It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Sky Was Black On The Moon?

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:15 AM
reply to post by Havick007

People will say, because the pilots of the aircraft didn't have to deal with the glare of the moon. (ignoring the glare of the Earth)

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:20 AM
reply to post by Truth1000

BTW, the proper term is "entry," not "re-entry." You do not simply come back into the atmosphere, you have to hit a specfic entry window, at the proper speed and spacecraft angle-of-attack.

Actually the term "reentry" is absolutely correct!
Atmospheric Reentry
Shuttle Reentry

Next, it could be so simple to explain, that the reasons for not seeing stars, is cause their in the sunlight!

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:22 AM
reply to post by spikey

Yeah i know but that doesnt make sence, as you said glare of the Earth and also direct light from the sun as well as it was daytime. The fact is as soon as they were at 85,000ft the sky turned black and stars started to appear. That is coming directly from an officer in the Airforce flying Blackbirds.

If the gold visors on the moon were supposed to block out glare and rays then shouldnt other loght still get in, re: stars. But that is beside the point is blackbird pilots could see stars at high altitude during the day or on the daylight side of Earth, then the moon shouldnt be different with no atmosphere. Also the moon isnt pure white, it's grey, glare woldnt have been that bad. In the photos from the lunar surface, if glare was such a bad issue the photo's would not have been so clear. As you can see in those photo,s the lunar surface isnt exactly reflective.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by wmd_2008

They do nothing to my hypothesis (not theory).

To pull it off, the conspirators would have needed key personnel on side, without question, although not as many as most people would imagine.

I take it, you get my drift there.

If an entire moon mission, transcripts and images, film, telemetry data and so on was indeed staged to hide and divert attention from a MUCH more advanced but clandestine space organisation, just how hard would it be for the very same organisation which was integral to the original fraud decades ago, to provide fraudulent images now?

If the cover-up is continuing, it stands to reason so would additions to the fraud continue.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:33 AM
reply to post by Havick007

You'll get no argument from me Havick007. None.

I've long acknowledged there are PLENTY of inconsistencies with the moon missions, and the explanations for them.

I guess the long and the short of it is this...(and i, IN NO WAY AM ADVOCATING THIS) unless someone gets to someone who was an integral part of the original missions or even high up in the so called space programme nowadays, and manages to terrify them MORE than TPTB have done in order to keep this secret, they won't talk.

Only those with nothing to lose may talk...perhaps that's why they, more often than not, only chose family men for astronaut training...something to lose.

[edit on 21/4/2010 by spikey]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:41 AM
I guess a few things have changed since the first moon missions, such as the ability to question facts rather than blindly accept them?

And as we all know, we do tend to cling to the 'official' story dont we?
Had no one ever gone against the grain, then NASA would have never gotten off the ground, that ol' flat earth story took some killing, so much in fact that it actually did the rounds again after we 'forgot' the earth was round!

I dont think any conspiracy was involved there, people just had other things on their mind at the time, not as if intercontinental travel was the main leisure pursuit it is these days.

The advent of mass unrestricted spread of varying views through the internet, apart from cultivating outrageous theories, also encourages more lucid ideas to geminate and grow. Im not sure that ridiculing all ideas that are at odds with mainstream views is a good thing in that respect.

We're like kids...."What if" & "why" are two of the most powerful tools the brain has to make sense of things it doesnt understand, so what the best reply to these questions? "Because A=B +C means Xmas" or " Cos daddy says so now shut up!"

Plausible.......thats all a thing has to be, nothing more and theres no need to do anything other than log it for future reference and move on. Most of the pros & cons in this saga are exactly that, until a proveable fact dictates otherwise. And it must prove it, not just by regurgitating their own 'evidence', but by solid incontrovertible facts available to anyone.

What someone couldnt get about my previous post in which I was speaking figuratively, was that if a new theory becomes 'plausible' then it doesnt instantly negate your first view, it merely compliments it with a different one, a debating point, something to perhaps pull some common elements from and possibly arrive at the truth?

Constant calls of "BS" etc add nothing to the debate, some guys seem to get it, some get off on it and truth be told, thats where their real entertainment lies and not in the discussion of the subject.

Or not?


posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:48 AM
lies to cover another lie

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 11:54 AM
reply to post by spikey

I've long acknowledged there are PLENTY of inconsistencies with the moon missions...

NO. There. Are. Not.

ONLY in the imaginations (or lack thereof) of the people who have NO comprehension of technology, or science (except that they 'expect' to 'see', based on Hollywood movies

Sad, this is. Truly. Sad.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:04 PM
reply to post by Tie No Bows!

Sorry to be OT OP but this has to be addressed....

And as we all know, we do tend to cling to the 'official' story dont we? Had no one ever gone against the grain, then NASA would have never gotten off the ground, that ol' flat earth story took some killing, so much in fact that it actually did the rounds again after we 'forgot' the earth was round!

The reason NASA got off the ground was Apollo 1! The Block I spacecraft was plagued by ECS [enviormental Control Systems]Issues since late 1965. In May 1966 the ECS unit developed by AiResearch Caught fire in testing at the plant as quoted:

As a result of a fire in the environmental control system (ECS) unit at AiResearch Co., a concerted effort was under way to identify nonmetallic materials as well as other potential fire problems.

Article Here

This ECS unit was suspect in the fire investigation:

Deficiencies existed in Command Module design, workmanship and quality control, such as:
Components of the Environmental Control System installed in Command Module 012 had a history of many removals and of technical difficulties including regulator failures, line failures and Environmental Control Unit failures. The design and installation features of the Environmental Control Unit makes removal or repair difficult.

Article Source Here

Thus leading to NASA pushing for the BLOCK II spacecraft as the only space-worthy CSM. Which was succesfully flown first on Apollo 7 Oct 12, 1968.

In and during the review of Apollo, by the AS-204 Accident Committee, they found and solved the operation errors, design defects, and workmanship made during the developement and initial design stages of early Apollo.

Block II Designs were configured for Lunar landings.

Losing three lives is how NASA got to fly!

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:28 PM
If you want to learn, learn. If not, don't pretend to.

You guys even still cling to the press corps term of "In orbit" when the astronauts and Mission Control team say "On Orbit." I would explain further but that is apparently useless with you guys.

Source: KSC Mission Timeline

The entry phase of flight begins approximately five minutes before entry interface, which occurs at an altitude of 400,000 feet. At EI minus five minutes, the orbiter is at an altitude of about 557,000 feet, traveling at 25,400 feet per second, and is approximately 4,400 nautical miles (5,063 statute miles) from the landing site. The goal of guidance, navigation and flight control software is to guide and control the orbiter from this state (in which aerodynamic forces are not yet felt) through the atmosphere to a precise landing on the designated runway. All of this must be accomplished without exceeding the thermal or structural limits of the orbiter.
The entry phase is divided into three separate phases because of the unique software requirements. Entry extends from EI minus five minutes to terminal area energy management interface at an altitude of approximately 83,000 feet, at a velocity of 2,500 feet per second, 52 nautical miles (59 statute miles) from the runway and within a few degrees of tangency with the nearest heading alignment cylinder in major mode 304.

TAEM extends to the approach and landing capture zone, defined as the point when the orbiter is on glide slope, on airspeed, and on runway centerline, which occurs below 10,000 feet and is the first part of major mode 305. The orbiter attains subsonic velocity at an altitude of approximately 49,000 feet about 22 nautical miles (25 statute miles) from the runway.

Approach and landing begins at the approach and landing capture zone, an altitude of 10,000 feet and Mach 0.9 and extends through the receipt of the weight-on-nose-gear signal after touchdown, which completes major mode 305.

The forward RCS jets are inhibited at entry interface.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Truth1000

Here we Go:
re·en·try also re-en·try (r-ntr)
n. pl. re·en·tries also re-en·tries
1. The act of reentering.
2. Law The recovery of possession under a right reserved in a previous property transaction.
3. Games
a. The act of regaining the lead by taking a trick in bridge and whist.
b. The card that will take a trick and thus regain the lead.
4. Aerospace The return of a missile or spacecraft into Earth's atmosphere.

Source Here

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:36 PM
reply to post by Truth1000

ok i dont get your post? are you for or against this thread?

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:38 PM
reply to post by Truth1000

I absolutely love your contribution, and especially the terminology corrections.

Not being sarcastic, just in case it seems so. Not meaning to convey that, at all.

As an airline pilot, I'm well aware of the "correct" terms, and the sometimes "casual" differences thrown around. WE get it, in context....but when discussing and describing such detailed technical matters to laypeople, best to stick with porper terminology.

Problem, though, is the technical terms can become "dry"....always a problem.

We aren't really talking about Shuttle missions per se, in this thread, but I have to say I tuned in to the NASA Channel available via my SAT TV subscripiton, and it was nice to hear the audio from the Orbiter, as they talked to Mission Control.

The everyday, some would call it "boring" portions, don't usually relate to laypeople, but pilots, who are familiar wiht the jargon, tend to lap it up. WE understand it. That is hard to convey, and explain to non-pilots.

[edit on 21 April 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by Havick007

The blackbird pilots are LOOKING at a dark sky their eyes adjusted to the light level they can see the stars.

The Astronauts are looking at the bright surface if the looked up at the sky and let their eyes adjust to the light level they would see the stars as well.

When you go to bed tonight stare at the room light before you switch it off when you switch it off see how long it takes your eyes to adjust to the total darkness before you can make out shapes etc.

A link to a good site for Astrophotography

Look how short exposure times are.
Here is a link scroll down to the big dipper picture near bottom of page

Try it yourself see how you feel then

Exposure details F5.6 at 20 seconds (+-) using Kodak Max 800 print film

Look at this link The Moon another good site for the basics.

Scroll down to full Moon pic

Exposure 1/400 sec at f/5.6, ISO 200

The moon pic was on iso 200, the stars iso 800 which is 4x more sensitive if the moon pic was taken using iso 800 the exposure would have been 1/1600th of a second NOW DO YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHY NO STARS IN THE MOON PICTURES.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

[edit on 21-4-2010 by wmd_2008]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:43 PM
For :theability

I think you read me wrong there bud, I meant got off the ground at all!
No Montgolfier, no Wright bros messing around in the workshop etc ?

"It cant be done sir!" in whatever language applied and in whatever era ?
And not just related to flight, I imagine that the discussion of production of 'fire' on demand must have caused concern.

How many times do you think they laughed at caveman as he tried out his spearthrower, again and again and again?

As for that laucnh platform fire I cant say, only reference I saw on that was the same one that had Mr Grissom hang a lemon outside the door, ostensibly stating that the project was a 'lemon', wouldnt work, didnt feel right, everything was wrong etc?

I have no idea why he would do the lemon thing, but evem Im aware that in an oxygen environment, there are no second chances, I doubt if anything would really suffice as an escape/emergency procedure, believe me I do not want to see any crew injured in any sense of 'told you so' voyeurism!

On the shuttle crash, Im of the opinion that ego took over prudence, with the subsequent outcome being the failure of an O ring, with resultant tragic result. No conspiracy per se, just bad decision somewhere along the line ?


[edit on 21-4-2010 by Tie No Bows!]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:47 PM
have a nice day.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by Truth1000]

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:48 PM
reply to post by Tie No Bows!

I don't understand.

One because, without Apollo Missions to the Moon, you wouldn't be posting your opinions and having the chance to debate what you are without, the technology developed to go to the MOON!

Period! The world would be alot different today. I will post a thread for this, since this is way way OT!

Sorry OP

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:53 PM
reply to post by spikey

Well do you have any comment on this picture

One half taken 40 yrs ago as the Astronauts left the Moon

The other taken by the LRO orbiting the Moon.

So what is your take on that.

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

Most excellent comparison, with a great photo!!

If I had the authority to 'applaud', I would...

posted on Apr, 21 2010 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by wmd_2008

What are we supposed to be seeing here

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in