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: 19
105
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_
With only 1/6th of gravity they seem to need to put a lot of effort in jumping upwards and moving forwards just mere inches and actually not really further then any human on earth could easily do with the same effort.


There was a good discussion concerning gravity and mass on another thread that is a very good read if you want to spend the time. It is several pages and several people contribute.

ATS LINK

The basic principle is this: even though gravity is less on the moon which affects the down ward force of an object, the mass of an object remains the same and is not reduced by the difference in gravity. IE: you weigh less on the moon compared to earth, but your mass remains the same. It still takes as much force to move an object on the moon as it does on earth.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Pimander
 


Sorry it's taken me so long to get back online and caught-up with the thread.

Pimander, the reason they flew the CM lower than the LM after undocking was so that the CM pilot could visually inspect the LM, make sure the legs were properly deployed, etc. (Example) To do this, it's best not to have a moving, distracting background (they learned this from experience on Apollo 9),

There was an additional benefit: Objects it lower orbit move faster and thus pull ahead of objects in higher orbit. If the LM stayed below the CM from undock to landing, then it would be way ahead by the time of powered descent. By letting the CM pull ahead in a lower orbit for a while, when the LM drops down to 50,000ft to start powered descent it is getting closer to the CM and thus has better comms and less distance to cover in case of an abort.

When the LM ascent stage returned from the surface, they again wanted a "clean background" for good visibility. Here's the catch: The ascending LM actively maneuvered to rendezvous with the passive CM, but then the LM would station-keep while the CM maneuvered to dock. Thus the LM approached the CM from below so the crew could see their mothership against the sky, then the CM pilot took his craft lower than the LM (as shown in your side-view of the Command/Service Module) so that he would have his target set against the sky for final docking.

I hope that answers your question about those images..



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:58 PM
link   
And so it goes. There are two kinds of debunkers that round each other out so to speak. There's the kind that show up and debunk any claim because "there are no pics". Then there is the kind that show up to "debunk the faked pics". Between them I have decided that from now on I can only believe in early B/W TV reruns. Oh, one more category is the "learned accredited connected scientists" that always debunk the debunkers.




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
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)


That was great! Thanks!

Made me smile looking at how tiny it is, and the narration of the video pretending to be perplexed about how the camera could "fill the whole window."



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by artistpoet
 



Yes but you have to make allowances for the weight of their suits etc


Total weight of the full EVA suit (+ a 180 pound man) = about 380 pounds (for the Apollo/Skylab version A7L).

en.wikipedia.org...

380 divided by 6 = approximate total Lunar "weight".


So they should weigh around 63 lbs up there.Doesn't look like it looking at the recordings does it.



Mass remains the same, whether on Earth, the Moon or in free fall.

Yes and why did that deserve a mention?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
When discussing movement in 1/6th G (in this case, the astronaut allegedly getting "pulled-up by a string") I always see people discussing weight vs mass, but they rarely seem to talk about accelleration.

Try this little experiment: Get up from your computer (I know, I know...
) and get on the floor in push-up position (
) - Hands on the floor, arms extended to hold you up, and your legs straight out. Now, with your arms, push yourself up quickly - as hard as you can - so that your hands actually leave the floor (
). Oh come on! I'm 48, 50 lbs overweight and haven't been to the gym in a year and I can do it - you can too!

For a moment, you arm-jump gave you an upward velocity. However, the Earth's gravity accellerates you downwards at 32 feet per second/per second, so you came back down so fast you really didn't have time to think about anything but making sure your hands were positioned to catch you.

On the Moon, gravity is accellerating you downwards at only 5.3 ft/sec^2. This means that you will go higher because it takes longer to cancel your upward vector. You have more time to rise, and still more time for the lower accelleration to bring you back down. Pimander, I believe you mentioned an astronaut looking like he was "levitating"; well, to us folks who have spent our whole lives in 32 ft/sec^2, that surprising upward thrust and long moments unsupported & off-balance looks "un-natural" - It just looks WRONG!

This clip shows Charlie Duke doing exactly this maneuver on the Moon. Note that he also uses the pneumatic properties of his pressure suit (specifically the knees) to help get back up. You can also see the glint off of his PLSS antenna.

Here is John Young falling-down (and cussing), then using the low accelleration and inflated suit to get back up.

In both of these clips, notice the behavior of the lunar dust. It's about the consistency of portland cement. If you kicked it in an atmosphere, it would billow and stay aerosolized for several seconds. In vacuum, with no air to support it, it would move a short distance sideways (because of the kick) and fall back to the surface. However, in 1/6th gravity, it takes longer for the dust to come back down. This, coupled with its sideways vector from the kick, means that the dust will fly latterally much further than we would expect on Earth. This is particularly clear in the John Young video.

Hopefully, as you watch more lunar EVA videos, this will help you understand what you are seeing.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet

but I have a feeling it has been censored by NASA - So here goes - Thanks again
edit on 11-1-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



Ah the classic get out clause for a hoax believer



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
Now I will say this and have said it on other threads about this subject if you look at the number of reasons given for this being faked it would be harder to do than the real thing, also and this is quite important the USA if they had faked it would not have known at what point another nation would have either went to the moon, sent a probe or built a telescope that could resolve the sites on the moon they could NEVER have taken that risk!!!

The other major point of these threads is lack of knowledge in certain subjects, now I am old enough to have watched all the Apollo Moon missions on tv (and did) my education background is all science and engineering subjects, but what always stuns me is the absolutely appalling logic applied by hoax believers.

For example a few pages back comparing a picture from Apollo 8 of the earth with the HDTV camera in the KAGUYA probe and trying to make out it was some sort of smoking gun


The KAGUYA HDTV camera details are on the site you cant just compare 2 videos or pictures from different systems with a different format and lenses and say they should be the same thats FLAWED logic which is rife among the hoax community and on here!

It's like the no stars in moon pictures question which pops up on here it seems every few weeks, if people who think thats not right use that great resource we now have had googled some astrophotography sites they would quickly learn that if you expose for the Moons brightness NO STARS SHOW and if you expose for stars the Moon would be a brilliant white OVER EXPOSED BLOB with no detail.

Maybe some of the hoax believers should do a quick search before making rash assumptions on what their limited knowledge makes them think what should happen. Or ask it as a question like this say

Well why do stars not show in pictures?

Everyone on here can learn from others that have the required knowledge on certain subjects!


edit on 12-1-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-1-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Fake footage I'm not surprised! Basically everything I've ever learned in high school is fake, since I've been out all I've been doing is relearning history lol!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by thepeoplesmilitia
Fake footage I'm not surprised! Basically everything I've ever learned in high school is fake, since I've been out all I've been doing is relearning history lol!


What has been faked do you think the Apollo stuff is or the hoax believers stuff, did you go to a creationist school then if everything was fake



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:22 AM
link   
A couple of people have used this video to try it seems to make out that the Apollo pictures with the earth in view are wrong.



Now if you listen to the commentary and not just look at the pretty picture from the 30 sec mark it states that the earth rise footage was taken using the TELEPHOTO CAMERA!

A quick vist to the KAGUYA site gets you the info on the HDTV camera

Horizontal angle 44 degrees (Wide-angle) 15 degrees (Telephoto)

So the telephoto lens magnifies the image about 3 times compared to the wide angle lens, this is a good example about comparing images and videos from different sources.

If the wide angle lens on the Kugaya camera produces a similar field of view to the Apollo 8 picture then the telephoto lens makes the earth look 3 times the size.

So before any hoax believers make their rash assumptions maybe you should check first that it's apples with apples!



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


What is that a space trek clip?? Cmon man.. I think movies play a great roll in allowing your mind to believe we can travel all over space. & im sure we can but strictly with alien assistance. Maybe we havent sent up an astronaut with a HD cam to play golf because were not "allowed" to. Why is it so hard to believe we didnt go? Someone else said its real because their dad was in a picture in front of the capsule.....whered the capsule come from? The moon?? lmao
The moon supposedly is a hollowed out planet turned space station from millions of years ago, brought here from another galaxy. I dont think were allowed anywhere near that thing.
(Listen to Obama's response: www.youtube.com... )
he should of just blurted everything out



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUnusualSuspect
 
You are so right. Certainly they went there at some point, but photos up there are so manipulated as are many other videos and photos in space. Part thruths is what we get, but unfotunately its NASA that gives us the firsthand info of events in space. Its just sad.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeekendWarrior
reply to post by TheUnusualSuspect
 
You are so right. Certainly they went there at some point, but photos up there are so manipulated as are many other videos and photos in space. Part thruths is what we get, but unfotunately its NASA that gives us the firsthand info of events in space. Its just sad.




Well why dont you show a picture that you think is manipulated give your reasons why and we will see what happens many members who look at these threads are keen ,semi or even pro photographers, its been my hobby for longer than some of the hoax believers on here have been alive!

So lets see what you are talking about, but if you want to why dont you look at this thread as no doubt over the 670+ pages every BS theory has been looked at.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   
You're practically wasting your time. The ignorance and complete lack of even basic scientific understanding from so many people these days is outstanding and only getting worse. I expect most of them think their iPhones work because of magic or God dust. Half these people are evidence for past lives - their still in the way of thinking from medieval times.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


And they went there with less processing power than in an iPhone !





posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 08:37 AM
link   
The biggest argument against it, for me anyway *as someone posted in a video a few pages in* is that, over 40 years ago the US was able to go to the moon, and in all the decades since, with the absoloutely huge technological advances since then, the space shuttles have got only a few hundred miles above the earth (as opposed to how far away is the moon!?!?!)

That is strange- and if true, then the US has fairly dumbed down in 4 decades



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 


I don't know if this can be stressed enough, but the space shuttle was designed for a maximum operational altitude of 600 miles...nowhere near 240,000.

As for the US not maintaining a heavy lift, deep space capability...I blame shortsighted politicians that never cared for the science, an American populace that was not taught the value of these missions, and a war that consumed 58,000 American lives that would not end until 1975 (I imagine, like today, bullsh*t illegal wars cost a lot of money).

According to the Los Angeles Times, the Vietnam war cost $686 billion in adjusted dollars...the entire Apollo program, including research and development would equal $25.4 billion in adjusted dollars. Quite the difference, eh?
edit on 1/12/2012 by NuminousCosmos because: added some numbers



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by blueorder
The biggest argument against it, for me anyway *as someone posted in a video a few pages in* is that, over 40 years ago the US was able to go to the moon, and in all the decades since, with the absoloutely huge technological advances since then, the space shuttles have got only a few hundred miles above the earth (as opposed to how far away is the moon!?!?!)

That is strange- and if true, then the US has fairly dumbed down in 4 decades


As I said earlier in the thread.
They sent at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months way back then.

I find that amazing.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56
They sent at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months way back then.

I find that amazing.


Not sure where you're getting 18 months. If you count all missions that sent men to the vicinity of the moon (Apollos 8, and 10-17), you're talking about a time span of about 4 years (December 1968 to December 1972). If you're just talking about Apollos 11-17, that's about 3.5 years (July 1969 to December, 1972).

Here are the launch dates:

Apollo 8: December 21, 1968
Apollo 10: May 18, 1969
Apollo 11: July 16, 1969
Apollo 12: November 24, 1969
Apollo 13: April 11, 1970
Apollo 14: February 9, 1971
Apollo 15: August 7, 1971
Apollo 16: April 16, 1972
Apollo 17: December 7, 1972

Of all the possible spans of 6 consecutive missions, the duration between them are:

Apollo 8-14: 2 years 1 month 19 days
Apollo 10-15: 2 years 2 months 20 days
Apollo 11-16: 2 years 9 months
Apollo 12-17: 3 years 13 days

So I'm hard pressed to figure out where you think 6 manned missions were sent to the moon over a period of 18 months.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join