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.
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Great. Let's start then with one of these "independently verifiable" claims. If you would give us one, with the verification. We can see who is right and who is wrong.
All dosimeter readings for Apollo are available.
And why should I trust their radiation meters more than the Van Allen radiation meters? Van Allen is the guy who discovered the Van Allen belt and from what I understand they had very crispy readouts.
What did these "readouts" say specfically? Where in the belts were these "crispy" readouts? How does the trajectory of the Apollo launches relate to the belts? And "the guy" who discovered the VA belts specifically states there would be no problem passing through the belts as Apollo did.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by truthquest
Multiple light sources create multiple shadows from the same object. Where are the multiple shadows in the Apollo images?
Originally posted by truthquest
There are no claims made that I know of about multiple shadows. But, I see no way of knowing at what point a shadow would be drowned out by light from the second light source without recreating a similar scene using multiple light sources.
Originally posted by truthquest
reply to post by Phage
The photo you provided proves that there can be different angles of shadows. But, it does not quite prove that the shadows can diverge to the same extent shown in the Apollo 17 photo. In my commented image above I show red circles about where the rocks appear in the Apollo 17 images. Had there been objects placed in those locations comparable to the Apollo 17 photo I suspect there would be a 25 degrees of difference on both sides, which is not close to the difference shown in the provided image.
While the image you show has a fairly sharp 52 degree angle difference by my measure, the shadows shown are quite a far ways apart in comparison to the Apollo 17 photos where the objects are one body shadow width to the right and left of the astronaut's shadow roughly where I made the red circles.
A photo showing a similar angle change but on a smaller patch of ground more similar to the Apollo photo would better prove the case that this can be a natural occurrence.
Originally posted by Tomblvd
Originally posted by GallopingFish
Forgive me i did not read all 54 pages but is it not possible that...
They Did go to the moon, found stuff that they didn't think that the general populace should see e.g structures and evidence of previous or current occupation of the moon.
Then decided on earth to Create a moon landing that suited what they think should be on the moon. "nothing"
It ties in with some of the radio conversations about the astronauts seeing stuff.
So it would make the moon landing footage fake, but they did go to the moon!!
That would be impossible considering the video was beamed live from the surface of the moon for each mission. When would they have had the time to make up the fake video if they just discovered the structures when they got to the moon?
Originally posted by CHRLZ
- do you agree with the directions he has 'determined'?
I have a very good reason for asking that question... Actually *several* reasons. And I will elaborate, in a pictorial form, after you have answered.
[edit on 19-5-2010 by CHRLZ]
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL that video was hilarious. YOu mean to tell me all those billions bush gave them didn't even go to the "new" lander?
Originally posted by ppk55
Why do we need a 'NEW' lander ... just use the old one? It was 100% successful Just use the old blueprints, or did they lose them just like the hundreds of tapes of video and telemetry.
Why do we need a new rover ... the last one did wheel spins in the dirt and travelled 7 miles. Supposedly.
Why do we need new rockets ... just use the old tech .. With some slight 2010 tweaks.
Originally posted by dragnet53
LOL that video was hilarious. YOu mean to tell me all those billions bush gave them didn't even go to the "new" lander?
[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]
Originally posted by ppk55
Why do we need a 'NEW' lander ... just use the old one? It was 100% successful
Just use the old blueprints, or did they lose them just like the hundreds of tapes of video and telemetry.
Why do we need a new rover ... the last one did wheel spins in the dirt and travelled 7 miles. Supposedly.
Might I add, with a pretty flawless video uplink to earth. The hours and hours of perfect TV reception from that rover are breathtaking.
Originally posted by CHRLZ
Do you not understand TV technology, link budgets, difference between film and video?
Come on, be brave, admit what it is that you don't understand - there are plenty of folk here that can help. If you hide behind sarcasm, how can anyone help you or debate your 'points'?
Oh wait, that's right - that's what you DON'T want... Real debate isn't your strong suit.
Originally posted by ppk55
There are hours and hours and hours of video content that was uplinked back to earth. Not 16mm film, I'm talking video.
I'm just saying, the quality is absolutely amazing, especially for the time.
Considering a whole lot of it came from the rover, it's even more amazing.
I really don't know if they could even pull this off today. Transmission, yes, but the constant quality, mmm.
Check them out ... it's all there.
history.nasa.gov...
(your scroll wheel hand will get tired)
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
[edit on 19-5-2010 by ppk55]