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: 23
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Hey cupcake, I think you are out your depth. The shuttle was designed to the maximum capability of the day - Earth orbit. The shuttle couldn't get to the moon because no manned craft that we know of, ever has.


Can you possibly be this ignorant? The Shuttle was designed to loft extremely heavy payloads into near Earth orbit because that was considered to be of most practical use. It could also have been designed to loft smaller payloads to, say, geostationary orbit if that were considered to be a priority... but that would sacrifice useful near Earth capacity. I'm sorry that you haven't heard, but at least nine crewed spacecraft have been to the Moon. You should try cracking a history book some time.


Do the experiment for yourself.. time the fall rate of the feather HAMMER experiment against the accidental drops of objects by the Apollo Astronauts! It is there the proof the video footage of the landings was done here on Earth, do the test it is there!


Why are you afraid to do this and publish the results here? Do you already know they will prove you wrong?


Why are you NASA supporters so shy ? Who are you ?


I thought you offered to go first... oh, wait, that would be a violation of T&C! Like everything else you've said here, you're just bluffing.

Now, please stop your juvenile ad hominem attacks and publish the results of your lunar gravity measurements. Surely you've done them or you wouldn't keep claiming that they prove something.
edit on 23-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Ove38
 



What's that up in the left corner ?


As already pointed out, something inside the CSM reflected on the window glass.

You can get similar effects, shooting a photo or video through glass. I mean, this is rather obvious to most people, isn't it?

No, it's not. The Apollo 11 crew turned off the light inside the CSM, held the camera as far away from the window as possible. To make it look like a small Earth far away in space.

What you see up in the left corner, is not a reflection on the window glass they were filming through . It's light coming through another window inside the CSM. A window they didn't cover god enough, when trying to make it pitch black inside the CSM.


edit on 23-3-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
How is it that a circle of stones can be seen in this LRO image.
But the Surveyor 3 foot pads cannot be seen ?

Apollo 12 > i.space.com...

Surveyor 3 > img.phombo.com...




edit on 23-3-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



How is it that a circle of stones can be seen in this LRO image.
But the Surveyor 3 foot pads cannot be seen ?


Do you suppose it might have something to do with the fact that the boulders are larger than Surveyor's pads?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



No, it's not. The Apollo 11 crew turned off the light inside the CSM, held the camera as far away from the window as possible. To make it look like a small Earth far away in space.


Then later, they leaned in real close to make the Earth look bigger. Do you have any clue at all? Seriously! They held the camera far away from the window to make the Earth look small? :shk:



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


If (as the hoax-believers' argument goes) they never went too far from earth, and were actually in low Earth orbit (LEO), and the "small Earth" was just a round cut-out, then how do you explain that the Earth's cloud cover in the video exactly matches higher resolution photos taken at the same time...
...photos that show the whole Earth, including familiar land masses, and with the same cloud cover as in the video?

If, as you claim, the Earth seen in the video is only a small portion of a much larger up-close earth, but see through a round cut-out, then how could the clouds match-up with the higher-res picture that is obviously a picture of the whole Earth taken from farther away than LEO.

As explained in this link:
www.braeunig.us...

Bart Sibrel, the person who first made this claim about "cut outs" has seen all of this footage from Apollo 11 on the way to the Moon, but only shows the footage that supports his claims and ignores the footage and facts that disprove his claim. That makes him a liar who is simply trying to bilk hoax believers out of their money.


edit on 3/23/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
How is it that a circle of stones can be seen in this LRO image.
But the Surveyor 3 foot pads cannot be seen ?

Apollo 12 > i.space.com...

Surveyor 3 > img.phombo.com...




edit on 23-3-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix


Well lets see what it's like with an Astronaut next to it



Clever of you to chose a picture to make Surveyor 3 look as big as possible

edit on 23-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

No, it's not. The Apollo 11 crew turned off the light inside the CSM, held the camera as far away from the window as possible. To make it look like a small Earth far away in space.


edit on 23-3-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix


You think moving a camera a few feet back would make an object many thousands of miles away look considerably smaller best one yet ROFLMAO



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Razimus
Nice picture of the lunar module, yeah it's an alien base, what a nut, I guess NASA, ASU and the Japanese are all part of the conspiracy, the conspiracy that there is a tiny moon base the size of the lunar module? Funny stuff.

Btw the Van Allen belt is moderately dangerous for humans, it's not an unstoppable wall like you've been told.

In 1,000 years when there is a theme park built around the moon landing, will there still be people claiming it was fake?


You mean THIS?

I can draw better than that. After the Japanese mission said they saw nothing, then NASA sends a probe and now you see tracks etc? Hasn't that been the problem all along that people say that NASA draws on images?

So? They drew on more images?

When China goes there and photographs it, THEN we will have some objective proof.
NASA has little credibility after the leaking of the Apollo 11 in orbit fakery out the porthole.
I saw the so called debunking of that as well and remain unconvinced because once you lose credibility, you need extraordinary proof of your claims and at least some objective data from some other source, and I don't mean the European Space Agency, if there was anything at all to see on Mars, they didn't show it.

edit on 23-3-2012 by Rocketman7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bicnarok

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


www.dailygalaxy. com

The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera snapped its best look yet of the Apollo 11 landing site on the moon. The image, which was released on March 7, 2012, even shows the remnants of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin's historic first steps on the surface around the Lunar Module.This image of the Apollo 11 landing site captured from just 24 km (15 miles) above the surface provides LRO's best look yet at humanity’s first venture to another world.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
lroc.sese.asu.edu
edit on 3/14/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Edit--Use Exact Headline.


Now if someone could match that image to any of the images taken by the astronauts on the moon, I should really be impressed! At first glance, the landscape does not appear to be the same as in the images taken by astronauts on the moon. Thanks for the images though!



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
So has anyone seen the new improved images of the so called Apollo 20 space-ship?

What is it now with the upgrade?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



NASA has little credibility after the leaking of the Apollo 11 in orbit fakery out the porthole.
I saw the so called debunking of that as well and remain unconvinced because once you lose credibility...,


But there was no "fakery in orbit," as the "debunking" proves. It is therefore the person who claimed that it was a fake who loses credibility, not NASA.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



NASA has little credibility after the leaking of the Apollo 11 in orbit fakery out the porthole.
I saw the so called debunking of that as well and remain unconvinced because once you lose credibility...,


But there was no "fakery in orbit," as the "debunking" proves. It is therefore the person who claimed that it was a fake who loses credibility, not NASA.


If you've seen the video, it does look like they were faking it. Its a leaked NASA video. Leaked to a group who were doing a show on NASA fakery.
They were making a documentary about the fake moon landings and they received a leaked tape from NASA.
In with a bunch of other tapes or something.
I am not saying they never went to the moon, I am merely saying that more evidence is needed before anyone should be convinced since good healthy skepticism is always the best approach when dealing with suspicious shall we say, circumstances.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Citation needed for 'a group of people trying to prove fakery' that got a hold of classified film. Did I just fart or something? Hard to believe what they come up with....


Hey I got one for you, the sun has a water core. Prove me wrong.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rocketman7

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



NASA has little credibility after the leaking of the Apollo 11 in orbit fakery out the porthole.
I saw the so called debunking of that as well and remain unconvinced because once you lose credibility...,


But there was no "fakery in orbit," as the "debunking" proves. It is therefore the person who claimed that it was a fake who loses credibility, not NASA.


If you've seen the video, it does look like they were faking it. Its a leaked NASA video. Leaked to a group who were doing a show on NASA fakery.
They were making a documentary about the fake moon landings and they received a leaked tape from NASA.
In with a bunch of other tapes or something.
I am not saying they never went to the moon, I am merely saying that more evidence is needed before anyone should be convinced since good healthy skepticism is always the best approach when dealing with suspicious shall we say, circumstances.

That footage of the Earth that Bart Sibrel says is just a Low earth Orbit view of the earth through a cut-out is NOT leaked. It is aired live on TV. The test footages weren't leaked either -- they were publicly available videos.

People like to say "leaked" because it sounds like there was some conspiracy to hide the footage -- but there wasn't.

By the way, there were also high resolution pictures taken of the WHOLE Earth by the astronauts as they were on their way to the moon (OUTSIDE earth's orbit) that look exactly like the earth seen in the video -- an Earth that Sibrel says was just a partial Earth seen through a cut-out.

Here is the earth that was seen in the video (which, according to hoax believers is NOT the whole earth, but just a partial Earth seen through a round cut-out:



Notice the clouds.

Here is a higher-resolution picture taken by the astronauts at about the same time that part of the video was taken:



Again, notice the clouds. The clouds in both of these images look the same. Also notice in the second image that you can see the WHOLE EARTH -- North and South America are clearly visible. Obviously, the image in the video is also the entire earth -- not just a small part of the earth seen through a round hole.

Here is a side-by-side comparison to make it even more clear:



Again, it is obvious that the veiw of the earth in the video is the entire planet as seen from far away, and is NOT just a small part of the earth seen through a round cut-out hole from close-up in low earth orbit.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 

I wonder why Sibrel didn't include this part of the "leaked" video.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Rocketman7
 


Citation needed for 'a group of people trying to prove fakery' that got a hold of classified film. Did I just fart or something? Hard to believe what they come up with....


Hey I got one for you, the sun has a water core. Prove me wrong.


Hi ILL
Would a report or paper from a government agency do?
Like a paper or report by the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
NASA is bitsy small potatoes compared. Yes you did fart.
I beleive this, do you have a citation to prove otherwise?
You see the entire US government is subject to fakery.
Your farts are only a citation to your fragrance. Please be a prince and google OPERATION NORTH WOODS and citate why and how it is not US government fakery.
thanks old pal
and squeeze till shift change.
Your sun fakery is off topic you must cease this type behavior.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Rocketman7
 



I am not saying they never went to the moon, I am merely saying that more evidence is needed before anyone should be convinced since good healthy skepticism is always the best approach when dealing with suspicious shall we say, circumstances.


You standard of proof seems to be wildly variable:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




Your sun fakery is off topic


No its not. It is exactly the same as this;

I beleive this, do you have a citation to prove otherwise?


It illustrates how you use plausible deniability, your core argument which is one can't prove a negative. It is very on-topic.

You just didn't get it. Sarcasm isn't always recognized here.

You also use diversion tactics to shift the goal posts and the analysis of the fart illustrates that.

All in one short post.



posted on Mar, 24 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   
hopefully this will put an end to this ridiculous malcontented 'the moon landings were a hoax' nonsense



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join