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.

 

Astro-NOTS?

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Long has Earth’s Moon been a source a mystery and puzzlement, as well as an inspiration for love and art. It is also the source of vital life rhythms. It has been mankind’s dream to touch this strange world, for some simply to discover and explore, for others to exploit. It is now pretty much accepted as common knowledge that NASA has sent manned craft to the Moon, and that they have landed thereon. But wait, not everybody is buying the official story! What’s up?

It is a big charge to claim that NASA never went to the Moon, that it was all a fake, yet this man René has come up with a large body of information that has to be seriously considered. He is obviously not writing this book for the fun of it, I doubt he’s making any money at it, and is sure to be scorned and ridiculed simply for asking good questions which go against the common belief.

thomasbrown.org...

Some good questions here, and raises some good points. I tend to believe that man has either not been to the moon, or found something there and covered it up because they can't tell the public nothing!




posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Don't tell anyone but no one from this planet earth has ever been to the moon except Dis-info Agents....

Great Post !!!!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Every reasoning offered to "debunk the moon landings" can easily be refuted with counter-reasonings.

I have not found a single legitimate reason to doubt that it has happened. All signs point towards it did actually happen.

However we do have issues, I won't deny that.

There has been cover ups and half of the truth is not officially admitted yet. That much is obvious.

But there is over a 98% chance that we did in fact land there, and you need to provide clear examples of why this is not the case. But you must also be open to the refutations of those reasonings, as there is a high probability that you are wrong factually on this.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:02 PM
link   
Hey, several years ago, I shone a laser & reflected it off a panel they placed on the moon back with the Apollo missions.

How'd I do that?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I think at this pt the moon hoax argument is irrelevant. We need to focus more on advanced exploratory missions to Mars Europa etc. The whole we never went to the Moon argument will not get us anywhere. I for one would like to see the colonization of one habitable planet or Moon within our solar sys.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Every reasoning offered to "debunk the moon landings" can easily be refuted with counter-reasonings.



Well can you start refuting the reasoning in the link provided by the OP?

Good thread some of the stuff in that article is new to me and sounds sound. Anyone good at trigonometry and want to try and see if the length of the shadows matches up with the provided angular displacement of the light source? I think I mathematically worded that right.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Every reasoning offered to "debunk the moon landings" can easily be refuted with counter-reasonings.

I have not found a single legitimate reason to doubt that it has happened. All signs point towards it did actually happen.

However we do have issues, I won't deny that.

There has been cover ups and half of the truth is not officially admitted yet. That much is obvious.

But there is over a 98% chance that we did in fact land there, and you need to provide clear examples of why this is not the case. But you must also be open to the refutations of those reasonings, as there is a high probability that you are wrong factually on this.


hehehe...please provide links for your sources as I have for mine
If, after reading everything on the link I provided, you would like further info, please let me know what you would like more info on. Thanks!



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by packinupngoin
reply to post by superman2012
 


I think at this pt the moon hoax argument is irrelevant. We need to focus more on advanced exploratory missions to Mars Europa etc. The whole we never went to the Moon argument will not get us anywhere. I for one would like to see the colonization of one habitable planet or Moon within our solar sys.


Agreed, but it isn't irrelevant for me anyways...unless you have something to contribute to this thread than feel free, otherwise start your own about colonization.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
Hey, several years ago, I shone a laser & reflected it off a panel they placed on the moon back with the Apollo missions.

How'd I do that?


Pics? video? otherwise I can claim that I built the soundstages that they filmed on.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


It is possible that the first moon landing (and some bits of subsequent ones) may have been faked but overall there is evidence that we can substantiate without going there that would indicate that, at some stage, we got to the moon.

For its time and technology, it was a tremendous achievement.

It's a shame that in subsequent years we have hardly left the atmosphere and I fear we may never take on such an audacious quest again (Human race stays planet bound and at the first planet wide catastrophe are wiped from existence).



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Agreed, i would like some pics please?
Anyway not that i know but i heard or read somewhere that the moons surface had some reflective qualities to it, either way i dunno both camps have good arguments.
It just rocks that i never plan on stepping foot on the moon or even leaving the earth, all of the hype does nothing for me either way.
I'll worry about real things, coffee, chocolate, Etc.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


Nothing stopping you from doing a little astrometry. The stuff is off-the-shelf nowadays, not specially built like back then.

In fact, there was an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where they were measuring the Earth-Moon distance by bouncing a laser off the reflector. It is fairly common science-fair stuff these days.

Wikipedia Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment



edit on 13/3/2011 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by superman2012
 


Nothing stopping you from doing a little astrometry. The stuff is off-the-shelf nowadays, not specially built like back then.

In fact, there was an episode of "The Big Bang Theory" where they were measuring the Earth-Moon distance by bouncing a laser off the reflector. It is fairly common science-fair stuff these days.


I call foul on this. You are trying to tell me you did this and didn't record it in any way!? The cost of such a laser is not for the average joe. Please tell me what telescope you used and the type of laser. 348,000km (approx.) and back. Wouldn't you need a 1 gigawatt laser? Big Bang Theory isn't a source...otherwise I would have a hota$$ girlfriend! haha

Also:

On the Mythbusters Special on the moon hoax, Adam Savage and Jamie Hyman visited the Apache Point Observatory to fire laser beams at the moon. They started by firing a laser at an unexplored region of the moon, receiving no signal; and then they fired a beam at the Apollo 15 site, receiving a laser back. Their conclusion was that if there was no retro-reflector on the moon it would be impossible to bounce the laser back to earth.

I have pointed out that the Mythbusters are factually incorrect to claim that it is impossible to bounce lasers off the moon's bare surface, because MIT & the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory both succeeded in bouncing lasers off the moon and back to earth - without retro-reflectors - long before Apollo 11.

"Four years ago, a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment" - 'The Laser's Bright Magic', Thomas Meloy. NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Dec 1966

"SOVIET BOUNCES LIGHT BEAM OFF MOON IN A LASER TEST

Moscow, Nov 4 - A concentrated beam of light has been bounced off the moon and detected on earth by a Soviet observatory in the Crimea.

The feat, reported today by Tass, the Soviet press agency, duplicates an experiment conducted late last year by engineers of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The superintensive beam was produced by a laser, a device that amplifies and focuses light. The principle is believed to have potential use in space communication and long - distance energy transmission.

The Soviet announcement said a laser had been installed a the focal point of the 100-inch reflector telescope at the Cimean Astraphysical (sic) Observatory." - THE NEW YORK TIMES, Nov 5 1963.

edit on 13-3-2011 by superman2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Also, The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length. Isn't that 9 years before Apollo 15? So it is possible to reflect without using "fictional" material.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I didn't build the laser but I believe it was a blue/green chemical laser. Don't think it was particularly high power (couple of kilowatts max).

The telescope was a 16" newtonian housed at the University of Western Sydney at Penrith with a CCD pickup (more sensitive than human eyes).

We weren't timing really critically as we really just wanted to prove we could do it and see something.

Time from switch on until detection of reflection was around 2.5 seconds, in line with a distance of 384 thousand km.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by superman2012
 


I think that the early attempt to laser range the moon just used a monstrous laser & didn't require a retroreflector to make things easier.

My attempt was mid-eighties and the pHd lecturer had some doubts about some of the 'photos from the moon so we were "trying things out" just to see if it was there.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Well I did this by holding a ruler up to the screen so the what I came up with is going to be approximate at best.
I measured Armstrong at 2.25 inches, I measured his shadow at three inches, according to Pythagoras the degree of that angle is 36.86.
I measured Aldrin also at 2.25 inches, with a shadow length of 4.375 inches, giving me an angle degree of 27.22.
As to what any of that might mean I have no idea.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jlv70
 


nice job!! i think that would mean there is two light sources... right? what else could it be? an oddly placed crystal or mirror or something?



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by molecularstranding
 


Could be spherical distortion either from the lens or in attempting to get a better composition of the picture. You have to remember that the primary purpose of the pictures from the moon were publicity to ensure continued budget.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Ignoring moon hoaxers for a minute, I'd like to say that while I believe some elements were forged, I do have a feeling that we did actually go there and maybe found something or did something not worth talking about/returning there for. Cash obviously wouldn't have been a problem to get there again until recently and I doubt we know everything about that satellite to not go back at some point.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join