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.

 

The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

page: 19
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The delay. It takes a signal a little over a second to reach the moon, and vice versa. So, let's say the camera operator sees the module blasting off on his monitor (which occurred over a second prior), take his little NASA joystick in hand and proceeds to pan. This takes another second or so for the signal to go back to the camera on the moon. I think the total round trip for a signal to go to the moon and back is 2.5 seconds. He would've MISSED the launch completely. As you notice, the instant the module launches, the camera starts panning. I call BS for that reason, but more-so, the power that would've been required to beam live action back to earth. The whole world was mooned on July 20th, 1969, and every other time astro-nots flew a couple hundred thousand miles in a tin can to walk on the moon.




It was timed they knew the delay and if you actually watch the video its not tracked perfectly but Apollo 17 is keep in the field of view.

What makes me
on this site is all the conspiracy guys claim to be great thinkers and anyone one else is closed minded YET the most mundane day to day things seem to escape this great thinking process YOU have.
(I mean remote control didn't occur to you strange!)...


It didn't occur to me? I mentioned it in my first post on here...how absurd it was. Timed delay...yeah, sure.


Did you even read the link in my last post? Here it is again: Earth-Moon delay: wrong?

Here's Hunchbacked's video demonstrating the delay inconsistencies between Apollo and NASA headquarters.



Watch between 3:30 and 4:30 or so. "Yeah that's on my...(chuckle)...that's on my list." He was replying too soon, and was warned by NASA! He did it a couple of times.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:19 AM
link   
I do wonder what the plan is for revealing the hoax, I know the fox documentary would not have been allowed to be broadcast unless it was agreed by nasa. This is the process of softening people up to the hoax.. By the time it is revealed officially, most people who lived through the noon hoax will have passed away.. The next generation will not be so personally attached to the event(s)

If you talk to aerospace engineers they will tell you there are doubts, I did an internship a rolls royce in 1997 and it was a 50/50 split on who believed the landings were real, this was before it was so easy to get evidence on the Internet to prove the hoax.
edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: Spell oops



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
considering the radiation beyond van allen,I doubt we went to moon on the apollo tin can.Maybe a roswell ufo but definitely not the apollo tin can.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:34 AM
link   
reply to post by audiopackrat
 


What's voice communication got to do with it , like i said it wasn't perfect he knew the approx delay and if you watch the video it wasn't tracked perfect because it was remote control


Whats up about the photography post
or do you realise you are wrong about that as well

edit on 19-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
considering the radiation beyond van allen,I doubt we went to moon on the apollo tin can.Maybe a roswell ufo but definitely not the apollo tin can.



There is a video link on here of Van Allen himself saying its was possible to travel through the belts


When I find the link I will post it.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:43 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It takes 1.25 seconds for a signal originating on earth to reach the moon, it takes the same amount of time for a signal to come back. That totals 2.5 seconds. What part do you not get? If the astro-not replies in less than 2.5 seconds, it PROVES the audio did not come from the moon. If you watched the video, you'd see that some of the replies from Apollo were under 1 second. As noted before, any recent Apollo footage made available to the public most likely has this 'problem' corrected.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
I do wonder what the plan is for revealing the hoax, I know the fox documentary would not have been allowed to be broadcast unless it was agreed by nasa. This is the process of softening people up to the hoax.. By the time it is revealed officially, most people who lived through the noon hoax will have passed away.. The next generation will not be so personally attached to the event(s)

If you talk to aerospace engineers they will tell you there are doubts, I did an internship a rolls royce in 1997 and it was a 50/50 split on who believed the landings were real, this was before it was so easy to get evidence on the Internet to prove the hoax.
edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: Spell oops


Sorry the ONLY thing hoax believers could rely on well up to the launch of the LRO that is, was that a picture of the landing sites couldn't be shown once that happened all the youtube IDIOTS etc go back over old ground thats been debunked a thousand times.

You know Van allen, no stars, shadows, etc etc.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by audiopackrat
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It takes 1.25 seconds for a signal originating on earth to reach the moon, it takes the same amount of time for a signal to come back. That totals 2.5 seconds. What part do you not get? If the astro-not replies in less than 2.5 seconds, it PROVES the audio did not come from the moon. If you watched the video, you'd see that some of the replies from Apollo were under 1 second. As noted before, any recent Apollo footage made available to the public most likely has this 'problem' corrected.


Read this post this explains what happens if you were one light second away to make the maths easy !!!!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not rocket science



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I believe van allen was lying to cover up in relation of the apollo missions.Yes we have been to the moon but not in the apollo tin can.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


Here's is a picture with craters fully lit it happens all the time you seem to have your eyes constantly shut

Due to possible eye problems got a nice big image for you!!!!! JUST CLICK ON IT FOR A NICE BIG IMAGE!



As you requested not enhanced MILLIONS of images like that on the net if you actually BOTHER to look instead spouting constant BS


You said this


Originally posted by longjohnbritches

My ansswer is HE*L yes. The shadows within the perimeter. Darker than what the surrounding perimiter is. Within the CENTER of the crater my natty friend.
Your point is only twisted thinking like the mirror image that you posted. Seems to me that you see the whole world that way. (moon to boot)you need more than ocular attention.


edit on 18-3-2012 by longjohnbritches because: adding forgiveness


The shadow will not be the same all around the perimeter the sunlight is from one direction one side in darkness the other lit by the sun and between those areas a transition depending on reflected light, BASIC SCHOOL SCIENCE!!!

How a crater looks depends on lots of things size,depth and the angle of the sunlight to it, now maybe YOU cant undestand that but even YOU must know an objects shadow changes during the day depending on how the light hits it OR do you think the objects change SIZE



Very nice image
You will have to admit is is way different than the inhanced images of simulated sunshine you were peddeling before. Or the mirror image one.
I see not one crater that looks like it is bulging out like in the op photos.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Are we all in agreement that technology gets better over time, more compact, faster and efficient.

When fuel and minimizing payloads is so important why can't we use a similar compact design like supposedly was used in 1969, after all.. it worked so well.

Why is NASA looking for private companies to take on the challenge of designing a lander.. People come on, if anyone has the data and know how it should be NASA. Surely the original design upgraded with today's technology would be the most effective solution, why put it out to tender! Tweak the original design, it worked a dream ! Apparently !

We are told to trust in NASA superior and godly genius, but they are telling us directly they do not have the creativity and knowledge to develop a lunar lander. Where has all that budget gone?

www.newscientist.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


What craters do you see bulging out?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
Are we all in agreement that technology gets better over time, more compact, faster and efficient.

When fuel and minimizing payloads is so important why can't we use a similar compact design like supposedly was used in 1969, after all.. it worked so well.

Why is NASA looking for private companies to take on the challenge of designing a lander.. People come on, if anyone has the data and know how it should be NASA. Surely the original design upgraded with today's technology would be the most effective solution, why put it out to tender! Tweak the original design, it worked a dream ! Apparently !

We are told to trust in NASA superior and godly genius, but they are telling us directly they do not have the creativity and knowledge to develop a lunar lander. Where has all that budget gone?

www.newscientist.com...





Budget cuts, credit crunch etc you needed the Saturn 5 to get the lander to the Moon so if you want smaller cheaper redesign is needed.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Swills
 


The myth busters just had a live show here in michigan, awesome



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


I believe van allen was lying to cover up in relation of the apollo missions.Yes we have been to the moon but not in the apollo tin can.



How convenient for you what a joke, what proof of either statement NONE!!



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Observ321
reply to post by Swills
 


The myth busters just had a live show here in michigan, awesome



Myth busters fraud. Watch the whole of this video www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Myth busters fraud. Watch the whole of this video www.youtube.com...


As usual, Jarrah shoots himself in the foot. They never said it was impossible to bounce a laser off of the Moon's surface, just that the return is much brighter when there is a mirror reflector.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by audiopackrat
...Here's Hunchbacked's video demonstrating the delay inconsistencies between Apollo and NASA headquarters.



Watch between 3:30 and 4:30 or so. "Yeah that's on my...(chuckle)...that's on my list." He was replying too soon, and was warned by NASA! He did it a couple of times.

OR...

When Cernan first started saying "Yeah, that's on my..." he started talking over the first part of mission control's communication, then had to stop once he rea;ized mission control wasn't done talking. That's very hard to di when there is a delay.

Mission control first started saying:

John suggest we check in momentarily while you're here to make sure it's still holding on good and tight."
...at which point mission control paused.

Then there was the time delay for that signal to reach Cernan, When Cernan heard that pause, he started answering:

Yeah, that's on my..."

...only to realize that due to the delay, Mission control did not know he was already replying to the part of the communication that ended with "...good and tight.".

Instead, Mission control just kept on talking after the pause by saying "Both the clamps and the tape", because due to the delay, Mission Control didn't know Cernan was already answering, and thus they were both speaking over each other.

As for the video's assertion that Cernan had to have already heard the part about "clamps and tape" before he could respond is ridiculous. When Cernan said "Yeah, that's on my list" he could have easily known what mission control was talking about before hearing the "clamps and tape" part.

I'm sure that checking to verify that the fix for the Rover fender was still "good and tight" was already on Cernan's list of things to do, whether or not Mission Control reminded him of it. So when Mission control said "...make sure it's good and tight", I don't think it is at all odd the Cernan would answer with "Yeah, that's on my list". I'm sure he knew what they were talking about.


...and as someone asked above, what's this have to do with your issue concerning the Rover remote camera operator's ability to follow the Apollo 17 LEM when it ascended?


edit on 3/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
First US spacewalk in HD

www.youtube.com...

Watch for the glove escaping 0.07

Then watch the same footage with glove incident edited out www.youtube.com... at 2.33

It's all about presenting an image with NASA.

More importantly look at the incredible video quality available in 1965, can anyone find a rational reason why there is no similarly high quality footage of any of the lunar missions? Which happened at a later date, bearing in mind more time was spent there and how important this footage would be, as it is our only detailed record. It is crazy to believe this footage wouldn't be given great importance and used to promote NASA.

I suspect when the Soviets discovered the hoax, the US warned Russia any mention that the landings were a hoax was decreed an act of war by the United States. That is a puzzle though, when it is so clearly a hoax why didn't Russia leak it through other means.. What if just like the cold war all the space race was just ritualized aggression? Played out for the public, designed to show capitalism was superior.

More likely is that the Russian's had been up to some trickery of their own, not releasing information on missions until they had been successful. Russia was possibly the first nation to lose a man in space..

"Oberg discovered that the rosebush was Grigoriy Nelyubov, expelled from the programme in 1961 after a drunken brawl with some soldiers. Some time later, drunk and depressed, Nelyubov stepped in front of a train and was killed. Other airbrushings include Anatoliy Kartashov, who experienced skin bleeding during a centrifuge run, and Valentin Varlamov who vanished after injuring his neck in a diving accident. Vladimir Shatalov, the Commander of Cosmonaut Training from 1971 to 1987, admitted that “six or eight” trainees had died in the 1960s, but wouldn’t say how. The Russian cosmonaut, it seems, had to be perfect or not exist at all. By 1971, nine cosmonauts had vanished from the official photographs which were re-released in honour of the 10th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin’s flight. "

www.forteantimes.com...

So perhaps the US and Russia were caught up in such a tangle of lies that each had a deterrent against revealing them.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Here are quite a few good videos (most or all filmed using the Rover's TV camera).
history.nasa.gov...

edit on 3/19/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join