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: 20
105
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


And, this is an example of why nonsense such as Apollo "hoax" remains......instead of stating facts, too often people either make things up off the top of their heads, or repeat (wrongly) something they've read elsewhere that someone else made up off the top of their head:


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






posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by JustJoe
 

And your evidence is??? Your website is a joke.

This whole thread is a shame.

We went to the moon. It was a great achievement. How does this get lost on people?

But I shouldn't be too critical. This is ATS. Home of hte crackpots.

The slogan should be: "Conspiracies are like masturbation. You'll never be lonely here."
edit on 12-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by blueorder
 

True. That always made me wonder...

But you have to keep in mind that it was a cold war competition. We should be glad that at least some of that energy went towards space flight and not war. Better than nothing, eh?

Look at it this way. At least we're not stepping outside and seeing a barren nuclear wasteland.

But things like Project Silver Bug and Project Orion and Project Horizen make me wonder. How many secret government projects are still too classified or buried for us to know about em?

How much out there is buried in secrecy? I don't mean aliens. I mean black projects.

These things (fully realized) would give us an edge in the competition on earth. But they all present challenges to the present system. A national security threat, even. Complicated.

You know how they say to know your enemy well? How is that related, do you think?

Look at this:
en.wikipedia.org...



On September 5, 1951, the USAF awarded Consolidated-Vultee a contract to fly a nuclear reactor onboard a modified Convair B-36[7] under the MX-1589 project of the ANP program. The NB-36H Nuclear Test Aircraft (NTA) was to study shielding requirements for an airborne reactor, to determine whether a nuclear aircraft was feasible. This was the only known airborne reactor experiment by the U.S. with an operational nuclear reactor on board. The NTA flew a total of 47 times testing the reactor over West Texas and Southern New Mexico. The reactor, named the Aircraft Shield Test Reactor (ASTR), was operational but did not power the plane, rather the primary purpose of the flight program was shield testing.

Based on the results of the NTA, the X-6 and the entire nuclear aircraft program was abandoned in 1961.

All of this makes me wonder what they're not saying...

There're secrets. The question is how deep do they go and how surprised would we be?
edit on 12-1-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


You can not scientifically prove that the signal was transmitted in real time. This could or could not have been an elaborate technical hoax, using pre-recorded material produced in a studio. Since neither you, or anyone for that matter, can prove or disprove that the images transmitted were "live images", putting this forward as evidence to undermine your theory is flawed logic. Or can you prove that the images were indeed live images ? No you can not.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by H1ght3chHippie
 


I believe that you can prove a signal was in real time through a spectrum analyzer: en.wikipedia.org... which did exist in a more primitive form in the late 1960s, as well as determining any frequency drift and measuring the time it takes in light seconds for a signal from the moon to reach Earth.

The link I posted earlier in the thread talked about, in Russian, the Soviets listening in to the broadcasts from Apollo 11...it's an interesting read.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

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


I love space exploration always have - As a teenager I watched all the Apollo 11 broadcasts.
What an amazing and exciting time it was in 1969 when all the world watched in wonder.
One broadcast has always puzzled me though - I was watching the broadcast with my family - Suddenly one of the crew exclaims in a gob smacked manner -
"Where are the stars there are no stars" then the public broadcast was abruptly cut.
I have read all the transcriots from the command module and these lines do not appear anywhere.
Today I asked family members if they remembered it also - They confirmed they had remembered and how we talked about as it was very strange.
Of course there are stars yet non of the crew ever mention seeing any by naked eye.
They did however navigate by stars through instrumentation.

Imagine looking at the stars on a cloud free non light polluted night - Have you even seen The Milky Way in all its glory - a sight non ever forgets - Tonight the sky is full of stars Sirius shimmering a rainbow of colour - The blue hazy cloud of the Pleades Orions belt - Betelguese that would swallow our Sun much as the Sun is in size to our Earth - Rigel so bright so blue - The eye of the bull Alderbaran - Geminis twin stars - yes I love astronomy as do the crew of Apollo 11 - Thet launch leaving the Earth behind Venus shining bright comes into view The crators of the Moon become ever clearer - Yet no visible star for all is in blackness - Can you imagine how strange that must be must feel - Only Venus shining bright - a beautiful blue Earth and when the rises in relation to it it is not like how we see the Sun for the light from it is more expansive and colourful but apart fron the Sun our star there are no other visible stars. It is an optcal illusion but for sure puzzled the crew.
I know what I heard and NASA cut that broadcast for sure and I can not find any evidence of it in the transcripts of what I and those with me most certainly heard -
This is not a conspiricy however as the optical illusion can be explained now.
Yes they went to the Moon but if you believe NASA tells you the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
you are deluded.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by lambros56
 


And, this is an example of why nonsense such as Apollo "hoax" remains......instead of stating facts, too often people either make things up off the top of their heads, or repeat (wrongly) something they've read elsewhere that someone else made up off the top of their head:


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


.



Do your research instead of thinking of making an accusation.......off the top of your head



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 



Do your research instead of thinking of making an accusation....


I do the research.

You wrote "...at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months"......

This is incorrect, as the research clearly shows.


edit on Thu 12 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by lambros56
 



Do your research instead of thinking of making an accusation....


I do the research.

You wrote "...at least Six manned missions to the Moon in a period of Eighteen months"......

This is incorrect, as the research clearly shows.


edit on Thu 12 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



So it wasn`t three lunar orbits, two landings and Apollo thirteens failed mission?



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
reply to post by Phage
 


You can not scientifically prove that the signal was transmitted in real time.


I can, and did on page 4 of this thread (Link)


Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
This could or could not have been an elaborate technical hoax, using pre-recorded material produced in a studio.



Originally posted by Saint Exupery

This is a testable question. If this was an authentic transmission, and the TV transmission was going out live, and the hi-res photographs match the TV images, then the weather patterns visible in the photographs must match the local weather measured across the country at the time the images were taken.



Originally posted by H1ght3chHippie
Since neither you, or anyone for that matter, can prove or disprove that the images transmitted were "live images", putting this forward as evidence to undermine your theory is flawed logic. Or can you prove that the images were indeed live images ? No you can not.





posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lambros56


So it wasn`t three lunar orbits, two landings and Apollo thirteens failed mission?
it's ironic that you tell others to do research before making accusations, when you haven't done the research yourself. There were two lunar orbit missions (Apollo 8 and 10) and two lunar landings (Apollo 11 and 12) before Apollo 13. That's only 5 missions.
edit on 12-1-2012 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


omg.. ive never.. u.. grr.. fine.. but i wanna know why? why and what is the radiation thing and why we cant get past it..



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by MalusLupus
 



....but i wanna know why?


What I wanna know is "why" this thread has so many stars and flags on the opening post. Over a crappy video made by a person who intentionally edited the footage to alter the meaning and context.

Are there that many people visiting ATS who really do not understand the way they have been fooled by a con artist (or, just insane man) like Bart Sibrel??

In this day and age.....when we now have satellite photos of the Apollo equipment and clear evidence of the activities at all six landing sites? Not to mention the mountains of other undeniable evidence......



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
If I am correct, there was roughly 2000 to 3000 pounds of thrust from the LEM motor during landing?, which would indicate why there wasn’t a crater created under the LEM. During the landing though, there would be a significant amount of dust thrown up from underneath the LEM. In saying so, there would have been dust descending down upon the lander foot pads. It is fundamentally impossible for the module to be as impeccably clean and dust-free as they are in all of NASA’s photos.












With all of the foot prints from the boots around the LEM, it is obvious that there was dust everywhere. Why not on the lander foot pads? Or any other place on the lander? How far above the ground was the LEM before they cut the engines? It would have been quite significant to prevent any dust from blowing all over the place.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Question for you first...if you're going to fake a moon landing, why not just throw some moon dirt into those pads? I doubt that the set dresser would've missed that little detail, film taken, and photos faked-and no one noticed?

It's silly.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Well,

Did you do the research to see how flying dust reacts with no atmosphere?

It is different on the moon you know.......

I believe this argument has been addressed many times here............

look it up.



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by liejunkie01
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Well,

Did you do the research to see how flying dust reacts with no atmosphere?

It is different on the moon you know.......

I believe this argument has been addressed many times here............

look it up.


Here's a pic from the landing where you can see the dust moving...




posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NuminousCosmos
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Question for you first...if you're going to fake a moon landing, why not just throw some moon dirt into those pads? I doubt that the set dresser would've missed that little detail, film taken, and photos faked-and no one noticed?

It's silly.

I never said it was faked. Just curious why there wasn't dust all over the place...



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   
it's hard to believe that the government really went to the moon or the US whatever you wanna call it. all it is this earth the world the us the government is a big giant conspiracy..



posted on Jan, 12 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


In a previous ATS thread called Sick and tired of claims Moon landings were a Hoax final proof! a similar discussion occurred. Here is the the post and my answer with some corrections/clarifications in []. I think it holds true to your inquiry as well.


Originally posted by Gibborium

Originally posted by mockrock
reply to post by NuminousCosmos
 


Ha ha ha ! Ridiculous.. Gravity is 1/6 of Earth's there is no atmosphere, hence with no air resistance combined with this reduced gravity.. there should be not mere specks of dust but masses of it.. since NASA stated that this dust is clingy.. it should everywhere!


Physics is a fun and interesting field of study. It is a natural science that involves the study of matter and its motion through spacetime, along with related concepts such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves. Wiki Link

Your statment [mockrock's], is in error. Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, there can not be atmospheric turbulence. Any particle/object that is moved/propelled in a non atmospheric environment encounters no [atmospheric] resistance. Therefore it will travel continuously in a straight path until it encounters some form of resistance.

Gravity can be a form of resistance when applied to an object that comes within it's influence. Gravity creates a force on any object within it's influence. Earth's standard gravity is, by definition, 9.80665 m/s2, Link which is about 32.1740 ft/s2. The moon's standard gravity is, 0.1655 m/s2, which is about 1.625 ft/s2. This means the earth's gravity is stronger than the moon's, but gravity is gravity and it's action creates the same reaction. This force (gravity) draws this object to it's center, which in our perspective on earth is down. So, something that is dropped, or propelled will drop slower on the moon than on the earth. But, it will still drop.

The gases in the exhaust of the lander's engine will not encounter any other atmosphere to react with. But it is reactant to the moon's gravity. The exhaust's deflection when it comes into contact with the moon's surface is different than it would be on earth, because of the lack of an atmosphere. Here is an example of how that exhaust would appear from an example on earth -




The exhaust hits the surface and is deflected at an almost 90 degree angle. This causes the dust particles to be moved by that force/atmosphere in the same direction. It will not billow up [aerosol] and form a cloud because there is NO atmosphere to react with.

Here is the actual video of the decent and landing of the Eagle lunar module. Eagle After it loads, you can move the slider almost to the right and skip most of the decent. Here you will see the dust being moved by the exhaust of the lander in a radial pattern out away from the engine exhaust located under the lander.

Conclusion: No billows of dust. No clouds formed. Dust being propelled by exhaust of lander in a straight out perpendicular direction. I hope this helps you to understand the physics at play on the moon are different than on the earth.

Gib

edit on 11/12/2011 by Gibborium because: picture


Notice in the picture of the heating torch, the flame is deflected at a perpendicular angle. This is a poor example, however, because it is located on earth which has an atmospheric pressure of 29.92 inches of mercury (inHg). The moon has none. So the exhaust from the LM would actually spread out in a very wide column after exiting the engine bell.
edit on 1/12/2012 by Gibborium because: added final statements



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join