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: 37
105
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ebastogne
 



Homey guy is busting this thing open. Complimenti Homey you are what we call a hustler!


For a European, you sure talk jive.




posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ebastogne
 


I am totally fascinated by the premise of your challenging post. So much so, I would like to challenge you as I disagree. I admittedly found myself struggling somewhat at first to forcefully counter your assertion, but believe I have a solution. Before giving it my best shot I want to be sure I fully understand your claim. Can you briefly confirm or disconfirm my tentative understanding?

You are saying a star chart such as one made by Bradley could be matched by an interested party against a photo taken by an Apollo astronaut? For the sake of my making this explicit, I'll say the photo would be taken by an imaginary camera connected to the scanning and or sextant and or AOT. As this photo is taken outside of the earth's atmosphere there would be no refractive consideration. As this photo might be taken from a spaceship traveling 25,000 mph toward the moon and away from the earth, the aberrative correction would be different than that Bradley made for a given star for his charts. So you would match the charts up and find such and such an expected deviation; the astronaut photo from the Bradley chart. You are arguing that to do this well would be an impossibility given all the difficult considerations and so rather than try to produce a forgery the astronauts avoid talking about stars altogether and that way the difficult subject is never explored.

How did I do? I think I know how best to counter you, but want to be sure of your assertion. Did I get it correct?



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ebastogne
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think that cannot be truly evidence for Apollo hoax. This is to lead us off track. This video is not real evidence for or against Apollo but is intended to confuse and direct the conversation toward the irrelevant.

The true story has to do with docking as I mentioned. They use LOR because they want men to go in and out of earth orbiting platforms. The Russians did too and so will the Chinese.


On the contrary, the video made by the idiot, (let's call him 'slapped in the face') who stalks the astronauts, was made to to prove a moon landing hoax, and he shot himself in the foot, because it actually proves what the astronauts said, that they were many thousands of miles out, and not in LEO.


First image, NOAA satellite july 16th 1969, partial Earth, (you will not see all of that face of the globe in LEO)





Second image astronauts own picture taken from their capsule, (false Earth partial face of the globe using the porthole?) Nah! it's the whole hemisphere,




Third image compilation of the two, resized and brought into good perspective, a perfect match.




The use of combat forces out of, and back into the atmosphere to anywhere in the world is another story.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by unwarranted
 



How did I do? I think I know how best to counter you, but want to be sure of your assertion. Did I get it correct?


Since you know for a fact that you will not receive a response, please proceed with your analysis.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:18 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)


Thats the Best you can do with this? Name calling? Where is the hard science you are so often known for?

I dunno.. that vid makes sense and you have not proven it wrong. Either your slipping or, your not to be trusted. Which is it ?

Go point by point and refute this with science that is repeatable and as logical as this. Then you may have something. It seems to me you answered out of anger. That does not become the Phage I know.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 



Where is the hard science you are so often known for?


If I may presume, Phage:

www.scribd.com...



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Great thread here with a wonderful mix of the solid and gaseous. The fact so many capable people spend so much time "defending" the landings is enough for me to walk away convince the thing was nothing more than a Kubrick trick.

The larger issue these days is why is the thing so vigorously defended in an ongoing sense? Apart from the obvious embarrassment issue, there are other factors which worry the mucky mucks. When all is said and done we'll find the stakes in this game to be astronomical. America will take a great fall when the truth pushes through the crusty surface. Think of the impact on the equities markets alone. They would not recover for years, decades even I would imagine.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 



Great thread here with a wonderful mix of the solid and gaseous. The fact so many capable people spend so much time "defending" the landings is enough for me to walk away convince the thing was nothing more than a Kubrick trick.


Good. Walk away. Keep walking.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
This is worth looking at for the technically oriented;books.google.it... s=cF5O9mtSoD&sig=6Wor6PGMnIJROLxMYxOKz3ENeOk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DpiQUJf1AsXtsgaJ2ICABg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=to%20within%20how%20many%20arcseconds%20accu racy%20was%20the%20apollo%20sextant&f=false

requisite accuracy 10 arcseconds? I was and am still surprised. I think the previous posters are wrong in their saying hoax provable by way of examining the never taken photos of stars. If 10 arcseconds is the requisite navigational accuracy then aberration considerations are more than valid. By their own admission, they could not navigate the ship with the requisite degree of accuracy.

I suggest this is why Armstrong doesn't mention the star fields until they slow down and film the eclipse. At the higher speed they would be prone to go more off course.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


Patrick, your agonizer, please.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   

"The need for measuring an angle precisely in space navigation is brought
out in the literature. For example, reference 1 shows that an increase in
sextant error from 10 to 50 seconds of arc causes a highly undesirable
increase in range and velocity deviation at perigee during a lunar roundtrip
mission. References 2 and 3 analyzed 3 to 2 velocity corrections based upon
426 sextant-type measurements and showed that bias errors of 10 seconds of arc
were too great to warrant the use of long sighting schedules. Therefore, it
appears that a sextant for precise space navigation should yield an error of
less than 10 seconds of arc."


From NASA PDF on the subject. It looks as though the ship has finally sunk. Here at last the explanation for all of the back pedaling.

Again great thread. I would not have found this without the encouragement of the others. For those not aware, we have just shown the Apollo sextant to be incapable of doing what is claimed of it and have used NASA's own data in doing so.
ntrs.nasa.gov...

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others
edit on Wed Oct 31 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: (no reason given)

edit on Wed Oct 31 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: added source



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by r2d246
That video could likely be one of the most damning pieces of footage ever leaked.


The "leaked" footage was debunked in the first few pages of this thread.


It's always debunked! Anything to hide the 100 billion that was lost.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Mystic Vibes
 


Hi I have used this picture before but some on here may not have seen it.



This was first posted by jra who had the same idea as me when I saw the LRO images of the Apollo 17 landing site.

The top half is a STILL from the DAC camera as Apollo 17 left the Moon the other is from the LRO picture of the site taken almost 40 years apart. Even the tracks match.

You can look at the data kept by NASA for the Moon missions which give location and distance of objects, these can be compared to the actual image taken on the surface by the Astronauts and that can be compared with the LRO images.

As the LRO images are mostly 50cm/pixel very very small craters that appear in images taken on the surface can be matched up NOW as they took those images 40+ years ago the ONLY way those small objects could be seen would have been if they were actually there!!!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Lookie at this NASA document r2d246

,ntrs.nasa.gov...

If you trouble yourself to search the term "arc" you shall find many important references. One of them is that one here on page number two,


"The need for measuring an angle precisely in space navigation is brought
out in the literature. For example, reference 1 shows that an increase in
sextant error from 10 to 50 seconds of arc causes a highly undesirable
increase in range and velocity deviation at perigee during a lunar roundtrip
mission. References 2 and 3 analyzed 3 to 2 velocity corrections based upon
426 sextant-type measurements and showed that bias errors of 10 seconds of arc
were too great to warrant the use of long sighting schedules. Therefore, it
appears that a sextant for precise space navigation should yield an error of
less than 10 seconds of arc."

Now other poster has made the excellent point that the ship's movement will alter the true star position by as much as 20 arcseconds. Another way to say is that the direction of the ship's telescope pointing alters the star position by up to 20 arcseconds.

Because there is no way to take this into account as the star chart is hardwired and not flexible we see there navigational system does not have requisite accuracy by their own calculation. So people that do this calculation are the honest ones and those that prepare navigational system most intimately know this is hoax.

Most importantly here this is not debunkable. It is in their own words and aberration effect cannot disappear. The aberration problem is intrinsic to the trip. They must move away from the earth at varying speeds to find moon.

So this is what you would call the Holy Grail of Apollo Hoax. This is absolute proof of its infeasibility and it cannot be debunked. If you do not understand this you should show to friends. I have read your other posts though and you seem very good and capable.

We should celebrate today. Like in Wizard of Oz, Ding Dong the Witch Is Dead today. Thank you again to previous poster for introducing topic of aberration. I would have missed on my own.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:51 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


Oh r2d246 I almost forgot to repeat to you that this is the main reason the Apollo astronauts avoid the star talk subject. They do not want to engage the public in this discourse here about navigating by way of the stars as the problem I wrote about above is intrinsic and intractable. Please note there r2d246 that they want to not only avoid talking about this in front of the public but also the engineers that make the equipment because it would be those scientist type people who could best blow the whistle and declare the navigation incapable as we have successfully done today after so many years.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


All the real heavy calculations are done in this place.





Also the missions were tracked in the UK by this facility.

Jodrell Bank



They also tracked a Russian probe .ing to the Moon at the same time as Apollo 11!!!


On July 13, a Sunday, at 5:55 A.M. Moscow time -- 10:55 P.M. Saturday, EDT, at Cape Kennedy, a little less than seventy-two hours before the launch of Apollo 11 -- the Soviet Union launched an unmanned moon rocket which was called Luna 15



The large dish at Jodrell tracked Luna 15 the smaller one tracked Apollo 11

The Jodrell bank trace for Apollo 11



The Apollo sextant



Anything else you want to look at!!
edit on 31-10-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


You do not understand the fundamental logistic of the platform alignment procedure. The astronauts themselves must align the IMU platform. It would not matter if there was a 21st century supercomputer which they could access. They and they alone with their hardwired star chart align the platform. The ground team cannot do this. Their computer cannot do this. The star chart carried aboard the imagined Apollo ship is fixed and immutable.

Now when the ship moves the light from the stars will come into the ship's telescope at a very slight angle. The angle is greater when the ship moves fast and less when the ship moves slow. It is like when the rain comes straight on your .. Umbrella will cover you but if you run now you must tilt the umbrella. Same thing with the light from stars. When you move the space ship you must tilt the telescope to catch the light correctly.

Now on the Apollo trips they do not know beforehand how they will be moving and how the movement will need to be corrected for . The very same map which would provide the correction is the map they are trying to correct. This is why the problem is intrinsic and intractable.

Now as another opposing poster wrote the spaceship speed is not relativistic but this is not a concern of ours here. Of course the faster the ship goes the more the movement error of the stars position. Astronomers call this problem "aberration". Aberration can account for up to 20 arcseconds of positional uncertainty when locating stars here from earth.

Moving from the earth to the moon there would be at least this amount of exposure to the error of aberration if not more given the uncertainties regarding the trajectories. The error could not be less than it is from here on earth.

I showed above how an error of over 10 arseconds was considered unacceptable by the NASA navigation experts themselves. So you can see NASA has painted itself into a corner here. Of course the people that wrote the paper I linked above did not know about the aberration problem. They wrote oblivious to it.

Your ground based computer cannot correct for this and once again we emphasize ding dong the wicked witch is dead.

Poster above that introduced aberration should write some more to take credit. I am very confident in my results here of course and support this view but cannot claim i am first.

This is a great day for the proof of the Apollo hoax! WOW!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 



You do not understand the fundamental logistic of the platform alignment procedure. The astronauts themselves must align the IMU platform. It would not matter if there was a 21st century supercomputer which they could access. They and they alone with their hardwired star chart align the platform. The ground team cannot do this. Their computer cannot do this. The star chart carried aboard the imagined Apollo ship is fixed and immutable.


Wrong. The computer could perform a simple mathematical transformation:



www.ibiblio.org...

Ding dong.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


They sent remote rovers there prior. That's what those tracks are, if they're even tracks at all. That's equally as plauable if not more so than the rover



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


Well explain this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join