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: 25
58
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Scientists have to ensure authenticity of materials for the public and support their claims by verifiable sources.

1. So far, those five "Apollo landing sites" images have been created from PNG files, that is
A. no evidence that the images have been created from the actual LRO data

I fail to see why a PNG file couldn't have come from LRO data.

2. These "LROC" images are inconsistent with Kagya images which have acknowledged "dust sweep" effect;

See Phage's post (www.abovetopsecret.com...), this is quite simply wrong; the images are entirely consistent with Kaguya images.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by ngchunter]




posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Scientists have to ensure authenticity of materials for the public and support their claims by verifiable sources.

1. So far, those five "Apollo landing sites" images have been created from PNG files, that is
A. no evidence that the images have been created from the actual LRO data

I fail to see why a PNG file couldn't have come from LRO data.

2. These "LROC" images are inconsistent with Kagya images which have acknowledged "dust sweep" effect;

See Phage's post (www.abovetopsecret.com...), this is quite simply wrong; the images are entirely consistent with Kaguya images.

[edit on 3-8-2009 by ngchunter]

Only if you assume:
the Phage visual perception of his images of one site (A-15) is an ultimate scientific evidence applicable to all LRO images,
and coupled with his logic of referencing image IDs which were not present in my post.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Only if you assume:
the Phage visual perception of his images of one site (A-15) is an ultimate scientific evidence applicable to all LRO images,

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can look at those photos and see the features remain the same, only the resolution changes. Fortunately the lighting is similar enough that the appearance of the features is roughly comparable; that's not always the case and no one would be foolish enough to claim that it is, but it certainly is true here.


and coupled with his logic of referencing image IDs which were not present in my post.

Your post didn't even contain the Kaguya image, so I'll trust his ID's over yours.



posted on Aug, 3 2009 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Only if you assume:
the Phage visual perception of his images of one site (A-15) is an ultimate scientific evidence applicable to all LRO images,

Anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can look at those photos and see the features remain the same, only the resolution changes. Fortunately the lighting is similar enough that the appearance of the features is roughly comparable; that's not always the case and no one would be foolish enough to claim that it is, but it certainly is true here.


and coupled with his logic of referencing image IDs which were not present in my post.

Your post didn't even contain the Kaguya image, so I'll trust his ID's over yours.

My post has link to JAXA article with Kagya images and suggestion to compare Apollo/Kagya/LRO images. It is sufficient for the question.
Trying to shift attention to image IDs and file formats does not resolve the questions, let me repeat:
No evidence that five "Apollo landing sites" images based on LRO data;
(and traces of file image manipulations together with breaking NASA/LROC software and data standards - compared with other LROC files).
No confirmed "dust sweeping" effect LROC images for Apollo sites (apart of Phage visual perception of A-15 site).
How LM landing "dust sweep" could affect Apollo artifacts.
Does LM departure "dust sweep" exist also? If so, where is comparison of LM after-landing and after-departure visuals?


[edit on 3.8.2009 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
My post has link to JAXA article with Kagya images and suggestion to compare Apollo/Kagya/LRO images. It is sufficient for the question.

Phage's post was much clearer on the matter. To me it looked like you were suggesting the apollo images were the kaguya images.


No evidence that five "Apollo landing sites" images based on LRO data;
(and traces of file image manipulations

I'm sorry, where the proof that the images were "manipulated" - that's a very bold claim, let's see the evidence.


No confirmed "dust sweeping" effect LROC images for Apollo sites (apart of Phage visual perception of A-15 site).

In other words, it IS confirmed in images that are comparable, you just want to compare images taken at different sun angles as if they're apples to apples.


Does LM departure "dust sweep" exist also?

The descent stage generally deflected most of the ascent engine's blast away from the surface and out to the sides where it only affected the flag. See the Apollo 17 liftoff video.

[edit on 4-8-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
My post has link to JAXA article with Kagya images and suggestion to compare Apollo/Kagya/LRO images. It is sufficient for the question.

Phage's post was much clearer on the matter. To me it looked like you were suggesting the apollo images were the kaguya images.



For the record, bokonon2010's image does label the center image as being from Kaguya


It is in fact from AS15-9430



bokonon2010 is perpetuating a hoax.

[edit on 8/4/2009 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


How can you continue to question the authenticity of the Apollo missions now that we have the new LRO images.

This is the landing sight of Apollo 15 - how can you Argue with an image so conclusive as this one?


(See those shaded pixels, there's your proof Pal. Case closed - We went.)

Thank Goodness phage and his proteges are here to bring some balance to this act of shameless disregard. If it wasn't for them; we'd be free to discuss this stuff virtually unimpeded, and without mocking scorn or derision - and that would be horrible.


[edit on 5-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
lol i can't make out anything



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by bokonon2010
My post has link to JAXA article with Kagya images and suggestion to compare Apollo/Kagya/LRO images. It is sufficient for the question.



No evidence that five "Apollo landing sites" images based on LRO data;
(and traces of file image manipulations

I'm sorry, where the proof that the images were "manipulated" - that's a very bold claim, let's see the evidence.


No confirmed "dust sweeping" effect LROC images for Apollo sites (apart of Phage visual perception of A-15 site).

In other words, it IS confirmed in images that are comparable, you just want to compare images taken at different sun angles as if they're apples to apples.


Does LM departure "dust sweep" exist also?

The descent stage generally deflected most of the ascent engine's blast away from the surface and out to the sides where it only affected the flag. See the Apollo 17 liftoff video.
[edit on 4-8-2009 by ngchunter]

Please enlighten us which spaceship "ascent engine's" blast away was deflected by the descent stage of Apollo.

Also, please let identify the "dust sweep" halo on A-14 site. As you pointed out, it depends on sun angles, comparable images from Apollo and LROC presented
(for your convenience and the Phage's expert visualization):


from
i075.radikal.ru...


from
www.supernovum.ru...

[edit on 5.8.2009 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010


from
i075.radikal.ru...


Excellent Work Bokonon!

Have a look at what James Hansen said about the Apollo Simulations they were doing:



"To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight-legged, red-and-white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky."

-" (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space-Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966.


Now have a Look at this Video of Young and Duke practicing landing on the moon, more importantly; it shows how certain portions of the Landings could be faked.

Watch it in High Quality and keep your eye on the screen in their simulator:





And how about the 'practice shots' from the 'simulation':








[edit on 6-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

It looks like you keep on ignoring my questions about your first post.

From your other posts made since my previous post, now it looks to me that your issue with the images is that they were published in a format that is not one of formats used by the scientific community, including NASA itself, like the PDS compliant IMG format?

Is that it?



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Sorry for going slightly off-topic. But... is there a single technological reason that man could not of landed on the moon? I might add, even if it is fake, it looks as if man is highly likely to land on the moon again (or for real) in our lifetimes! I honestly hope that it will be a commercial company (SpaceX) that does it too!

[edit on 6/8/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
it looks as if man is highly likely to land on the moon again (or for real) in our lifetimes! I honestly hope that it will be a commercial company (SpaceX) that does it too!


I'd prefer the return to the moon use be done via commercial company over our money-sucking government run space program.

But whoever decides to go better remember to coast their spacecraft in lots of reflective metallic tape to ensure a successful mission:






More Tape Shots (3 mb file)


[edit on 6-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


The photo in your link gave me an idea.

They could cover the ships with old CDs and DVDs, they would provide a reflective surface and they will be recycling, always a good idea.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


In some shots, the pieces of tape are not visible. It appears that the lighting and angle must be just right in order to see them (or maybe, multiple models were used in the faking of certain shots...
):



*Tape - If you spacecraft isn't covered in it; you can't get to the moon safely. Luckily for the Free World; America had lots of Tape.






[edit on 6-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
Yeah tape is probably the best way to attach the radiation shields. Sounds funky but still it did the job



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Yeah tape is probably the best way to attach the radiation shields. Sounds funky but still it did the job


What radiation shields are you referring you?

Please post links.

*And if those suits can protect against the levels of radiation the Moonwalking astronauts were exposed to - why haven't we used them to clean up Three Mile Island; it should be no problem if these things can work as advertised.




[edit on 6-8-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I mean the aluminium sheets on the outside. Why you need a link when you already posted a picture of those? And if you can think of any better way to attach them then please do reply. Remember it was the 60's thought



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
I mean the aluminium sheets on the outside. Why you need a link when you already posted a picture of those? And if you can think of any better way to attach them then please do reply. Remember it was the 60's thought


Just post the links...

Thanks.



posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:24 AM
link   
You mean this? Is your computer broken? You just posted the same link



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join