Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

NASA not responding to FOIA about atypical size and luminisioty of Apollo moon "sun" photos

page: 4
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   
One more thing. I've just had a look at the OP's claimed FOIA (undated, link in the OP). Oh dearie me.

OP, you do realise that the FOI is about requesting documents? And that you have to give a reasonable description of the documents you are seeking?

You have in fact requested an explanation of a (very) basic photographic issue, and I think I can guess what response you will get - a tactful one suggesting that your request is not actually an FOI issue, but one that should be directed to .... wait for it.... a photographic expert.

Did you, before lodging this FOI, take this matter to any recognised forensic image analysts? Did you direct a normal enquiry to NASA, or any other lunar imaging experts? Talk to any experienced photographers at all?

Would you mind posting details of those requests/discussions, and the responses you got?

If you didn't do any of that, then... like I said.. Save me.




posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I've always asked, does anyone seriously believe that we went to the moon in this?


I like the shiny new gold foil/duct tape and the warped walls.

Oh yeah, and the undisturbed soil under a 10,000 pound thrust rocket engine:




[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
One thing that comes to mind when reading some replies is the desparation to hang on to some crazy fallacy. Like in the 9/11 threads. There are plenty of good, solid points made in this thread, and some people just wanna pick on minor details with little bearing to subject.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the moon landing really was a hoax (and I'm personally leaning towards that) then it opens up a whole lot of other possible coverups, most notably 9/11.

Just keep that in mind.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


The Moon Landing was not faked. None of the claims made by conspiracy theorists to support a hoax hold any water at all and all have been debunked.

Simple logic proves we went to the moon. Thousands of top scientists worked for nearly a decade to ready the moon landing, that would mean thousands would have to be in on the conspiracy. And why bother building a massive uber expensive Saturn V rocket if you've got a trusty moonscape studio


We're talking rocket scientists. They designed the lunar lander and all the equipment with the intent of going to the moon. Many people watched the rocket launch. Are telling me they wasted that kind of money to launch an empty Saturn V into space and not even make an attempt at the moon?

After the moon landing footage and photos were released and yet not one single moon scientist anywhere in the WORLD cried foul. If there were any truth to the claims of the conspiracy theorists the experts and scientists would see it and know it. The Russians especially would have gone ape if they had even the slightest inkling of a hoax. Not a single legitimate scientist, whether they worked for NASA or not, has ever come forth to support the moon landing hoax and all claims of said hoax have been disproved.

The OP of this thread is absurd. We're dealing with a really big bright lens flare, nothing more.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


None of what you said makes a valid argument. This whole "If it didnt happen then someone would have blown the whistle" has been used time and time before. Like oh let me just say...9/11? Im not saying that we did or did not land because personally I have my own theories.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I've always asked, does anyone seriously believe that we went to the moon in this?

Well I sure do like the crater it made while landing, and all the dust in the pods. Not only once, but many times, without a hitch. Wow. Cant be done today, at any cost. Me starts to smell cover-up.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by hmmmbeer]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I've always asked, does anyone seriously believe that we went to the moon in this?


I like the shiny new gold foil/duct tape and the warped walls.

Oh yeah, and the undisturbed soil under a 10,000 pound thrust rocket engine:




[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]

HAHAHAH ive never seen these pictures before. Is that paper under the tin foil i see? Doesnt paper burn at like...400 degrees? lol wow..



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:39 AM
link   
This truly is a wonderful world we live in.

There are people that believe that man did not go to the Moon, with 'evidence' to prove it.

There are people that believe that we went there when we said we did, then were driven away by aliens, with 'evidence' to prove it.

We have some who say that we have been linked up with aliens on the Moon and Mars since the 1950's.

Then there some of us who are total fools who believe we went there, blowing a fortune to do it, by way of a space race with the USSR.
Then we wasted what we had invested already and are content to simply orbit the Earth today.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



I've always asked, does anyone seriously believe that we went to the moon in this?

I bet people said the same thing about the Wright brother's plane.

"Does anyone really believe they flew through the air with just a bunch of wood?"



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 
Yep, it is paper.

And the foil is from old Wrigleys gum wrappers.

And the space shuttle is made of marshmallows and tar-paper.





posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Can you please provide more information in regards to your photo, ie do you have proof that this photo shows us without doubt that this was used in space Is there any information that can be collaborated with NASA.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
My 2 cents...again








on the left: selene simulation of Hight Data - right: nasa photo



Some Photos may be faked, but the landing was real, as you can see...



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
I've always asked, does anyone seriously believe that we went to the moon in this? ...
I like the shiny new gold foil/duct tape and the warped walls.

Oh yeah, and the undisturbed soil under a 10,000 pound thrust rocket engine:




Is anyone seriously that ill-informed that they don't know that this a craft designed to work outside of any atmosphere? That thermal/radiation shielding is meant to be effective, not pretty?

It seems you'd love to have sleek, cigar- or saucer-shaped kiddy rocket designs (with fins, do ya think? - yeah that'd work...), but Apollo engineers used what worked, what was light, what was effective. And they, unlike some here, knew PRECISELY what design issues had to be faced, and what did not. Did you know that loose shielding such as this is VASTLY more effective than any other type, and WHY? Do you know what the stuff is, that you are looking at?

(And have you ever seen the huge hole under a Harrier when it lands on grass, in 6x more powerful gravity?) {/sarcasm}

No, of course not. But do keep it up - don't let lack of knowledge stop you from proving it, with posts like that one.

Get an education on the topic to avoid future embarrassment, eg:
www.clavius.org...
www.braeunig.us...
and how about sticking to the topic of the OP? If you want to make some 'new' (but long debunked) unrelated claim, start your own thread, be brave.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 
Yep, it is paper.

And the foil is from old Wrigleys gum wrappers.

And the space shuttle is made of marshmallows and tar-paper.



Oh ok that explains it all! How did I not read the little wrigleys label on the bottom before? And as for the marshmallows on the spaceshuttle, I think the radiation would have made it turn into 3x it size like in the microwave making and even more tasty treat



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Is anyone seriously that ill-informed that they don't know that this a craft designed to work outside of any atmosphere? That thermal/radiation shielding is meant to be effective, not pretty?


Well, I for one am. I have never seen this photo before and I do not know anything about this craft, let alone its use, therefore, its impossible for me to make an assumption without studying the FACTS. Which I am hoping someone can present me in a fundamental comprehensive manner, without prejudice. Is this possible?



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 
Yep, it is paper.

And the foil is from old Wrigleys gum wrappers.

And the space shuttle is made of marshmallows and tar-paper.



Oh ok that explains it all! How did I not read the little wrigleys label on the bottom before? And as for the marshmallows on the spaceshuttle, I think the radiation would have made it turn into 3x it size like in the microwave making and even more tasty treat
Hello!
I am glad that you have a sense of humor, it is entirely lacking in a growing # of posters lately.

I am convinced that I could post a youtube video explaining that the shuttle is made out of marshmallows and show how it is much smaller when launched than when it lands, and get a following of people that believe it, and then expand on my fallacious theory.
On topic. Lens flare, that's all.



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

Can you please provide more information in regards to your photo, ie do you have proof that this photo shows us without doubt that this was used in space Is there any information that can be collaborated with NASA.

I frequently get this question because the photos look so ridiculous. But I assure you, just like the OP's photos, they're very real and they can all be found in the Project Apollo Image Gallery:

www.apolloarchive.com... (click on Apollo 11 and then go to JSC scan AS11-40-5915.)



[edit on 3/16/2010 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by hawaiinguy12

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by hawaiinguy12
 
Yep, it is paper.

And the foil is from old Wrigleys gum wrappers.

And the space shuttle is made of marshmallows and tar-paper.



Oh ok that explains it all! How did I not read the little wrigleys label on the bottom before? And as for the marshmallows on the spaceshuttle, I think the radiation would have made it turn into 3x it size like in the microwave making and even more tasty treat
Hello!
I am glad that you have a sense of humor, it is entirely lacking in a growing # of posters lately.

I am convinced that I could post a youtube video explaining that the shuttle is made out of marshmallows and show how it is much smaller when launched than when it lands, and get a following of people that believe it, and then expand on my fallacious theory.
On topic. Lens flare, that's all.

Hahh yeah I felt like sturring it up a bit to ease all this in fighting. I for one hate the moon landing topic because all tho some people bring dicey evidence to the table IE. OP..It still makes your mind think a bit outside of the lines. Anyway Ill be waiting on your youtube video on marshmallow spaceships and hopfully you put in a bit about candy covered moon mountains



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Thanks for that, I am trying to obtain the facts without all the backchat and trolling. Can anyone from NASA verify without prejudice that these images are factual and correct? if so we can then start from there.

What I see in the photo looks very fragile and amateurish and I would be interested to find out its function/purpose. For the record I have not seen this photo before.

I also wanted to add in regards to the undisturbed soil it is possible that the soil on the moon is not like our soil on earth ie it could be entirely plausible to suggest that the soil on the moon is compacted and that when the craft landed, instead of leaving an impression it may have scuffed away the dirt. That I believe is possible no? If not could you provide some form of evidence to suggest that if a heavy object was to land on the moon it would make an imprint in to the soil



[edit on 16-3-2010 by franspeakfree]



posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Explain this then please

Small


Bigger


Biggest





posted on Mar, 16 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
My 2 cents...again
Some Photos may be faked, but the landing was real, as you can see...


But why would they fake some photos and not all? could it be entirely plausible to assume that they could be hiding something? which is the reason they fake some photos?

This is an assumption based on your post above.





new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join