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: 434
377
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmosKid
You know what, If John Young says he went to the Moon, I believe Mr Young went to the Moon. If Neil Armstrong says he went to the Moon, I believe Mr Armstrong went to the moon. And I think, very soon, without a doubt, we'll have "proof" enough for anyone that we've already been there, hopefully with the return missions that will launch before my life is over. And that will be cool because I remember ALL of the Lunar Missions because like alot of folks my age, I was there, and I got to watch them un-fold in real-time. Also, there's a big antenna at NRL that pretty much tells me all I need to know about the Moon. And that fact that the U.S.A. has in fact landed men there, and that with a little non-interference from the Washington Elite, we'll get there again!, BEFORE anybody else!, and that probabaly includes: Australia, China, Russia, Japan, India, and the E.U. Because, you know what? I don't think we'll be offering any free rides to the Moon this time either!


mmmmm.... Nah, not going to happen.

Bill introduced directing NASA to establish a moon base




Most of the bill they have sponsored is spent providing justification for a strong US presence in space, with military (space is called the "ultimate high ground"), economic, and educational reasons highlighted. The meat of the bill, however, states, "the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence on the Moon, in order to promote exploration, commerce, science, and United States preeminence in space as a stepping stone for the future exploration of Mars and other destinations. The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal." Currently, it has four sponsors.

Overall, the bill is roughly in keeping with Obama's priorities, which involve developing the ability to construct and fuel a long-distance mission in orbit; those abilities could apply equally to sending construction materials to the Moon. It would also avoid one of the problems with the lack of an obvious focus in Obama's plan, which could be viewed as "maybe an asteroid, some day."

Even assuming that the bill could clear the full House and Senate (and survive an Obama veto), the impact may be much less than its supporters hope. As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there." And, more significantly, it clearly didn't ensure that the NASA budget was sufficient to actually accomplish that goal. Simply stating that NASA's budget will be "consistent" with achieving it by 2020 leaves open a lot of room for different definitions of consistent, and allows the current Congress to shift the burden of finding money onto future ones, which may not be inclined to do so.

Thus, on its own, the bill would accomplish nearly nothing and is sufficiently vague that it probably won't even be viewed as providing direction to NASA, at least within NASA. And, given how contentious budget issues have been in the current Congress, any attempt to turn it into something concrete would probably make it a non-starter.




Sorry dude, the US is more interested in taking resources from foreign countries than foreign planets. So manned space travel outside of LEO in our lifetime, not going to happen. You better hold on to that fantasy that we went to the moon back in the day.

But like JibbyJedi said:


I'm not a believer that man landed on the moon TWICE in the 2nd half of 1969. Yes we landed and returned safely from the moon TWICE in late 1969 on live TV. Makes total sense doesn't it?



arstechnica.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-4-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Really???

This is what you have been reduced, to, as an "argument"?

You are deflecting and distracting, obsessing over photos that have undergone many different publication incidences, and of course will be altered depending on the circumstances....the simple act of copying has an effect, in quality....generational loss. NOTHING is being attempted in terms of "hiding" or "deception"......the ORIGINAL, unaltered, unadulterated SOURCE photo is all that matters.

In essence, it is as if you took some Holiday snaps, down loaded onto your computer, then changed the size to fit better into a post on ATS....and I accused you of some sort of shenanigans, like you are hiding an alien or something....because you altered the photo, this is how you are being perceived, here, with this nonsense.


Ok Weed, which photo represents the original the most?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Yeah, that's pretty much what the naysayers said the first time too! That it wasn't "possible", but we did it. I know we did. and I know we'll get back there and stake our claim just like everybody else is planning on right now! After all, we've pretty much cleaned this place out so we might as well get our hands on the nearest peice of real-estate we can and take a nice long lease out on it this time ! The odds are exactly 50% in my favor, and I like those odds especailly when it comes to the space program !!!!



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I am afraid that you have completely misread the intent of my post. It was an exercise in stare-&-compare. Which reality will you choose, weed? The digitally enhanced or the original TV broadcast?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I see we have run up, yet again, against another of your perceptual difficulties:



@ 10:12 Shepard then goes near the ladder and...

what the hell?

Did he just go down like in quicksand?



NO....as pointed out, and highlighted BY YOU!!! From the transcript, that was when he was taking the photos of the Earth. The narration, from the newsroom at that time, is from referring to the mission plan, form the press kit....so, the newsman is assuming that it was time for the Solar Wind Experiment photos to be taken. Later, the accurate timeline of actions was recounted, for posterity, in the transcript notes.



Then the transmission goes screwy


Yeah.....hard to believe that a LIVE TV transmission would ever have brief visual signal problems and distortions. No, hard to believe...NEVER, EVER see it, back then on other broadcasts, nor today.....(/sarcasm)


And text is placed over him.


Yeah....to IDENTIFY the person speaking at that moment!! Either in studio, or on a live feed connection...an expert to relate some real-life experience, and offer commentary on what the audience is seeing. No, no one ever does that, either. Obviously, a conspiracy......

....text that appeared for a whopping second or so.....


According to the transcript:


[While Al is waiting for Fred to give him an answer, he takes the camera off the RCU bracket, grabs hold of the bottom rung on the ladder, bends back, and points the camera up to take pictures of the Earth over the LM. These are AS14-64- 9189 to 9197.]


Oh, because in the transcript description, it didn't say "...he drops to his knee, takes a sip of water, breathes in and out, takes the camera off the RCU bracket, grabs hold of the bottom rung of the ladder".....etc? Like you continue to do, trying to find a "fault" or "discrepancy" by just imagining it isn't written to how YOU think it should be, with every tiny detail filled in??

OH....and look, comprehension again: "...grabs hold of the BOTTOM rung of the ladder."



Perfectly correct height for a person kneeling, who wanted to angle his upper body back....and NOT fall backwards onto the PLSS!!! By supporting himself, with one hand, using the bottom rung....at the correct height. IF standing upright, he would have to lean forward, and down, to hold the bottom rung.



Sorry, that is not what we see.
We dont see anyone just bending back.


You have keen eyesight, in that image, eh??


Shepard goes down, like on his knees.
And takes like 10 photo of the Earth.


NOW we're getting somewhere!!! I hope everyone can see the tactics employed, here....bunch of bluster and nonsense, and buried in it the admission that the post was really a distraction,and someone who wrote it knew all along.....just having a laugh now, are we?

Oh, wait.....sigh....


Why would he have to go down if he simply took his camera off his chest mount?


You all are constantly talking about the "danger" of falling backwards, because of the PLSS. And, the normal stance when in the pressurized suits is obvious slightly forward, to maintain balance....gee, what would YOU do??

Do you own a backpack? Try it yourself....load that sucker up, to approximate the PLSS weight in Lunar gravity....see what it takes to then shoot photos up at a steep angle in the sky.


Secondly, anybody see a camera pointed up?


Sure....you mean, in that extremely high-quality 1080p resolution video??



Did anybody see him take the camera off his chest?


(Ditto).

Question------ Instead of asking those last two inane questions....DID anyone happen to actually see the PHOTOS that were taken???

(AS-14-64-9189 to 9187).



One final note.....do you have the program Stellarium??? I will post this, then return with more revelations for you.....

______________________________________________________________________

OK, back. Had to look up the specifics....Latitude/Longitude and date/time or Apollo 14's landing, and EVA.

Using Stellarium, you can put yourself in any date (haven't checked yet, to see its limits....) so, going back to 5 February, 1971 and then placing my point-of-view on the Moon, at the proper location (Approx. S 03° 38' 43" by W 017° 28' 17") I could then look up to see the sky, as it would have been seen.

The Earth was nearly due East, but well up in azimuth.....about 66 to 67 degrees above the horizon.

Go outside, and see what it takes, to aim a camera up at that angle......

Furthermore, I can now go look at the photos (AS14-64-9189 to 9187) to see if the image of Earth in those matches up with how it is depicted in the computer program....in terms of the Earth's correct phase, and orientation......

.....and, VOILA!. Sure enough, looks exactly the same. I hadn't even looked, yet, at the Apollo photos in question....went right ot Stellarium. I was worried, at what I saw......the Earth was only a smallish crescent illuminated, and it was oriented so that the bright part was on the "bottom"...like a bowl.

But, hey...looky!:

www.lpi.usra.edu...


NOW, let's look at photos from the LRO, of the Apollo 14 landing site. Oriented "North Up" in the conventional manner. SO, East is to your right.



Remember, also, that all Apollo missions were timed to land in the early Lunar "morning"....reason was, the ground had not spent two weeks baking in the Sun, and warming up ...AND...the low angle of the Sun meant better contrast, to see the details of an otherwise bland and featureless surface.....depth perception, for pilots, relies on many factors....the Moon lacks anything that is "recognizable" to gauge height, distance and size by....unlike here on Earth. (We usually use man-made objects to judge by). The shadows gave a better ability to judge....under the circumstances.

SO the descent from orbit, and final approach to landing were conducted with the Sun at their "backs".....they were facing West, looking out of the LM windows .

You can see, clearly in the photos, both from the EVA and from the LRO, how the vehicle was oriented relative to cardinal directions.


edit on 26 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



mmmmm.... Nah, not going to happen.


Then what do you think Jarrah is really collecting money for?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


He will probably end up giving the money to charity. That is my prediction.

Would you like to use this as an opportunity to get in some digs? Perhaps suggest Jarrah might use this money for some nefarious purpose?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



mmmmm.... Nah, not going to happen.


Then what do you think Jarrah is really collecting money for?


When are you going to make a good case on Radiation?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter



Interesting video...@ 10:12 Shepard then goes near the ladder and...
what the hell? Did he just go down like in quicksand?


Then the transmission goes screwy
And text is placed over him.
In hops Haise and he blocks the view of Shepard still down.


That's not the only weird thing about this vid foos. As I was scrolling around in it I noticed the sun never moved over nearly 8 minutes. If it had, the lens flare would have moved. Try it yourself, move the play bar forwards and back quickly between the first 8 minutes.

Here's an animation to show the first and last frames. From the start to 8 minutes later.



Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


WHAT?!?!?


As I was scrolling around in it I noticed the sun never moved over nearly 8 minutes.


Oh, brother........



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



When are you going to make a good case on Radiation?


I'm glad you brought that up; I've found literally thousands of NASA technical reports prior to 1968 dealing with the issue. Rather than do a sloppy cut-and-paste extravaganza, I'm taking my time reviewing them so I can explain the issues involved, thereby providing a proper exposition. Unfortunately I have not come across any memoranda outlining agency policy; this means that the policy must be deduced from the limits that are considered acceptable when a given report was prepared. For example, in one of the earliest analyses, dating from 1962, it is clear from the levels of recommended shielding that their ALAP was zero, much like Van Allen five years earlier. By 1965, a report that analyzed data from the Surveyor and Lunakhod probes made it clear that they were considering exposures of no more than a few days, and at higher levels than the typical Earth background radiation, There are also countless papers researching the effect of radiation on metal, plastic, "solid state circuits" and even paint. Since American sources quote Soviet sources, which in turn cite American sources, it is clear that both sides were reviewing each others' findings very closely, and that mutual confirmation was the order of the day.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.


As usual, we been through all this before:


Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Page 130.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



Perfectly correct height for a person kneeling, who wanted to angle his upper body back....and NOT fall backwards onto the PLSS!!! By supporting himself, with one hand, using the bottom rung....at the correct height. IF standing upright, he would have to lean forward, and down, to hold the bottom rung.


why would he lean back?
I thought they didn't use a viewfinder so he just points and shoots..



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ppk55
 



Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.


As usual, we been through all this before:


Your quote is too wide for me to copy and paste, but to answer your question, the synodic lunar day is about 29 days, 12 hours long, or about 708 hours. This means it takes the sun 708 hours to travel 360 degrees in the sky, or about 0.51 degrees per hour. During the course of a terrestrial day, the sun will have moved about 12.2 degrees in the lunar sky. Anyone should be able to calculate that for themselves.

Page 130.


How do you find these posts so quick?
Have you indexed this thread???



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

I am afraid that you have completely misread the intent of my post. It was an exercise in stare-&-compare. Which reality will you choose, weed? The digitally enhanced or the original TV broadcast?


Hey SayonaraJ.

How come you didnt post this video?




CBS New's Walter Cronkite assures viewers this is not happing in space but only on Television



No wonder Gemini videos are so hard to find !!



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



No wonder Gemini videos are so hard to find !!


Yes, because Gemini capsules didn't carry television cameras. Thank you for posting this video, it gives you an excellent idea of state of the art special effects at the time.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmosKid
You know what, If John Young says he went to the Moon, I believe Mr Young went to the Moon. If Neil Armstrong says he went to the Moon, I believe Mr Armstrong went to the moon. And I think, very soon, without a doubt, we'll have "proof" enough for anyone that we've already been there, hopefully with the return missions that will launch before my life is over. And that will be cool because I remember ALL of the Lunar Missions because like alot of folks my age, I was there, and I got to watch them un-fold in real-time. ...


Not to pick on ComsosKid,

but his statement brings me to a discussion we had earlier where I said the "live" television imprinted into the minds of many viewers that Apollo was real. "Live" back then compared to now was different. Now the public is more aware of the digital trickery one can use to make something fake look like its been filmed by evening news. Good example is growing gamut of UFO, ghost, and other strange anomaly videos out there.

So sorry to say all you "witnesses" of Apollo... you could have been deeply "programmed."

check out the puppets on a string





posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



No wonder Gemini videos are so hard to find !!


Yes, because Gemini capsules didn't carry television cameras. Thank you for posting this video, it gives you an excellent idea of state of the art special effects at the time.


Yeah pretty good!



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
That's not the only weird thing about this vid foos. As I was scrolling around in it I noticed the sun never moved over nearly 8 minutes. If it had, the lens flare would have moved.
Remember, the lunar day is 27.321582 days (655.717968 hours, or 39343.07808 minutes). In 8 minutes, the moon would have completed 0.02% of one rotation, or 0.07°, which is the maximum angle the altitude of the sun would have changed. That's too small an amount to notice on such low resolution video.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55


That's not the only weird thing about this vid foos. As I was scrolling around in it I noticed the sun never moved over nearly 8 minutes. If it had, the lens flare would have moved. Try it yourself, move the play bar forwards and back quickly between the first 8 minutes.

Here's an animation to show the first and last frames. From the start to 8 minutes later.



Now the only way I can see a sun not moving, is if it's not a sun, but a fixed studio light. hmmm.


You may be on to something...
Add a few more minutes to the footage though!




top topics



 
377
<< 431  432  433    435  436  437 >>

log in

join