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: 310
377
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


For the benefit of readers who have skipped to the last page directly from the OP. FoosM is trying desperately to keep you from seeing this post,
way back on page 292. Jarrah forbids you to read it, and his sock puppet FoosM is doing everything in his power to bury it in distracting posts. This thread has made absolutely no forward progress since page 300. FoosM keeps bringing up the "star gambit" as though it were startling new evidence. FoosM hasn't brought anything new to this thread, save posting the latest Jarrah White videos, in over 200 pages. If, as a newcomer to this thread, you wonder anout the answer to FoosM's question about stars, you find it answered on:
Page 2
Page 9
Page 74
Page 110
Page 128
Page 158
Page 198
Page 232...
And so on and so forth, Need I remind you:

15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

T&C




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
In this case, they made sure that the Americans appeared to be the aggressors.

Did you not read the part in my post where I already stated the obvious ....

And DJW, wouldn't all of your posts listed here be considered flooding.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Obviously the Soviets were opposing the US, however this is what's interesting.
When the US fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin lie the Soviets went along with it.

In this article from 1964, they knew perfectly well the US had lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, yet they went along with it, even adding some extra vessels and having some being sunk.



As we now know, none of this happened. It just started the Vietnam War.


edit on 12-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added post info



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


ppk: please provide proof that the Vietnam War occurred, You yourself have just provided evidence that no government source, including the Russian and Vietnamese governments, is to be believed. The media get their information from governments and are in any event "in on it." Also, people who claim to have been participants in the conflict were serving the government at the time, and were therefore probably brainwashed and cannot be believed. Now, I consider myself "open minded" and would like you to convince me that the Vietnam War actually happened, without using any of those "tainted" sources.

Incidentally, there is a huge difference between trying to get a thread back on track and trying to keep a thread from making progress. Which do you think FoosM is trying to do?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55

Originally posted by Facefirst

If the Soviets could have outed the Americans having hoaxed the moon landings, they certainly would have done it. They would have loved to have embarrassed the Americans.


Sometimes it was in the Soviet's interest to perpetuate a US lie, even embellish it.

In this article from 1964, they knew perfectly well the US had lied about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, yet they went along with it, even adding some extra vessels and having some being sunk.



As we now know, none of this happened. It just started the Vietnam War.

Obviously the Soviets were opposing the US, however this is what's interesting.
When the US fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin lie the Soviets went along with it.

So how can you know when it was in their interest to lie or not? You don't know what was going on behind closed doors re: Apollo

Original Newspaper Article


edit on 12-1-2011 by ppk55 because: added Apollo and Vietnam War


Fair points made.

But I still don't think scientists form India and Japan's space programs would have confirmed the landing sites if there was nothing there.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
What everyone seems to be forgetting is that the conspiracy of the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" involved only a very few people (well less than 100) compared to Apollo, and yet it only remained secret for only a decade or so. They couldn't even keep something that small a secret, yet we are to beleive the all-powerful US government has kept the Apollo conspiracy a secret for over 40 years.

The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" proves the impossibility of the conspiracy.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Ok here is a challenge for your guys.

Can you explain the following
watch this video of Apollo 8
starting around 1:20


You will see the separation of stages.

My questions refer to the last piece of rocket that gets separated in the video.
First: Why is it hollow?

Second question and Ill use the image below as a reference:


Under "Untitled 4" the stage is a distance away from the rocket boosters.
What is causing the flames on the inside to continue to blaze?

"Untitled 5" we see the flames have disappeared.

However in "Untitled 6" we can see for a moment the flames return.
What caused that to happen?

The Camera:
Was it film or video?
Where was the camera located that filmed this sequence and how was the film retrieved if it was 'film'?
How was the camera activated to run?
If it was film, how big was the magazine, how many minutes of film stock did it contain?



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What are you banging on a bout now???

And, WHY are you attempting to deflect, yet again???


AS TO each and evrey one of your "questions"??? Do you ever bother to research on your own? The answers for every one (even the inane ones) are readily available, and documented in the historical records and data and specifications surrounding the Apollo spacecraft. (AND, the Gemini AND the Mercury......etc.....) Etc. Etc...



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
My questions refer to the last piece of rocket that gets separated in the video.
First: Why is it hollow?


That's the adapter ring that sits between the first and second stages. It provides a space for the second-stage engines above the first-stage tanks. By being separate from the first stage, it allowed for two things. First, it reduced the chance that the second-stage engines engines could be hit by the first stage during separation. Second, it had solid-fueled boosters on it to provide some forward acceleration for ullage purposes. Ullage refers to the gas-filled empty space inside the liquid fuel tanks. When the first stage separated, the rest of the rocket was in zero-G because it had no source of acceleration. That meant the liquid fuel in the tanks was free to flow anywhere, and the gases could make their way to fuel intakes and prevent startup or cause premature cutoff. By firing the solid boosters, it ensured the liquid stayed at the bottom of the tanks when the second stage engines fired.

Originally posted by FoosM
Second question and Ill use the image below as a reference:


The thermal radiation from the engine plume is causing the insulation on the interior of the adapter ring to ignite. The flames "go away" because when the ring is edge-on, the interior is shielded from the thermal radiation. As soon as it is back in view, it again ignites when there is line-of-sight between the engine plume and the insulation. As the rocket accelerates away, the flames die down because they are receiving less and less thermal radiation from the plumes.

The pictures were taken by film cameras mounted in pods attached to the second stage. At about 200,000 feet, the camera pods were jettisoned and had "paraballoons" that slowed their descent and allowed them to float after splashdown. They were equipped with radio beacons and dye packs to assist in recovery. As far as I know, Apollo 4 and 6 were the only ones equipped with such cameras.
edit on 12-1-2011 by nataylor because: formatting



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


How's the research coming along? Seen this video yet? It is a camera mounted on "top" of the second stage (compared to the view you posted, from the other end), for that view as the CSM stage separates and continues to orbit. Unmanned tests, of the Apollo CM reentry.

Note (as nataylor so generously offered...I'd rather hoped you'd find it out on your own, but what the heck?) you can clearly see the ullage engines on the third stage/CSM stack there....after it separates. Those THREE plumes. BTW, those are solid-fuel rocket motors, have their own individual propellant supply, unrelated to what powered the J-2 engine of the spacecraft.



You can see the film continued to run until the end of its spool.....as the stage, now under no thrust, decelerated and began to tumble, prior to its plummet back to Earth. The film ends JUST AS the camera is being jettisoned, se we see just a split second of that.....


View from onboard the top of the second stage (S-II) of Apollo 3's Saturn 1B rocket watching the third stage S-IVB J-2 engine burn to carry the third stage and the unmanned Apollo Command and Service Modules into high Earth orbit for subsequent re-entry tests.

As the third stage disappears out of view the second stage starts to fall back towards the Earth - revealing a view of the planet from 200,000 feet high. The camera ejection moment is caught in the last few frames of the film.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oh , and guess what else I found that is significant? (The more you research into Apollo, the more you find out. A wealth of details, all that point to the total commitment they had, in the design and engineering...especially in view that they were designing a vehicle to carry people....).

Here, a camera located actually inside the LH2 (Liquid Hydrogen) fuel tank of the Second Stage. Its significance? Well, obviously it was a video feed camera....transmitting back to Houston its pictures. So, the technology that is often decried by the "hoax" believers? You can see it in use in other instances, and generally not what was publicly released. NOT that they were hiding anything, but it probably was felt to be of little interest to the public. AND, at this period of time, they public were watching the more interesting HUMAN flights of Gemini.....:



It's important to note the "S-2" was built by North American Aviation, also contracted to build the Command Module. You can read about it in the excellent book about the head of NAA's Apollo division, Harrison "Stormy" Storms. IN the book about the period, and the story.....

"Angle of Attack: Harrison Storms and the Race to the Moon"

www.amazon.com...

en.wikipedia.org...


More on the Saturn V S-II.


edit on 12 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Komodo
one of the many questions came to mind was .. hmmm.. who is the 3rd person taking the video...??


When Armstrong exited the LM. Their was a lever to release the camera that was attached to the LM. Once they were both on the surface, they later moved the camera away from the LM.


well... just judging from the distance in the very first part of the clip where they are moving toward the camera... that's is one hell of an extension.. now isn't ??
and I still do not see that extension .. which, to me, s/b either extending out from the top of the LM OR the side of it.. in either case...

you'd see the the extended arm .. since the camera is looking BACK toward the LM..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 



....just judging from the distance in the very first part of the clip where they are moving toward the camera...


?????

WATCH the video. You can count his steps....as he approaches the camera, after flag set-up.

You can see that the lens of the camera was at a slightly side-angle focal length...so the LM looked farther away than it actually was....this gave the camera a wider field-of-view. Look it up, either form the Apollo history, or just look at a photography site and see what wide-angle lenses do.....


OH, and here, THIS is better, for your orientation, and you can measure the distances for yourself....and THEN claim that a cord long enough is....what did you think? That they wouldn't think ahead to have a cord sufficient length?? I mean, they DID plan all this out, before leaving Earth, to be ready for the EVA activities....




Sorry, but if you're going to post a video taken by a camera that was CLEARLY defined as having been put there, by the Astronauts, during the early part of the EVA...in order to share with an audience back on Earth.... then I suggest you may wish to do some better due diligence research. This is very basic stuff......(Oh, and I saw a "comment" on that video, by someone else who apparently was also unaware of the historical facts of Apollo.....is that where you got the idea???)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here, from the Lunar Surface Journal:


109:55:57 Aldrin: And, we'll probably need a little (garbled) distance (garbled) back location (garbled) television camera. (Pause) Neil, look at the minus-Y (south) strut. The direction of travel there (garbled) traveling from right to left.

109:56:24 Armstrong: Right (Meaning "correct").

[Armstrong - "It seems to me that I'm starting the process of moving the television camera. Buzz is standing there to help the cable come out and so on; and, while he's doing that, he's probably just noting other observations in the immediate LM area."]

109:56:25 Aldrin: This one over here underneath the ascent (means "descent") engine where the probe first hit. The minus-Y (south) probe first hit.

109:56:35 Armstrong: I got plenty of cable?

109:56:38 Aldrin: You've got plenty. Plenty more. (Pause) Okay. I think I've got the end of it.


[As can be seen in the 16-mm film clip, Neil stops and examines a small, fresh crater. It probably has glass in the bottom, an indication of a relatively-recent, high-velocity impact. Craters dug by objects coming in at high velocity from space are called primary craters. Impacts by ejecta from craters dug elsewhere on the moon necessarily occur at velocities less than the lunar escape speed of 2.4 km/s and do not have enough energy to melt the target soil.]
109:56:51 Armstrong: Something interesting in the bottom of this little crater here...It may be...

[A frame from the 16-mm film shows Neil just as he starts to move beyond the small crater. Scan by Kipp Teague.]
109:57:01 Aldrin: Now keep going. We've got a lot more (cable).
109:57:03 Armstrong: Okay.

109:57:04 Aldrin: Getting a little harder to pull out, here. (Long Pause)

MPEG 16-mm Film Clip ( 1 min 38 sec; 8 Mb )

109:57:30 Armstrong: How far would you say I am, Buzz?

109:57:33 Aldrin: Forty, fifty feet. Why don't you turn around and let them get a view from there and see what the field-of-view looks like?

109:57:42 Armstrong: Okay.

109:57:45 Aldrin: You're backing into the cable.

109:57:46 Armstrong: Okay.

109:57:50 Aldrin: Turn around to your right, would be better.


www.hq.nasa.gov...



edit on 12 January 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I think they were referring to the camera that took the film of armstong coming down the ladder..

Obviously the crew did not set that one up..
It was released by a lever..
They are just questioning the view that camera had and where it was on the LM..



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


It was mounted on the MESA on Quad IV. The pallet was released and swung down when the commander pulled a release at the top of the ladder.

From AP11-S69-31585, a training mockup showing the location of the camera (green arrow):




posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


Thanks Nat..
I actually went and watched the initial film again..
The camera does not seem that far away..

Off topic, but it's a shame all the talk was about his "first step" and yet the camera actually was aiming a little high to see his foot hit the ground..


Guess they couldn't get everything perfect.



posted on Jan, 12 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Either the US went to the moon in 1969 or they did not.

Either is answer is interesting but especially if they did not.

If not what have the boffins been working on all these years ie, moon rock. What about the info that has come from that is it all fake???

The USSR plus most likely China and India would have to be in on it.

Anyone who thinks the US government is lying would not be alone but all the rest plus all the boffins from all the different nations involved.

Are they all in on the lies????

If so WHY????????????????????????????????????????????

If so I fear I have the answer.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
watch this video of Apollo 8


FoosM, Apollo 8 is my favorite!!


Frank Borman “We were assigned to the third Apollo mission was supposed to have been a long duration, relatively long durations, exercising the lunar module and command module in Earth orbit out to eight thousand miles. And then in December while we were out at Downey, California going through the systems with the spacecraft I got a call from Deke Slayton, our boss, who said “Come back, we’ve had a change in plans” and he informed me that the CIA had informed NASA there would probably be a Soviet attempt to go around the moon before the end of the year, and they wanted to know if we could, this was in August, they wanted to know if we could change our mission, train and then be able to go. I immediately said “yes” because I knew that Bill and Jim were dying for the chance to do this.” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...



Frank Borman “The whole concept of changing our mission and getting ready in four months was done because we were in the “Can Do” program… “Beat the Soviets to the Moon”. NASA likes to talk about scientific exploration and our lunar expert here… Bill Anders… he can pick up all the rocks in the world… that’s just wonderful… the reason we went to the moon on Apollo 8 was to beat the Russians… I want to give you a clue!” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...




Bill Anders “And remember as Frank has often said, Apollo was really not a program to explore the moon or develop technology, it was to beat the Soviets, to demonstrate our technological preeminence, as he said “Another battle in the Cold War”. And Apollo 8 and certainly Apollo 11 underscored America’s ability there and basically won that battle.” Source (video) www.nasm.si.edu...


Frank said "8,000 miles" which equals 12874km. Wiki says "The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km [7] (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region."

And the outer belts, says Wiki, "The large outer radiation belt extends from an altitude of about three to ten Earth radii (RE) or 13,000 to 19,000 kilometres above the Earth's surface. Its greatest intensity is usually around 4–5 RE."

And Earth radii is according to Wiki, "Distances from points on the surface to the center range from 6,353 km to 6,384 km (≈3,947–3,968 mi)."

According to Frank Borman's recollection in this video, the originally planned 3rd Apollo mission would have been long duration, orbiting in space, approximently 13km apogee, somewhere inside the 2-3km gap between the inner and outer VAB's.

Who planned that mission, Walt Disney?

edit on 1/13/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: facts and figures



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



According to Frank Borman's recollection in this video, the originally planned 3rd Apollo mission would have been long duration, orbiting in space, approximently 13km apogee, somewhere inside the 2-3km gap between the inner and outer VAB's.


13 kilometer apogee? I think you must have made a mistake. In any event, what is your point? All you've done is emphasize that the Soviets were really trying to beat the US to the Moon.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So did NASA rush things and risk the lives of US astronauts JUST so they could have bragging rights??

That shows NASA in a very bad light if true..
I've read a little about the changed mission for apollo 8..

Sad that ego trumps safety...



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

The thermal radiation from the engine plume is causing the insulation on the interior of the adapter ring to ignite. The flames "go away" because when the ring is edge-on, the interior is shielded from the thermal radiation. As soon as it is back in view, it again ignites when there is line-of-sight between the engine plume and the insulation. As the rocket accelerates away, the flames die down because they are receiving less and less thermal radiation from the plumes.

The pictures were taken by film cameras mounted in pods attached to the second stage. At about 200,000 feet, the camera pods were jettisoned and had "paraballoons" that slowed their descent and allowed them to float after splashdown. They were equipped with radio beacons and dye packs to assist in recovery. As far as I know, Apollo 4 and 6 were the only ones equipped with such cameras.
edit on 12-1-2011 by nataylor because: formatting


Fascinating.
Are you writing this from memory?
Or do you have a special source for this stuff?

Ok, back to the explanations that you provided.
You are saying the rocket engines are still active?
Even though we dont see any exhaust or plumes coming from them?
I mean, I see all kinds of white debris floating around, but that doesnt seem
to be influenced by any exhaust plumes.

Speaking of the white debris, what is that very bright white object
in the middle of the screen that is brighter than the clouds?
(I think I know what you are going to say)

And why is the insulation flammable, what is it made from?
Also, the flame that shoots out from the tube is coming towards the rocket.
How is that possible? Shouldn't it be moving away from it?

And if the engines are still active, why do the stages break away so slow and methodically?
I dont see a increase in speed. They just seem to break away on their own and float down not
being influenced by the rocket engines.

Regarding the photography.
Why didnt it get damaged during reentry?
I still would like to know how much film was in the camera(s) and who activated it to turn on.
Where is the footage of the other cameras?

Now what I find strange is that NAT makes the statement that the only times
NASA put those cameras into those rockets was Apollo 4 and 6.
Yet the video I provided state Apollo 8.

Now I believe Nat when he says those sequences were only filmed either on Apollo 4 or 6, though he may have
forgotten about Apollo 3.
So the question becomes. Why would NASA attribute those sequences to the other Apollo missions?

I already posted Apollo 8.
Here is Apollo 11:

Here is Apollo 12:
(notice how the staging is reversed)

and another Apollo 12

etc

I wouldn't be surprised if school kids saw this
footage and assumed all the sequences that they
saw came from Apollo 12.

Oh here is Apollo 4:

You will notice all the sequences are the same.
Though the sequence of the CSM separating
might have come from Apollo 3?


They look pretty similar.

Again, why would they do this?

Well here is a possible reason.
In actuality there wasn't much footage of Apollo in the first place.

And since much of the material we have had access to these last few years is
"new". This would have given NASA ample time, as technology improved, to
doctor, produce, manipulate new photos and videos and get their lie straight.

This recycling of images, scenes and sets was noticed by Colliers in
"Was It Only A Paper Moon?"

6:00


2:53



Its just like the moon samples.
The claim is that they have huge amounts of samples, when
in reality only a very small portion ever gets seen, handled or used.

Here is a staging video that many of you may have not seen:


Looks like the rocket turned on its headlights




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   
I have always been a believer in the Moon landing being a Hoax, because I mean... come on, look at the evidence against the footage that is out there. However I have been wondering lately, what if the footage was real, and a lot of what we have been taught about space and the Moon is all just bull like a lot of other 'scientific' data/discoveries that have been fudged to the public.

What if there is no Van Arman radiation belt surrounding Earth, and that it was only 'discovered' and made aware to the public so that it could go against the idea of UFOs hovering around the planet. It was discovered in early 1958 so still very close to the Roswell incident. Maybe it was also to counter thought's of alien beings ever seeding the planet with humans, and keep a lock on religion.

Maybe there actually is somewhat of an atmosphere on the Moon, especially since NASA is telling us now there is water on it's surface,and that apparently they have discovered it has liquid core. Given the so many things we have been lied to about throughout history maybe this is a possibility.

Whatever the case is I still think it is a possibility NASA really went to the Moon given the passion and frustration the astronauts put forward in their pleas about how they really did go. BUT if that is true I do not believe the footage is credible given what we have been taught about space radiation, wind and atmospheres, gravity, etc.

It is a subject we the public really can't prove or disprove without a doubt given what little knowledge we have been allowed to actually know about what is beyond our blue skies(or within it for that matter). Some footage can be arguably debunked, and other footage with UFO lights zooming around in the background teases us to believe the truth about ET existence is being held from us. We can't believe in both though, and that's is where I find myself torn. If the footage was faked and we believe the debunker's, on the other hand we can't also believe the UFOs in various NASA moonwalk videos are actually real because those video's would have to be faked as well.

Hopefully when the other nation's reach the Moon we will finally learn about what really up there on it's surface, or what isn't. Only time will tell...



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 307  308  309    311  312  313 >>

log in

join