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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 19
377
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by AquaTim84
 


Well accurate compared to RADAR


I wonder how they will get around this inaccuracy problem in the future then?

Surely NASA must have a replacement lined up to make better use of the reflectors. Maybe the ESA will bring something to the table?

The reflectors are fine, it's just our laser technology and the atmosphere. If they could improve those then they could predict solar eclipses and other matters further and farther in time.




posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Since you guys want to talk about the original moonwalk footage from NASA, then here is a quote from Dave McGowan concerning this "footage"




Since we’re on the subject, I have to mention that transmitting live footage back from the Moon was another rather innovative use of 1960s technology.
More than two decades later, we would have trouble broadcasting live footage from the deserts of the Middle East, but in 1969, we could beam that **** back from the Moon with nary a technical glitch!
As it turns out, however, NASA doesn’t actually have all of that Moonwalking footage anymore. Truth be told, they don’t have any of it. According to the agency, all the tapes were lost back in the late 1970s. All 700 cartons of them.
As Reuters reported on August 15, 2006, “The U.S. government has misplaced the original recording of the first moon landing, including astronaut Neil Armstrong’s famous ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind’ … Armstrong’s famous moonwalk, seen by millions of viewers on July 20, 1969, is among transmissions that NASA has failed to turn up in a year of searching, spokesman Grey Hautaluoma said.
‘We haven’t seen them for quite a while. We’ve been looking for over a year, and they haven’t turned up,’ Hautaluoma said … In all, some 700 boxes of transmissions from the Apollo lunar missions are missing.”
Given that these tapes allegedly documented an unprecedented and unduplicated historical event, one that is said to be the greatest technological achievement of the twentieth century, how in the world would it be possible to, uhmm, ‘lose’ 700 cartons of them?
Would not an irreplaceable national treasure such as that be very carefully inventoried and locked away in a secure film vault?
And would not copies have been made, and would not those copies also be securely tucked away somewhere?
Come to think of it, would not multiple copies have been made for study by the scientific and academic communities?
Had NASA claimed that a few tapes, or even a few cartons of tapes, had been misplaced, then maybe we could give them the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps some careless NASA employee, for example, absent-mindedly taped a Super Bowl game over one of them. Or maybe some home porn.
But does it really seem at all credible to claim that the entire collection of tapes has gone missing – all 700 cartons of them, the entire film record of the alleged Moon landings? In what alternative reality would that happen ‘accidentally’?


Link to source

Not an internet archive of what we watched on the TV, because what was on the TV was a video of the closed circuit TV video.

None of the originals can be located, from the ORIGINAL moonwalk. NONE.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


seams quite wierd that a diplomatic gift such as this would be trivialized ,
why was there no need to verify the the data given ?

does this instance tell us anything about human preseption ?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by RWM88
 


then would a laser emitting probe in orbit of earth not be better? you don't have the atmosphere problem then. Can't the space-station not do anything with this technology and send it back to earth ? Why does it have to be don from the surface of the earth. If you want accurate data on moon orbit would it not be better by doing it from space?



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I have a better one for you, my logical fallacy laden friend.

Perseveration.

Who is the bigger fool?

The fool who leads or the fool who follows?

My statement is logically sound.

Yours, however, is yet another attempt to derail my attention and smear me with another ad hominem attack.
You guys resort to the same tired tactics when someone confronts you and corners you in using your OWN information.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


I'm sorry Zerbot but what you are talking about is ridiculous.

Let's pretend the US & Soviet's had these mind control probes up there on the moon...Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China...wouldn't these nations be folding in to Russia's and America's desires right about now or do they all wear tin foil on around their heads when the moon is out?

Why would Russia allow the US to have such a weapon and vice versa?

Please don't contaminate this thread with an entirely irrelevant conspiracy to what we are trying to fluidly discuss and debate.

Post on a thread relevant to mind control please.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   
This quote (and link) is for all of you who think that this "moon dust" or these "moon rocks" actually mean something.




A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say. It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.


Link to source.

So who has an explanation for this?

Bueller, Bueller, BUELLER?

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AquaTim84
 


Yeah I was also thinking of possibly a chain of satellites beaming to and from the Earth and Moon.

However I guess at the moment NASA and the ESA are busy with planet hunting satellites and Galileo at the moment.

The moon just doesn't really seem as interesting as discovering new worlds at this moment in time.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Am I really gonna have to serve everyone? haha

.
.
.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
I found this Image on the internet ..Is this the flag on the moon ?




lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by AndersonLee
 


I would have to say that "I do not know" to that one AndersonLee.

It looks like a black spec of something.

Maybe it's a ghost?

I think that calling it anything other than a black spec is the result of an overactive imagination.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23
This quote (and link) is for all of you who think that this "moon dust" or these "moon rocks" actually mean something.




A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say. It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.


Link to source.

So who has an explanation for this?

Bueller, Bueller, BUELLER?

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



That's a great link there, after reading it, it throws up more "real" questions, the last line made me laugh,

"US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery. "

ha ha, I bet they haven't

With regard to the video's, I have watched a fair bit of them, and from what i have seen, evidence seems to be proven by " In 1970..... professor so-and-so said........., but in 1973, professor so-and-so said", so it probably boils down to how many scientists believe story A, and how many scientists believe story B! I think that the more scientists you have backing one explanation, then that's probably the truth! Also, some of our geniuses are also completely eccentric (looney's), who do you believe.... whichever one appeals to you the most.... lol

One thing puzzles me though, why would anyone, let alone NASA, airbrush photo's, other than to hide images of things they wouldn't want anyone else to see? Logic dictates that if an image has been airbrushed, it must be to distort/ change/ hide something from the original image, so whatever was on the airbrushed pictures, NASA obviously didn't want anyone else to see! Why is this? It's a very valid point!


Peace



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Myrddin Wyllt
 


Thanks for checking out the link.

The only thing that I can say about the videos that we see concerning the original moon landings is that what we are actually watching is a video of the closed circuit video.

When these images of the "one small step for man.... yada, yada" were "beamed back to earth", they were done with a closed circuit camera and the only "live" video feed was at NASA.

What was on the tube was a TV camera focusing on the closed circuit feed of the supposed TV camera.

The problem with this is that it gets to be a bit like the game telephone from grade school, and as NASA has admitted, they do not have any of the original footage.

As far at the "expert consensus", I do not see how any "expert" can make any statement of accuracy concerning a video of another video.

Most people like to follow the crowd rather than thinking critically about the situation.
(this is much easier on the brain, and the result is that the brain is in constant search of a state of congruence, thus the theory on cognitive dissonance)

This link on Crowd Psychology could possibly answer some of your questions and it also could explain the behavior of several of my "fans" (I say that in jest) that litter this thread with "I don't like Josephus" responses.

I commend you on keeping an open mind, because ultimately, I do not know what happened, but what I can say is that the "official storyline" concerning this incident does not make any sense and 3rd party information can both "refute" and "confirm" that it happened.

Keep the open mind and great response.


edit to add:

If you are speaking of the videos in the OP, then I think that the young man made a few mistakes, but the overall message is sincere and well presented.

The argument being made has never been truly refuted in whole, but the normal technique used is to divide his statements into small bits and attack the small bits.

This is the classic Roman strategy of "Divide and Conquer".

"Take out the body to get to the head"

[edit on 5/2/2010 by Josephus23]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RWM88
 


dont realy see how ive contaminated this thread when its a known fact that during the heigth of the cold war when tensions where at grimmest both u.s and cccp made and had a joint space program ,

talk about double morale , its like saying that the u,s and iran has a secret space program during the tensions porteyed by the media daily,

or that north and south korea have a joint space station in orbit ,

sure the fear of war is always there ....



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   


The only thing that I can say about the videos that we see concerning the original moon landings is that what we are actually watching is a video of the closed circuit video.

When these images of the "one small step for man.... yada, yada" were "beamed back to earth", they were done with a closed circuit camera and the only "live" video feed was at NASA.

What was on the tube was a TV camera focusing on the closed circuit feed of the supposed TV camera.

The problem with this is that it gets to be a bit like the game telephone from grade school, and as NASA has admitted, they do not have any of the original footage.


what are you talkin about?? the footage was found last year.
www.express.co.uk...


Handled and archived "I would simply like to clarify that the tapes are not lost as such, which implies they were badly handled, misplaced and are now gone forever. That is not the case," explained John Sarkissian, operations scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization's (CSIRO) Parkes Radio Observatory in Parkes, Australia. Sarkissian said the tapes were appropriately handled and archived in the mid 1970's after the hectic activity of the Apollo lunar landing era was over. "We are confident that they are stored at [NASA's] Goddard Space Flight Center [in Greenbelt, Maryland] ... we just don't know where precisely," he told SPACE.com. It is important to note, Sarkissian added, that there is no inference of wrong-doing, incompetence or negligence on the part of NASA or its employees. "The archiving of the tapes was simply a lower priority during the Apollo era. It should be remembered, that at the time, NASA was totally focused on meeting its goal of putting a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No sooner had they done that, than they had to repeat it again a few months later, and then do it again, repeating it for a total of seven lunar landing missions ... including Apollo 13," Sarkissian pointed out.Making it tough to track down the whereabouts of the data, many of those involved in the archiving of the tapes have since moved on, retired or passed away, "taking their corporate memory of where the tapes are with them," Sarkissian said.

It is important not to exaggerate the quality of the images being sought, Sarkissian added. "The SSTV was not like modern high definition TV and nor was it even equal in quality to the normal broadcast TV we are accustomed to viewing," he said.

Still, the SSTV was better than the scan-converted images that were broadcast at the time--which is the only version currently available, Sarkissian concluded.


[edit on 2-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Thanks for your comments,

As far at the "expert consensus", I do not see how any "expert" can make any statement of accuracy concerning a video of another video.

What I am referring to is not individually specific, but nearly all the physical evidence, i.e., moon rocks, one group of scientists say they have no water, yet another group say they do indeed contain water. If 500 scientists say they don't, and only 6 say they do, I would be inclined initially to believe the 500's opinion (admittedly without the ability or time to scrutinize each experts validity) over the 6, but then I would also "look for myself" at all available data, just to help make my decision, If the 6's argument seemed the more plausible to me, then I would change my decision and agree with the 6. Some say the moon is made of the same material as the earth, some say it has unique properties not found on earth......... who can you believe?

Scrutinizing video images and pics is obviously a personal thing, i.e. "can't you see the flying saucer in the picture?..............it's a dustbin lid........ no it's a flying saucer.......no it's a dustbin lid!"...lol

Did we really go to the moon? I don't know. Does the Aussie kid have any valid points?.........yes I think he does...... even if it only has the effect of showing the general population how much disagreement there is within the scientific community.

That piece of wood in that Holland museum really did make me laugh though, wood from the moon?.... no way! hahaha lol


Peace



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   


they were done with a closed circuit camera and the only "live" video feed was at NASA.


Wrong!!!

When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64 metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64 metre dish at Parkes. In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture. A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast. For a comprehensive explanation of the TV reception of the Apollo 11 broadcast.

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...


[edit on 2-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I've learned some things from this thread so far:
1) There is a meaning of the word "whipping" I haven't been aware of so far
2) There is a meaning of the word "debate" I haven't been aware of so far
3) They found the other Lunokhod!
news.discovery.com...
Fairly recently too, hadnt heard of that yet.
4) There is a meaning of the word "genius" I haven't been aware of so far


Anyway:
I watched one of the vids (the first part of the blast crater one)
In that first part the audience is told, that the LEM cut engines 3m above the surface. He then shows Apollo 11 footage with Aldrin saying something about a "contact light" and then cutting the engine, as "proof" that Apollo 11 did not cut until "contact" Of course that contact light aldrin mentions indicates that the 3m long spikes at the bottom of the landing struts have made contact. He even shows illustrations in the vid where you can see the spikes!

Oh, and that guy claiming live TV was beyond 60ies technology: Erm. No. Transmitting pictures via air was working fine back then. Storing was a problem though, wich lead to a whole lot more things being done live back then than they are today.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal


they were done with a closed circuit camera and the only "live" video feed was at NASA.


Wrong!!!

When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64 metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64 metre dish at Parkes. In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture. A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast. For a comprehensive explanation of the TV reception of the Apollo 11 broadcast



I think this verifies what you say

www.honeysucklecreek.net...

anyone know if any "live" video was recorded in Australia? Wasn't that where the famous "Coca cola bottle" was allegedly seen?....

Peace



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   


anyone know if any "live" video was recorded in Australia? Wasn't that where the famous "Coca cola bottle" was allegedly seen?....
Peace


The signals were sent to Sydney via specially installed microwave links. From there the TV signal was split. One signal went to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) studios at Gore Hill for distribution to Australian television networks. The other went to Houston for inclusion in the international telecast. Because the international broadcast signal had to travel halfway around the world from Sydney to Houston via the INTELSAT geostationary communications satellite over the Pacific Ocean, a 300 millisecond delay was introduced to the signal. Australian audiences therefore witnessed the moonwalk, and Armstrong's historic first step, some 0.3 seconds before the rest of the world.

it'd be cool to see the australian broadcast...I wonder if anyone taped it from TV back then....

[edit on 2-5-2010 by hateeternal]

[edit on 2-5-2010 by hateeternal]



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join