Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 40
105
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Such an important point and there seems to be so much confusion about it, seems worth repeating my point in a slightly different way; NASA claimed that determinining an Apollo ship's state vector was most accurately done from the ground with the tracking dishes. But the dishes have absolutely no way to check the accuracy of the ship's attitude. The astronauts aligned the IMU(at least checked it) with their scanning telescope, sextant and AGC.

No one said the attitude was determined from state vectors uploaded from the ground. That was done by the astronauts, not the ground. The state vectors were uploaded however (and from there updated and maintained using accelerometers), and from this it was a trivial matter for the computer to automatically account for stellar aberration when making a P52 alignment. Patrick (which I assume is you) claimed that the computer did not calculate for stellar aberration. That is a lie. It did.

But this is not at all the same as saying the shaft and trunion angles were determined from the state vector. Such a statement would be and is nonsensical.

No one made such a statement. P52 aligned the spacecraft's attitude. I've done it myself many times in a simulation that ran the actual apollo guidance computer software on emulated hardware in a simulated version of the solar system. It worked for getting the attitude accurate enough to get to the moon and back successfully and accurately.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 



What I experience now is this sense that a lot of times there is this appeal to authority from the they really landed side while the pressing challenges come from the hoax side.


What part of 1/180 of a degree relies on an appeal to authority? On the other hand, challenges to the hoax side are simply ignored.


The defense is authoritative but not in an evidentiary sense.


The defense is authoritative only in the sense that it appeals to the established body of scientific, mathematical and engineering fact. The pro-hoax camp are unable to provide any evidence that the government was able to create a vast human and physical infrastructure capable of faking the missions, nor even a credible reason why the government would wish to do so, beyond invoking other conspiracy theories that are held to be "fact" as an item of unshakable belief.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by telescopeAl
 


It seems like not enough to matter telescopeAl, 20 arcseconds. Or even 50. I read the NASA paper but don't really understand it. Could you please explain to me why this tiny little bit of a mistake would throw the spaceship off by such a significant amount. Thank you!


Have you even read this thread? The member you are asking a question of has been banned.

And on that note, your writing style is starting to look very familiar.

The distance that they had to travel would not have been significant enough to induce too much of an error, especially when your target is as wide as an orbit around the moon is.

Now, introduce that error when trying to go much larger distances, say another planet like Mars, and you're going to have a problem, unless it is compensated for. Which we do, and have.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


It seems to me the computer need not take into account aberration. Are you sure it did? Do you have a reference for that? The computer has such a feable capacity, that it seems a waist. No matter how I look at the numbers the aberration thing seems to be quite frankly quite dumb. It seems that guy made it up to jerk your chain. At least that is what I think. On the other hand, data dealing with aberration, say telemetry that relayed star positions-angles to the ground or something of that nature, that would be revealing. Maybe that is why NASA lost the reems of tapes. If they had the telemetry tapes they would reveal the stars weren't appropriately aberrated and that would prove hoax. The computer need not take aberration into account but the raw data should show it to be there anyway. My name is Michael by the way. My friends also call me "frisbee" as I once played on one of the better European ultimate teams many years back as a college student.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by ngchunter
 


It seems to me the computer need not take into account aberration. Are you sure it did? Do you have a reference for that? The computer has such a feable capacity, that it seems a waist. No matter how I look at the numbers the aberration thing seems to be quite frankly quite dumb. It seems that guy made it up to jerk your chain. At least that is what I think. On the other hand, data dealing with aberration, say telemetry that relayed star positions-angles to the ground or something of that nature, that would be revealing. Maybe that is why NASA lost the reems of tapes. If they had the telemetry tapes they would reveal the stars weren't appropriately aberrated and that would prove hoax. The computer need not take aberration into account but the raw data should show it to be there anyway. My name is Michael by the way. My friends also call me "frisbee" as I once played on one of the better European ultimate teams many years back as a college student.


You need to go back to page 37 of this thread and read this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by touchdowntrojans
reply to post by ngchunter
 
. . . . My name is Michael by the way. My friends also call me "frisbee" as I once played on one of the better European ultimate teams many years back as a college student.


Now you really sound like Patrick, aka decisively, aka ClaudiaS, aka dastardly, aka fattydash, aka ScottyD et al.

The aberration is so minuscule it is a moot point. It has no significance to the Moon landings.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 


I agree aberration would be an insignificant consideration. I suggested that a while back. I think the poster brought it up to jerk your chain. Again for a circle of 240,000 miles radius one arcsecond is a little over a mile, 10 a little over 10 miles. Irrelevant to navigation.
edit on 7-11-2012 by touchdowntrojans because: for



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


This seems suspicious to me for reasons I have already mentioned in part. So a star's aberration throws them off 20 miles at the most, why bother doing this calculation? And more importantly if you haven't got the right telescope attitude nailed to within arcseconds accuracy to begin with because of the very fact that is the game you are after, you have no idea what it is you are measuring to begin with. This seems hoaxy to me. All this detail for something irrelevant.
edit on 7-11-2012 by touchdowntrojans because: got



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 



This seems suspicious to me for reasons I have already mentioned in part. So a star's aberration throws them off 20 miles at the most, why bother doing this calculation? And more importantly if you haven't got the right telescope attitude nailed to within arcseconds accuracy to begin with because of the very fact that is the game you are after, you have no idea what it is you are measuring to begin with. This seems hoaxy to me. All this detail for something irrelevant.


Everything seems hoaxy to you, Patrick. Have you or any of your imaginary friends ever heard the expression: "Take five, then average?" Navigators have long been aware of human error in celestial navigation. They take five sightings, calculate their location from each one, then average them together to get their most likely location. (This is, in effect, what a Kalman Filter does.) It was necessary, as you yourself have pointed out, to use the optical sextant to determine the craft's attitude, as this is the one element needed to correct the inertial guidance system that could not be determined by ground tracking. So why spend so much time doing calculations, when a simple fix was all that was required? It gave the astronauts something to do with their time, didn't it?



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
[img]
[/img]



Awkward.. Same backgrounds, not explainable by parallax.



posted on Nov, 7 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
[img]
[/img]

Apollo "landing sites" Mountain backdrops can be found on Mauna Kea in Google Earth.. Some scrubbing has taken place of late

Any differences can be explained by lens effects, some erosion but not much.
edit on 7-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: more info



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Rolf. you've got your own thread on this absurdity, don't spam others and stay on topic
edit on 8-11-2012 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:53 AM
link   
You guys spam 24/7 there are 10 members on here who finish 99% of the threads.. 1% Hoodwink the 99%
I also believe I have spotted some using a few different profiles in the same debate.. Sock puppets

At least I find my own evidence and inject something fresh into the debate. Dont have a tantrum because I am making you earn your keep.

The debate was widened by your crew so I am taking up the challenge.
edit on 8-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: Info



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

[img]
[/img]



Awkward.. Same backgrounds, not explainable by parallax.



Explain the photo.. same backgrounds


jra

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Explain the photo.. same backgrounds


Both panorama's are from the same mission (Apollo 17), so of course the same mountains will appear in the background.
edit on 8-11-2012 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Are you serious? Look again, do you see the problem yet?



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 04:27 AM
link   
reply to post by onewithall
 

I watched this video and there is not any evidence to suggest the Moon Landings were faked. There are several absolute PROOFS which are impossible to deny about the Lunar Landings.

1. There were Thousands of Ham Radio Operators around the world who Triangulated the signal from the Space Craft as it made it's way to the Moon as well as it's return. These Ham Operators showed that the Apollo Craft ABSOLUTELY landed on the Moon.

2. The Soviet Union which was in a Space Race with the United States tracked with their Powerful Radar as well as also Triangulated the Apollo Missions Craft...VERIFIED that the Craft did land on the Moon. If it was a HOAX...the Soviets would not have verified the landing.

3. The questions asked of the Astronauts were timed in how long it would take to get to the craft and the time of reply as well as these replies over Radio triangulated to the landing site and they matched EXACTLY with a real time response and the delay of the time needed for the radio signal to return as well as get to the craft. This is proof that the craft was inhabited. Subsequent Missions had School Kids and Media asking questions that the Astronauts could not be prepped for as to their answers...again the Time Delay was EXACT.

4. A Reflective Mirror for the bouncing of a Laser Beam is on the surface of the Moon and still used to this day to track Lunar Distance and Movement. This Laser Mirror had to be precisely placed on the Surface and we did not have the Tech. to do this with a Robot Method back in the late 60's.

5. A Country does not launch multiple times of the Worlds Largest Rocket for no reason.

Split Infinity


jra

posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss
Are you serious? Look again, do you see the problem yet?


No, but please enlighten me.



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



Are you serious? Look again, do you see the problem yet?


Only if you look at this and try to explain it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Nov, 8 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


You have a bunch of pictures taken from the same mission and you wonder why the same mountain range can be seen in the background? Could you please elaborate as to why you think that shouldn't be? I mean if I have a bunch of pictures from my trip to manhattan that all have the statue of liberty in the background, does that mean they're not real?






top topics



 
105
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join