It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by harrisjohns
Shai, first of all, you don't know anything about my age, background, career, or indeed any personal information about me. And on a forum such as this, anonymity is just the way I like it. Needless to say, my user name on here is certainly not my real name. Not all of us have egos that need to be constantly stroked by publishing long articles about our 'glorious' careers on personal websites.
Secondly, it is you and not me who is the one arguing from the perspective of the FOX TV Network, and its totally ludicrous documentary suggesting that the moon landings were faked. It is you that use the presposterous aulis.com and cosmicapollo sites (who are just there to sell books and videos to the naive) to provide 'evidence' for your claims.
There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the moon landings were faked. Your strange and usually incoherent obsession with the minutae of film types and alleged inconsistencies in the recollections of the astronauts is bizarre and pointless - even if all these things were true, they would still offer NO evidence that the moon landings were faked.
Regarding your picture of the rover and the dust, so what? Of course dust would have been thrown up as the rover moved across the lunar landscape. The properties of this dust once it had been thrown up on the lunar surface have already been explained at length ... several times ... and there's nothing in this photo to suggest that this was filmed anywhere else but on the moon.
Now to the various photos of the 'practice missions' on earth that you keep posting. Again, so what? Would you really expect NASA to spend $40bn on these missions and not practice exhaustively beforehand?
There is no doubt in my mind that the lunar landings were genuine and the photographs provide an accurate record of the missions. The weight of evidence for this is overwhelming.
However, this doesn't mean that I automatically believe everything that all governments say.
In fact, for you to suggest this is highly disingenuous - it yet again shows another example of the typical conspiracy theorist tactic of using a false dichotomy, i.e, you are stating: "because harrisjohns believes that the moon landings are genuine, he must automatically believe everything that he is told by the government".
Try to think in shades of grey rather than always in black or white. At the moment, your level of argument is knee-jerk and childish.
[edit on 6-2-2005 by harrisjohns]
Originally posted by Shai
The lunar rover should have been compacting the dust very strongly..and what dust was brought up should be falling dead behind the wheel..but it isn't it is billowing up behind the front wheel and hanging in the air for several feet right up to the back wheel in fact.
You still don't comment on the horizon line in the helmets..
No, but learning how to think, evaluate and process information scientifically. (not forgetting basic education)
Originally posted by Nairod
Real work meaning saying "scientists" have explained it all before? ;-)
We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a high level of science education understand the scientific process, compared with 38 percent of those with a middle-level science education and 17 percent with a low level.
To attenuate these paranormal belief statistics, we need to teach that science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods designed to describe and interpret phenomena, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.
For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are.
SMART-1 sending back imagery of Apollo sites:
A European spacecraft now orbiting the moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored.
New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the moon between 1969 and 1972.
Fringe theorists have said images of the waving flag — on a moon with no atmosphere — and other oddities show that NASA never really went to the moon. No serious scientist or spaceflight historian doubts the success of the Apollo program, however.
"We are observing some of the landing sites for calibration and ground truth purposes," said Bernard Foing, chief scientist of the ESA science program.
Originally posted by HARAK
»» To All :
Not here, not anywhere, I will post images, documents, book transcriptions, website links, or any other form of supporting my small comments. Why? Very simple:
Because the moment I started to show images, documents, and links, (and even books), you would immediately start to sharp your teeth, and would fall on top of me, saying that after your deep analisys, everything was . False!
Originally posted by harrisjohns
Originally posted by Shai
It was HJP (“Douglas”) Arnold, who was the Assistant to the Managing Director of Kodak Ltd. He was also the representative Kodak appointed to answer our questions back in 1997. Arnold clearly stated that essentially the film used for the lunar photography was ordinary high speed Ektachrome emulsion, 160 ASA (as it was then), on a thin base. You might ask: “was HJP Arnold misinformed?” Because if his recollection is correct, then the claimants for the use on the Moon of this special XRC film must surely be incorrect. But if this XRC film was used on the Moon without the knowledge of those at Kodak charged with the promotion of Apollo in the UK, as HJP Arnold was, then he must have been given erroneous information. And in turn the public must have been unwittingly misinformed through Kodak’s publicity machine.
I don't regard this website as in any way authoritative or credible and I cannot find independent verification of what Arnold is supposed to have said on this occasion.
However, he is on the record as stating that any suggestion that the moon landings were fake is preposterous and demeans the achievement.
This is all a bit of a red herring, though, because if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that coping with the lunar environment would have been quite within the operational paramaters of a normal Ektachrome film used in this type of camera.
Personally, however, I don't doubt that XRC was developed and used for this mission.
This is a link listing all known emulsion based films as produced by every major manufactuer.
These are all commercially available films and so are unlikely to include those produced under special contract from Nasa.
don't you find it odd that not one, upon hearing that Kodak used special film on the moon ever tried to make some of their own similar emulsions..or that no one approached NASA to say we'd like to bid on the contract for supplying film for your projects?
No, I don't find it odd. A competitor would be unlikely to invest in developing such a film without a space agency contract to make it worth their while. Kodak worked with NASA long before the moon landings and for a long time afterwards (and still do).
Or how about this....don't you find it odd that NO mention of special film is made until almost a decade after the 'moon-landings'?
Again no, because the conspiracy theory didn't really gather momentum until after the 1978 release of Capricorn One, about 10 years after the landings.
And isn't it strange that we are now told that Mr. Vimilslik knows all about that film in 2005, when the assistent director of Kodak and special liason to the NASA project claimed it was Echtachrome in 1969.
or do you go about your business by blithely quoting from self-serving websites posting information decades AFTER the fact to explain the inconsistencies or anomalies regarding the official story of the time?
But this is exactly what you have done but with straight lifts from the unreliable aulius website.
I look at the evidence and base my opinions on these.
Unlike you, I base my research on credible scientific sources, rather than the mumbo jumbo spouted by cranky conspiracy theorist websites.
here is a link to the Kodak site listing all their [current] senior executives in all dept's..do you see Mr. Vimilslik's name anywhere on THIS list?
So how senior a source can he be? How credible?
So what? Kodak's a huge company. Just because he's not on the board, doesn't mean that he is an unreliable source. He is currently employed by Kodak and has the authority to speak publicly on their behalf - hardly a job that you'd entrust to the janitor. I have no reason to doubt his word or believe him to be anything else but a credible source. What evidence do you have to suggest that he is not?
Furhtermore..to date, other than blamket staements affirming the existence of such a film..no single piece of XRC film matching the psecs as quoted has vever been submitted for testing..nor has any patent for said film been registered at the US Patent office by Kodak or NASA
Why should it be? It was a piece of technology commissioned for a specific purpose.
So what do we have as evidence to support the claim that there was indeed a special film used on the moon in 1969?
We have an on the record statement from Kodak, which made the film. Also your fellow conspiracy theorist (although he doesn't dispute the moon landings), Richard Hoagland, has also said on the record that he had access to the film and has used it on many occasions.
I have one, and only question for MR VIMILSLIK..when did he start working for Kodak and what post, if any did he hold in the company in 1969?
Frankly, I believe he is the chosen spokesman for the party line and had nothing at all to do with the original Apollo mission.
Errr, well ask him then. I've provided you with his contact details.
Originally posted by Raphael
Glass tubes on mars
In recent months there have been several anomalies discovered on the Martian surface! Certainly, one of the most remarkable and striking photos from the Mars Global Surveyor are the "glass tubes" discovered by the team of "Enterprise Mission," non-NASA researchers who analyzed over 20,000 MGS photos released May 2000 to the public. Seemingly "non-natural" tubular structures located in the Martian deserts (MOC frame M04-00291), give the appearance of being "translucent," quite cylindrical, and supported by somewhat regular intervals by "ribs."
The pictures show what appears to be "glassy tubes," estimated to be up to 600 ft in diameter, and a bright reflection, apparently from the sun. Some researchers have theorized that these tubes are "non-natural" may be water pipes or an environmentally protected underground rapid transit system.
"On Mars the cities are all underground and are connected together by huge oval metal tubes from three to five hundred feet in diameter. There are monorail cars ... which glide silently and very swiftly from one city to another. Because of the great distances between the cities, these tubes have been built only partially submerged.
[edit on 12-8-2004 by Raphael]