It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by debunky
Concorde you would have to think for yourself
Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by WWu777
on the flag waving video you linked to, in his first experiment, he assumes that a statically charged balloon in normal atmosphere and gravity will have the exact same effect on a flag as a statically charged astronaut in a low gravity near vacuum.
the video footage he is discussing when he does this is really interesting but i'll need a really good reason to take him seriously after that.
Originally posted by ppk55
It's interesting you mention Concorde. I've just learned it's designer Ray Noble had misgivings about the moon landings as well.
I'll try and find out a bit more about him.
The four men who had been most closely concerned wlth the direction of the joint design studies and discussions were, on the British side, Dr A. E. (later Sir Archibald) Russell, technical director of BAC's Filton Division, and Dr W. J. Strang, chief engineer of Filton Division and, on the French side, Pierre Satre and Lucien Servanty, technical director and chief engineer respectively of Sud-Aviation. Each of the four was an aeronautical engineer of international standing.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
So basically the local rag from a county in Wales interviewed some old local guy who claims to have worked on concorde
Originally posted by Random People
Originally posted by Pinke
So some film processing company (likely not CBS - probably kodak) has just processed moon footage which has 2x the number of expected frames.
I think that film processing company might just be NASA, just a hunch mind you.
They did have a slightly large budget.
The rest of the world was pretty much behind because they were recovering from WW2 and various other hot and cold conflicts.
Inviting you to a possible work flow:
A perforated piece of film might be a half inch to an inch per frame. They're filming in slow motion allegedly so we'll be generous ... We perhaps call it 40 - 50 frames a second. So they have several thousand feet of film. This several thousand feet of film is processed and telecined into standard reels to be broadcast.
You have mentioned this before.
What do you mean by thousands of reels of film?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Are you referring to the 16mm film?
Originally posted by DJW001
you can't believe everything you read on the internet.
So are you calling them liars ? I will email the publisher Nic Outterside to see what he thinks.
Having read with interest the debate regarding the ‘fake moon landings’, I personally have seen the radar Doppler shift trace of the lunar module Eagle as it landed on the moon that evening as recorded by the Jodrell Bank telescope....
We can debate until the cows come home, or fly over the moon for that matter, whether man actually set foot on the moon but there is no doubt that a craft landed on the moon in the Sea of Tranquility that night, as confirmed by Jodrell Bank...
Are you telling me ‘fakers’, that with all their resources, the Russians were not monitoring every second of Apollo 11?
The most interesting observations to me were the lack of dust and crater.
While I don't really have an opinion, and don't really care -
... there certainly was motivation to fake this - and the it would be nothing new.
All in all, fairly possible it was faked ...
The paucity of dust depth (not 'dust' like talcum powder, somewhat more substantial mostly) meant that what WAS loose, and influenced by the engine's exhaust force was spread LATERALLY away...things on the Moon, in a vacuum, don't "billow" like they do in the air on Earth. Some small amounts of regolith soil DID accumluate on the pads' upper surfaces, though. Not enough to see in the many photos, unless they had BOTHERED to actually focus in and take a picture up close...but, WHY bother???
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image. ...
The reflectivity of the "halo" area became brighter than the original one by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume and the probable "halo" area was confirmed.
Originally posted by Pinke
Just further to my last information spam.
'Howard the Duck' was the first film to use wire removal techniques in 1986. The technique was invented by Industrial Light and Magic.
I don't believe any of the people involved on that shoot had anything to do with the moon landing.
The modern technique of wire removal was pioneered by Industrial Light and Magic, when they used it in films such as Howard the Duck (1986), Back to the Future Part II (1989), and Hook (1991).
Originally posted by Pinke
I'm not entirely against the theory that the moon landing could have been a hoax, I just don't see the method.
Originally posted by FoosM
That said, there is evidence of wires being used in some NASA footage. The strange movement of the astronauts falling and getting up
If they had a little bit more money, time and resources, they could easily recreate the images that NASA had made. But because you know its fake, you see it as fake.
In other words, the context the information is provided will determine how you scrutinize it.
For example, take these images, I bet nobody can see how these are any different than other NASA photos. Can you see what makes them fake?