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.
Originally posted by BrandonD
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.
First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972
Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Originally posted by BrandonD
Originally posted by wmd_2008
Allan Hills 81005 (ALHA 81005), the first meteorite to be recognized as originating from the Moon, was found during the 1981-82 ANSMET collection season, on January18, 1982.
First one found 1982 LAST Apollo mission 1972
Irrelevant. The point is that the existence of lunar rocks on the earth is not in any way dependent upon a manned lunar mission. It doesn't in any way prove the opposite, but it is a faulty supportive argument.
YOU used the link to back your claim, it back fired so now YOU have to back pedal the IRONY is lost on you!!!
So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?
A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!
It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
3) One of the LM's landing pads is visible at the bottom right corner of frame. Despite the fact the LM's rocket plume, which have have continued firing until 5 seconds after touchdown,
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?
A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!
It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
]
Actually all it proves is that YOU don't have a clue what your talking about!
Watch this video of the Apollo 15 landing and use a stopwatch to count from when he says "contact" to when he says "engine shutdown"...Even without a stopwatch I can still count about 5 seconds!
www.youtube.com...edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
So your suggesting that all NASA Apollo photos have the stars airbrushed out? I have heard tales to this effect to but you have to ask yourself, why would they do this? The tale states that they did this to prevent any "confusion" for anyone looking at the photos...To any hoax believer, that would seem like a very suspicious practice!
I can't believe you fell into the "no stars" trap!
What trap? I have explained why there seems to be no stars, and no its nothing do with exposure differences because the odd star is usually visible even in photos and videos where the Astronauts are over exposed.
Since you clearly have absolutely no idea how photographs are produced, allow me to explain
Actually I am a professional photographer, so you were saying?
magazines and newspapers like for the images they publish to have appealing compositions. Therefore, NASA prepares images especially for media use that have been processed to provide the sort of aesthetic value that the media crave. In the famous image of Aldrin, this involved rotating, re-centering, cropping and adding a section of black sky to cover the crop. This process is described in detail elsewhere by the NASA PR people who did it. The original image is also available in the strictly documentary archives.
And what has this got to do with the evidence I posted earlier which makes no mention of stars?
Was it to hide any recognisable Star Constellations in the Lunar sky that under scientific scrutiny might betray the photo's as a hoax?
No, because stars would be to faint to be recorded by a camera set for daytime exposures.
Then why is there nearly always at least 1 star visible in the pics and videos even when the Astronauts are over exposed? It blows your myth out the water!
A far more likely scenario is simply that there are no star constellations visible in the Lunar sky because it wasn't actually shot on the Moon!
Actually, star patterns were recorded from orbit and from the surface of the Moon using a UV telescope, so, no.
We were not talking about stars being visible in Lunar orbit, we were talking about them not being visible on the Lunar surface.
It would be extremely difficult to fake moving star patterns on a fixed studio backdrop, so they invented the story that they airbrushed them out as a convenient lie.
No-one invented a story that they airbrushed them out. They were never there in the first place, as you would know if you knew anything about photography.
Of course they were never there in the first place, because they weren't taken on the Moon!edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.
1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.
Despite overwhelming evidence that American astronauts landed on the Moon during the period 1969-1972, there are many conspiracy theorists that dispute this. One of their arguments point to the fact there is no evidence of a pronounced crater beneath the engine nozzle of the lunar module (LM). They insist a crater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. The typical response to this is that the exhaust stream was not strong enough or concentrated enough to excavate a crater, but can this be proven scientifically? This is the purpose of this web page. We will show that the transfer of kinetic energy from the engine exhaust to the lunar soil was insufficient to produce an obvious crater.
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.
1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.
Originally posted by Imagewerx
reply to post by BrandonD
Someone else here who can't believe you fell for the "no visible stars" one as apparrant proof the whole thing was hoaxed.In fact I'm sure this was the very first bit of "evidence" of fakery when this whole ridiculous charade first started.
They used various Kodak Ektachrome films between 64 and 160 ASA,the number part tells us it's sensitivity to light.64 ASA film is the "slowest" film that was normally available,meaning it was the least sensitive to light(This also means the smallest grain structure and so best image quality).They used slow film because of the very high light levels on the moon,much higher than we ever get on earth as the moon doesn't have a water logged atmosphere to reduce the amount of visible light energy reaching it.
At a guess any photo taken on the surface of the moon would probably have needed an exposure as short as 8000th of a second or faster for a properly exposed image.
As that is a guess we can dismiss it as evidence.
To record anything at all from the much fainter stars I'd guess at about 10 seconds or longer.If you expose for the ground the stars will be invisible,If you expose for the stars,the ground will be washed out and just a white blur.
You already said that light levels on the moon are much higher than we ever get on earth as the moon doesn't have a water logged atmosphere to reduce the amount of visible light energy reaching it...That means the stars would appear much brighter in the Lunar sky that they do here on Earth.
[quote]Even todays best digital imaging sensors don't have anywhere near the dynamic range needed to be able to "see" both at the same time.
Oh and finally don't forget to play your trump card of the Van Allen radiation belts causing the films to fog and so rendering any images recorded onto them useless.We'd be VERY disappointed if you didn't!
Originally posted by eriktheawful
Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.
1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.
Take a look at this image here:
And now take a look at in full resolution of 3900 x 3900. You'll see the blast marks from the engine:
AS11-m-5921
And if you still do not believe the physics, you can prove us wrong by video taping an experiment using compresed air as your rocket thruster and a surface using materials that are compatible with the moons surface (rock and dust).
Nice try, but unfortunately you didn't check it close enough...We would expect to see a completely symetrical pattern of dust disturbance around the bell nozzle, but the fine linear patterning in the dust running in a SW to NE direction continues on into the left of frame, instead of turning away from the nozzle.edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
The overall albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, but it is strongly directional and non-Lambertian, displaying also a strong opposition effect.[18] While such reflectance properties are different from those of any terrestrial terrains, they are typical of the regolith surfaces of airless solar system bodies.