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.

 

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 14
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


NO....the LM wasn't R/C.

Geeze, the audio is THERE for you to hear, in the Apollo 17 launch!!!

The Astronauts were ON THE MOON< the equipment is there, the footpaths are there, it has been photographed, by now....only recently did satellites arrive at the Moon, with cameras able to do this.

NO, there was no reason to take pictures, before, of the Apollo sites (just to satisfy three and one half crackpot "hoax" believers)...the LROC mission was to get much better topography photos of the Moon, for mapping purposes. Just as we do, of the Earth...more and more detail, constantly being added to our knowledge. These, for future missions, to decide where to land, and explore....and, for possible long-term settlements, one day......




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Why is that so difficult? They practiced it, on Earth using a similar set up. The exact time of lift-off was known....you anticipate, and react ahead of time.

Watch a clock second-hand tick....do something 3 to 4 seconds before a certain point.

What's so difficult about understanding this????

DO all "Hoax Believers" disengage their brains, out of their need to "believe" in utter nonsense?


That a BULL because practice was useless in earth gravity!!
Everything was done first time, one take!
Isn't it something ??))



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I'm not going anywhere because i know those things are put in places to deceive.
We will never know essentially. We can only speculate.
This is WAY above us.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Huh????

The "practice" I mentioned was the timing of operating the camera!!!

Allowing for time delay, and seeing the way the camera moves, when it tilted up (or, pans as needed) and the zoom...you can see, he needed to zoom back, as part of the camera sequence of moves.

It begins with a "tight" shot (parlance, in the film biz) and after the ascent engine ignites, the camera zooms out (to widen the field of view), and pans upwards, to follow the LM....really, it's like I'm explaining why water flows down a drain......how more basic does it have to be, before comprehension dawns??



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Huh????

The "practice" I mentioned was the timing of operating the camera!!!

Allowing for time delay, and seeing the way the camera moves, when it tilted up (or, pans as needed) and the zoom...you can see, he needed to zoom back, as part of the camera sequence of moves.

It begins with a "tight" shot (parlance, in the film biz) and after the ascent engine ignites, the camera zooms out (to widen the field of view), and pans upwards, to follow the LM....really, it's like I'm explaining why water flows down a drain......how more basic does it have to be, before comprehension dawns??


LM never flew before, they knew exact speed of a tilt?
You are being full of it mister.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
Can we Please Stop the Personal Sniping, character assassinations, condescension and snide remarks.

As well,

*Please edit the quoted portion to the salient material needed to make your point!
There is no need to repeat entire posts within the body of your response*


Thanks



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



LM never flew before, they knew exact speed of a tilt?


"tilt"?

You mean, the rate to tilt the camera? Well, it had (I believe) only two speeds, on its motorized mount....in any event, this was Apollo 17!

Sixth mission. Plenty of experience with the rate of ascent. At lift-off. Plus...well, rocket scientists? They can figure this stuff out, too. They KNOW what the acceleration rate will be, it is calculated well ahead of time.

Newton's Laws, and all that.....plus, the force of the engine, compared to the mass of th space craft.

Rocket scientists. They could do those calculations with their slide rules, that they kept in their shirt pockets.

(I once knew how to use one.....took a whole half semester, in High School...You see, there were no pocket calculators, then. Computers took up a whole room. I bet I could remember how, wtih some practice....but, I really don't care to. Oh, and also.....pilots use a simplified form of slide rule.....called a "circular" slide rule, for some aviation stuff.....had to learn that, of course too.....you go learn to fly, and so will you....).



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   
I still think there is something odd about the falling slope of the sand which the Rover spins up. It is to sharp.
Its like the sand encounters a lot of resistance and falls straight down.

The sand being spun up should have had a lot longer falling arch/slope towards the ground.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Hey DJ,

two things still a bit odd about this photo.

1) You talk about the reason the footprints are clear but the Lunar tracks are just a faint blur is that the footprints are sort of 90 degrees to the suns angle, thus making them very visible. Well look by the right front wheel, some footprints there in the same direction as the so called lunar tracks you pointed out. These footprints are also very graphic and easy to read, and they are very close to where a deeper set of lunar tracks should be, for the front wheels. The weight of the Rover would surely mean deeper imprints than those footprints and yet the footprints (the ones in the same direction as the Rover's wheels) are so obvious and clean, but the tracks are hardly visible... the faint blurs you refer to are just that, faint blurs. They should have similar clean lines and visible edges as those footprints near the wheels surely?

2) Check out the small rocks on the floor in the foreground and how dark, basically black the shadow side is. Now surely they would be getting the same ammount of reflected light/bounced light from the lunar surface as the Rover and the Spaceman. Yet look at how bright the shadow side is of the spaceman and the rover, you can see all the details in the shadow area which is no way as dark as the shadows on the small rocks.
How is this possible? Perhaps NASA exposed the spaceman and module more than the surrounding area but if they did so shouldn't they tell us? I'm confused.

I think its highly likely NASA recreated some Lunar photos on earth. I am on the fence as to whether they landed man there.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
I still think there is something odd about the falling slope of the sand which the Rover spins up. It is to sharp.

That's actually what one would expect in a vacuum. It's actually proof (really good proof) that they were on the moon. It seems to me that a lot of this apollo hoax belief stems from incorrect expectations about what it should have looked like in the pictures and video.
edit on 27-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by spy66
I still think there is something odd about the falling slope of the sand which the Rover spins up. It is to sharp.

That's actually what one would expect in a vacuum. It's actually proof (really good proof) that they were on the moon. It seems to me that a lot of this apollo hoax belief stems from incorrect expectations about what it should have looked like in the pictures and video.
edit on 27-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)


NO, That its not what you would have expected in a vacuum. In a vacuum the sand and dust would travel a lot further because of less resistance and less gravity.

The Rover spins up dust and sand. This sand in a vacuum 1/6 of earth G, should have had a longer falling slope towards the surface.

If you watch the slope that the astronauts have when they jump around you can clearly see that they have a long falling arch/slope forwards. Sand and dust should have had the same falling arch/slope as the astronauts. Because they are all effected by the same G.

I also think its odd that the Rover doesn't pool a wheelie when it drives over some of these humps with the speed and force it has.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
NO, That its not what you would have expected in a vacuum. In a vacuum the sand and dust would travel a lot further because of less resistance and less gravity.

The lack of air resistance means its path is purely ballistic and it will not travel as far as it would on earth; on earth dust lingers in the air, allowing it to travel much farther.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


Do you know what the wheels are made out of? As far as footprints and wheel tracks go, pounds per square inch, simple math 101, this was already covered. The half square inch of a woman's high heel exerts much more psi than one of the 18 wheels of an 80,000 lb semi truck, plus she is stepping down from her step while the wheels do not leave the ground. Basic stuff.

As far as shadows go the moon surface is not as reflective as smooth metal and paint, space suits, etc., why a mirror never goes black in the daytime.



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by spy66
NO, That its not what you would have expected in a vacuum. In a vacuum the sand and dust would travel a lot further because of less resistance and less gravity.

The lack of air resistance means its path is purely ballistic and it will not travel as far as it would on earth; on earth dust lingers in the air, allowing it to travel much farther.




If you throw a rock with the same force and angle 10 times, it will have the same falling slope every time if the atmospheric resistance is constant. The falling slope will only change if the direction of atmospheric resistance changes ( The wind speed and direction ).

There is close to no wind on the moon, and its gravity is very constant within the location this Rover i driving.

If there is no wind and the gravity force is the same. The resistance is minimal. So if something gets spun up like the sand behind this rover. Only the mass and the kinetic force pushing the sand particles is effected by the moons G. But you can clearly see that the sand stops and falls straight down in a sharp slope.

Don't you think that is odd ?

If you fire a ballistic projectile on the moon it will travel a lot further than it would here on earth. The projectile would have a longer falling slope. Because mostly only the moons gravity force would effect its mass and kinetic energy.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


EACH time (yet again, another example) the only thing that Apollo "hoax believers" (HBs) can do, is focus on specific, individual photographs.......about a half-dozen they have culled, out of the thousands of others, just to spread and argue about, endlessly.......and, inanely, pointlessly.

Conveniently (?) missing the bigger picture. Is this a deceptive tactic, on the part of HBs?? Most of them are not intentionally deceptive....they are just seriously misinformed.

Here.....it is only a 35-second clip of a much longer unedited...UNEDITED....CONTINUOUS....sequence of video, taken by the camera mounted on the Rover (the LRV...Lunar Roving Vehicle). Which, in case you didn't know, was built under contract by....General Motors!! Yes, GM....





For ALL of you who still try to say it's "fake".....well, that is the largest "sound stage" ever, in history. WITH a complete vacuum, to boot. It is ludicrous, beyond belief, to keep making these ridiculous claims that Apollo was "faked".....








edit on Fri 27 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


If you read your own post YOU answer the question yourself thats the ironic part!



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Well i wasn't expecting that you would notice. But since you didn't argue my answer i guess you agree!

So, you do think its odd that the sand and dust have a sharp falling slope instead of a much longer falling slope?



posted on May, 27 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
um i'm sure someone has already pointed it out in the thread but you're confusing yourself. being commited to beyond low-earth orbit would imply they only care about things or explore things that are beyond low earth orbit... such as the moon.




top topics



 
19
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join