Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:52 PM
link   
no stars in the picture....




posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 



I don't know how the original measurements of the Van Allen belts' radiation levels changed so much to allow the Apollo missions (but nobody else since) to fly through them. It's not like radiation measurements became so much more accurate somehow that they disproved the Army's (and Van Allen's) original measurements.


I thought the VHB did not fully surround the earth..
Didn't the missions avoid the belt??



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ashtonkusher
no stars in the picture....


It was sunlit, not many stars visible in day time..



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Wow, he doesn't think they went far enough to contact the belts. They see "shooting stars" at 350 miles but at 1,000 to 25,000 miles out they didn't notice anything? BS BS BS.

Van Allen Belts - vid



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblackI thought the VHB did not fully surround the earth..
Didn't the missions avoid the belt??


Did they launch from the north or south pole?

Van Allen Belts images



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com... This man has dedicated his life to this debate and wants to fly to the moon himself. If you want to help his cause donate.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 



Did they launch from the north or south pole?


Umm no, but they didn't go straight up to the moon either..
They orbited a bit first to get a sling shot effect...



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


dbl post
edit on 3-4-2011 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblackUmm no, but they didn't go straight up to the moon either..
They orbited a bit first to get a sling shot effect...


Yeah I know. But they didn't avoid the belts.
A couple years ago, a documentary was being advertised on cable television regarding the planned Mars mission. It said scientists were hard at work to develop shielding to protect astronauts from the deadly radiation they would certainly encounter. The ad was modified a couple of days later to omit that part. Really? Why didn't they just grab the Apollo plans and use that, since it worked so well.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Wow, one whole reference to "neutron resistant foil". That's what I thought.

Neutron Resistant Foil

Because, whether it was lead, gold, osmium, no foil would actually be resistant to neutrons.



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
Yeah I know. But they didn't avoid the belts.


Sorry BiB, I suppose I'm in this thing now.


@ grizzle2


The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.


SOURCE

ETA from same link:


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


OMG, I'm no longer a Skeptic virgin.



edit on 3-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


Hey grizzle2 I'm not picking on you as this is just an observation. In another current thread you wrote in praise of Luna Cognita:


Really, Luna's vids are my faves. They do a great job. The only fault I can find is that they end too quickly.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

That seems to be a contradiction in that Luna Cognita typically performs analysis on NASA photos/videos to expose potential Alien and UFO artifacts.
Seemingly if you buy into LC claims, doesn't it require you to accept the NASA photos as legit? Hard to resolve one aspect and discount the other, no?

For me, since I do buy into the NASA photos, it leaves the door open to consider Aliens and UFO's as a possible explanation for all the moon landing secrecy and anomalies.

Just kurious because I too enjoy LC videos. (WW winces.
) Thanks.


edit on 3-4-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2011 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 



That seems to be a contradiction in that Luna Cognita typically performs analysis on NASA photos/videos to expose potential Alien and UFO artifacts. Seemingly if you buy into LC claims, doesn't it require you to accept the NASA photos as legit? Hard to resolve one aspect and discount the other, no?


Good point...
BTW I think most are just errors on the film..

WW, I can just picture him centuries ago arguing that the world is flat..



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
That is a dumb cconspiracy. It looks to me that the flag is pointed the same way in both pictures. The pictures were taken at different angles. I want to see two pictures in the same location with the flags facing different directions before I will ever decide this conspiracy may hold water. People who dont think we landed on the moon are nutjobs....lqtm...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Did anybody read the story at the OPs link, From what I read, Godwin says he has explanations for the anomolies in the Moon Landings.

Here is the rest of the story; from the end of what the OP posted.




"My first reaction was: 'What's going on here? How is it possible that the flag can turn around 120 degrees?'."

Godwin says he also noticed that the shadow of the big antenna that astronauts Alan Shepard and Edgar Mitchell used to communicate with Earth disappeared from one frame to the next.

"That's a pretty big thing to have disappear," said Godwin, who has written or edited more than 100 books and is the founder of Apogee Books.

Godwin says that on further investigation, he discovered that the American flag had also been flipped around on the Apollo 12 mission.

And that's when his concerns about the flapping flag were put to rest.

"In fact, it had happened on Apollo 12, that 55 minutes before liftoff, part of their procedure was to test-fire the thrusters on the lunar module," he said.

"That's basically a pretty big rocket engine — just above where the flag is located — and when they did that, it blew over the antenna that was communicating with the Earth and it rotated the flag about 120 degrees."

The same thing happened with the Apollo 14 thrusters.

Godwin adds that the small rockets were powerful enough to set off a seismometer which was set up about a quarter of a mile away.

Bart Sibrel, a Nashville, Tenn., filmmaker, has remained skeptical about the American boast that they landed men on the moon.

He even documents his arguments in a 2001 video called: "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon," which is available on the Internet.

Among other claims, the video wonders how the lunar-bound astronauts could have survived travelling through the dangerous Van Allen radiation belt which circles the Earth.

Sibrel and a camera crew confronted many of the lunar astronauts after they returned to Earth, demanding they admit the landings were faked.

He was punched in the face when he went after Aldrin, but a U.S. judge later dismissed the assault charge against the astronaut.

The conspiracy theorist was contacted twice by The Canadian Press, but did not respond when asked to comment on the Apollo 14 flag images.

But Godwin says he has answers to the questions raised by the non-believers.

He dismisses claims that fans on a movie set were making the flags move, arguing the banners were set in motion by the astronauts who planted them into the lunar surface.

"There's a spring inside that flag (and) when you let go of the pole and stop shaking it, the spring has momentum and the flag itself has momentum," he explained.

"It continues to wobble until that momentum has been dispersed.

"There's no air to stop it from flapping so, in actual fact, the momentum will continue longer in a vacuum than it will in air."

As for passing through the lethal Van Allen belt, Godwin says the astronauts just blasted through at the thinnest point.

"If you were to stay in, it would kill if you stayed inside the belts for a week, but they didn't," he added.

But his strongest argument is that all Apollo missions were tracked by the Jodrell Bank Observatory in England, a privately owned facility — and the Russians.

"If anybody had a vested interest in saying it was faked, you'd think it was them," he said.

"Even the Russians sent letters of congratulations saying: 'Well done'!"

Godwin's current project is "New Horizons", a photo book featuring lunar panoramas from the Apollo missions. It will be released in July.

End



Peace
...



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   

if you buy into LC claims, doesn't it require you to accept the NASA photos as legit? Hard to resolve one aspect and discount the other, no?


Nope. From earlier in this thread:

"I have to believe now, after much looking into it, that we went, but not in that aluminium soup can and linen/aluminum foil suits with no radiation shielding.
I think most or all of the footage and pics we've been shown are fakes or heavily altered. I definitely believe there is life on the moon."

Emphasis on the "heavily altered" part here. There's just no way they could have survived the various types of radiation in those craft made of thin aluminum, nor could they have walked around on the radioactive moon in linen suits with aluminum foil sewed in. That part is definitely BS. I think we went, just not in the way they said. They had to have some other kind of technology to deal with the radiation. What it is, I don't know, but I can say for sure it's not "neutron resistant foil". I think a lot of the video was shot in low earth orbit, or on sets. And some of the pics. Luna Cognita, among many others, does a fantastic job of showing the hoary photo tampering that was done by NASA. As well as what appear to be organisms and technology/craft other than ours on the moon and in space.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Let me ask you something - would you go through the Van Allen belts and stand on the surface of the moon with no more protection from x-rays, microwaves and hard cosmic rays than a thin-walled aluminum ship and a linen suit with aluminum foil sewed into it?

edit: Oh yeah I forgot the gamma rays.
edit on 3-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: (no reason given)
Badda-Bing! That is some heavy science. Can a telescope see the evidence of a past landing?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FutureThinker"If you were to stay in, it would kill if you stayed inside the belts for a week, but they didn't," he added....


Sorry, but, no. Unless, as I said, they went away from the earth at the north or south poles. Van Allen started his research with balloons that carried detectors. Later, the Army helped him out with rockets. He quite rightly wrote that the radiation inside the belts was lethal. We're talking about a hodgepodge of everything from microwaves right up to hard cosmic rays, and everything in between. And that's before you even get to the moon.
I'm familiar with all the refs as I have argued this point elsewhere before. There was nothing about them "blasting through at the thinnest point" of the Van Allen belts, which would be at the north and south poles. the trajectory was planned solely to get them to the moon and back. That is purely an ex-post facto revision, and is demonstrably false.

Example - Apollo 8 Trajectory

here's that video again:

Van Allen Belts and Space Travel

You don't need a coronal mass ejection for it to be deadly.
If these space suits are resistant to this type of radiation, why didn't they send some to Chernobyl for the cleanup workers to wear, or to Fukushima? In fact, the head of the British division of Nexus magazine contacted the manufacturer of the space suits and asked just that question, about their possible use in radiation cleanup. He was told that it would not be advisable, and that the suits offered no protection against radiation.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrstockBadda-Bing! That is some heavy science. Can a telescope see the evidence of a past landing?


Just common sense. I haven't looked into that aspect in depth, however there have been a few lunar probes since, yes? And the Hubble, yes? If what they went up there to do was play golf, collect purty rocks and plant a masonic flag, why haven't they documented it by way of one of the unmanned probes?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


The only reason I posted the rest of the OPs Linked story was because I thought that this thread was about

"Faked images from our trip to the moon?"

So I thought, If Godwin himself states in the article that he basically has explanations for the Anomolies in the Moon Landing Pics, then the OP has taken a story out of context, and posted it here on ATS.

I didn't think anybody had read "The Rest of the Story".

Why are we talking about "Faked images from our trip to the moon", When the guy in the story doesn't think they were.


If I'm wrong then please point it out,





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum