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.

 

Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 18
105
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


They adjust the attitude to coincide with their orbital momentum in around the moon, at around 6,000 mph it is greater than the speed rising from the moon, a constant progression easier to make use of the maneuvering thrusters. They wouldn't aim like a bottle rocket up to a precisely sized coupling. They want a slow steady approach like an ISS docking.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Where's Phage - Has he gone to bed - I think I'll join him - No not like that



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Sorry for the typo.
But you still havnt made any good points.
They wouldnt risk human life with all the dangers that could occur between Earth and the Moon in travel.
Too much room for error and waiste of $$$. SO FAKE IT!

Imagine if that rocket blew up due to technical failure on live t.v. Im sure there was a "fake-death" plan in order.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



Why is the lunar module"above" the command module?


There is a video I saw that described in great detail the orbital mechanics involved. Is is about the dynamics of the orbits, and how they calculated the way to achieve both the powered descent portion, of the full lander.....and then the ascent and rendezvous phase for the return to orbit and meet-up with the CSM.

Will search for it.......(also, as I recall, before final hook-up, the LM performed a visual inspection of the CSM, just using the maneuvering thrusters to move about, and see all sides).....

Here's one version, from very early in the program.....even as the exact design and configuration of the Lunar Module was still being worked out. This dates to sometime in the early-to-late 1960s. Naturally, they worked out the math and the orbits and thrusts (compared to weights, to set those limits) as part of the planning stages.

(That's why they're called "rocket scientists!!)




So, that ^ ^ ^ was just basics.

Here's a better and more thorough one (including the groovy 1960s music...
):



If you want, here's Part 2


edit on Wed 11 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by henryjonesjr
 


People did die...Apollo 1 for example: en.wikipedia.org...

The fact that no single Saturn V or IB ever exploded or failed on launch is a testament to the quality of engineering and design that went into these vast machines.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by henryjonesjr
 


Ever heard of Apollo 13?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 

It's a shame we didn't have them working on the Space Shuttle and recent Soyuz missions. There might have been less accidents. How can technology supposedly move forward but safety backwards?



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Great thread guys. Lots of interesting opinions floating around here. I'm kind of learning as I go with this topic.

As it stands I am more leaning towards the fact that they did indeed make it to the moon, but there is certain footage and information being withheld from the general public. I have a feeling there have been numerous top secret missions to the moon since that day and that we are far more technologically advanced than they have been leading us to believe.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by henryjonesjr
 





Imagine if that rocket blew up due to technical failure on live t.v. Im sure there was a "fake-death" plan in order.



An Undelivered Nixon Speech

watergate.info/nixon/moon-disaster-speech-1969.shtml

What about the Challenger or the Discovery?

The nauts are well informed on the dangers of spaceflight....

Your argument is moot....



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
Naturally, they worked out the math and the orbits and thrusts (compared to weights, to set those limits) as part of the planning stages.
I used to teach the equations of motion so I can picture what sorts of calculations are needed. I'm not completely ignorant really.


What surprised was how often I have seen the CSM pictured from above. I guess it is partly down to the fact that those are the sexy pictures that make publication thinking about it.

I know I'm annoying . However, although the person who asks lots of questions may appear ignorant - the person who asks none remains ignorant forever. I used to teach my students that as well. Hopefully I was a good teacher.

ETA: In fact the equations of motion are far simpler to use in space due to the low friction environment...
edit on 11/1/12 by Pimander because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DanielET
 

Welcome to ATS.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 



Thanks!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by henryjonesjr
 



They wouldnt risk human life with all the dangers that could occur between Earth and the Moon in travel.


Risk?

Risk is what it's all about. You don't make progress by not pushing the boundaries. Ever looked into aviation? You should research the many aspects of the history of aviation. Without the risk-takers, the advancements you see today (safe, reliable world-wide air transportation) would not be possible.

As always, the goal is to minimize Human death whenever possible.....but, merely "not doing it" because of a so-called "risk"?

Ask famed stuntman Evel Knievel about that.....(actually you can't, because he died in 2007. But, NOT from accidents....from diabetes and lung disease!!!)....or any other daredevil of note.

Of course, the concept of "risk" is best stated by the great "Captain James T. Kirk"!!





(From Second Season episode, "Return to Tomorrow")



edit on Wed 11 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:00 PM
link   
I have always been torn on this issue, having held both sides as fact at some point, which was always based on the evidence I deemed to be credible. The problem then, and now, is that I do not know which evidence is credible and which is false.

Let it be known that Phage's words carry heavy weight with me, and his reply to this thread is on par with what I was thinking when I first clicked the play button for this video. How do we know that what is being said by the narrator is true? Are the clips of video actually cued with the narrator's speech?

But, and this is a big but, there is still extremely damning video amidst these clips, in my humble opinion at least. I had believed the camera was resting on something, maybe a tripod, or maybe something else, and that it was in fact almost touching the window.

The video presented near the end of this clip clearly shows that the camera is where the narrator claims it to be, and I really am inclined to believe that this scientific explanation of how the shots were achieved is accurate. We can see what looks to be the cutouts that are described, as well as the change in apparent size of the Earth on at least one occasion.

I remember when I was younger, and those claiming NASA had lied about landing on the Moon had always stated that the Van Allen Belt was just an impassible barrier. This could always be explained away for most people, as most people aren't familiar with the affects of high volume, short duration radiation exposure. Especially in the environment the astronauts were in, and regardless of whether radiation on Earth is the same as that in space, most people would accept almost any explanation as long as it were plausible.

My point here is that could the Van Allen Belt indeed have been the major obstacle, or at least one of great difficulty, in reaching the Moon? To be completely honest, I do not know what to make of this new information. Granted, I haven't read through the entire thread, and hopefully by completing this task I will be illuminated on the issue. Hopefully that is the case.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


That Kirk speech always gives me goosebumps. Onwards to Mars! Onward to that first star!



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


The ONLY thing nefarious is the narrator's script.

Watch and listen and you will not see and you will not hear what the narrator tells you to see and hear.

For example, there is no "discussion of their deception." Listen for yourself.

Listen for the word, "Goldstone."

Then go look it up and educate yourself as to what was going on to process the video and make the communication link which could receive video. A good chance that the "secret" person is at Goldstone and trying to make certain that the audio link has been established.

I got see a (failed) launch of one of the relay satellites just after Apollo 11 and before 12. They were sending up one of those little things along with just about anything else that was launched back then to help create a communication network. Alas! The one I saw launched did not make orbit.

If you have ever looked up at the Moon as it passes through its phases, the shape of the Earth will not be a deceptive mystery to you (as it appears to be for Bart Sibel)-- unless you believe God is holding up a piece of cardboard in the sky to block out part of the lunar orb every time you look up.

If not God, then maybe Buzz Aldrin-- I am convinced those two are very close.

The narrator is simply reading a script-- very professionally narrated-- but the script is.. well... as unbalanced as its author.

This video has been dissected on ATS so many times that it should, by now, be transparently thin.

God bless Buzz Aldrin-- and not just because he walked on the Moon-- and not even because he decked Bart Sibel (although both of those things are great)-- but because of his sheer awesomeness.

Enter trolls claiming the video convinced them that the moon landings were a hoax, in 5... 4... 3... 2...


edit on 11-1-2012 by Frira because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


Here we go again...

I'm so sick of this ridiculous "moon hoax" crap. Remove the narration and this is nothing but a bunch of random shots of the Earth from space. There is nothing here to suggest that any of this happened in the context that the narrator claims, but she has a Brittish accent, so she MUST know what she's talking about, right?

Isn't this the same "documentary" that claims that the astronauts were held up by wires to make them appear to be in 1/6 gravity while walking on the moon? The "proof" they offer is brief glimpses of the sun reflecting off of antennas on top of their backpacks. There are many more ridiculous claims as well.

We sent 7 crews of 3 astronauts to walk on the moon and several before that to lunar orbit. Don't you think the Soviets, who had better space technology than us, would have been able to discover a hoax in all that time? We were on the brink of war with the soviets back then, and i can guarantee you that if they so much as suspected a hoax they would have let the entire world know.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 


I do not know enough about the particle physics behind the Van Allen belts, but this is a nice, plain explanation (with a handy diagram): www.astronomycafe.net...

As for the Command Module, it was designed to be strong and light. This is an image of a Block 1 (pre-Apollo 1 fire) unit under construction: www.hq.nasa.gov...

As you can see, there are layers of Mylar and aluminum here...not including the outer shell. Most people in the hoax community are puzzled as to why the outside of the ship is covered in 'tape.' This tape is actually Kapton, which is described as "...is regularly used as an insulator in ultra-high vacuum environments due to its low outgassing rate." it also has great endurance in very low to very high temperatures. On reentry to our atmosphere is would char and flake off...making it a valuable collectors item.

These pictures are of a Block 1 capsule that I had the joy to see in person. It's very similar to the ones that actually flew to the moon:

The outer surface:
img.abovetopsecret.com...

The interior:
img.abovetopsecret.com...

The famous window that everyone is talking about:
img.abovetopsecret.com...

For scale, an average 5' 10" American male:
img.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't know if this answers any questions, but it should help illustrate the vehicle and it's arrangement.
edit on 1/11/2012 by NuminousCosmos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by henryjonesjr
 


This would be my point exactly... I know that the men went to space, my father picked up the capsule on his navy ship and has photos of himself standing in front of the capsule.

I worked in military intelligence for six years and have studied the behind the scenes political things gong on at the time in relation to intelligence work.

We couldn't afford to have a disaster occur politically. We HAD to be the first to get to the moon and couldn't afford the potential for error.

I would like to thank whoever it was that posted the video with the still images relating it to weather patterns. That analysis pretty much eliminates the idea that it was the round portion of the command capsule window that we are seeing with a mostly obscured earth. I would have to double check from the original footage to be completely sure myself, but that provides the best evidence for that thought to be laid to rest, but the idea that anyone who does not believe that we went to the moon is a fool, is asinine. Phage is a smart guy but he tows the line of the paradigm WAY too often for my tastes without thinking big picture or truly logically evaluating things without accounting for the manipulation that is inherent within the many paradigms of science.

I try to avoid being encumbered with the paradigms of established science and try to weigh the empirical evidence with logical evaluation on its own merit without falling into the trap of believing the existing paradigms are the most accurate.

Too often in history the paradigms have proven to wrong to the point that I have coined the quote "the only historical scientific truth is that science is NEVER currently accurate".

Jaden



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 

Please forgive me. A little off topic. Of all the times I saw your avatar, I finally got it....




new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join