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: 21
105
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Propulsion
 


Why wouldn't there be dust on the pads? Because thrust would require air to be blown about to a return trip back to where it started is the short answer. Dust follows a ballistic trajectory, only atmosphere could suspend it in the 'air' therefore wind would be required to blow it back to the source, no air is on the moon, the dust would blow away. Once the 3 foot long probes on the bottom of the landing pads touched the surface the trust was cut, so there is no way dust in a ballistic trajectory away from the lander could flow back up to the top of the pads.

Apollo 15 landing sequence. Dust is moving away quite briskly.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nataylor

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)



Okay.
So I was out by one mission. ( hardly off the top of my head )
That still makes Five missions to the Moon in Seventeen months.
I think that's quite an achievement and would be even in today's space program.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by lambros56
 


1980 to 2011 the Space Shuttle was launched 135 times. Subtract the 2 years the program was suspended after the 1986 Challenger disaster we have 135 launches in 29 years gives us 7.54 launches in a 18-month timeframe, over a much longer duration of time, with a myriad of other space launches of satellites and space probes from other launch platforms. During the Apollo 9-year duration little else other than the Apollo program was going on at NASA, all space launch efforts were in preparation for all of the Apollo 11 to 17 missions, all on a considerably higher percentage of the National Budget.

This sort of tells me NASA is doing much more today than then on much less financial commitment.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


I was talking about Moon missions.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


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





They had the processing power on the earth or did that not occur to you!



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Hello! and congratz on your first post being a great success
, (I too am yet to create one ) I replied a few days ago saying I was goin to watch this and I have. Its very interesting and I am more and more edging to the "we didnt go" side of the argument.

It does seem silly that everything worked first time, and every other attempt before that had failed (man on the moon)

I think the most interesting points of the documentry where as you pointed out the fake earth illusion.. it was so obvious once it had been pointed out that it was just a small part of the earth..

it would be great if someone could put up a picture showing just how much of the earth was shown. (I might try have a go if I get the time and of course put it on here)

I also found the whole part about how the astronughts that did reach the radiation belt experinced problems with their eye sight (shooting stars)

oh and not to mention how long it took to get to the moon :/ was pretty fast considering how far away it is :/

Anyway Thanks again for a great post!

AnotherHumanBeing x



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by AnotherHumanBeing
 



It does seem silly that everything worked first time, and every other attempt before that had failed (man on the moon)


It didn't work "perfectly" every time, first time. There was a lot, a lot of testing and practice and more testing involved that went on before each flight, and also every mission was a learning curve. That is how it works, it's how it worked then, it's how it works now. That is the reality of aerospace, and even in aviation. And, we always learn from the mistakes.....



I think the most interesting points of the documentry where as you pointed out the fake earth illusion.. it was so obvious once it had been pointed out that it was just a small part of the earth..


Untrue. Did you read all of the replies on the first and second pages? There is an extensive post that refutes the entire video clip, page #1 or #2, can't recall ATM. (***)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(***) Here....it's on Page #4 actually:

Post by [color=gold]Saint Exupery

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



oh and not to mention how long it took to get to the moon :/ was pretty fast considering how far away it is :/



What is the escape velocity of the Earth? Do you know? Well, I'll tell you.....about 25,000 MPH. The Moon is about 240,000 miles away. Now......the speed of the spacecraft wasn't 25,000 MPH for the entire trip, of course, because then it would only have taken TEN HOURS!

NO, reality is a bit different.....if they had been that fast, they may have never been able to return to Earth. But, that's how we launch spacecraft to other planets in the Solar System.

Anyway.... Apollo, after performing the TLI burn, was moving away from Earth at about 23,284 MPH.



For the Apollo lunar missions, the restartable J-2 engine in the third (S-IVB) stage of the Saturn V rocket performed TLI. This particular TLI burn lasted approximately 350 seconds, providing 3.05 to 3.25 km/s (10,000 to 10,600 ft/s) of delta-v, at which point the spacecraft was traveling at approximately 10.4 km/s (34150 ft/s) relative to the Earth.


Trans Lunar Injection


This speed did not remain constant, as the influence of Earth's gravity still "tugged" at the spacecraft, and it decelerated gradually....until a point is reached where the influence of the Moon's gravity takes hold, and it begins to accelerate again. As you can see, timing of this maneuver is critical, or else you will miss the Moon.....but, the initial speed is not enough to leave Earth orbit, so you will come back to Earth eventually.

If this doesn't make sense, you may wish to Internet search to learn more about orbital mechanics.


edit on Fri 13 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherHumanBeing
oh and not to mention how long it took to get to the moon :/ was pretty fast considering how far away it is :/


The first lunar probe (Luna-1) launched on January 2, 1959 (over 10 years before Apollo 11) and reached the moon 34 hours later. (Encyclopedia Astronautica)

Luna-2 impacted the moon after 33.5 hours of flight on September 13, 1959. (Encyclopedia Astronautica)

If you're interested in the history of space exploration, try doing real research, instead of blindly accepting ignorant conspiretard videos from con-men like Bart Sibrel.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
That's nothing, New Horizons passed Lunar orbit from the ground in less than 9 hours. It passed the orbit of Mars in 3 and a half months, and got a slingshot from Jupiter in 13 month after launch picking up speed to cut the journey to Pluto by over 3 years. Ten years to Pluto its almost 3/4 of the way there, only Neptune and Pluto lies in front of it now launched in 2006.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 



That's nothing, New Horizons passed Lunar orbit from the ground in less than 9 hours. It passed the orbit of Mars in 3 and a half months.....


Yes, of course, because "New Horizons" has been sent to rendezvous with Pluto, and ultimately the Kuiper Belt, correct??

SO of course, as I mentioned, any spacecraft launched that we wish to leave Earth orbit completely (even if it will ultimately remain in Solar orbit) MUST exceed the "escape velocity" of Earth by a wide margin....

.....and usually, because of orbital mechanics, and the fact that these vehicles do NOT contain a lot of fuel for additional propulsion, but only for course corrections.....they can take advantage of further gravitational encounters, for a "sling shot effect" or Gravity Assist maneuver.

SO MANY PEOPLE simply have no concept or ability to realize the science involved....hence, the "continued Hoax" beliefs....so tragic and sad..........



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 





SO of course, as I mentioned, any spacecraft launched that we wish to leave Earth orbit completely (even if it will ultimately remain in Solar orbit) MUST exceed the "escape velocity" of Earth by a wide margin....


Is'nt it 25,000 mph to reach GSO and 17,500 mph to remain in orbit?

This was an extra credtit question cfor my college math class....

I did'nt look it up right now, I would like to see if anybody else does............

ETA: I was'nt that far off from the escape velocity.

A rocket must accelerate to at least 25,039 mph (40,320 kph) to completely escape Earth's gravity and fly off into space (for more on escape velocity, visit this article at kidsplanet.com).

Earth's escape velocity is much greater than what's required to place an Earth satellite in orbit. With satellites, the object is not to escape Earth's gravity, but to balance it. Orbital velocity is the velocity needed to achieve balance between gravity's pull on the satellite and the inertia of the satellite's motion -- the satellite's tendency to keep going. This is approximately 17,000 mph (27,359 kph) at an altitude of 150 miles (242 km). Without gravity, the satellite's inertia would carry it off into space. Even with gravity, if the intended satellite goes too fast, it will eventually fly away. On the other hand, if the satellite goes too slowly, gravity will pull it back to Earth. At the correct orbital velocity, gravity exactly balances the satellite's inertia, pulling down toward Earth's center just enough to keep the path of the satellite curving like Earth's curved surface, rather than flying off in a straight line (read this page for details on orbits).

science.howstuffworks.com/satellite3.htm

edit on 13-1-2012 by liejunkie01 because: ETA

edit on 13-1-2012 by liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 


Consider for a moment how far ahead of the US that the Russian were. Consider the impact of a failed lunar landing at what I am sure TPTB felt was a critical juncture for popular world opinion. We have always fought to remain Number 1 in everything. Say they did surpass the Russians. However they did it; espionage or innovation and, they had the means to propel 3 humans to the moon safely, and back.

Now consider for a moment with everything in place they decided that because they could NOT fail in this (perhaps feeling the Russians would then be first if we did) they prepared hours of fake footage to be used as propaganda in order to achieve their ultimate goal.... beating the Russians, just in case they did fail to make it all the way there. They could then use said fakery to convince the world, and the Russians, that the USA was number 1 baby, YEA!

So, they fire off the rocket. 3 men propelled into space... destination MOON. M o o n spells moon.

Someone finds a way, perhaps beforehand, to make use of the faked footage during the actual lunar mission since the mission went well, why waste it? So, we see an intermingling of true and fake footage. Perhaps to heighten the coolness of the whole thing. Maybe much of the actual footage from the lunar surface was poorly filmed or clandestine.

I have seen a great number of videos over the years about the first lunar expedition. Some seemed like blatant fakery and others, even after close scrutiny, seemed genuine. I am by no means an expert but, because of this personal experience with footage from this mission it led me to consider another, however improbable, solution to this dilemma that was not entirely impossible.
The only flaw to this line of thought would be if the rocket would have blown up or crashed. But, I think they were, at the very least, confident that scenario would not play out.

Just an opinion for consideration.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Bart Sibrel. Maker of "A Funny Thing Happened" and a true jackass.
His crap about leaked footage is lies. His out of context clips, more so.

edit on 1/10/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


So, Phage, you mean to tell us (via that video) that Bart Sibel (through the hired narrator of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon) was knowingly telling us a lie-- that we should not believe the documentary?

And now I must rethink so many other items... Dark Side of the Moon is actually a comedy.... maybe 9/11 was a terrorist attack... maybe Kennedy was shot by Oswald... perhaps my Dad, and not the Tooth Faerie, left the quarters under my pillow. Oh, wait.. I already knew all of those things.

That is a nice find.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnotherHumanBeing
Hello! and congratz on your first post being a great success
, (I too am yet to create one ) I replied a few days ago saying I was goin to watch this and I have. Its very interesting and I am more and more edging to the "we didnt go" side of the argument.

Which would be fine if you were not being lied to.




It does seem silly that everything worked first time, and every other attempt before that had failed (man on the moon)


There were no previous attempts to land on the Moon- and so no "failed" missions to land on the Moon prior to Apollo 11.



I think the most interesting points of the documentry where as you pointed out the fake earth illusion.. it was so obvious once it had been pointed out that it was just a small part of the earth.. it would be great if someone could put up a picture showing just how much of the earth was shown. (I might try have a go if I get the time and of course put it on here)


What, exactly, was "obvious" to you? The "small part" was almost half-- how much more of a sphere were you expecting to see?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 


Yes, you just answered your own questions.....AND NOT TO BE OFFENSIVE to anyone.....these videos explain it very, very well, for all to learn........


......but to simply change the apogee to perigee......anyone might wish to review this VERY boring (so boring it will put you to sleep) but much like the same films you (we) used to watch, in Grade School, it is informative....no need to take notes, you can rewind and re-watch as often as you need........




That ^ ^ ^ was only Part 1.....

HERE is Part 2:




Here is Part 3:




PLEASE try to watch, and learn......this is so much easier than trying to write it out and explain it that way......


edit on Sat 14 January 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I have to admit that this is one conspiracy theory that leaves me laughing. The idea that the Moon landings were faked. I have posted to people who believe it to be a hoax before and every single supposed proof of it being faked can be disproved.

The funniest of things is...where do these people think that these Giant Saturn V rockets were going or went to after they were launched? Even the Soviets...who would have LOVED to decry the lunar landings as fakes...were not so stupid as to attempt to discredit them as it was very easy for any country with a Radar Telescope to follow the travel of the Lunar Orbiter and Lander all the way to the Moon and back.

Anyone with a Radio array of recievers could easily pin point the position of these craft and we had tracking stations in several countries around the globe including Australia. A special Reflective Mirror was left at the landing site so NASA and anyone else with this capability could bounce a Laser beam off it to determine Lunar distance fom Earth.

The Hubble Space Telescope was able to take pictures of several of the lander assemblies that were left on the Moon as the Lander seperated from them on return to Earth. Split Infinity



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Im not sure about anyone else, but its pretty clear that the earth shot was completely edited in this video and non-sequencial (meaning the clip was not shot simultaneously). Unless you worked on those missions; you, jus like myself or anyone else who hasn't, don't know the whole TRUTH. Peace.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Sagittarian69
 


Well that's a simplistic story and a funny contradiction right there in the middle, the Russian Space program ahead, the US espionage steals from the Russians technology to launch their own program, but instead fool the Russians, supposedly superior scientists, with fake film. You need some work on your short story, short on insight.

All through the space race, and even the cold war, all the Russians were able to do was make bigger machines, at the expense of everything else, including lives of their own. Their early spacecrafts were bigger but they rushed all of their rocket bombs to the pads before they were able to control them, demonstrate controlled understanding of orbital mechanics, and land in a manner not to kill their astronauts, if they survived reentry. This is why the missed, and crashed, unmanned moon shots and really were years away from the idea of landing safely on the moon, let alone return.

Yes the 'Russian Firsts' in space were largely the same thing over and over with different occupants, they were really not in anyway close to landing men on the moon by the time the US demonstrated with Apollo 8, 9, and 10 that they could fly circles around the Russians and the moon, and demonstrate separation and docking. Poor concept that 'everything worked the first time' because that is a misrepresentation of the facts, and what shoots holes in your little sci-fi short story.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I have to admit that this is one conspiracy theory that leaves me laughing. The idea that the Moon landings were faked. I have posted to people who believe it to be a hoax before and every single supposed proof of it being faked can be disproved.

The funniest of things is...where do these people think that these Giant Saturn V rockets were going or went to after they were launched?


They went into Earth orbit.




Even the Soviets...who would have LOVED to decry the lunar landings as fakes...were not so stupid as to attempt to discredit them as it was very easy for any country with a Radar Telescope to follow the travel of the Lunar Orbiter and Lander all the way to the Moon and back.


Wrong, they cant even do it today.





Anyone with a Radio array of recievers could easily pin point the position of these craft and we had tracking stations in several countries around the globe including Australia.


All NASA, therefore not independent.




A special Reflective Mirror was left at the landing site so NASA and anyone else with this capability could bounce a Laser beam off it to determine Lunar distance fom Earth.


Dont need reflectors to bounce lasers off the moon, dont need people to put reflectors on the moon.



The Hubble Space Telescope was able to take pictures of several of the lander assemblies that were left on the Moon as the Lander seperated from them on return to Earth. Split Infinity


No, not true.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
I have to admit that this is one conspiracy theory that leaves me laughing. The idea that the Moon landings were faked. I have posted to people who believe it to be a hoax before and every single supposed proof of it being faked can be disproved.

The funniest of things is...where do these people think that these Giant Saturn V rockets were going or went to after they were launched?


They went into Earth orbit.


Then explain why another upper stage tank was recently discovered and thought to at first be a near earth object in solar orbit. How would that occur if LEO was never breached?



Even the Soviets...who would have LOVED to decry the lunar landings as fakes...were not so stupid as to attempt to discredit them as it was very easy for any country with a Radar Telescope to follow the travel of the Lunar Orbiter and Lander all the way to the Moon and back.

Wrong, they cant even do it today.




Anyone with a Radio array of recievers could easily pin point the position of these craft and we had tracking stations in several countries around the globe including Australia.

All NASA, therefore not independent.


Sorry, wrong again. Teliscopic Tracking of Apollo missions.Eavesdropping on Apollo 11. Tracking Apollo from Florida.
Just to link a few.

If however you are referring specifically to the Australian NASA tracking station, then yes, that was in cooperation with NASA.



A special Reflective Mirror was left at the landing site so NASA and anyone else with this capability could bounce a Laser beam off it to determine Lunar distance fom Earth.

Dont need reflectors to bounce lasers off the moon, dont need people to put reflectors on the moon.


You are confusing perhaps microwave radar with laser range finding, where a laser indeed needs a highly reflective surface, a bit more accurate than microwave bouncing.



The Hubble Space Telescope was able to take pictures of several of the lander assemblies that were left on the Moon as the Lander seperated from them on return to Earth. Split Infinity

No, not true.


Not true, the Hubble has poor means to focus on the moon let alone filter the extreme light, it was not built for that. One doesn't use a telescope for cellular inspection, for much the same reason.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join