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.

 

How NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Its like me going to France for my holidays and then giving you an onion i got from my local market ? That symbolic you mean ? Why give out petrified wood ? If not to present them with a 'little piece' of the moon ? It is all related to the thread because they would have presented 'real' moonrock not petrified wood ? Why the deception ? Also when they went on this triumphant tour of the world how many other pieces of petrified wood were presented to unknowing ambassadors etc ? Let's face it they were basically 'showing off' weren't they ?
Look at us aren't we great here's a bit of the moon for you ! You cant get one of those down the market you know !




posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Its like me going to France for my holidays and then giving you an onion i got from my local market ? That symbolic you mean ? Why give out petrified wood ? If not to present them with a 'little piece' of the moon ? It is all related to the thread because they would have presented 'real' moonrock not petrified wood ? Why the deception ? Also when they went on this triumphant tour of the world how many other pieces of petrified wood were presented to unknowing ambassadors etc ? Let's face it they were basically 'showing off' weren't they ?
Look at us aren't we great here's a bit of the moon for you ! You cant get one of those down the market you know !


Petrified wooden rock from the moon is more valuable, we know that with the last year NASA LROC/LCROSS discoveries - even in ancient times those moon trees were rare. No wonder that the Dutch museum keeps the rock, though insurance companies significantly increased the premiums.

[edit on 6.1.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


Its like me going to France for my holidays and then giving you an onion i got from my local market ? That symbolic you mean ? Why give out petrified wood ? If not to present them with a 'little piece' of the moon ?...
...Why the deception ?

I agree -- it was wrong to present petrified wood to an ambassador and call it a Moon rock -- whether intentionally or unintentionally.

"Why the deception", you ask? Perhaps someone in the state department had the bad judgment to think it would be an appreciated gift in which the recipient would be none the wiser to the deception -- a "win-win" in that person's (the deceiver's) eyes. Or perhaps someone in the U.S. swapped the valuable rock out for a non-valuable rock (i.e., stole it).


HOWEVER...
The important fact here is that none of the Moon rocks presented to the geologists who have studied them were petrified wood.

If the petrified wood is all part of a bigger Moon Hoax conspiracy, and all moon rocks are fake, then why didn't NASA just give the ambassador/Dutch PM the same kind of "fake" Moon rock that they gave to scientists? Why would the people perpetrating the hoax be dealing with two different kinds of fake Moon rocks?



[edit on 1/6/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
Oh please c'mon you don't expect us to really believe this ?


Believe what ever you want.


Why would he present him with petrified wood ? Did he collect it ? Was it a hobby ? Was he takin the p1ss ?


No idea why he'd give him petrified wood. But that's not the issue here.


He presented it as 'Moonrock' you know it, I know it, lillydale knows it and thats how he 'knew it' !


We have no idea how it was presented, since none of us were there. But all I know is that there is no way NASA would give away any Lunar samples just 3 months after the first Moon landing. Nor would they give away fake samples, especially ones that could be spotted as fake so easily by any geologist. And they certainly wouldn't give it as a private gift to a former head of state.

Apollo 11 gift rocks were typically 0.05g and Apollo 17 gift rocks were about 1.1g and they were incased in plastic globes (picture) and distributed to a bunch of countries in the 1970's. This misidentified rock is 89g and not incased in a plastic globe.

But, if you want to believe in the idea that the US ambassador would give (or pretend to give) 89g of lunar rock to an 83 year old man, who was no longer PM at that time, to keep all for himself, then by all means do so.


[edit on 6-1-2010 by jra]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
i hate to point this out but we seem to have two contradicting theories,

1) that we havent been BACK to the moon because we fould aliens etc there and now we dare not return for what ever reason

2) we never went to the moon and staged the whole thing

from the 2 theories the second one discredits the first. anyone care to explain?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
msp.warwick.ac.uk...


Debunking of the above






posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 

Thanks for those.

It seemed I could tell with my own eyes that Professor Rourke's argument had flaws, but these videos show positively that Rourke is wrong.

Like I said in another post, if I look at a distant hill from my outside my neighbor's front door, that hill looks the same as it does from my front door. Are they "slightly" different? Sure. Are those differences very noticeable without doing the sort of research that the makers of your videos did? No. not really.

I wonder why Professor Rourke did not do the photographic/topographic overlays that were done in this video?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


"Im not going to type it out so you can debunk it..."
-- maybe because you can't?



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by C1OUD
from the 2 theories the second one discredits the first. anyone care to explain?


No one said conspiracy theories had to make any sense, nor be logical or consistent across different ct's....



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by dereks
 

It seemed I could tell with my own eyes that Professor Rourke's argument had flaws, but these videos show positively that Rourke is wrong.


It seemed that NASA cartoons and Youtube videos is the basis of your beliefs, and it is ok, as they are not about what is prof. Rourke's wrote.


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by dereks
 

I wonder why Professor Rourke did not do the photographic/topographic overlays that were done in this video?


Maybe you need to read prof. Rourke's paper and try to understand what is written there.

He did not rely on visuals because of the standards of math method, but anyway you can compare his eyesight with yours:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...
Tell us what do you see.


jra

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
...you can compare his eyesight with yours:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...
Tell us what do you see.


I'm assuming when he says that the foregrounds don't match, that he means the footprints are different and that rover tracks aren't there? If that's the case. Perhaps he's not aware that the two photos were taken about 15 hours apart from one another. In that time, the rover tracks could have been covered up from the astronauts walking over them and some foot prints would have change in that time as well.

For example, take the photo AS15-92-12447 and compare it to a photo taken just moments later when Dave and Jim traded places. AS15-92-12450 Note the footprints already starting to cover the rover tracks.

Perhaps the Professor should have spent more time looking and comparing more photos.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by jra]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

How high did they jump?
How high should they have jumped?
[edit on 6/1/10 by dereks]


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).

If we acquire astronauts bio measurements we than can get a rough estimate.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by krystalice

Originally posted by dereks

How high did they jump?
How high should they have jumped?
[edit on 6/1/10 by dereks]


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).

If we acquire astronauts bio measurements we than can get a rough estimate.



This so wrong
: Things on the moon will weigh only 16.7% of which they weigh on the earth.

That means you can jump easy from stand 20 cm on earth, this means over 1 Meter on Moon. But then if you have 100Kg of equipment on your suit, you can only jump 2cm, so you can on the moon jump maybe also only 20 cm.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by dereks
 


Don't forget:
........ because I know the ego of most people has no working filters that can stop them to "know wrong". I don't want say you are all wrong, but it seems to be so for me in this case.

Apollo is not a fake.


jra

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by krystalice
 


Here is some footage of astronauts trying to jump high from Apollo 16.



Lucky for him, nothing broke. That could have easily made for a really bad day had anything happened to his suit or life support.

Astronauts can jump high on the Moon. It's just not a good idea though. I don't think you'll see any astronauts trying to jump as high as they can, not until we develop some really rugged suits anyway.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Here is a possible way of faking the moon landings:

1) Astronauts enter the space capsule on the Saturn V rocket.
2) the rocket is launched successfully.
3) upon reaching orbit, the Command/Service module merged with the Lunar module and headed for the moon, without the astronauts, though.
4) the astronauts did board the Saturn V rocket, but they 'escaped' just before launch from a door under the rocket.
5) the astronauts were moved to the studio facility were the events happened 'live'.
6) the studio transmitted the signals from the astronauts on Earth to the Lunar module.
7) the signals were transmitted back to Earth the normal way, fooling everyone on Earth that what they were seeing is real.
8) Soviets received the same signals as anyone else.
9) The Houston control center received the same signals.
10) everyone was fooled.
11) the hoax were perpetrated by few people; the astronauts had to be in it.

Things to think about regarding the moon landing missions:

1) JFK said that America will land on the moon by the end of the 60s, and so it happened. Coincidence?

2) the 3 astronauts that were the original crew of the Apollo mission all died in tragic accidents. Coincidence?

3) NASA themselves have said that it's impossible with current technology to go to the moon, a few years back. Actually, it slipped their tongue, causing an Internet sensation...Coincidence?

There is ton of evidence, especially in photos, that the mission was faked in a studio. It certainly fits the agenta of the Cold War era. If I was a president at that time, I would have certainly do anything to persuade the other nations that my nation is superior than the others, especially the Soviets.



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
...He did not rely on visuals because of the standards of math method, but anyway you can compare his eyesight with yours:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...
Tell us what do you see.

As jra said in his post above, the photos were taken hours apart, so of course footprints will be different.

But even besides the fact that the astronauts probably walked all around that area between photos, MORE IMPORTANTLY the two pictures were taken from different vantage points (even Prof. Rourke mentioned this) as you can see by the different locations of the flag relative to the LM. This vantage point is only slightly different -- maybe 10 feet -- but 10 feet will make a huge difference in the foreground.

Think about doing this in your own back yard...if you stood about 50 feet from your house and took a picture of it from one location, then moved only slightly to your left (about 10 feet) and took another picture of your house, the foreground in both photos would look very different, even though the overall shot would look similar.

Below is a comparison I did, but I used two pictures that were taken from roughly the same vantage point. The first picture, AS15-92-12451, was taken only a few frames after the one Prof. Rourke used (he used AS15-92-12447). My second photo, AS15-88-11863, was taken only a few frames before the second photo Prof. Rourke used (he used AS15-88-11866).

The two photos I'm comparing are not taken from the exact same vantage, but it is much closer than the two Prof. Rourke chose to use -- i.e., the camera angle is roughly the same (which is very important), but the distances are different. I labeled similar foreground features that correspond to each other in both photos.

click on the image to get the whole thing, or click This Link


As you can clearly see, this photo comparison shows that the foregrounds are in fact the same, except for soil that had been disturbed by the astronauts in the hours between the taking of each photo.

This comparison clearly shows that Professor Rourke is wrong.

I don't understand why Prof. Rourke would just "shrug off" the difference in the camera locations as if it was irrelevant; it's NOT irrelevant. Again, it seems he didn't do ALL of the research necessary to draw the proper conclusion -- he only did just enough research to come to the conclusion he originally was looking for.

Did the professor skimp on his research simply due to incompetence, or did he deliberately ignore the the photos that I posted, because they didn't support his claim? I hope it was incompetence and not deliberate deception.

[edit on 1/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by bokonon2010
...He did not rely on visuals because of the standards of math method, but anyway you can compare his eyesight with yours:
msp.warwick.ac.uk...
Tell us what do you see.


As you can clearly see, this photo comparison shows that the foregrounds are in fact the same, except for soil that had been disturbed by the astronauts in the hours between the taking of each photo.

This comparison clearly shows that Professor Rourke is wrong.
[edit on 1/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


Try again harder. The prof. asked to spot differences (not similiarities) in the PERMANENT features of the foregrounds which are ALL should be the same.

You comparison clearly shows that you either did not get the purpose of the exercise or pretend that you don't understand it. (The same primitive propaganda rhetorics employed by "youtube debunker".)



posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

Of course there are differences. So what?

The differences exist because the photos were taken many hours apart, and the astronauts had disturbed the soil in those hours. I'd be surprised if there weren't extra footprints.

The point of Prof. Rourke's exercise was to show that the foregrounds were different. I showed that they are in fact the same.

So, you're telling me that the foregrounds are the same, but there are some differences (i.e., you said the prof. wants me to "spot the differences"). Well, I can spot some differences, but how in the world is that evidence of a Moon hoax?



[edit on 1/7/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Jan, 7 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
6) the studio transmitted the signals from the astronauts on Earth to the Lunar module.
7) the signals were transmitted back to Earth the normal way, fooling everyone on Earth that what they were seeing is real.


You just doubled the time delay. There is already a 2 second delay when communicating from Earth to the Moon. Doing it the way you're suggesting is going to make it a 4 second delay. That wouldn't go unnoticed.

And you didn't address how one fakes 1/6th G and a vacuum on Earth.


1) JFK said that America will land on the moon by the end of the 60s, and so it happened. Coincidence?


No it's not a coincidence. It was there goal to be on the Moon before the end of the decade. And they managed to do it.


2) the 3 astronauts that were the original crew of the Apollo mission all died in tragic accidents. Coincidence?


There was no "original crew" of the Apollo mission (as there was more than one mission). The Apollo program consisted of 32 astronauts. But I'm going to guess you're referring to the 3 astronauts who died in the Apollo 1 fire?


3) NASA themselves have said that it's impossible with current technology to go to the moon, a few years back. Actually, it slipped their tongue, causing an Internet sensation...Coincidence?


You're going to have to show me a link to this. I don't recall NASA saying that.


There is ton of evidence, especially in photos, that the mission was faked in a studio.


Then do please show this evidence. I'd like to see it.


Originally posted by bokonon2010
Try again harder. The prof. asked to spot differences (not similiarities) in the PERMANENT features of the foregrounds which are ALL should be the same.


Well the prof. isn't exactly being clear. No where did he state "permanent features". Looking at the photos, there really are no permanent features in the foregrounds of the photos. No large rocks or anything, just lots of Lunar regolith with footprints and tire tracks.

Since you seem to understand the prof. so well. Perhaps you can point out what exactly we should be looking at? Because the prof. is doing a horrible job of it.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by jra]



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join