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.

 

Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 28
109
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by summerbreeze.ddp
 


From NASA TN D-7080

A major complication concerning radiation stability within the belts (including the South Atlantic anomaly portion) is a result of high-altitude nuclear detonations. In 1962, the United States detonated a 1. 5-megaton thermonuclear device (Project Starfish) in a portion of the Van Allen belt region and caused the radiation levels within the belts to rise significantly. By 1969, the high -energy electron component of the injected radiation had decayed to only one-twelfth of the 1962 intensity. small amount of time spent in earth orbit and the rapid traverse of the radiation belts during Apollo missions have minimized astronaut radiation dose from the remaining Starfish electrons.




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by borutp
Another thing i just noticed...Have you seen the hand waving at 0:53 on the right side?..Clearly an astronaut....
Who zoomed the camera?





edit on 12-9-2011 by borutp because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by borutp because: added picture


Mission control in Houston had remote control of video cameras on the Moon. It was a little tricky because of the time delay caused by the limitations of the speed of light, but they eventually got very good at it.

Here is a video of Apollo 17 ascending the Moon. Obviously there isn't an astronaut back on the Moon filming the departure of his own spacecraft. The camera operator in Houston had to coordinate the camera pan with the assumed launch time and ascent path of the LEM ascent stage ahead of the actual occurrences of those events.




...and here is the camera operator back in houston panning around the Apollo 17 site AFTER the astronauts left (notice that the ascent stage of the LEM is gone).


edit on 9/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by borutp
Another thing i just noticed...Have you seen the hand waving at 0:53 on the right side?..Clearly an astronaut....
Who zoomed the camera?





edit on 12-9-2011 by borutp because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-9-2011 by borutp because: added picture


Mission control in Houston had remote control of video cameras on the Moon. It was a little tricky because of the time delay caused by the limitations of the speed of light, but they eventually got very good at it.

Here is a video of Apollo 17 ascending the Moon. Obviously there isn't an astronaut back on the Moon filming the departure of his own spacecraft. The cameraman in Houston had to coordinate the camera pan with assumed launch time and ascent path of the LEM ascent stage ahead of the actual timeing of those events.




edit on 9/12/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


And I was just about to suggest that the user make an attempt to answer the question for himself! Kind of an obvious answer, isn't it?

But on how many hoax sites will that question be asked AS IF there is no obvious answer? And how many times will the user ignore the obvious answer provided so as to perpetuate the hoax? The answer, I fear, is proof that the Apollo Hoax believers have no interest in truth.

Post Script: How can I see a "hand waving" at :53 seconds into a still image?
edit on 12-9-2011 by Frira because: PS



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
Post Script: How can I see a "hand waving" at :53 seconds into a still image?
edit on 12-9-2011 by Frira because: PS



He's referring to the video of the hammer and feather drop, from a few pages back.
He's very confused because (to paraphrase) if the other astronaut is controlling the camera, then who's hand is that off to the right side????
The answer is just as you explained. Remote control of the camera from earth, James Irwin looks on from the side, while Dave Scott drops the stuff.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by borutp
 


You need to watch the long version where you can see the astronaut behind him skip by, that's one tactic that conspiracy site use by cherry picking segments of footage, then feeding us misinformation to support their hoax.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


seems to be a lot of "moon dust" when that thin took off. Is there only "moon dust" on take offs?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeussusZ
 


Nope.

I believe the words on landing just before "Contact light" (indicated the landing pads were close enough to know to stop), were, "Picking up some dust." That tells is dust was becoming visible out the front window given that the forward motion was then becoming very slow. Prior to that both altitude and forward speed meant no dust, or no dust seen.

Where they landed, I believe the dust was about half an inch thick on average, and very adherent, so tended to stay put or cling, but not scatter easily.



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


so did the dust change from when they landed to when they took off?



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeussusZ
reply to post by Frira
 


so did the dust change from when they landed to when they took off?

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, but dust was moved around when they landed and dust was moved around when they launched.

It may have looked different possibly due to the fact that the engine used when they landed (the descent engine) was a different one than what was used when they launched (the ascent engine). You can see the force of at least some of the ascent engine exhaust was pushed outwards because you can see the flag moving.

It also may look different because we don't have a video of an LEM landing taken from the same vantage point as we do for this ascent launch.

Here is the Apollo 17 landing. At around the 3:00 mark, you can see the dust:


Here is Apollo 11 landing. You can seethe dust at around the 4:30 mark (they make mention of the dust at the 4:35 mark):


Here is a video of the Apollo 15 LEM ascent. You can see dust and debris being pushed around. However, like I said before, the LEM ascent stage has its own engine that is in a different location than the descent engine, so I bet it pushes around the dust in a different manner:

edit on 9/15/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
They themselves encouraged the HOAX its amost their unofficial position to dumb people down. The moon missions were very real. But, human presence on the moon, was already there. The US Navy and what I call the SS.

They protect their own strategic bases here on earth with frequency/hz devices. Radiation itself, mostly what they put up there with all their atmospheric testing, can be neutralized.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
They themselves encouraged the HOAX its amost their unofficial position to dumb people down. The moon missions were very real. But, human presence on the moon, was already there. The US Navy and what I call the SS.

They protect their own strategic bases here on earth with frequency/hz devices. Radiation itself, mostly what they put up there with all their atmospheric testing, can be neutralized.
edit on 15-9-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


Now who can argue with that?




posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I was weightless for nearly a minute in a VC10

OK this film is longer, so they were obviously in orbit.
Hardy HD though, is it?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by playswithmachines
 

Hardy HD though, is it?
Why, no it is not. It is a slow-scan camera that fed video through a voice channel. You can find information regarding the camera and the associated radio equipment at:

Places to find Apollo information

I bought the four DVDs full of Apollo information. That material includes original NASA specifications, contractor responses, detailed designs including parts lists and schematics, flight reports, and historical accounts. Actually, there is ample material there to prove that all flights were real. Bear in mind, there were failures that were clearly reported. Why would they need to hoax something that was technically feasable? Read the material and see if you can choose a technical reason that the flights didn't occur. By the way, you do know that several unmanned landings by Surveyor craft preceeded that manned landings, don't you? So, if they could land self-guided instrument packages, what could possibly prevent manned landings?



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Chinesis
 

What I expected: facts.

May I suggest: Apollo historical and technical documentation

I have the four DVD set. The information overwhelming! If you think there is a hoax, just read through and pick the part you don't think is feasible.



posted on Sep, 27 2011 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Rosha
 

For me though, the rest does require more evidenciary substantiation as the counter arguments and evidence that preclude an actual landing and bring to question a manned orbiters capacity to travel to the moon given the lack of knowledge of space not just technology, are significant...

Go to the places listed on this post: Sources

If you really want to know the truth, purchase the four DVD set that contains the nearly complete documentation of the Apollo project. The orbital math is included in that set as well as the mass of all equipment and propellants, as is the thrust/impulse data for individual engines and clusters. If you can identify the flaw (or BS) that prevented the lunar landing, please identify it for the rest of us.

The other links provide a lot of data including trajectory analysis for the lay person. As I said before, just point out the engineering or scientific flaw that made those missions impossible.



posted on Sep, 28 2011 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
sounds all warm and fuzzy and i'm sure with the feelings that you feel about it, you surely wouldn't want to believe that your dad was involved, even if it was unwittingly, in something that never actually came to fruition...i'm sure that would be devastating to you....but, strong emotions about a particular subject are a very nice way to not be very open minded about a situation...in conclusion, while very warm and heart felt, it didn't provide me any proof of your claim......


Typical answer from someone who doesn't know jack about what goes into space launches and all it involves.

I know many people who worked on the moon landings, tell them we didnt land and they might pull a Buzz Aldrin on you. I have a VERY open mind but somethings are just beyond ridiculous to believe. Do you even know how much and how many people it takes to launch anything to space let alone send someone to the moon? No I doubt it.

OP I'm jealous! I want to go in the VAB and tour the KSC! I have been there for launches and rollouts but I haven't toured any of the facilities. Nice pic btw!



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frira
I have the advantage of having lived through the moon missions and some of my peers, as a child, had parents and family friends working on Apollo, my own Dad a major player in a minor role.


There are only 12 astronauts who ever walked on the Moon. There are only 12 astronauts who could possibly testify to the reality of what they did up there. Only 9 of them are still alive.

Here is a quote from Pete Conrad during an Apollo 12 press conference segment:


Pete Conrad:

I think this is one of the best 16-mm pictures I ever seen that Dick took of Intrepid leaving. We've done our separation and were waiting, excuse me, we've done our undocking and waiting for Dick to separate and leave us, so that we get over on the night side and do our first alignment prior to the descent orbit injection burn.

The first time I looked at this movie it looked so unreal to me I thought , if I saw that in a Hollywood movie I'd say that it was a fake... but I was there and so were Dick and Al and we'll all vouch for the real thing here.



When an astronaut says something looks "fake" or "unreal" how do you explain it? Is he exaggerating? Is he using colorful commentary? But the fact is Pete Conrad said it looked "fake" and there is no way around that.
edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

When an astronaut says something looks "fake" or "unreal" how do you explain it? Is he exaggerating? Is he using colorful commentary? But the fact is Pete Conrad said it looked "fake" and there is no way around that.


QUite simple really. We live on earth under the protective atmosphere, once you leave those familiar surroundings things look and act differently than what you are used to seeing, in your programed expectations of how things look. This is where the hoax proponents fail in describing what they see in Apollo videos and images, because how would they know, as to what they can reference, as to how things should look on the moon?

It's the exaggeration of taking snippets out of context and misinterpreting what was meant when such was said about an 'initial reaction' that was observed out of what our mind was programed to expect. Also the over-analyses of every recorded image, word, and incident, out of context and references, is where the moon hoax believers try to obviously convince themselves that something looks peculiar, thus they must be faked, against no sample base, except what they see in movies.

Let me ask you something, why is it that the moon hoax theories didn't reach us until way after the advent of the internet?
edit on 29-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic

Let me ask you something, why is it that the moon hoax theories didn't reach us until way after the advent of the internet?
edit on 29-9-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)


There are newspaper reports in Google News archives which contradict you.

See this post Eugene Register-Guard - Jul 23, 1969
www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: date



Here is the Google News Archive link news.google.com...


edit on 9/29/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: add 2nd link



posted on Sep, 29 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 



There are newspaper reports in Google News archives which contradict you.


There is a huge difference between people simply refusing to believe something that challenges their belief system or comfort zone and a full blown conspiracy theory. There are many people who refuse to accept that Elvis is dead. There is still no "Elvis is alive" conspiracy theory.




top topics



 
109
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join