It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 16
9
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by ppk55

[1] The 2 photos are taken 27 frames apart
[2] The astronaut descended into a crater to take the second one
[3] The sun moved at least 2 degrees in elevation between these photos
[4] Every photo they took had the horizon at a different level as evidenced in the pans above.
[6] The 2nd photo was omitted from the pan

[7] to be confirmed, that the astronaut had the usual fixed, chest mounted camera. Which means he would have to tilt his body to match the suns position exactly, even without a viewfinder.

How is it any harder to make a similar (not identical) photo considering those points, instead of making a 360 turn on the spot you are already on? Would it not be equally hard to do so?

You have to remember that the vertical angle of the astronauts is perpendicular to the direction of the gravitational force of the moon. They only have a couple degrees of vertical freedom to make an image before they fall over.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:10 AM

Originally posted by ppk55
So what was it at frame 6766 ? Based on the 1 degree movement between those 13 frames, I'd say another 1 degree based on the next 15 frames.
Frames is not a measurement of time, unless they are a constant, like 24 frames per second. When someone takes a photo whenever they want you cannot use the number of photos as a measurement of time between photos, you don't have that information.

Also, I don't think we should trust that information, because I found several inconsistencies in what they have on that page:

AS12-46-6731 (OF300) ( 170k or 1075k )
116:22:29 Rightward of 6730. Down-Sun view. The larger of the two mounds that Pete and Al will investigate after deploying the ALSEP is visible at the right side just below the local horizon. As can be seen in a traverse map ( 715k ), the large mound is about 22 degrees north of west as seen from the LM. At the time Pete took this picture ( about 1244 GMT/UTC on 19 November 1969 ), the Sun was almost exactly east of the spacecraft at an azimuth of 91 degrees and at an elevation of 8.4 degrees. The north rim of Head Crater is on a line about halfway between the tip of Pete's shadow and the mound. As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.

AS12-46-6739 (OF300) ( 129k or 757k )
116:22:29 Rightward of 6738. Up-Sun view of the LM and S-band antenna. As mentioned above, the Sun's elevation is about 7.6 degrees. As Pete mentions at 118:27:12, he mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus instead of 74-foot focus.

AS12-46-6751 (OF300) ( 169k or 1025k )
116:24:47 Rightward of 6751, with the S-Band antenna on the left, the antenna cover next right, and the U.S. flag just to the right of Pete's shadow. Note that Pete mistakenly took the pan at 15-foot focus rather than 74-foot focus. Pete took the pan at about 1248 GMT/UTC on 19 November 1969, when the Sun was about 8.4 degrees above the eastern horizon. If the top of Pete's helmet was 2 meters above the ground, on a level surface his shadow would have been 14 meters long.
In the above quote, a shadow of 14 meters for an object 2 metres high means a Sun elevation of 8.1, not 8.4, if I am not mistaken.

Intrepid Thru the Yankee Clipper Sextant ( 22k )
Dick Gordon spotted both the LM and Surveyor III on the surface, using the Command Module sextant during his pass over the landing site at 114:22:28. At Houston's suggestion, he used the DAC to film his next pass and this is a frame from that film sequence. At that time, the solar elevation was about 8.1 degrees and the LM sahdow about 160 feet. Ulli Lotzmann provided the frame and a labeled version.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:32 AM

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by packinupngoin
This one just speaks for itself.

So you think ISS is a hoax too? How do you explain the fact that amateurs like myself can track ISS based on its orbital elements and see it just fine?

The ISS is real and it is in LOW EARTH ORBIT.
The space walks on the other hand are simulated, b/c man does not have a pressure suit good enough to handle that environment.

If you don't think this is true take a look at Felix Baumgartner...the man that is suppose to break Joe Kittingers base jump record.

This Stratos project has been delayed and put off so many times by Felix Baumgartner and his team. I wonder why? Maybe b/c Baumgartner recognizes that there was already another base jumper working on this working on this same type of project. Or maybe its b/c he knows that Joe is lying through his teeth.
Full pressure suits. Yea right.

Here are a few of my final take home pts:
~Man has not set foot on the Moon, any other thought process is wishful (pretend) thinking.
~The Mars landers are suspect.
~The purpose, impact, and results of the LCROSS are very suspect. HERE IS THE KICKER: If you have a rover on the Moon already why are you spending 89 million to impact a part of the Moon? We already knew there was water underneath the surface!
~Actual space navigation and exploration will not be viable in any real sense until maybe 2085 or 2185. Hopefully Bigelow will prove my last statement false but I doubt it.

You all may as well consider this period the Dark Ages of Space Exploration...a period of history where very little comes from the Space Frontier.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:37 AM

Truly, this is a delusion on your part.

You are wrong...guess you missed my earlier post, in response to such nonsense??

www.abovetopsecret.com...

~~~~~

dsc.discovery.com...

AND LOOK!!!

NO "bubbles"!!!

Don't forget, each Apollo mission (except 13, of course) conducted an EVA to retrieve the film from the SM camera. This camera took photos from Lunar orbit, and had to be retrieved from outside, and brought into the CM, before reentry...since the Service Module (SM) is jettisoned, and does not return to Earth (well, it does, but burns up on entry...):

Mapping Camera System
The purpose of the mapping camera system was to obtain photographs of high geometric precision of all lunar surface features overflown by the spacecraft in sunlight. This camera system consisted of a 76-millimeter Fairchild mapping camera (SIM3) using 5-inch film, a 3-inch stellar camera using 35-millimeter film, and a laser altimeter. The electrically operated system was powered by 115 volts, 400 Hertz alternating current (AC), and 28 volts direct current (DC) spacecraft power.
...
(skip)
...
The stellar camera was mounted on an axis at 96° from that of the mapping so that it photographed the sky while the mapping camera photographed the lunar surface. Any photography designated "stellar" refers to this photography, except that discussed as Special Photography and Experiments. The film cassette containing stellar and mapping photography was removed from the SIM bay by the command module pilot during trans-Earth trajectory and was returned to Earth in the command module.

Source.

You can also visit your local library, and check out BOOKS that relate many of the experiences of American Astronauts...I suppose there are some that document Soviet missions as well....

[edit on 3 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:41 AM

AND...

If you have a rover on the Moon already why are you spending 89 million to impact a part of the Moon? We already knew there was water underneath the surface!

PLEASE, do tell...what is the Lunar Rover currently on the surface of the Moon?

Launch date.

Landing site, and current location on the Moon.

Company contracted to build it.

Launch vehicle that transported it.

(Hint: Don't bother...there is NO current active Rover on the Moon).

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 11:56 AM

Look I won't waste time arguing the fallacies of the Apollo mission with you. I will simply let you live the rest of your years out as we all will...with no manned missions to MARS or the MOON.

Seriously. When the year 2040 comes and Man has done countless simulated manned missions then I guess maybe you will stop believing in the tooth fairy, eh?

Dare to question.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:32 PM

Originally posted by packinupngoin
The ISS is real and it is in LOW EARTH ORBIT.
The space walks on the other hand are simulated, b/c man does not have a pressure suit good enough to handle that environment.

BS; if the spacewalks are faked then there's no way ISS was constructed. It required spacewalks to assemble it! You can't have it both ways. Either spacewalks are fake and so is the ISS, or ISS is real and so are the spacewalks that built it. By the way, even spacewalkers have been seen by amateurs on the ground.
www.cloudynights.com...

Here are a few of my final take home pts:
~Man has not set foot on the Moon, any other thought process is wishful (pretend) thinking.

Wow, what close minded and ignorant thinking.

~The Mars landers are suspect.

Amateurs have tracked probes headed to mars.
webservices.esa.int...

~The purpose, impact, and results of the LCROSS are very suspect. HERE IS THE KICKER: If you have a rover on the Moon already why are you spending 89 million to impact a part of the Moon? We already knew there was water underneath the surface!

We suspected, but we didn't know the amount that would be found in the permanently shadowed regions. We have no active rovers on the moon though, don't know where you got that notion.

[edit on 3-8-2010 by ngchunter]

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 12:56 PM

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by packinupngoin

~The purpose, impact, and results of the LCROSS are very suspect. HERE IS THE KICKER: If you have a rover on the Moon already why are you spending 89 million to impact a part of the Moon? We already knew there was water underneath the surface!

We suspected, but we didn't know the amount that would be found in the permanently shadowed regions. We have no active rovers on the moon though, don't know where you got that notion.

Sigh if we are going to believe that Man went to the Moon on the Apollo missions wouldn't we assume that they had a rover on the Moon that was active at the time.

Wait a minute I just noticed something that I had noticed before.
Apollo 11
Launched 16 July 1969
Landed on Moon 20 July 1969 SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME IT TOOK 4 DAYS TO GET TO THE MOON?! WHAT???

Sea of Tranquility
Returned to Earth 24 July 1969

Wow and they returned only 4 days later. Yet i'm ignorant for questioning this.
On the LCROSS mission web page it says the LCROSS mission was launched on 06/18/2009 and the impact date was 10/09/09.
It took at least 3 months.
How were we able to get to the Moon so quickly in 1969???

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by packinupngoin
Sigh if we are going to believe that Man went to the Moon on the Apollo missions wouldn't we assume that they had a rover on the Moon that was active at the time.

You shouldn't assume anything, you should prove your claims when you make them.

Wait a minute I just noticed something that I had noticed before.
Apollo 11
Launched 16 July 1969
Landed on Moon 20 July 1969 SO YOU MEAN TO TELL ME IT TOOK 4 DAYS TO GET TO THE MOON?! WHAT???

Why is that a surprise to you? Clearly you're ignorant of the basics of space navigation and orbital mechanics.

Sea of Tranquility
Returned to Earth 24 July 1969

Wow and they returned only 4 days later. Yet i'm ignorant for questioning this.

Yes. If you educated yourself on how transfer orbits work and what the ETA was for Apollo after TLI and TEI you'd see there's nothing wrong with that. You can simulate the missions for yourself, that IS how long it took using the Saturn V and CSM.
nassp.sourceforge.net...

On the LCROSS mission web page it says the LCROSS mission was launched on 06/18/2009 and the impact date was 10/09/09.
It took at least 3 months.
How were we able to get to the Moon so quickly in 1969???

Why don't you do the slightest bit of research and find out how LCROSS's orbit worked?
lcross.arc.nasa.gov...
It was not a simple transfer within a single orbit, it involved multiple orbits of earth and a gravity assist by the moon to build up speed for impact and allow the instruments to be focused and calibrated on the moon during the first flyby before impact. They could take their time and do that because it was an unmanned vehicle and there were no tight time constraints with any life support system.

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 04:07 AM
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Don't forget, each Apollo mission (except 13, of course) conducted an EVA to retrieve the film from the SM camera. This camera took photos from Lunar orbit, and had to be retrieved from outside, and brought into the CM, before reentry...since the Service Module (SM) is jettisoned, and does not return to Earth (well, it does, but burns up on entry...):
False.

But there are more into it.
This character 'weedwhacker' spend a great deal of time in all forums related to Apollo.

It appears that the main goal to discourage any value add discussion on Apollo by ad hominem, demagogy, claims of common knowledge of unproven statements (even don't bother to refer) as 'facts', labeling opponents and just any participants out of his pack (bautforum), or just flooding to bury open any valid questions, rude comments that will be considered off-limits in face to face conversations - everything goes by disinfo textbook. Low level.

I am new to this forum and genuinely interested in historical research and technical details of Apollo that are not possible to obtain from history.nasa.gov
and I do not subscribe to so called moon hoax or political truth seekers.

But this kind of behavior and agenda (aka bautforum) simply disgusting and serve no purpose except dumbing public and just curious minds.

I reported this to the admin, and I leave the practice of 'hit report button' on any alien and use of their admin resources (including silent ban and delete posts) to the weedwhackers-Jay Windley-Phil Plait. Let them eat nurture and consume themselves. IGNORE.
Keep yourselves clean of this 'new dark ages' social engineers, at least just for your own sanity.

[edit on 6.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:09 PM

??

False.

Are you trying to say that it's "false" that an EVA had to be conducted during the TEI return, on Apollo? To retrieve the film from the SM SIM bay???

Ahh....my mistake...the SIM retrieval was only neccessary on the 'J'- missions.

~~~~~~

Sorry, but...this makes little sense:

Keep yourselves clean of this 'new dark ages' social engineers, at least just for your own sanity.

Funny.

Since this thread is mostly about the problems that 'one' ATS member seems to have, with some so-called 'anomalies' that he/she thinks they see. When in fact, it is easily explained, each time.

SO...who exactly is a "new dark ages" social engineer? (whatever that means?)

This I understand --- but remain puzzled, after reviewing many of the posts you've made:

I am new to this forum and genuinely interested in historical research and technical details of Apollo that are not possible to obtain from history.nasa.gov

Great! But, what's wrong with NASA's info?? It is corroborated by many other sources...

And, are you sure this is really your viewpoint?:

...and I do not subscribe to so called moon hoax ...

Sure hope so. Again, hasn't seemed that way, but apologies if you've been misunderstood.

Maybe just a simple language barrier? I am only fluent in English.

[edit on 6 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 12:24 PM

Ask honored actor Michael Collins he used to work for NASA Apollo 11 episode TV show in 1969 but better just check mission reports at history.nasa.gov, then your pose might be more enhanced in presenting legends like facts.

Regards

P.S. You might be trained in fast typing as if your edit appeared before your failed demands of proof.
Though you can further train yourself in so called moon hoax debunking, if your participate in my 2 threads (re in my signature), but you have to accept of their simple rules of discussion and don't bother to undermine this set on logic/antology basis - your formal sci/philosophy degrees likely are not upto the level to interest me in your late adult education.

[edit on 6.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 01:10 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Since this thread is mostly about the problems that 'one' ATS member seems to have, with some so-called 'anomalies' that he/she thinks they see. When in fact, it is easily explained, each time.

Transcripts from Apollo 15 time GET 126:09:28 and later on the moon, and post flight technical briefings.
Water leak in LEM Apollo 15.

Find plausible explanations for:
1) how astronots did handle the malfunction according their flight protocols and manuals
2) observed liquid water behaviour in LEM (vacuum at some point of time?). Tip: engage keen undergrads in physics who are writing literature essays here in Apollo forums

Good luck [Mr Gorsky]

[edit on 6.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 08:05 PM

Do you mean this:

Capcom: Roger, we need tool number 3 and tool number W out of the tool kit.

SC: Okay, 3 and W out of the tool kit.

Capcom: Right, put number 3 in the tool W ratchet and insert tool 3 in the hex opening in the chlorine injector port.

SC: Okay, that looks like where it's probably leaking.

Capcom: Once you've got tool number 3 well engaged in that injection port, turn it about a quarter of a turn.

SC: Okay, Houston. It looks like that did it.

Capcom: 15, Houston. We're looking now at the best procedure for getting the water system operating again and in the meantime we trust you have your hands full of water up there.

SC: Oh, yeah. All we have to do now is hang out a few towels to dry, but it looks like we're in good shape.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Do you mean this:

Capcom: Roger, we need tool number 3 and tool number W out of the tool kit.

SC: Okay, 3 and W out of the tool kit.

Capcom: Right, put number 3 in the tool W ratchet and insert tool 3 in the hex opening in the chlorine injector port.

SC: Okay, that looks like where it's probably leaking.

Capcom: Once you've got tool number 3 well engaged in that injection port, turn it about a quarter of a turn.

SC: Okay, Houston. It looks like that did it.

Capcom: 15, Houston. We're looking now at the best procedure for getting the water system operating again and in the meantime we trust you have your hands full of water up there.

SC: Oh, yeah. All we have to do now is hang out a few towels to dry, but it looks like we're in good shape.

www.jsc.nasa.gov...

Can you see the problems with records and explanations of the events starting from here?:

Irwin, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "I'm trying to think of when we noticed the break in the bacteria filter."
Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "I think it was right after we got our helmets and our gloves off. I think you looked down and saw it. The water was in and out of there, the hose right at the connection where the bacteria filter joins the water hose. The bacteria filter has some plastic attachments to it. There were two little nicks about, probably, a quarter of an inch long and about a quarter of an inch wide out of the side of the plastic connector. The water was flowing freely and we had no idea at that time how much water had come out, nor how long it had been flowing. There was no way to really tell. We looked at the floor, and there was a little bit of water on the floor - not much. There was no evidence of a great leakage rate, although the spacecraft was tilted (which carried the water out of sight to the right rear). We found out, subsequently, it had leaked, I guess about 25 pounds back in the aft portion of the cabin. Then we disconnected the filter and that stopped the leak."

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 12:00 AM

Oh. That water leak. That was a broken filter which was was discovered after the astronauts returned to the LM (not LEM) after EVA No.1. The filter was removed and the leak stopped.

You see, you can save a lot of wasted time if you would just get to the point rather than playing little games.

What's the problem? 25 pounds of water? I'm not sure how Scott would have arrived at that estimate but is that what troubles you? The LM carried 748 pounds of potable water (82 pounds of it in the ascent stage). The 666 pounds in the descent stage was more than enough for their needs.

Now if that isn't what you're talking about, please just say it now.

[edit on 8/7/2010 by Phage]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Phage

Oh. That water leak.

What's the problem? 25 pounds of water?.

Now if that isn't what you're talking about, please just say it now.

No, pal. I've asked for plausible explanations as in www.abovetopsecret.com... post.
According to the threads subject and your role-play on forums, you have to render these questions as explainable and demonstrate this to the auditory.

Now you have mentioned the water pounds. Nice. What are appropriate metric units of water for this epizode of Apollo:
a) pounds
b) gallons
c) cubic feet
d) average IQ of Apollo believers
e) average formal degrees and knowledge of physics of Apollo public advocates and propagandists?

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 03:34 PM

I don't know what your particular problem is, if it's just an issue with the English language not being your native tongue...

...but it appears that you're asking how a water leak on the LM could exist, because the Ascent Module would have been exposed to vacuum druing EVA 1?

Naturally, you are correct about the vacuum exposure. AND, as I'm certain you intend (but play games by not coming right out and mentioning it, but instead drop veiled insults) any liquid water exposed to hard vacuum would quickly sublimate.

HOWEVER....what has led you to think the water leak happened ONLY when the cabin was depressurized??

(Hint: It occured while they were ASLEEP!]

After EVA 1, and they were IN the LM ("Falcon"). You are aware that they repressurized between EVAs, and removed their helmets, right?

I would think that a thorough examination of all the historical records would have uncovered this already, and made this exchange on ATS pointless --- because it is.

Anyway, here ya go:

138:03:56 Scott: Morning, Houston. This is Falcon.

138:04:00 Fullerton: Roger, Falcon; Houston. Loud and clear. And when you're up and ready to converse, let me know.

138:04:11 Scott: Okay, Gordo. Will do.

138:04:15 Fullerton: Rog. First thing we've been concerned about - I guess we'll start off with this - is, according to our data, you lost about 25 pounds of water during the post-EVA yesterday; and, it appears that it leaked out during that problem you had with the broken bacteria filter. What we're wondering is if you've looked around carefully in the cabin, and noticed any sign of that 25 pounds of water. We suggest looking back behind the ascent engine cover, because it possibly would have run back there (because of the LM tilt) and not have been obvious to you. Over.

history.nasa.gov...

Is THAT what you're yammering about?

~~~~~

Perhaps you are wondering about the term "pounds", in reference to the Lunar gravity?

Since I will have to research it (as I wasn't trained on the LM, and don't have the Flight manual and Systems Manuals handy) I will try to find out how they calibrated their various expendable quanities measures.

I haven't researched yet, but it stands to reason that, for sake of simplicity, they probably referred to "pounds" in the context of what that same VOLUME and QUANTITY of water dimensionally, would have weighed if on Earth and subject to one G.

Naturally, that same quantity of water would "weigh" less on the Moon --- although would take up same amount of VOLUME. Distilled water is ~8.3 pounds/gallon, so 25 pounds of EARTH weight water is equivalent to about 3 gallons. (American units of measurement).

What is so difficult to understand? And, more importantly, HOW is any of this suggesting any sort of "fakery" regarding Apollo?

I really don't see your point.....

[edit on 7 August 2010 by weedwhacker]

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 04:49 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I don't know what your particular problem is, if it's just an issue with the English language not being your native tongue...

...but it appears that you're asking how a water leak on the LM could exist, because the Ascent Module would have been exposed to vacuum druing EVA 1?

Naturally, you are correct about the vacuum exposure. AND, as I'm certain you intend (but play games by not coming right out and mentioning it, but instead drop veiled insults) any liquid water exposed to hard vacuum would quickly sublimate.

HOWEVER....what has led you to think the water leak happened ONLY when the cabin was depressurized??

(Hint: It occured while they were ASLEEP!]

After EVA 1, and they were IN the LM ("Falcon"). You are aware that they repressurized between EVAs, and removed their helmets, right?

I would think that a thorough examination of all the historical records would have uncovered this already, and made this exchange on ATS pointless --- because it is.

Since you start flagging ad hominem attacks to undermine my credibility and
twisting records by partial misquotation in attempt to bury the questions,

you might want to compare your fantasies: "It occured while they were ASLEEP!"
with the evidence of astronots Irwin and Scott from Apollo 15 Tech Debriefing (already quoted in my OP)
or simply compare them with ALSJ fairy tales:

Originally posted by history.nasa.gov... 126:18:06

[They will report the broken bacteria filter at 127:52:48. At 130:32:01 and 130:54:42, Houston will tell Dave and Jim that they may have lost 25-pounds of water due to the leak. And, finally, at 138:04:15, just shortly after wake-up, Houston will ask them to look behind the engine cover and clean up any water they might find.]

Advanced tip for weedwhaker and Phage: don't try play dumb, and instead try to recreate Apollo 15 water leak events timeline according to Apollo official docs.

[edit on 7.8.2010 by bokonon2010]

top topics

9