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.
Originally posted by schitzoandro
reply to post by Frira
just so you know, i truly believe that man has walked on the moon, and although i know the debunkers will destroy this, i just hope phage will come along and either back this image up, or discredit it altogether!
www.bbc.co.uk...
hot off the presses!
edit on 6-9-2011 by schitzoandro because: add image
Originally posted by Phage
The body of the cameras provided shielding from radiation. In addition the film magazines themselves had additional shielding.
Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Frira
I am with you 100% on that. I remember the moon landings being on TV. I also remember IBM 360 computers and tray of punch cards. Unfortunately youngsters have absolutely no concept of what things were like then.
The IBM I worked on took up a complete floor of the building it was in, and yes it was programmed with punch cards. Try cracking that code when you have dropped the tray!! Graphics? - nope!
reply to post by patternfinder
Tell me. Were you even alive then?edit on 5/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by Phage
The body of the cameras provided shielding from radiation. In addition the film magazines themselves had additional shielding.
No they didnt.
How did they shield the film cartridges when they took them off the camera?
tranquillitybase.files.wordpress.com...
How were the lenses shielded?
What was the handle made from?
ecx.images-amazon.com...
I sure see a lot of black on that camera.
edit on 6-9-2011 by FoosM because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by schitzoandro
More here:
asunews.asu.edu...
Originally posted by Gorsebeacon
reply to post by patternfinder
Wow. You sure are a smart one. Do you seriously think we are incapable of landing on the moon? I don't even see how this can be an issue with some people. I wasn't alive then and I believe it because of all the evidence pointing towards the fact that we did land on the moon. I think you just have something against John F. Kennedy. That's really what this is all about. You are probably some fat kid who heard a story or two about the moon landing being a hoax and went with it. We currently have jet engines that travel about 200,000 miles an hour and we have satellites that can see in to the distant past the many millions of galaxies in our ever expanding universe. Technology is making obvious leaps and bounds even here on earth and you have a hard time believing we were on the moon 50 years ago. Why are you wasting our time with your retarded ideas? Go learn about civil rights or something instead of thinking you can tell a guy who was actually there that his dad was a liar and Kennedy was a fraud. It was one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind. But for someone like you. It wasn't. So why don't you go walk off the edge of our flat planet. Because I bet you still believe the earth is flat and you are the center of the universe.
If NASA really did go to the moon in the 60's, there's no chance they will ever go again because the politicians are not smart. NASA's most recent accomplishment was crashing a satellite into the moon, great job
Originally posted by filosophia
If NASA really did go to the moon in the 60's, there's no chance they will ever go again because the politicians are not smart. NASA's most recent accomplishment was crashing a satellite into the moon, great job
Originally posted by Jason88
Never mind the news sites showing the brand spanking new pics of the moon landings taken from a NASA spacecraft, go right to the source - the NASA site showing the pics with video and interactive tools that show the clarity of these new photos: NASA site: www.nasa.gov...
Or keep it in ATS and visit this new thread (mine): www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by patternfinder
wow, that was an interesting read , i don't know where you got that i didn't like john f kennedy....plus, with all of our technology today, we still can't reach the moon...all i needed to see to believe that the pics were faked was that there was no dust on the foot pads and no crater beneath the ship.....everything else is just details to get mixed up in......no one has ever given me an explanation for what i just mentioned...they just fog it up with too many details that can't be proven
The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.
Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.
That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.
In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.
When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.
Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.
Originally posted by patternfinder
they use the familiar tactics of insinuation where they show you a pic that isn't quite discernible, then they show you a clear pic of the items from the old pics..