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: 226
377
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

They learned how to avoid problems which result in large miss distances. I specified those problems.


How? How could they do anything about it?

High altitude air drops to this day are not accurate.
And those are drops.




posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

The reentry trajectory can be calculated. The large miss distances were the result of specific problems. When those problems did not occur the landings were accurate, for all the programs.

Air drops are easily accurate within a few kilometers otherwise what's the point? Please provide a source which says otherwise.

Your source is wrong about the parachute deployment altitude for the Apollo missions. At 25,000 feet two small drouge chutes were deployed. They slowed the descent a little but their main purpose was to stabilize the capsule for the deployment of the main chutes which occurred at about 10,000 feet. With 3 main chutes deployed the descent rate was 31 ft/sec. It would take 5 minutes to reach the surface. If the wind were blowing 100mph from 10,000 feet to the surface the capsule would have drifted 14km. If the wind were blowing 20mph the capsule would drift 3km.



There is nothing unusual about the accuracy of the splashdowns.
edit on 10/18/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


In other words: you have no clue what I;m talking about!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor
reply to post by FoosM
 


No, they didn't put a solid bit in. But a solid bit would indicate the rough upper limit of what could possibly would fit in the box, weight wise. Actual individual samples would weight less than than a solid piece, as there would be packaging and empty space. But none of the boxes exceeded that limit, so there's nothing odd about the amounts that were actually in the box.

Keep following along. You'll get there eventually.


Your making assumptions and following a circular argument.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Have you done the calculations I suggested yet? If yes, please share them. If not, why not?
edit on 19-10-2010 by -PLB- because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Looking at averages doesn't tell you much.
Apollo 13: 6.4km


Funny how with ALL the apollo 13 dramas, the cameraman knew EXACTLY where to point the camera.
Wow, all those problems didn't affect their re-entry whatsoever.

edit: action starts at 4.25.


edit on 19-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added start time of 4.25



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?

The expected angle of entry and direction of entry of the spacecraft is known. Hence you have a pretty good idea of where it is going to come from. It is not exactly going to sneak up behind you. Hence why everyone in camera shot is looking in the same direction before the spacecraft appears (that was before your suggested start time, did you not want us to see that?).

Also the camera is panning the sky trying to locate the spacecraft, the cameraman did not know *exactly* where the spacecraft would appear. If you look in the right general direction the spacecraft will come into view at some point, there is nothing remarkable about this.

These disingenuous posts really need to stop from you guys. You are not about seeking "truth" here at all, you are trying to fool people into believing something false. It is the antithesis of 'denying ignorance'.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar
What exactly is the point you are trying to make here?


The cameraman and TV crew knew EXACTLY where it was coming down.

Here it is on first capture... with no chutes. The cameraman maybe moved the camera a few degrees.



And here it is 7 seconds later with chutes deployed AND they were even able to draw an outline on it live.



7 seconds people.

edit: why they cut to a shot of the ocean in between those 7 seconds is just weird. Why was a cameraman pointing at the ocean during this alleged moment in history.


edit on 19-10-2010 by ppk55 because: corrected tense



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Because they had more than one camera, and the director felt like changing the shot and that was an option. You work in TV, you explain why the director cuts away to a fan in a silly hat in the middle of am exciting play.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



High altitude air drops to this day are not accurate.
And those are drops.


Therefore, the Apollo landings were too accurate to be airdrops. Way to prove your point, FoosM.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



But facts are facts buddy, NASA claims the numbers and they posted it on their website as fact.


I'll try to make it as simple as possible: "20 or 40" is not a number. Any calculation that uses "20 or 40" is bogus.If I told you I'd pay you "20 or 40" dollars to rake the lawn, what would be the first thing you would say?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 


Because they had more than one camera, and the director felt like changing the shot and that was an option. You work in TV, you explain why the director cuts away to a fan in a silly hat in the middle of am exciting play.


Yeah sure, but then the question is, why so many cameras on a navy vessel?
Why have it live with multi cam director involved?
Its exactly like a staged production.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   





PPK it would be interesting if you could do screen captures of the airplane(?) that was shown right before we saw the capsule. From what I see there was a cut away, from the plane to something else to the capsule.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yeah sure, but then the question is, why so many cameras on a navy vessel?
Why have it live with multi cam director involved?


Maybe they were expecting something interesting to happen... like a spacecraft splashing down. Maybe they broadcast it live because it was news. Now go sit in the corner and think about how stupid those questions were.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


AGAIN......for someone who claims to "research" this subject, you don't know JACK!!!!


Yeah sure, but then the question is, why so many cameras on a navy vessel?


It was a freakin' BIG NEWS EVENT!!!

Anyone who takes even the smallest bit of actual interest would have known these details. Cripes, it was even in the MOVIE!!!

There was a great deal of apprehension about the status of the heat shield on the CM. Because of the explosion, and no way to look at it for inspection....in any case, there would have been nothing they could have done, anyway, IF it were damaged somehow.

Furthermore, to conserve the batteries in the CM (remember, the explosion was in the O2 tank that provided electricity via the fuel cell generators) they took refuge in the LM, as a "lifeboat", and they POWERED DOWN the CM. This meant it became cold-soaked for the four days needed to return for reentry.

This caused additional concern about the circuitry to deploy the parachutes.


When the electrical systems were turned off, the spacecraft lost and important source of heat. The temperature dropped to 38 F and condensation formed on all the walls.

A most remarkable achievement of Mission Control was quickly developing procedures for powering up the CM after its long cold sleep. Flight controllers wrote the documents for this innovation in three days, instead of the usual three months. The Command Module was cold and clammy at the start of power up. The walls, ceiling, floor, wire harnesses, and panels were all covered with droplets of water. It was suspected conditions were the same behind the panels. The chances of short circuits caused apprehension, but thanks to the safeguards built into the command module after the disastrous Apollo-1 fire in January 1967, no arcing took place.


www.super70s.com...


Oh, and HERE is a photo of hte Apollo 13 Command Module AFTER its fiery reentry (compare to the Apollo 15 CM photo, upthread):




Why not try to do some REAL research, instead of this nonsensical continued trolling?? Is it possible you don't care at all that people think you are ignorant?? Is hiding behind Internet anonymity that much "fun" for you??



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Maybe they were expecting something interesting to happen...


When everyone is focused on the sky, expecting the capsule to appear in the obviously targetted area, why the hell would anyone cut to a view of the ocean in close up?



Remember people, keep it simple. No cameraman or director is going to cut to a view of the ocean when they've just announced they've got a lock on the alleged command module being dropped from a plane.
edit on 19-10-2010 by ppk55 because: added unecessary cut away to the ocean



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



When everyone is focused on the sky, expecting the capsule to appear in the obviously targetted area, why the hell would anyone cut to a view of the ocean in close up?


If this were a scripted, well staged, well rehearsed special effects extravaganza, why would they cut to a random shot of the ocean?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Maybe someone hit the wrong button on a switcher PPK. Maybe they thought a camera person had another angle that they didn't have. Maybe they were checking to see if that camera was focused on the splash down point. It was a live event, not an edited event. If it was an edited event I would be surprised if they had other material they could cut to.

Even then ... Now you're implying that a large segment of the free press were in on something. The people watching would have seen everything that day. You've implied before that you have knowledge of the cinematography business ... think about it that way. How many stuff ups do you see on your average film set? How many times have you seen a live shoot go wrong? Even something as mundane as a news report. It's a bloke sitting at a table and they sometimes hit the wrong switch or clip.

Sorry PPK, but it seems to me that you're just posting any old stuff to keep this and other threads about the moon going and then watching people dance for your amusement.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Maybe someone hit the wrong button on a switcher PPK. Maybe they thought a camera person had another angle that they didn't have.


Not to be rude, but epic fail on your part again Pinke.

Even the most basic of vision mixers has a preview function before you hit the 'take' button.
You see what you're about to 'take' on a monitor to the left of what is going live. This is basic knowledge.

If you had waited all this time to see a capsule coming down from the sky, then everyone announced it was there, why would you cut to a close up of the ocean ?

Ridiculous.

edit: tiny little tip, you dont just cut to a camera blindly hoping it's on the right thing when the world is watching in the last crucial seconds.

edit on 19-10-2010 by ppk55 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
377
<< 223  224  225    227  228  229 >>

log in

join