of the video itself,

LOL, no it wouldn't. You refuse to accept the "proven provenance" of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17's original recordings, so you would have just as quickly dismissed the original copies of Apollo 11's EVA recordings as a fraud as well.


- the troubling even perplexing behaviour of the astronauts themselves (notably the valiant Armstrong and whom all are military men subject to discipline and oaths I might remind you) and

Not this again, Armstrong was always a low key person who even shrugged off a very near brush with death and returned to work the same day. Confining him and the other astronauts to quarantine for nearly a month to ponder how they've already passed the greatest moment of their lives has a way of making them even more low key.


- now these rather useless fuzzy photographs that wouldn't document your own vacation to Moon Crater Arizona

As has been demonstrated on other threads, LRO's spatial resolution is identical to other common earth observation satellites, even though that's just one of seven main instruments on board. Funny how we never heard these complaints of MRO's Hi-Rise camera, even though its spatial resolution isn't much better than LRO's (.3m as opposed to .5m). And it's obvious you're not content to wait for LRO to enter its final mission orbit before passing judgement either, not that I seriously expect that judgement to change just because the images improved to be on par with MRO whilst other countries' probes can't even come close to ours in quality.

At the moment, I would not believe NASA if they told me it was going to rain this afternoon.

Do you believe them when they tell you Endeavour is in orbit docked to the ISS? That's a more incredible claim than a prediction of the weather, wouldn't you say? Why do you believe the former then? Have you seen it for yourself to know it's true?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by conar
 



Nice info Phage, luckily that they didnt get lost on their rover...


PLEASE try to keep up. APOLLO 14! NO LRV!

Nice try, 'e' for effort.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by joeofthemountain
What I find amazing is that so many people blindly trust the same government they denounce in other forums re. GWB and WMDs.

Why the blind trust? Selective blind trust perhaps, because they want to believe in men on the moon and they do not want to believe Iraq violated any number of agreements with the US and UN.

It's not blind trust. There is massive amounts of evidence from many, many sources the corroborate NASA's statements.


It is a matter of trust.

No, it's a matter of FACTS


Not one person on this site has been to the moon.

Probably not.


Or been launched in a rocketship.

Probably not.


Or likely witnessed a rocket launch.

Actually I bet a number of people have, myself included.

[qoute]I say this not to mock you but to demonstrate the "believers" case is entirely one of second- or third-hand or even more removed eye witness reports from a governmnet that is a known and frequent liar.
Well I say this not to mock you but this is simply not true. Information comes from many sources insdie and outside the government and from many private companies and research institutes. The reality is that you simply don't have enough information to form and educated opinion.


It is a matter of credibility and the US government has almost no credibility.

Again, not it's not. It's a matter of factual evidence from many, many different sources. Please read up on the subject.


I hope we landed on the moon.

We did.


I watched television coverage of all the Apollo missions and even saw a Saturn Ib on the pad before a Skylab mission.

Neat.


But with such circumstantial and missing evidence such as:

- Richard M. Nixon (whom I liked, by the way) was president during the entire Gemini and Apollo era,

What does this have to do with evidence?


and I have to say,

"Sorry NASA. Your claim does not pass the Watergate test."

Just curious but who do you think put the retro reflectors on the moon? You know the ones that had to be calibrated by hand?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
To NASA moderators at:
www.nasa.gov...

Dear NASA outsourcing management,

Please tell your Arizona subcontractors to clean up XMP headers next time as they process PNG model files to TIF format.
It raises unnecessary questions, re:
lbamda.forum24.ru...

These would not happen if I were still in charge.

Stanley Kubrick


P.S.
File with these XMP headers:
www....(nolink)/download.php?l4zmxjdf0mi



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
To NASA moderators at:
www.nasa.gov...

The site you just listed contains no tif files?

Are you sure you weren't looking at the file headers for the converted JPGs? The tif files are on this website:
wms.lroc.asu.edu...


Dear NASA outsourcing management,

Please tell your Arizona subcontractors to clean up XMP headers next time as they process PNG model files to TIF format.
It raises unnecessary questions, re:
lbamda.forum24.ru...

Would you like to state that in english, or am I going to have to get my russian speaking wife to translate for me once again?


These would not happen if I were still in charge.

Stanley Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick was never in charge of Arizona State's astronomy department.

[edit on 31-7-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I don't understand it.

What is the problem of the TIFF files being the result of a conversion from PNG?



posted on Jul, 31 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Not all TIF files from wms.lroc.asu.edu... have been converted from PNG, some are created from unknown source.
All five Apollo landing sites TIF files have been converted from PNG and only these ones have been saved multiple times while being opened for about 0.5 hour each.

This was done from 11th to 15th of July at Arizona Uni, according to XMP headers.

Then on 17th of July these files have been converted to large JPG files (with handy white pointers added for small JPG captions) and relayed to NASA History Office site: www.nasa.gov...

Now,
let's see if NASA moderator take out the post
On Jul 31, 2009 10:27 AM Stanley Kubrick wrote:
"
Dear NASA outsourcing management,

Please tell your Arizona subcontractors to clean up XMP headers next time as they process PNG model files to TIF format.
It raises unnecessary questions, re:
lbamda.forum24.ru...

These would not happen if I were still in charge.
"

AND
let's see if LROC at Arizona repost these 5 TIF files with XMP headers erased.

We made the situation easier for them as the 40th Apollo hype is almost over and most media posted only JPG files.


P.S. and if I were one of the Arizona subcontractors, I would hide The Monolith inside these 100MB TIF files.

[edit on 2009731 by bokonon2010]




top topics



 
58
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join