Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You must be High on the desert, to think your on the moon.

page: 4
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Plus the rocks found in Antarctica would not pass as samples from the Moon.


Prove it.


Originally posted by jra
They show signs of having entered through the atmosphere as well as other kinds of weathering from having spent hundreds or thousands of years sitting on Earth.


Not true.




posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
This does not include the various missions which were carried out before 1962.


List those US lunar missions, and tell us how successful they were.


Originally posted by Phage
You really must get into the habit of providing your sources.


You might want to apply this proposition to yourself.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus
You ask how we can be sure that the 'live' video feed was infact live. Well there were plenty radio enthusiasts around the world who scoured the airwaves, found and listened in on the whole mission, Apollo 11 that is. I'm sure there were plenty listening in on the other missions too.


How many are "plenty"? Can you count?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
It is very hard to imagine anyone could still believe in this "Moon Landing Hoax" nonsense by this stage, especially in view of the actual photographs, now, of the Apollo landing sites.


Could you provide links to these "actual photographs". Tell us in what format the actual photographic data from LRO is stored and when it was first released. Compare the format of actual LRO data and release dates of "actual photographs".
Open with editor any of LRO "apollo landings sites" TIFF files from the 17 July 2009 and search for Adobe CS4.

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
This being the case, how am I to verify that NASA wasn't using Moon bounce and how does this make Laser Ranging credible when you can send radio signals and receive them back, which are crude compared to a laser beam, when the tech to do this was 23 years old at the time of the Apollo Missions?


The first successful lunar laser ranging experiments were in 1962-1964:
www.physics.ucsd.edu...

and the laser reflectors have been in space since Beacon-B satellite in 1964.

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]


jra

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
yet I can go into Google Earth and zoom down from space to my patio?


A lot of the higher resolution imagery in GE usually comes from aerial photography. Unless your area was imaged by Geo-eye 1. I can't think of any other commercial satellites that have as high of a resolution.


Now, I know the Hubble probably isn't calibrated to take such "close range" photos and that the Kayuga probably wasn't either as if no one knows how to calibrate a camera to even see the stars ONE TIME.


Hubble can't see the Apollo landing sites, because it doesn't have the resolution required from Earth orbit. It doesn't have to do with calibration but simply physical limitations. Earth based telescopes would need to have at least a 200m diameter mirror to spot the leftover Apollo hardware. A space based telescope in LEO would also need a similar sized mirror as well. Hubble's mirror is 2.5m in diameter.


Or how about the Shuttle crew or the ISS? They orbit 90 minutes light and dark, yet they can only take pictures in the light?


There are photos taken on the night side. There's this one for example. But it's hard to take photos at night as it requires a longer exposure and photos taken through the windows are hand held as far as I know. I don't think they have anything to attach a camera to keep it steady.

There are more photos taken at night. You just have to spend some time searching for them.


Originally posted by bokonon2010
Could you present authentic Apollo videos with these "cannot be done on Earth" things. Thanks.


Sure.

Apollo 15: Digging a trench
In this one, notice how the soil flies. I don't see any signs of an atmosphere affecting the soil. It just flies in a nice parabolic trajectory and it flies a good distance too.

Apollo 15: Mount Hadley
In this one, note the flaps that keep bouncing up in front of the LRV around the 1:30 mark. To me, this shows that there is no air resistance. Had this been filmed on Earth, those flaps waving up and down so easily like that. The air would keep them pressed back against the LVR.

Apollo 14: Pendulum analysis
This one is an analysis of the pendulum experiment on the Moon. The guy doing the analysis also tries to duplicate it on Earth but is unable to do so. It just can not be done in Earth gravity.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

Yes We did.



Oh, there were four of them



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I've already defended my stance on the moon landing...
and you failed miserably.

and why should I have to anyway when the burden of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who believe it was a conspiracy or a hoax?
because you support the claim that USA astronots have been on the moon. Even you were able to disprove the opposite or successful in your ad hominem attacks, the claim is still required a direct proof.

1) There is sufficient scientific evidence that we went to the moon including video, photographs, corner reflectors placed up there that we still reflect lasers off today, etc.
No.
Clearly you do not have any degree in science or deliberately falsifying.


2) Simple logic proves that a hoax was not feasible while actually going there was. Years of research and billions in scientific funding went to help further our understanding of Space and design everything we needed to get to the moon. To build such things and then launch them into space empty and then merely shoot on a studio doesn't make sense.
Try to learn logic by proper education.

3) Every claim made by moon landing conspiracy proponents has been proven to be false or irrelevant.
False.
Your debunkers like Phil Plait and Jay Windley are merely shills and cannot maintain their disinfo forums without ban and delete technics.


4) To date no legitimate scientific expert has come forth defending the moon landing hoax and the historical evidence for our journey to the moon has been accepted by everyone but a fringe of group of generally uneducated persons.
Wrong.
Clearly you have never been close to the scientific community.


5) In order for it to have been a conspiracy thousands of scientists would have had to be in on it and furthermore every single scientist that wasn't in on it had to have been fooled. Also, we have been the moon with unmanned missions and orbiters since the landings and we have yet to find anything incongruous to what is shown in the Apollo film.
False, both logically and factually.

6) A logical motive for faking the moon landing cannot be established as there is no good reason to them to have risked faking it without attempting to get their legitimately first.
Baseless assumptions.

In the end it comes down to people who know what their talking about (experts) versus people who don't know what they're talking about (conspiracy proponents) and after looking at both sides only one side has overwhelming evidence to support its claim... that's the side that says we went to the moon.
Your inferiority complex is understandable, but it does not prove your claims and that is why you resort to ad hominem arguments.


[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Could you present authentic Apollo videos with these "cannot be done on Earth" things. Thanks.


Sure.

Apollo 15: Digging a trench
In this one, notice how the soil flies. I don't see any signs of an atmosphere affecting the soil. It just flies in a nice parabolic trajectory and it flies a good distance too.

Apollo 15: Mount Hadley
In this one, note the flaps that keep bouncing up in front of the LRV around the 1:30 mark. To me, this shows that there is no air resistance. Had this been filmed on Earth, those flaps waving up and down so easily like that. The air would keep them pressed back against the LVR.

Apollo 14: Pendulum analysis
This one is an analysis of the pendulum experiment on the Moon. The guy doing the analysis also tries to duplicate it on Earth but is unable to do so. It just can not be done in Earth gravity.


None of these are authentic videos from NASA. Try again.

[edit on 26.3.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
seriously, i don't think i'm alone in saying that NASA and the achievements of the US space program gave me encouragement to learn more about science as i was growing up. and to hear these people talk about the moon-landing hoax and try to denigrate the efforts of all those men and women who made it all possible just seems to be a failure of the american educational system.



President Obama Cancels Moon Landing, Praises NASA's Unheard of Achievements

Wednesday, 3 February 2010

Greenbelt MD: President Obama came to the headquarters of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to explain his decision to put a new manned space flight program to the moon on hold.

The president, via a C-SPAN TV hookup to all NASA installations, apologized for the necessary funding cuts caused by former President George W. Bush's reckless spending habits. He indicated his administration was trying to control deficits, as exemplified by his proposed $3.8 trillion 2011 budget sent to Congress ($1.6 trillion projected deficit).

The president was ecstatic that the USA would again someday go to the moon, "not because it is easy but because we choose to do it!" In the interim his environmental priorities, including saving the Polar Bears (which have not been multiplying rapidly enough) and bankrupting the country's energy industry, must continue. "I will not give up!"

He went on to say that NASA has had its Tang (orange juice) moments in space and been to the moon several times after Apollo 11 made the initial landing. In other words "you been there, done that." The NASA scientists, engineers and managers (men, women and chimpanzees) should all be proud of their pioneering accomplishments in space exploration. However, little or no recognition has been given to the new technologies that have bettered people's lives the world over, some examples.

Teflon: Condoms that last forever.
Super Glue: The first improvement in chastity belts in 700 years.
Fiber Optics: The improved Colonoscopy scope.
Lasers: Improvements to cosmetic surgery for Hollywood stars.
Solar Cells: The portable cordless vibrator.
Space Shuttle Remote Arm: Viagra.
Advanced Plastics/Silicon Compounds: Bigger/better boob jobs.
Microelectronic TV Sensors: Provides transparency into college sorority houses.

Additionally, President Obama told the NASA engineers and scientists that his new jobs program, if Congress approves it, will allow eligible technical personnel to seek early retirement or find new jobs in the private sector.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


so? what's your point? or are you trying to make one?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by toreishi
 


No.

Troll behavior.

We'll let the Mods sort it out, it's what they do best....



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by toreishi
 


No.

Troll behavior.

We'll let the Mods sort it out, it's what they do best....


Wow, must be dangerous to you for you to pull the troll card on him.

Seriously though....Wack away at my questions.

EME Moon bounce are you going to address this or not?

Again, how can we independently verify the signals were broadcast from the moon and not bounced from the moon?

If science requires independent verification of results, why doesn't NASA fall under this guideline. Independent meaning a person or agency that is in no way associated with the agency making the claims.

What significance do the the laser ranging reflectors play in light of EME first postulated in 1940, achieved in 1946 and reproduced by amateur Ham operators in 1953.

Seeing as how the moon has no atmosphere, how is it that the footprints retain impression into the soil and also why does the soil "stain" the suits if it has no moister as a constituent to it's makeup?

Why do the rock samples have water in them, again the surface having no atmosphere?

If the Apollo program is a civilian project, why is it illegal to have a sample of moon rock and also why is it illegal to broadcast anything picked up by Ham radio's during the missions as mandated by the FCC?

Why did the probe crashed into the surface turn up different surface material then what was allegedly picked up off of the surface during the Apollo missions?

Van Allen on Van Allen....strait from the Horses mouth.
media.abovetopsecret.com...

That's all for now....I have some really cool Michael Collins audio that I think you are really going to enjoy weedwacker...well maybe not enjoy, but I will.


Peace



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Your link to the article about the Apollo guidance computer is the basis of this reply:

Whoever wrote that article has not read much about the guidance, navigation and control in the Apollo Space craft.

There is more to the Computer than what is pictured the DSKY [Display and Keyboard] is pictured and is not "THE COMMAND MODULE COMPUTER" which is a 8inx12in12in volumed Area that does commands for the particulars of the flight.

You should read how many computers and SUBSYSTEMS there is, and used to make up the flight navigation and control systems of the Command and Service modules.

The acurate documention is here:
history.nasa.gov...


My god in that article even, if this person who wrote it read ANYTHING about Apollo 14, as the article states that the abort discrete was in register 1.

And that was found out to be due to a cold solder joint, or bad solder joint, hence they had Edgar Mitchelle tap with a flash light in the panel and the register went away. MIT programing engineers, made a Program update to ignore any further abort discretes.




[edit on 26-3-2010 by theability]

[edit on 26-3-2010 by theability]



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 



Again, how can we independently verify the signals were broadcast from the moon and not bounced from the moon?


?

Oh, this one is way too easy!

Time. Round-trip time, versus one-way time. Light speed. EM travels at light speed.

Oh, and the biggie? Frequencies. "EME" is not, never has been, and never will be equivalent to direct line-of-sight communication as evidenced on all the Apollo missions, in frequency bands that would not and could not ever be used by the "EME" technique.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 



What significance do the the laser ranging reflectors play in light of EME first postulated in 1940, achieved in 1946 and reproduced by amateur Ham operators in 1953.


NOW I am beginning to wonder about your motives.

Because, you are obviously not stupid. SO, asking this question seems very provocative. I certianly hope, for your sake, that you ask in earnest, and not as some sort of twisted "game".


But, 'playing along' for the moment...(and pretending that it IS an innocent question)...let me ask back at you.

WHY are the laser reflectors there, in the first place? I think you know the answer, and are "asking" these questions, and strated this thread, just to be clever and cute. But, that's just me, and my opinion.

However, (sigh)...bouncing a widely dispersed and radio signal, a'la the "EME" technique, will NOT give any degree of accuracy in distance measuring.

Now, I think you can answer the question above, and of course, further research and reading is available to you, at your fingertips, via your trusty keyboard, favorite ISP, and the fabulous three double-Us....



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 



Seeing as how the moon has no atmosphere, how is it that the footprints retain impression into the soil and also why does the soil "stain" the suits if it has no moister as a constituent to it's makeup?


Seriously? Do you think this is acceptable? Can you not figure this one out on your own?

Tell you what --- go find some very dry flour, and throw it on yourself. Or, throw a good deal of it on the floor, and make a boot print in it.

But, be sure to clean up before Mom gets home!

Flour is the easiest example that most would have to hand --- though not an exact match, it illustrates the point. Any more inane questions?



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


I already stated, I don't have to prove my claims. You are the one taking up a stance that is opposite to commonly accepted knowledge.

One does not have to be an expert to look at both sides of the argument and come to an opinion. I never said I had a degree, merely that every legitimate scientist that has one knows we've gone to the moon. I think I'm going to agree with the experts and disagree with the people who have been proven wrong by them.

I've read most of your posts and you seem to enjoy attacking other people and their opinions yet you have presented nothing to support your own.

Tell me why they would have launched an empty Saturn V, worth countless dollars, into the atmosphere just to fake the moon landing in a studio


You know what, forget it. Anyone can attack me, I'm just a layman surfing this wide expanse we call the internet... but please, take your attacks elsewhere, take them to the doorstep of NASA, we'll see how far you make it. I haven't seen you present ANY claims at all.



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
sigh. i don't know why i even bother.



Although conventional wisdom says the Moon is devoid of atmosphere, and in layman's terms this may be close enough to the truth, the space just above the lunar surface is not a total vacuum. The Apollo program identified helium and argon atoms there, and Earth-based observations added sodium and potassium ions to the list in 1988.


ScienceDaily



The findings point to the existence of water deep beneath the moon’s surface, transforming scientific understanding of our nearest neighbor’s formation and, perhaps, our own. There may also be a more immediately practical application.


Wired



posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Firstly, I believe the Apollo missions were not faked but I entirely sympathise with those who have doubts. And it needs to be said that those trying to prove the landings were real are not really as well informed as they need to be.

The lander: there is a documentary series called MOON RACE: The History of Apollo. Check it out if you have doubts about the testing of the lander. They tested the heck out of it. One thing you need to know is that it was tested in earth orbit at an altitude that simulated the moons gravity. They also built giant vacuum chambers to test it in a suitable atmosphere or lack thereof.

There is good footage from inside the manufacturing plants where the lander and other gear was assembled. This was a big, real operation. More technicians than can be poked at with sticks.

Navigation and the laser ranging wasn't easy and did take much experimenting. But you have to remember that it's just ballistics, targeting; purely newtonian and very much wthin our capabilities at the time. Documentation of high precision targeting using very nifty stabilisation technology from the 60's is available on google. Servo motor technology was having a little explosion at the time. Naval technology had long range targeting with accuracy of 1mm, this is on moving vessels. You'll have to look for it. I lost the links a while ago. Hitting the reflectors on the moon with a beam that is 20 miles in diameter by the time it got there wasn't as hard as people make out. You have to bite the bullet and search for this stuff.

As far as having doubts go it is totally understandable and reasonable. 2001:a Space Odyssey came out before the moon landings and it looked, and still looks amazing. Kubrick could certainly have created some convincing fakes if he wanted to.

The real conspiracy is that Rumsfeld and Kissinger started this whole moon hoax theory. It makes reasonable people who are skeptical of the government look like idiots...very handy for them. The first film that ever challenged the reality of the Apollo missions was a clever mocu-mentary which both Rumsfeld and Kissinger acted in, pretending that the moon landings were faked. Allot of people didn't realise the movie was a hoax and this pretty much got the ball rolling amongst the conspiracy theory community. Look it up.


[edit on 26-3-2010 by mrwiffler]





new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join