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: 37
377
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Omg. Are you seriously claiming they did this with 1960's special effects? Wth??? Do you have any idea how primitive sfx were at the time? And dont' show me Star Wars clips, that was a decade later and the original doesn't look real at all. Also they were the ones who invented most of the sfx so how nasa had stuff like that before them???




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   


the definitive moving flag video:



You must be joking right??? where's the movement???

this is such a substancial evidence of the fakeness of the moon landings...
oh my god how could I belive the moon landings were real when there is this undeniable proof of a "moving" flag....



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Are you claiming that the nation which landed men on the moon couldn't even film a convincing moonwalk scene here on the earth?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Ummm.... what?

Make a choice:
Did they land with their engines on
or did they turn the engine off before touchdown

And if they turned their engine off before landing, tell me why they did so.


Look up the term "contact light". It will explain it for you.

Of course, it won't be in an easily digestable youtube form, so you might have trouble with it.

Now please answer the satellite and excursion questions.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Are you claiming that the nation which landed men on the moon couldn't even film a convincing moonwalk scene here on the earth?


Hey! Mr. "Argument from incredulity" is back!

I still await your explanation of how they faked the missions.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   



Make a choice:
Did they land with their engines on
or did they turn the engine off before touchdown

And if they turned their engine off before landing, tell me why they did so.


This trascription from the apollo 11 might shed some light....

notice the small snippet from an interview with neil in 2001.

----------------------------------------------------------------
102:45:32 Aldrin: Drifting forward just a little bit; that's good. (Garbled) (Pause)

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "As we got below 30 feet or so, I had selected the final touchdown area. For some reason I'm not sure of, we started to pick up left translational velocity and a backward velocity. That's the thing I certainly didn't want to do, because you don't like to be going backwards, unable to see where you're going. So I arrested this backward rate with some possibly spasmodic control motions, but I was unable to stop the left translational rate. As we approached the ground, I still had a left translational rate which made me reluctant to shut the engine off while I still had that rate. I was also reluctant to slow down my descent rate anymore than it was, or stop (the descent), because we were close to running out of fuel. We were hitting our abort limit."]

[Armstrong - "I guess that, at that altitude, running out of fuel wasn't a consideration. Because we would have let it just quit on us, probably, and let it fall on in."]

[Fjeld - "An engine cut-out at any height above 10 feet would have produced a touchdown harder than the landing gear was designed to withstand."]

[More commentary on the translational velocities follows the landing.]

102:45:40 Aldrin: Contact Light.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe. Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969.]

[Aldrin - "We asked that they take it off."]

[Journal Contributor Harald Kucharek notes that Apollo 11 photo S69-32396, taken on 4 April 1969, shows Eagle with a probe attached to the plus-Z footpad. This indicates that the probe was removed after that date. The probe attachment is highlighted in a detail.]

[Apollo 11 photograph AS11-40-5921 shows the area under the Descent Stage. A gouge mark made by the probe hanging down from the minus-Y (south) footpad is directly under the engine bell, a graphic demonstration that the spacecraft was drifitng left during the final seconds.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "We continued to touchdown with a slight left translation. I couldn't precisely determine (the moment of) touchdown. Buzz called lunar contact, but I never saw the lunar contact lights."]

[Aldrin, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I called contact light."]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I'm sure you did, but I didn't hear it, nor did I see it."]

102:45:43 Armstrong (on-board): Shutdown

102:45:44 Aldrin: Okay. Engine Stop.

[Neil had planned to shut the engine down when the contact light came on, but didn't manage to do it.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "I heard Buzz say something about contact, and I was spring-loaded to the stop engine position, but I really don't know...whether the engine-off signal was before (footpad) contact. In any event, the engine shutdown was not very high above the surface."]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[Some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

[Aldrin - (Joking) "Well, they didn't want to jump so far to the ladder."]

[Readers should note that, although the Moon has no atmosphere, many of the astronauts used expression like 'in the air' to mean 'off the ground' and, after some thought, I have decided to follow their usage.]

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief - "The touchdown itself was relatively smooth; there was no tendency toward tipping over that I could feel. It just settled down like a helicopter on the ground, and landed."]

[On a final note about engine shutdown, Ken Glover calls attention to the following from an interview done with Neil on 19 September 2001 by historians Stephen Ambrose and Douglas Brinkley at NASA Johnson.]

[Brinkley: "Was there anything about your Moon walk and collecting of rocks and the like that surprised you at that time when you were on the Moon, like, 'I did not expect to encounter this,' or, 'I did not expect it to look like this'? Or included in that, the view of the rest of space from the Moon must have been quite an awesome thing to experience."]

[Armstrong: "I was surprised by a number of things, and I'm not sure (I can) recall them all now. I was surprised by the apparent closeness of the horizon. I was surprised by the trajectory of dust that you kicked up with your boot, and I was surprised that even though logic would have told me that there shouldn't be any, there was no dust when you kicked. You never had a cloud of dust there. That's a product of having an atmosphere, and when you don't have an atmosphere, you don't have any clouds of dust."]

["I was absolutely dumbfounded when I shut the rocket engine off and the particles that were going out radially from the bottom of the engine fell all the way out over the horizon, and when I shut the engine off, they just raced out over the horizon and instantaneously disappeared, you know, just like it had been shut off for a week. That was remarkable. I'd never seen that. I'd never seen anything like that. And logic says, yes, that's the way it ought to be there, but I hadn't thought about it and I was surprised."]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Omg. Are you seriously claiming they did this with 1960's special effects? Wth??? Do you have any idea how primitive sfx were at the time? And dont' show me Star Wars clips, that was a decade later and the original doesn't look real at all. Also they were the ones who invented most of the sfx so how nasa had stuff like that before them???



Ummm your like what born in the 90s or something?
Look up movies like Mary Poppins, Bed Knobs & Broomsticks, 2001
Front Screen Projection and two-strip sodium process and piano wire
and call me in the morning




And regarding the whole HAM and Satellite issue,
no im not taking it back, why?
What's is it so hard to fake?

As a matter of fact, maybe there was a better way to fake it:




On Saturday, amateur radio buffs or “hams,” as they call themselves, will hold a global bounce-fest, using as many giant parabolic antenna radio telescopes as they can borrow around the world.

Not that one needs an excuse to hold a moon-bounce, but this one is being held as a kind of advance celebration of the 40th anniversary next month of the Apollo 11 mission. (oh the irony)

Moon-bouncing, also known as Earth-Moon-Earth communications, or E.M.E. requires a higher grade of ham-radio technology than that used for traditional earth-bound communication across parts of the radio spectrum approved by governments for amateur use. Only about 1,000 hams worldwide have stations capable of moon-bouncing....

The United States military began bouncing radio signals off the moon in the 1950s to communicate over long distances when other transmission methods were hampered by atmospheric disruptions. By the mid-1960s, operators at large dishes started building amateur systems capable of moon-bouncing. In 1964, Michael Staal accomplished the feat, linking a setup at Stanford to another one in Australia.

“It is the thrill of pulling a weak signal out from a long distance that excites the amateur radio folks,” said Jim Klassen, a ham in Reedley, Calif.




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


so you just discovered the E.M.E. coms...bravo!!!


I knew someone would bring that up...


[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:11 AM
link   


I think they took about 20 magazines or so on Apollo 16, so where can I watch them? Plus all the other mags from all the moon landings.


Apollo Hasselblad Magazines (full magazines only, scanned by JSC from original film rolls)

www.apolloarchive.com...

just click on Full Hasselblad Magazines



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I think you're confusing the 16mm film I wanted to see ... as per my previous post ...


Originally posted by ppk55
One thing I've been wondering, why hasn't NASA released all their 16mm Apollo film footage in HD ?


With 35mm stills.... from your post.


Originally posted by hateeternal
Apollo Hasselblad Magazines (full magazines only, scanned by JSC from original film rolls)
www.apolloarchive.com...
just click on Full Hasselblad Magazines


note: (16mm and 35mm both have mags)

[edit on 8-5-2010 by ppk55]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


we already told you were you can find the 16mm footage and the magazines. what else do you want??



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM



And regarding the whole HAM and Satellite issue,
no im not taking it back, why?
What's is it so hard to fake?


On the way out and back, there is a moving spot in space you have to aim at. You know where becasue NASA published the trajectory information ahead of the launch. In addition, as has been shown, some amateur astronomers have pictures of separations, burns, water dumps, etc. exactly where NASA said the spacecraft should be.


As a matter of fact, maybe there was a better way to fake it:


Uh, no.

The wavelength of the Apollo S-Band signal is around 13 cm. That is too wide for such a rough surface as the moon. The surface also is in motion relative to any signal arriving from Earth and that would cause the scatter to change from moment to moment.

There are many other issues, such as measuring the doppler shift of the moving CM relative to the stationary LM. As well as the fact that any trasmission to the moon would have produced a measurable echo off the atmosphere.

Heck, even high schoolers in Italy get it:

Echoes from the Moon
Luca Girlanda
INFN, Sez. di Pisa, Largo Filippo Buonarroti, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
and Liceo Scientifico “E. Fermi”, Via Enrico Fermi 2, I-54100 Massa, Italy ∗
(Dated: March 19, 2009)
We report on a determination of the Earth-Moon distance performed by students
of an Italian high school, based on measurements of the time delay of the “echo” in
the radio communications between Nasa mission control in Houston and the Apollo
astronauts on the lunar surface. By using an open-source audio-editing software, the
distance can be determined with three digits accuracy, allowing to detect the effect
due to the eccentricity of the orbit of the Moon.

Echoes from the Moon

edit to add: I almost forgot to mention, most EME communication is in morse code.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM

]


Here is my issue with people tracking Apollo on HAMs.
They have to find the space craft in space. Thats not easy to do.
The Earth rotates, the moon drifts across the sky, if you can see it, and the space craft was going how fast? Another thing, how easy would it be for NASA (and when I say NASA i dont mean every single person in the organization) to stage a few actors to say they heard Apollo signals on HAMs. And even if every HAM person was legit, NASA had communications satellites set up orbiting the Earth.

It wasn't easy to find the signals, but it was possible. Just becuase you cannot figure out how it was done doesn't mean it cannot be done. It's called an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

In addition, if you want to call all of the Hams NASA agents, go ahead, but you better have some proof.

Lastly, com satellites are either in LEO or geostationary orbit, so the signal would be racing across the sky in a few minutes or completely stationary. The signals received from the moon were FROM THE MOON, or somewhere in between the earth and moon. It is impossible to station a satellite in an orbit that would mimic the earth-moon trajectory, let alone the odd things it would have to do to mimic all the things from the moon (both orbit and on the surface).





So a downed satellite would have delayed the Apollo 11 moon mission? Why would that be an issue?



...The TV signal came from a satellite...



That was for the earth tracking stations to communicate with EACH OTHER, not the spacecraft.



You will see out of the many tracking stations, only three were getting "signals from the moon". Because they claim you need 85 foot antennas which have a 9db gain greater than a 30 foot antenna needed to pick up primary communications. Those signals, supposedly captured by the MSFN, were relayed around the world via satellites. Now the question is, did those signals originally come from the moon, or were they sent from Australia and relayed around the world for people to pick up?
Now how easy would that be


How do you fake a statellite signal, either in LEO or GSO, as coming from the moon, or somewhere in between?

And please try to answer yourself, using someone else's words, or videos, just makes you look bad.


LOL sounds like a load of BS to me. You are just trying to force that you are right and he is wrong.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53


LOL sounds like a load of BS to me. You are just trying to force that you are right and he is wrong.


LOL, what a scintillating response!

Please tell us exactly what is BS about it.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


that's it ? that's your explanation ?
no dust cloud? .....
in fact , there should be a dust cloud, the dust should not fall back, it should stay in the atmosphere !!
we're talking dust particles 6 times lighter than on earth , in fact the rover at that speed and with those wheels behaves exactly as it would on earth
also the dust that leaves behind is very well camouflaged by the background that has the same color, a vehicle that drives in the desert at the same speed would generate exactly the same amount
ok, i've heard the explanation that the dust is vulcanic and it's very heavy , but i find that explanation hilarious , in fact there are scenes where the astro-nuts actually jump higher than the dust cloud !!!!
okkkk , the dust is heavier than the suit and the astro-nut
and i'm not going to get into the way they jump , because that's just way beyond hilarious ,
c'mon people reality check !!!! i need serious scientifical explanation on sand analysis, why is the sand so heavy !!!
this thread reminds me of billy meier pictures that were so obvious made up and people would just not want to admit that !!
when you start to belive in something some people find it very hard to let go !



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal



Make a choice:
Did they land with their engines on
or did they turn the engine off before touchdown

And if they turned their engine off before landing, tell me why they did so.


This trascription from the apollo 11 might shed some light....

notice the small snippet from an interview with neil in 2001.

----------------------------------------------------------------
102:45:32 Aldrin: Drifting forward just a little bit; that's good. (Garbled) (Pause)

[Armstrong, from the 1969 Technical Debrief -

[Armstrong - "I guess that, at that altitude, running out of fuel wasn't a consideration. Because we would have let it just quit on us, probably, and let it fall on in."]

[Fjeld - "An engine cut-out at any height above 10 feet would have produced a touchdown harder than the landing gear was designed to withstand."]



Oh really? So then why... watch from 7:10


which contradicts
engine stop after landing Apollo 17:


and



One of Gene’s most vivid Apollo 17 memories occurred just after touchdown. He passionately described moments of indescribable silence following the descent engine shut down. He didn't know if it was fractions of seconds, or seconds - but it seemed the world had stopped.


Easiest thing in the world is to tell the truth, because you only have to stick to one story.



contd.

[At least one of the probes hanging from three of the footpads has touched the surface. Each of them is 67 inches (1.73 meters) long. The ladder strut doesn't have a probe. Buzz made the call at 20:17:40 GMT/UTC on 20 July 1969.]

[Armstrong - "We actually had the engine running until touchdown. Not that that was intended, necessarily. It was a very gentle touchdown. It was hard to tell when we were on."]

[Aldrin - "You wouldn't describe it as 'rock' (as in, 'dropping like a rock'). It was a sensation of settling."]

[Some of the other crews shut down 'in the air' (meaning 'prior to touchdown') and had a noticeable bump when they hit.]

Apollo 12 engine stop after contact:


Apollo 14 engine stop after contact:


Apollo 15 engine stop after contact:


Apollo 16 engine stops after contact:


Apollo 17 engine stops after contact
see above

Didnt notice any bumps in the video and most
stoppages of exhaust seemed to occur after
downward movement had stopped.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


that's it ? that's your explanation ?
no dust cloud? .....
in fact , there should be a dust cloud, the dust should not fall back, it should stay in the atmosphere !!
we're talking dust particles 6 times lighter than on earth , in fact the rover at that speed and with those wheels behaves exactly as it would on earth
also the dust that leaves behind is very well camouflaged by the background that has the same color, a vehicle that drives in the desert at the same speed would generate exactly the same amount
ok, i've heard the explanation that the dust is vulcanic and it's very heavy , but i find that explanation hilarious , in fact there are scenes where the astro-nuts actually jump higher than the dust cloud !!!!
okkkk , the dust is heavier than the suit and the astro-nut
and i'm not going to get into the way they jump , because that's just way beyond hilarious ,
c'mon people reality check !!!! i need serious scientifical explanation on sand analysis, why is the sand so heavy !!!
this thread reminds me of billy meier pictures that were so obvious made up and people would just not want to admit that !!
when you start to belive in something some people find it very hard to let go !



It has nothing to do with weight, unless you've discovered a new theory of gravity. In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Easy: signal transmitted from Earth to Moon.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Easy: signal transmitted from Earth to Moon.


To what are you referring here?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


that's it ? that's your explanation ?
no dust cloud? .....
in fact , there should be a dust cloud, the dust should not fall back, it should stay in the atmosphere !!
we're talking dust particles 6 times lighter than on earth , in fact the rover at that speed and with those wheels behaves exactly as it would on earth
also the dust that leaves behind is very well camouflaged by the background that has the same color, a vehicle that drives in the desert at the same speed would generate exactly the same amount
ok, i've heard the explanation that the dust is vulcanic and it's very heavy , but i find that explanation hilarious , in fact there are scenes where the astro-nuts actually jump higher than the dust cloud !!!!
okkkk , the dust is heavier than the suit and the astro-nut
and i'm not going to get into the way they jump , because that's just way beyond hilarious ,
c'mon people reality check !!!! i need serious scientifical explanation on sand analysis, why is the sand so heavy !!!
this thread reminds me of billy meier pictures that were so obvious made up and people would just not want to admit that !!
when you start to belive in something some people find it very hard to let go !



It has nothing to do with weight, unless you've discovered a new theory of gravity. In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


what ?? ??
you 're joking right ?
do you actually know what gravity means ???
or did you skip the physics class when you were in school ?
so let me get this straight , if i'm on the moon , and if i drop 10 tons and a gram of salt at the same time , they should fall at the same rate and hit the moon at the same time ?
"In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant."
that must be the dumbest thing i've heard this month



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join