It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by blocula
and could you please leave the drug addict accusations out of this discussion?
Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
Several nazi mass murderers were exempt from punishment,as long as the usa could procure their rocket technology to use against the russians during a cold war that didnt even exist and send astronauts to the moon where they never even went...
Wow...Dont you see?
Its all about money and power...
Its all about domination and control...
Its all about lies and deceptions...
edit on 30-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by blocula Within another thread,about some other theory,i said the nazis sent us to the moon,so i havent contradicted anything and could you please leave the drug addict accusations out of this discussion?
Originally posted by Blackbird2012
I've thought of this too myself. I would have thought that we actually landed on the moon,but when i heard about the therory that the whole moon mission might have been recorded from a live studio, i thought, well this seems to change everything.
Originally posted by rkingpin
I read somewhere there is a "barrier" around earth which NO MAN can penetrate. So maybe its true. Is it really fake. can the mood landing be faked? is it hard to beleive? Watch for example prometheus, If you never knew it was a movie and you were shown a clip would you be able to tell its a fake? and also know the government have more technology they can show you anything and make you beleive it is real (almost)
So where do all these astronaults go?
Originally posted by sitchin
my personal views are that Armstrong and his crew never went to the moon
now im not saying the later missions were a hoax .. who really knows .. The moon landing could be easily proved or disproved with today's technology ..we supposedly left an abundance of evidence there which could be photographed very clearly but they choose not to
..a lot of grainy images doesn't bare well with me
In July 1969, Man first walked on the Moon. Over the course of three more years, we did it five more times. Despite the return of hundreds of kilos of rocks, thousands of pictures, and independent verification and authentication from dozens of countries (some of which were and still are our enemies), some people stubbornly refuse to accept the fact that the Apollo Moon landings were real. I need not go into their falacious claims here (after all, I’ve written on them extensively elsewhere). Instead, let’s look at a seemingly simple question of verification: if the landings were real, why not point Hubble or some other telescope at the landing sites and take pictures of the landers? Hubble and the Lunar Module: nopeThis question is obvious enough, and I’ve gotten it so many times I decided to write this description of just why this won’t work. The answer is pretty surprising to most people, but the science doesn’t lie. The basic idea is that when the astronauts left the Moon, they left behind several artifacts, including the base of the lunar module (called the descent stage) and the rovers (for Apollo 15, 16, and 17). The descent stages were a little over 4 meters wide (the landing legs spread out were 9 meters across, but are narrow, so the bulk of the stage would be easier to see). The rovers were about 3 meters long and 2 wide.Those numbers sound like you should be able to spot them with, say, Hubble. But can you? The question here is one of resolution: how big does an object have to be before a telescope can resolve it, that is, see it as more than just a dot? As an example, a person standing next to you is easy to see and easily identifiable. But from a mile away that human is far more difficult to see, and from ten miles away is just a dot (if that). The ability for a telescope to resolve an object is, as you’d expect, directly related to the size of the mirror or lens. There is a simple relationship between mirror size and resolving power: R = 11.6 / D. What does this mean? First, R = the angular size of the object in arcseconds. An arcsecond is a measure of angular size (how big an object appears to be — if two objects are the same physical size, the one farther away will appear smaller, and have a smaller angular size). There are 3600 arcseconds to a degree, and to give you an idea of how small a measure this is, the Moon is about 0.5 degrees = 1800 arcseconds across. D is the diameter of the mirror in centimeters. Hubble’s mirror is 2.4 meters = 240 centimeters across. Plugging that into the formula, we see that Hubble’s resolution is 11.6 / 240 = 0.05 arcseconds. That’s an incredibly small size; a human would have to be nearly 8000 kilometers (4900 miles) away to be 0.05 arcseconds in size! To be totally accurate, there’s a twist to this. Well, really two. The first is that there’s a wavelength dependence too; for a given telescope size, the shorter the wavelength the more resolution you get (a telescope will resolve blue objects better than red ones, since blue has a shorter wavelength). But this is pretty minor compared to mirror size, and we can ignore it here (plus it’s already compensated for in the constant 11.6 that we used above). Second, there’s a statistical rule that says that you actually need an object to be twice that theoretical size to be properly resolved (I won’t go into boring details, but you can look up the Nyquist Sampling Theorem if you’re looking for an excuse to slack off at work). So really, Hubble’s working resolution limit is about 0.1 arcseconds. There are tricks you can do to get slightly higher resolution, but that’s getting too picky. Let’s just call it 0.1 arcseconds. So what does this mean if you want to look at the lunar artifacts? Well, now we have to figure out what the angular size of a given piece of Apollo machinery is, and then compare it to Hubble’s resolution.
The questions are not why they don't point the Hubble at Tranquility Base and why if they did, they would not be able to image the Eagle's lower stage assembly ? Rather, the question is, "why don't they land a probe next to one of the Apollo ships?" They claim to have landed the Apollo 12 LM right next to Surveyor 3, so why don't they land "Surveyor 8" next to the old Apollo12 LM?