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: 268
377
<< 265  266  267    269  270  271 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



Here is a picture of breakup and fragmentation of the European Space Agency's Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle:

I didn't quote your whole post as it's large but as to this pic..
Yes, that's what you state but notice the main object is in front and the smaller pieces breaking off are obviously behind as they loose velocity..

That's NOT what is seen in that other pic..
In that the some of the pieces you say are breaking away from the craft are in front.....
That's just not possible...




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Mate, I'm not saying it did, just that it could..


No, it couldn't.


And at 22.000 miles, out over an ocean, I doubt many would notice such a small object in the sky...


Only every astronomer with a view of that hemisphere. There weren't may geostationary satellites at the time, and something sitting completely stationary in the sky would have drawn a lot of interest.


But if your statement of 22,000 miles is correct then isn't that beyond the outer belt anyway???

The outer region is centered at about 15,000 -- 20,000 km above the surface of the Earth and has a thickness of 6,000 -- 10,000 km.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


The belts are not perfect toroids, the are thicker at the side of the Earth furthest from the sun because the solar wind blows it out further. But the bigger point is that in order to get there, the capsule would have had to traverse the thickest part of the belts




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



Here is a picture of breakup and fragmentation of the European Space Agency's Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle:

I didn't quote your whole post as it's large but as to this pic..
Yes, that's what you state but notice the main object is in front and the smaller pieces breaking off are obviously behind as they loose velocity..

That's NOT what is seen in that other pic..
In that the some of the pieces you say are breaking away from the craft are in front.....
That's just not possible...



I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can you tell what piece is the "main object"? You are just looking at different size objects. Nothing is identified as the CM.

Also, you NEVER see a large object like that when you take a picture of a star. It is impossible.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Mate I don't even believe in the moon hoax..
I'm just questioning some of the facts you guys put forward..They don't all seem correct..

This one you have no way of prooving..

Only every astronomer with a view of that hemisphere. There weren't may geostationary satellites at the time, and something sitting completely stationary in the sky would have drawn a lot of interest.


It would be hard to see especially back in the 60's-70's when less people were looking with less advanced equipment..
It would have been quite small at that altitude and not high in the sky...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can you tell what piece is the "main object"? You are just looking at different size objects. Nothing is identified as the CM.


What a crock..The pic we are discussing only has one large object..
I'd say even the poster of that pic is suggesting THAT is the CM...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Mate I don't even believe in the moon hoax..
I'm just questioning some of the facts you guys put forward..They don't all seem correct..


Then prove it.


This one you have no way of prooving..

Only every astronomer with a view of that hemisphere. There weren't may geostationary satellites at the time, and something sitting completely stationary in the sky would have drawn a lot of interest.


It would be hard to see especially back in the 60's-70's when less people were looking with less advanced equipment..
It would have been quite small at that altitude and not high in the sky...



Sorry. Satellites are quite easy to see even with my simple Schmit-Cass 8". And if I recall correctly, they had much better equipment than that even back in the 60s, and there were plenty of astronomers around.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



I have no idea what you are talking about here. How can you tell what piece is the "main object"? You are just looking at different size objects. Nothing is identified as the CM.


What a crock..The pic we are discussing only has one large object..
I'd say even the poster of that pic is suggesting THAT is the CM...



What you "say", doesn't matter.

Even so, as I have "prooved", there is no way that picture can be a time-lapse of stars. You need another explanation.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 

Prove what??
You guys are making the claims therefore it's YOU that should be showing the proof..
I'm merely questioning assumptions y\that have been made with NO proof..
I don't understand what you are saying..


Sorry. Satellites are quite easy to see even with my simple Schmit-Cass 8". And if I recall correctly, they had much better equipment than that even back in the 60s, and there were plenty of astronomers around.


So are you saying that ALL objects in orbit are seen and identified??



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Tomblvd
 

Prove what??


I proved that the picture of the Apollo 8 Capsule during reentry(you were right, the large object is IDed as the CM), cannot possibly be a time-lapse picture of stars, as you alleged.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

So are you saying that ALL objects in orbit are seen and identified??


No, unfortunately at this point in time we can only track space debris from about 2 inches in LEO to about 20 inches in size in GSO.

Around 20,000 pieces of debris.

Althogh I don't know what that has to do with anything.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


This is what the poster said and is obviousy not true..

Some Hoax believers have claimed that the capsule with the astronauts in it were dropped from a helicopter. This shows how gullible they are. The re-entry was not only covered live on TV, it was accidentally witnessed and photographed by airline passengers.


I still don't see how the objects in front of the CM can have tails..



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I still don't see how the objects in front of the CM can have tails..



When the CM hits the atmosphere, it begins to heat up, once it does, it begins to break up. As this is happening, the CM begins to slow down. Certain pieces that are breaking off have less aerodynamic drag that the CM and they move quicker through the atmosphere, other objects move slower.

Pretty simple.

However, can we at least agree the picture is NOT time lapse star pictures?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
I didn't quote your whole post as it's large but as to this pic..
Yes, that's what you state but notice the main object is in front and the smaller pieces breaking off are obviously behind as they loose velocity..

That's NOT what is seen in that other pic..
In that the some of the pieces you say are breaking away from the craft are in front.....
That's just not possible...


The largest streak in that picture is the service module. In that photograph, it was heading away from the aircraft photographing it (roughly at a heading of 1 o'clock compared to the heading of the airplane). The command module is already out of the picture. The smaller streaks are likely pieces of the service module breaking up. If you think the picture shows the streaks moving directly left to right, it does look like bits lead the service module. But that's just a trick of perspective as everything also has a forward velocity component.

You can read a first-hand account of photographing the reentry here: www.honeysucklecreek.net...
edit on 17-12-2010 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



However, can we at least agree the picture is NOT time lapse star pictures?


Yes, I said that when I still believed the poster falsely stating the pic was taken by a passenger on an airline..
I know now that is not true..

I will note though that the other pic of a reentry clearly shows the main odject is in front...

I don't see how the smaller objects could move faster, I've not seen that happen before..



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 




Mate I don't even believe in the moon hoax..


We've heard that before. Foo? Is that you, Foo?




This one you have no way of prooving..



"Only every astronomer with a view of that hemisphere. There weren't may geostationary satellites at the time, and something sitting completely stationary in the sky would have drawn a lot of interest."



Which part? Lets break it down in easy bites:
1. Only every astronomer with a view of that hemisphere
a. Every astronomer within a large cone shape, that would cover most of the hemisphere, is perhaps more accurate and eminently provable. Just because you've no clue about astrometry doesn't mean others don't.
That sort of thinking is kinda like a toddler who, when he hides his face with the covers, thinks the world goes away. There just might be some piece of the puzzle you're missing; most likely it's an education.

2. There weren't may geostationary satellites at the time,
a. I'm pretty sure a quick check of the satellites that fit that general description is available to compare.

3. something sitting completely stationary in the sky would have drawn a lot of interest.
a. Why do you think this would not be true?
b. You assume no one would notice, but you have no way of demonstrating this, because you lack a key ingredient. See 1.a.s4



It would be hard to see especially back in the 60's-70's when less people were looking with less advanced equipment..


Essay Question: Name 3 of the most commonly used telescopes in that time frame (60-70), noting the pertinent specifications for each, and describing any significant optical (excluding electronic or motorized additions) differences from their counterparts today.



It would have been quite small at that altitude and not high in the sky


It would be quite small relative to what exactly? Explain. At what altitude (nautical miles) do you guess it should be? How did you arrive at that figure? Show your work.



Prove what?? You guys are making the claims therefore it's YOU that should be showing the proof..


And you are the one making a counter claim (gainsay) with no supporting facts or contradictory evidence.

I wonder. what is your game?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Smack
 


lol, who's Foo??

BTW, you just argued points I made AND the ones I quoted from another poster..
Kinda confusing there..

Am I not allowed to question points raised in this thread?
Am I expected to believe everything posted as fact..

Like the post that said that pic was taken by an airline passenger?
Obviously wrong..

Like the ASSUMPTION that any object in orbit WILL be seen??
That's just an opinion based on nothing...



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


THanks for that mate, I'll have a look..
stared



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


I'm sorry if you are unable to understand my post.
Notice how I too can avoid answering your questions.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Like the ASSUMPTION that any object in orbit WILL be seen??
That's just an opinion based on nothing...


Where do you get that?

I gave a link that showed they are tracking objects 20 INCHES in diameter in GSO.

The objects they can't track are extremely small.

Now if you want to show some proof that astronomers can't see a satellite in GSO, go for it.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by backinblack
 


I'm sorry if you are unable to understand my post.
Notice how I too can avoid answering your questions.


I understood your post fine..
You just assumed all you quoted was from me when in fact I had quoted someone else..

Your crap about me being Foo though is hard to understand..




top topics



 
377
<< 265  266  267    269  270  271 >>

log in

join