Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 38
105
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
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


Well no doubt you will have proof of that then!

What about the rest of the post ?




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
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


So where is the rover?

It would be there in the pictures, yes? Or tracks leading way out of the frames?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 
Well, if we are to believe the dribble telescopeAl, aka, decisively/patrick/fattydash/Capablanca/unwarranted/HomeyDevincenzi/etc is trying to hand us, then we can not send anything into space to another planet/moon because we are unable to navigate.

However, there is undeniable proof that we have visited the Moon and have navigated our solar system. Example, the reflectors that have been placed on the Moon which are still being used on a regular basis. telescopeAl's hypothesis just doesn't hold up to the facts.
edit on 10/31/2012 by Gibborium because: grammar



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 



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.


There is actually a very simple way to determine the aberration due to (approximately) linear motion that is entirely empirical. Since the aberration is the result of a vector quantity, it is dependent on both the vector of motion and the angle of incidence from the body being disturbed. In other words light arriving from a source perpendicular to the line of travel would have maximal aberration, whereas light approaching from dead ahead would show no aberration at all.

What this means is that if you sight two stars at a known angle in a fixed system of reference, you can compare the measured angle to determine the degree of aberration in different angles of incidence to the direction of travel. By sighting a third star, you can determine both the direction of travel and linear velocity. That is, in fact, how astro-navigation works.

Since the mathematics involve spherical trigonometry, I trust you understand why I preferred simply to point out that your claim that the Apollo computers were not able to do it is false.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I trust you are enjoying Halloween; you have had a chance to try out four or five new costumes on this thread.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
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


Please feel free to post blueprints/documentation for these rovers, maybe name some people who have come forward as to having been involved in these rover missions, the KGB reports of these missions having happened, even some eye witness testimony of the people who saw the launch, it's kind of hard to launch a Saturn V rocket without someone noticing, they're somewhat, large, loud, bright and leave a giant trail behind them.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix

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 ?



I wish you could explain exactly how the video make sense, or that part thereof. Most of it is barking mad, and makes the lie/s.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The narrator in that video speaks in a constant monotone drone as if to brainwash members of a cult. I wonder why that is.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Junkheap
The narrator in that video speaks in a constant monotone drone as if to brainwash members of a cult. I wonder why that is.


She is an actress, while many narrators are in that profession, this lady has been given lines with all the emphasis solely in the negative, unusual in any credible documentary, and some of the lines are porky pies, one of the points Phage was making amongst others. I do think the lady should have done some research herself though.
BTW, and conversely, the same 'believe me' technique was used in a BBC second look at the WTC7 collapse in a follow up of the original documentary that supported the official version of the collapse, it still focused on the official version as if nothing new information wise had occurred, while Barry Jenning's testimony was scrutinised in depth. I use that example, not to be off topic, but to emphasise that what you get in your ear, is not always what you are seeing, and vice versa.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Of course we can reach the moon. Rangers were essentially ballistic missiles, no fancy guidance. Surveyors landed. This does not mean the point about the Apollo ship is not valid. The aberration problem I refer to is not something you can wish away. Read the accounts about Apollo GNC hardware and software. No where is this taken into account and we now see this is the reason for the astronauts avoiding subject. Look again at NASA's own document. 20 arcseconds error is not acceptable per NASA.

Your argument is we have proof we went to the moon because we went to the moon. That is a tautology and tautologies say nothing.

that I have just shown with some help that the navigation system did not have the requisite accuracy and nowhere can you show me a NASA document taking this into consideration.

As I said, ding dong the witch s dead. Full speed now with our investigation of this issue. Think of that unbelievable story about Apollo 13. Off by more than 50 arcseconds? 100? You bet! We have our solution. Apollo is dead.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 



The aberration problem I refer to is not something you can wish away. Read the accounts about Apollo GNC hardware and software.


Please stop posturing and respond to my posts, Patrick.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There may be more at stake than you imagine.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by Gibborium
 


Of course we can reach the moon. Rangers were essentially ballistic missiles, no fancy guidance. Surveyors landed. This does not mean the point about the Apollo ship is not valid. The aberration problem I refer to is not something you can wish away. Read the accounts about Apollo GNC hardware and software. No where is this taken into account and we now see this is the reason for the astronauts avoiding subject. Look again at NASA's own document. 20 arcseconds error is not acceptable per NASA.

Your argument is we have proof we went to the moon because we went to the moon. That is a tautology and tautologies say nothing.

that I have just shown with some help that the navigation system did not have the requisite accuracy and nowhere can you show me a NASA document taking this into consideration.

As I said, ding dong the witch s dead. Full speed now with our investigation of this issue. Think of that unbelievable story about Apollo 13. Off by more than 50 arcseconds? 100? You bet! We have our solution. Apollo is dead.


I knew someone else on here that was obsessed with Apollo 13......didn't take you long to get back to it, did it now?

He was also obsessed with pooing in space. And guidance systems.......

I remember "decisively" well. Too bad he was banned, eh?

On topic (which is NOT about guidance systems and navigation):

The video was debunked within the first few pages of this thread. You can't take pictures of the earth and see that much of the earth in LEO, as the video claimed.
You have to be much, much further out.
edit on 31-10-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I assume this is not for me but in case it is I do not care about the video. The video is fake no question but is not obviously so and so by itself does not prove a hoax. But Apollo is hoax so what I have to say proves the video hoax. Do you understand this point?


I'll say it once more time and then stop for a while since no person is addressing my main point. I showed to effectively navigate that star sighting accuracy must be 10 arcseconds or better. This was NASA's statement. Now because the Apollo GNC does not compensate for aberration and because ship flies so fast and slow at times and because the times of star sightings are not predictable and because the Apollo GNC star charts both LM and CM are hard wired I proved the accuracy is well outside the 10 arcsecond requirement for safe travel.

So I have several points proved. One is Apollo is hoax because navigation accuracy is not satisfactory.. Two is some GNC engineers are in on hoax. Third astronauts avoid talking about stars because the engineers inside the program will know it is hoax.
edit on 31-10-2012 by telescopeAl because: correction spellings



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 



I'll say it once more time and then stop for a while since no person is addressing my main point.


On the contrary, it is you who has not responded to my detailed responses to your posts:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please stop posturing and respond before local midnight. As you know, at midnight you will revert to a pumpkin, and pumpkins cannot post on ATS.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


I have a great idea to help people that are not scientists understand my discoveries. For astronauts to go to the moon stars appearance from travel would have had to look the same as stars appearance from earth to a high degree of precision. Because this is not true I can show Apollo to be a hoax.

For the Apollo astronauts to fly to the moon they must be able to sight the stars. When they sight the stars the idea is that they are determining the exact direction the ship is pointing. It is not so much to find the ship's location because the big dishes on the ground can find the ship in space. But the dishes cannot tell which direction the nose is pointing only the astronauts can do this by pointing their telescopes at the stars and making measurements.

OK, you all have this very great. Now the star chart the astronauts use is made on earth and loaded into the computer and cannot be changed. But once the astronauts leave the earth the positions of the stars do change by a tiny bit because the ship's movement is different from the earth's movement. The ship moves independent of the earth. This is how it is supposed to find the moon. So the stars on the ride to the moon would look in slightly different place if the trip was a real trip owing to the movement of the spaceship. The amount of this movement can be as much as 20 arcseconds which is an angular measurement. This is a tiny tiny angle but significant in this case because the distances are so very great with it being 400,000 kilometers to the moon.

OK very good everyone has that. Now NASA's engineers wrote the paper I quoted above that showed us for the astronauts to find the moon safely the angular error in star sighting must be 10 arcseconds or less. So because the star charts are hard wired and do not compensate in any ways for the movement and the aberration I showed by NASA's own engineer's calculation that the GNC is inadequate. When they sighted a star if the trip was a real one it could have been off by 20 arcseconds or even more because the error is compounded by multiple series of measurements. The ship's alignment attitude is therefore not accurately known and the ship travels away from the desired course with each measurement possibly compounding previous error.

OK great. Now there is nothing they can do on the ground to correct for this error. It does not matter how good their dish is or how big the computers are. Only the astronauts can do the alignment. So I proved Apollo is a hoax and confirmed the video shown at the top of this thread must be hoax because the astronauts in the video could not truly find the stars with the needed accuracy.


It is important to know that the US and Russia did crash landed and soft landed vehicles on the moon. The problem I wrote about above has to do with Apollo ships where accuracy must be much greater and safety margin greater. If you crash land or soft land something without a person it is OK if it misses target but not with the astronauts.


I can summarize and say stars from a trip traveling to the moon look different and are in slightly different locations than stars as seen from the earth because of the ship's movement which is also called aberration effect. This difference was not accounted for by the hoax planners and the fact it is not accounted for proves they could not accurately navigate and so proves the hoax. It proves this video at the beginning of the thread here is hoax. I give lots of credit to the other persons that introduced this because their posts lead me to the key NASA article.
edit on 31-10-2012 by telescopeAl because: corrections spelling



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


Oh I understand the point, but it is completely off topic from this thread.

That is pretty much your MO and has been for a long time:

Make new account.
Find thread on Moon Landing Hoaxes.
Derail thread with off topic subject from the OP's main topic.

Do this instead. At least you'd be obeying the rules here at ATS and not continuing to violate the TC's:

You've got 9 posts to your name now. Go play in some other threads and give your opinion in those. Once your post count hits 20, you can then make your very own thread and make the main topic whatever you please.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It is not off topic. I showed why the astronauts in that video are not on their way to the moon and so why I can say confidently the video was a hoax video. My points are very good and very much on topic and others before me started it in this direction. I found the key article by NASA and drew the key conclusion. Many others posting here are much further afield of this all. I acknowledged my help in all of this but am entitled to emphasize the greatness of these days. It is a complete proof of the hoax and absolutely true and strong because if you cannot navigate you cannot go. This is a great day for all of us who have studied the hoax. This is the first invulnerable proof we have and time will show what a great day this is.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by telescopeAl
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It is not off topic. I showed why the astronauts in that video are not on their way to the moon and so why I can say confidently the video was a hoax video. My points are very good and very much on topic and others before me started it in this direction. I found the key article by NASA and drew the key conclusion. Many others posting here are much further afield of this all. I acknowledged my help in all of this but am entitled to emphasize the greatness of these days. It is a complete proof of the hoax and absolutely true and strong because if you cannot navigate you cannot go. This is a great day for all of us who have studied the hoax. This is the first invulnerable proof we have and time will show what a great day this is.


You have not proved anything of the sort I'm afraid.

In the video Sibrel claims that the astronauts were in LEO and not as far out as the astronauts claim, based upon the view of the Earth in the video.

The video debunks Sibrel's claim because you can not get that view of the Earth in LEO, you would be much too close. You would have to be where the astronauts said they were to get that view. QED

If you are saying that the images from the astronauts is fake, then you'll need to prove it. Not say it. And that is all you have done so far, other than to completely derail this thread down a subject that you want to talk about.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


The Apollo computer was not programmed to do this calculation. Also they cannot do this calculation from the ground and they cannot do it in space even in principle because in order to correct for aberration they must know their attitude to begin with. This is the very thing that they are trying to figure out. You are presuming they know the direction of the ship and telescope pointing is known when this is the very information they seek. This is what I meant by the problem being intrinsic and intractable. So your post does nothing but emphasize the difficulty here. This is why the astronauts do not talk about it as I mention before. Like I said , ding dong the wicked witch is dead. These are very great days for us. Like they say victory is at hand.
edit on 31-10-2012 by telescopeAl because: correction spellings



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I proved Apollo was a hoax. Because I proved the hoax in general then this video too is a hoax. The video cannot be real if the astronauts cannot navigate to the moon. Ding dong the wicked witch is dead.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


When the early astronomers first discovered and corrected for aberration they of course knew exactly where and how the earth was moving. You are confusing spaceship earth with Apollo 11. In this case of your Apollo 11 you do not know where and how your spaceship is moving because you do not have its precise attitude. You are trying to get that very exact thing and when you measure for it you will be off by 20 arcseconds or more and you will keep compounding this error in various ways. You are forever lost in terms of orientation or attitude not by a lot but enough such that it is not safe . See the NASA article I already quoted for all of the details.





new topics
top topics
 
105
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant