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: 28
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 



Manmental honestly .. look at these photos Illustronic just posted now im not trying to single you out but can you see any moon dust on any of these rover pictures ?? oh my mistake I can see one out of eight

Oh this is getting even better yet LOL looking ahead to the next bunch of photos with all the rover pictures .. I am sitting here laughing with my cousin as we glance at these photos .. do you agree that the astronaut I don’t know which one it is as they don’t have name tags but his space suit has more moon dust on it than the rovers LOL

And yet the rover is doing a wheelie with no moon dust flying from behind the tires .. omg ..
Very Classic I must admit.. in fact I don’t see any moon dust on any of the rover photos at all now how is that possible ??

When I just seen the astronauts jumping around on the moon kicking up moon dust and yet the rover is doing wheelies and nothing is flying around come on .... what is the point of posting these photos it don’t do you any justice at all ???? face palm

There isn’t a spec of moon dust on these rover pictures at all except one how is that ??? lol

but the main one is the one doing a wheelie..




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


Moon dust on a lander pad, I have many more but I'm done with this thread. Offered are observations void of calculations, I can't and nobody can, argue that unless I'm fecking insane. But you still don't grasp the concept of why in fact there should be dust that you can see on the top of the landing pads. If I was an idiot, I'd show you the 4 different angles of the original Eagle landing pad 53-inch probes under them bent to the surface because they reached solid rock just a few inches below the micrometeoroid blasted dust surface covering. You need to learn more about lunar surface geology, not that you ever will, or care to. Learning is not your strong point exercised here.




posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Honestly .. these photos are so phot chopped it is almost retarded .. look at the back grounds .. its really obvious



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:20 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


Ignorance is bliss, enjoy yourself. You never told us what the Russians had to gain to lie about it, have you?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 11:38 PM
link   
You guys couldn't even site which Apollo mission said photo came from let alone what and why it was taken and we are supposed to believe your (non) research?

Does that make sense?Would that pass scrutinization in a scientific method of discovery?

I'll let those decide, the fact is you have a subversive site you are copy and pasting from (with little to zero effort) and have no personal analysis of what you present because you simply don't even present the simple facts any 12-year old can Google to the source for, even after being requested by me at least from page 12. Not once did I get a source. Would that you present pass a peer review? Would it even pass a common sense review? Would it be even on a reputable science forum without being discarded as ridiculous?

Do you even know why you support the ideas you have>?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 06:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


The front end of the rover in that one picture looks as if it's doing a Wheelie .. I can see the man/astronaut next to rover AND still there is no moon dust on the rover photos except one ,, No moon dust on the landing pad = footsteps very close to landing pad and no moon dust was tossed up on the landing pad by Astonaut .. all your photos of the rover except one are spotless no moon dust on them at all

Yet the astronaut has moon dust all overhimself it dont make sense .... you think you can convinnce someone into your belief ...

Well after watching the video of thiose two astronauts jumping and walking around and as they did this the moon dust was scattered about and still I dont care if there was 53 inch spikes the impact alone would of caused a bigger friction and would cause the moon dust to flare up into the landing pad ..

Why does that not makes any sense to you ?? the rovers have no moon dust at all on them not one tiny little spec of moon dust .. what ?? do they have a hand broom up there or a shop vac to makes sure that shiny priceless rover stays like brand new??



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Honestly .. these photos are so phot chopped it is almost retarded .. look at the back grounds .. its really obvious


So your an imaging expert are you! I have been a keen amatuer photographer for over 30 yrs, many on here are semi pro or pro photographers, we get a good
at comments like yours its a bit like the UFO guys on here who can look at a video and say its at x height and doing x speed but when you point out they have nothing to reference to in the video they clam up.

It's like the no stars in moon pictures and the shadows in different directions from one light source, its not our fault they don't know about exposure times or the fact that the shape of the landscape or even the focal length of the lens can under certain conditions make the shadows go in different directions. If you don't know how something works look it up before making rash comments.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Well after watching the video of thiose two astronauts jumping and walking around and as they did this the moon dust was scattered about and still I dont care if there was 53 inch spikes the impact alone would of caused a bigger friction and would cause the moon dust to flare up into the landing pad ..

Why does that not makes any sense to you ??


Absolutely not, the only way dust could accumulate on an object that forcibly pushed the dust aside is by changing it's ballistic path in another direction, like what you see air do on earth. This display of ignorance is supposed to convince us that you can prove what millions of educational specialists, scientists, and engineers believe to be facts supported with an insurmountable volume of evidence? We have a term for that. Delusions of grandeur.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


The fact is, you don't know what you see when you look at the rover films. The reason you dont know what you see is because you dont know what 1.662 g would look like in real time. Because you have never seen it.


I bet if i asked you:
Would the rover have faster vertical up and down motions on a uneven surface, if it was effected by 10m/sec g. Or would it have faster vertical up and down motions on a uneven surface, if it was effected by 1.662m/sec g. And was doing 7 miles/h. With or without a atmosphere, you can take your pick.

You dont even have to do the math to get this at all.

If the rover weighs about 47 pounds on the moon with 1.662m/sec g. Would the up and down motion/speed be equal to the up and down motion/speed, if gravity was 10m/sec g. And the rover was doing 7 miles/h. ?

I bet you still wont see the difference. If you did i wouldn't have had to repeat everything every time.

You dont even have to do the math to get this.

If the maximum horizontal speed the rover can drive is 7 miles/h with 10m/sec g and 1 bar atmosphere. Can the rover go faster on the moon?
What spec would you have to have to be able to answer this question?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:35 AM
link   
Its a good thing you don't want to use real math because you are still misrepresenting the actual weight of the lunar rover on the moon. So how if told an answer could you determine it to be correct.

Its bubblegum, prove that wrong.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
Its a good thing you don't want to use real math because you are still misrepresenting the actual weight of the lunar rover on the moon. So how if told an answer could you determine it to be correct.

Its bubblegum, prove that wrong.


The answer is, that you are a waste of time
when it comes to this subject.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Honestly .. these photos are so phot chopped it is almost retarded .. look at the back grounds .. its really obvious


So your an imaging expert are you! I have been a keen amatuer photographer for over 30 yrs, many on here are semi pro or pro photographers, we get a good
at comments like yours its a bit like the UFO guys on here who can look at a video and say its at x height and doing x speed but when you point out they have nothing to reference to in the video they clam up.

It's like the no stars in moon pictures and the shadows in different directions from one light source, its not our fault they don't know about exposure times or the fact that the shape of the landscape or even the focal length of the lens can under certain conditions make the shadows go in different directions. If you don't know how something works look it up before making rash comments.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Illustronic
"I have been a keen amatuer photographer for over 30 yrs"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by nsg52

So my cousin is an actual photographer she has been one for over 40 years ,, but who cares about that cause it actually don’t matter ,,, The Video peaks for itself... LOL

"So yes I am saying (>>what I saw in the video that manmental put in his post



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


Suggest YOU actually re read the post I made and what i was refering to HAVE A real close look

YOU said this did you not!

Honestly .. these photos are so phot chopped it is almost retarded .. look at the back grounds .. its really obvious

I NEVER said or claimed YOU commented on height or speed what I said

we get a good
at comments like yours its a bit like the UFO guys on here who can look at a video and say its at x height and doing x speed but when you point out they have nothing to reference to in the video they clam up.

Underlined above SO even you with your obvious limited skill can understand what was ACTUALLY SAID!!!

So maybe next time engage that lonely neuron before typing!

You also made this rather stupid statement

No matter what it is..its nonsense that lunar moon dust cant be thrust about in any direction.

What direction do YOU think it should go! explain to everyone in your best physics, big clue for you laws of motion!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Where's the video of astronauts kicking dust on the lander's landing pads? I didn't see it. If you reference a video why don't you post it?



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

Are you under the impression the Jodrell Bank Observatory is a bank, as in a financial institution?


Nice one!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

I dont see any reason to go on about your enthusiasim about a dumb graph lol .. the point I made was a valid one and you fail to prove that your graph was legit now even if it is from that web site they failed to show the date by croping it out I dont know but to me it is just a graph with nothing on it to say it is the property of that bank

obviously you dont realize that official documents generally have this information on it .....


Okay Northstargal.......

This is the official website for Jodrell Bank:

www.jb.man.ac.uk...

On the 10th row down there is the Eagle graph!

Now if the graph was not legit.......then why is it put up on Jodrell Bank's official website?


Now I'd say that kinda suggests that the graph does indeed belong to Jodrell Bank........next question!

edit on 2-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

gee, I wonder why your post is being ignored ?

very inconvenient for the HB's I imagine. It shoots everything to pieces. the radiation argument, the unmanned missions argument, all of it goes up in smoke with this

it pretty much seals the deal and ends the debate in my mind


Yes I had noticed!


NorthStarGal being noticeable silent regarding the Jodrell Bank tracking graph!

I guess that the standard ploy of most conspiracy theorists......If something doesn't fit the theory then you simply ignore it!



edit on 1-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



YES I posted the Jodrell Bank trace and if irc it was the smaller 50ft dish that tracked them because the 250ft one


i.telegraph.co.uk...


was tracking the very small russian probe heading for the moon at the same time !!!

They will really hate this image! member jra beat me to making this one and posting it.




Top part from dac film camera as Apollo 17 left the moon!!
Bottom LRO image of the Apollo 17 site
Compare the tracks !!!!! and object positions

All the object positions are recorded and photographed on the moon.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logical one

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

I dont see any reason to go on about your enthusiasim about a dumb graph lol .. the point I made was a valid one and you fail to prove that your graph was legit now even if it is from that web site they failed to show the date by croping it out I dont know but to me it is just a graph with nothing on it to say it is the property of that bank

obviously you dont realize that official documents generally have this information on it .....


Okay Northstargal.......

This is the official website for Jodrell Bank:

www.jb.man.ac.uk...

On the 10th row down there is the Eagle graph!

Now if the graph was not legit.......then why is it put up on Jodrell Bank's official website?


Now I'd say that kinda suggests that the graph does indeed belong to Jodrell Bank........next question!

edit on 2-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



If Northstar had bothered to read at bottom of graph!!!


This is a chart recording of signals from Apollo 11's Eagle Lander which were picked up at Jodrell Bank. The graph shows time on the horizontal axis and the frequency of the signal being received on the vertical axis. As the relative velocity between the telescope and the Lander changes, the signal being observed is Doppler shifted to higher or lower frequencies. The first half of the graph in which the signal appears to jump up and down is just where the settings on the receiver are being adjusted. In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground. The signal then becomes a straight line when the Eagle finally lands on the Moon's surface. The slowly changing frequency is then just due to the relative velocity between the telescope and that point on the Moon's surface.



Read the links Northstar!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

If Northstar had bothered to read at bottom of graph!!!


This is a chart recording of signals from Apollo 11's Eagle Lander which were picked up at Jodrell Bank. The graph shows time on the horizontal axis and the frequency of the signal being received on the vertical axis. As the relative velocity between the telescope and the Lander changes, the signal being observed is Doppler shifted to higher or lower frequencies. The first half of the graph in which the signal appears to jump up and down is just where the settings on the receiver are being adjusted. In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground. The signal then becomes a straight line when the Eagle finally lands on the Moon's surface. The slowly changing frequency is then just due to the relative velocity between the telescope and that point on the Moon's surface.


wmd.........I think Northstargal probably did read the text..........but she thinks it's obviously fake, since her mind is made up already, that man didn't go land on the moon, regardless of evidence which suggests otherwise.

For the Moon landing conspiracy theorists to be correct then the Jodrell Bank graph has to be fake!


edit on 2-6-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mapkar
 


Amen. Anybody who saw the actual footage (aka- you were not at Woodstock) believed it without any doubt in their mind.

Case closed.

SeraphNB



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join