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: 9
17
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
I see you ignored the other picture I posted, too:



But the two pictures are not really the same. In your picture, both shadows are elongated, because the sun is low in the horizon and the surface is curved. In the moon picture, the astronaut's shadow is not elongated like the rest of the shadows in the picture.




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
I cannot see the slope. Can you? can anyone else see it?


I've never been any good at resolving cross-eye stereograms. I cropped & formatted the two photos for use in a Holmes Stereoscope. Yes, the slope is definitely there.


Originally posted by masterp
But the two pictures are not really the same. In your picture, both shadows are elongated, because the sun is low in the horizon and the surface is curved. In the moon picture, the astronaut's shadow is not elongated like the rest of the shadows in the picture.


Yes, there's also grass and bushes in my picture. I wasn't attempting to exactly duplicate the Apollo photos. You asked why the shadows weren't parallel. The answer is a combination of perspective and uneven terrain.

If you don't believe me, do experiments of your own - with the sun angle & terrain that you think is appropriate - and post them here.



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


I cannot see the slope. Can you? can anyone else see it?


I can, pretty clearly.

Can you explain how this picture would have been taken otherwise?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Lillydale
 

Russia returned soil samples.
These soil samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.
[edit on 5/1/10 by Chadwickus]


They were not.




Yes, they were. Stop talking rubbish.

Both NASA and the USSR conducted comparisons between samples returned by the Apollo and Luna programs. There were variations due to differences in geography, but the basic composition was the same.

Additionally, samples were sent to institutions around the world, many of which did their own comparisons.

There is no doubt that both the Apollo and Luna samples came from the moon.

There are tons and tons of scientific papers that you can read which give detailed information on the chemical composition of the moon rocks and lunar regolith. So please do us all a favour and educate yourself before posting on topics you have no idea about.

ATS is about denying ignorance not perpetuating it...



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
BTW the title for this thread is "how NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission". I was hoping to find a detailed explanation of how NASA could fake not only the photos and video but the detailed telemetry and communication data.

I have yet to see any hoax believer come up with even a reasonable suggestion for this. i would love for someone to show me how it could be done because its a question i've asked numerous times and people seem to run a mile when they realise just how difficult it is to come up with a resonable explanation.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
BTW the title for this thread is "how NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission". I was hoping to find a detailed explanation of how NASA could fake not only the photos and video but the detailed telemetry and communication data.

I have yet to see any hoax believer come up with even a reasonable suggestion for this. i would love for someone to show me how it could be done because its a question i've asked numerous times and people seem to run a mile when they realise just how difficult it is to come up with a resonable explanation.


I second that request.

All the HBs do is try to poke holes in established facts, they never put forth a comprehensive explanation as to how the hoax happened.

Let's hear it.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 07:36 PM
link   
Dark Side of the Moon:

Part 1:
www.youtube.com...

Part 2:
www.youtube.com...

Part 3:
www.youtube.com...

Part 4:
www.youtube.com...

Part 5:
www.youtube.com...

Part 6:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Very interesting points all over the topic, I will add something:

1. It is "better" to send humans to an unknown territory than robots because of the decision-making human brain. Among all of the 10.000 things you can think of which can go wrong, those you can NOT think of should scare you most. There is no problem to find volunteers, human nature is an exploring one, hell I would go there to see the Moon right away.

2. They already had the technology just to "be" in space (life support, shielding, ...) so to extend it for a Moon mission is a little problem, but solvable. And anyone would go there even if it was a one way trip.

However, what you do NOT want to see is primetime live mass suicide mission authorized by the government seen by millions all over the world.

You guys are extremists
Either is every moon rock and photo fake, or we were there. Have you ever considered an intriguing possibility that the "Hollywood studio moon recording" was a backup plan presented to the public while the actual astronauts had bigger privacy while visiting the unimaginable ? Only God knows what happened there and why are we today seeing a possible mix of a real moon footage and some studio-crap.

If I were a supervisor of such a mission here on Earth, I would certainly make sure that IF THE NATION IS WATCHING (and the world) I dont care how the mission ends, my guys will end up like heroes one way or another. In case sth went wrong, we can still FAKE the landing and orchestrate a fictious failure on way BACK and pretend we at least TOUCHED the moon.

3.the moon rocks are quite real. I am a scientist, physicist actually. And I know the precision in the community. Trust me, the world does not like you (Americans
) that much, to let you walk the Earth around with fake moon rocks. Someone would spot it. Unless we have already alien world leaders in every government and a huge world conspiracy, there is no reason why the moon rocks should be fake - we still want to explore the universe, remember ? There is the tech to bring it to the Earth and that is exactly what was done. (of course some as.sface can fake moon rocks like the room-temperature superconductivity, but these are individuals who love speculations and have nothing to do with government, NASA, Moon and the whole thing)

You are very right about the observation that the moon rocks do not prove human entities on Moon - exactly. But if you ask me, I really think some folk just took it from there and conveniently the old-fashion way, put it into the craft and returned back. Today it is done by robots without doubt. Hell, they had a radioactive mossbauer spectrometer on Mars to examine the rocks right there on place. It is quite convenient to send the whole laboratory gadgets there and just exchange results, which are easily evaluated back here.

Maybe we will never know which of the Apollos have actually seen some action and which not. As far as 1969 Moon Landing is concerned, it does not fit. Either there was a huge backup public plan or some well-hidden dark truth or maybe sth even more sinister. Anyway, the only way to figure it out is step-by-step evaluation of rocks, photos, testimonies, looking for weak spots, changes in the story during the years, etc. and it is up to us guys..... to bother to systematically collect and doubt, but please be open-minded and do not focus on just one version what YOU believe happened....

And sometimes I wanna cry because one man can spend his whole life pursuing the only puzzle that matters to him and maybe even solve it.... and there will still be those (simply from the definition) who will stick to the official story at all costs because they live in the Middle Ages and everything what is SAID must necessarily be true... Well, it is not, is it ?



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by krystalice
 


well for many years now there's been many questions about the moon landings. when i was thinking about this, one of the problems i could see is, space is a vacuum. if your in a vacuum and you are in your space suit, won't the gases in side the suit expand, making it hard to move. not only do we have the problem of the vacuum, but the radiation in space will go through the craft, the suit, and then through you. so if you think man has been to the moon, get a sealed room, get your space suit, sit in the room suck all the air out, turn on the radiation, and see what happens.


jra

posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary13
one of the problems i could see is, space is a vacuum. if your in a vacuum and you are in your space suit, won't the gases in side the suit expand, making it hard to move.


Engineers being the clever people that they are, designed the suits so that they wouldn't inflate and become hard to move around in. There are several layers to a space suit. In the Apollo suits, there is a pressure garment that has accordion joints in the knees, elbows as well as swivel joints in the shoulders. This is covered up by the outer layers of the suit. Here's what it looks like:

Pressure Garment 1
Pressure Garment 2

So the suit becoming inflated in a vacuum was not a problem at all for the Apollo astronauts.


not only do we have the problem of the vacuum, but the radiation in space will go through the craft, the suit, and then through you.


It all depends on the type of radiation and how long you're exposed to it. The Apollo missions were short and many things were done to minimize there exposure. For longer missions that would have people stay on the Moon for months at a time or travel to Mars, that's when radiation can become a problem.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary13
reply to post by krystalice
 


well for many years now there's been many questions about the moon landings. when i was thinking about this, one of the problems i could see is, space is a vacuum. if your in a vacuum and you are in your space suit, won't the gases in side the suit expand, making it hard to move...

So you don't think the astronauts who built the space station or the ones that fixed the Hubble telescope were able to move well enough? It may be true that their suits were bulky, but it seemed to me that they could move well enough to fix the Hubble and put together the space station.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Section69
 


Man, that movie is my favourite part of the moon hoax. It was written specifically to show how stupid, ignorant and easily manipulated the hoax believers are and even a decade later, they still fall for it. Brilliantly done, I must say.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gary13
if your in a vacuum and you are in your space suit, won't the gases in side the suit expand, making it hard to move. not only do we have the problem of the vacuum, but the radiation in space will go through the craft, the suit, and then through you. so if you think man has been to the moon, get a sealed room, get your space suit, sit in the room suck all the air out, turn on the radiation, and see what happens.


If you think that man has not been to the moon, get a sealed room, a bunch of books and decent Internet connection, and make an attempt to learn, and see what happens. You know what will happen? Wonderful things. Knowledge is power. The space suit construction has been described in detail in multiple sources, and so were radiation levels. All it takes is a bit of time and commitment to learn about it, as opposed to making unsubstantiated posts.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join