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.

 

Lost Bird Proves Apollo Inauthenticity

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Cracking Apollo is quite literally about patriotism, about copping to folly and becoming something better, something more honest, something more true, something more self respectful.


Only a deceitful, America hating, self loathing coward would refuse to strike a blow for Truth, Justice and the American Way by declining to expose Apollo fraudulence in a formal debate in the Debate Forum. Right, decisively? Are we on?




posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by decisively
 



Cracking Apollo is quite literally about patriotism, about copping to folly and becoming something better, something more honest, something more true, something more self respectful.


Only a deceitful, America hating, self loathing coward would refuse to strike a blow for Truth, Justice and the American Way by declining to expose Apollo fraudulence in a formal debate in the Debate Forum. Right, decisively? Are we on?


true, if he was the patriot he says he is than he should have no qualms to debate you as you seem to be the opposite of everything he stands for.



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
They did go to the moon and the military followed Apollo with their Orion nuclear propulsion spacecraft.

Nasa has images here of the military nuclear propulsion spacecraft:

www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-362/hrp78.jpg
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...


That twisty tail thingy is the blastplate piece that absorbed the nuclear blasts and provided forward propulsion. Apparently Coca-Cola made the nuke dispenser and the little nukes were the size of a soda can. You can find images of the moons surface showing lines of blast craters from where they got their altitude a little too close for comfort.

I found other NASA images showing the engine module separate from the Orion military spacecraft, it was boosted into orbit via rocket. The actual spacecraft assembly minus engine was heavy lifted into orbit from Nevada using a nuclear bomb in a pit with water and they made a sort of 'cannon' to blast the heavy spacecraft into orbit since Rockets couldn't do it.

This is all a theory I have....but those images in the links above.....ain't no Apollo Lunar lander or Command Module is it?



posted on Jun, 6 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Project Orion was scrapped in 1964:

en.wikipedia.org...(nuclear_propulsion)

Trust me, if there were spacecraft propelled by nuclear bombs out there, everyone who looked up would know they were there. But by all means, feel free to hijack this silly thread.



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   

The Plot thickens, what Say You to Imaging Those Lasers Against A Completely Black Background ?

reply to post by wmd_2008
 


"This was a nice little find. From Jim Irwin's TO RULE THE NIGHT,(William Emerson coauthor, Holman Bible Publishers, 1973), Irwin is writing here about "the ride home";

"There was a very thin silver layer of a large round ball. The earth goes through the same phases as the moon. When we left the Earth it was a full Earth. When we came back, it was now a new Earth; absolutely black like the dark of the moon, only it was the dark of the Earth. You couldn't see it. It was just like the moon when we cruised into lunar orbit, a dark mass in the sky."

A couple of interesting and important points to be made here. The first point is an absolute; were someone to hit the CM with an argon laser here, hit it at a moment such as Jim Irwin is describing there in his book, a moment where the laser would emit from a black Earth background, the laser would be seen without question. It could not be denied under such a circumstance. One of the reasons the astronauts are star phobic and have laser fright is because they do not want to be told to image a laser against this black earth. They are not in cislunar space and so cannot do so. As such, they deny laser light whenever asked about it. It MIGHT BE VERY HARD TO FAKE THIS, AN IMAGE OF SAY THE MCDONALD LASER AT SUCH A TIME. The argon laser operators at McDonald could at any time say, "OK TAKE A PIC !!!!" Unless you had an unmanned craft in the right position at the right time, and that would not be easy, perhaps impossible given the circumstances, the astronauts would get their chops busted.

Not an absolute, but perhaps even all the more interesting; How bright would cities look from space "at night" by 1971 ? Perhaps we can bust Irwin's chops flat out here. He is saying the Earth looked black. With no other light but that of the stars, a thin crescent of earthshine, and city lights. Could the latter have been seen ? Should they have been seen ? Can we bust Irwin's chops here ?


edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"

edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"

edit on 9-6-2012 by decisively because: added period, caps



posted on Jun, 9 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


you havent considered if the laser was not directly on the CSM.. would the astronauts see the laser if the laser was NOT directly on them?



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



A couple of interesting and important points to be made here. The first point is an absolute; were someone to hit the CM with an argon laser here, hit it at a moment such as Jim Irwin is describing there in his book, a moment where the laser would emit from a black Earth background, the laser would be seen without question. It could not be denied under such a circumstance.


Instead os rhetoric, why don't we put some numbers to this question. Using a powerful telescope, the observers on Earth reported:


Assuming a Poisson distribution of the recorded photoelectrons, the returns correspond to an average of 1.6 detectable photoelectrons per shot.


physics.ucsd.edu...

In other words, despite the collimation of the laser light, the beam was two kilometers wide when it reached the Moon, with about four detectable photons reaching the retro-reflector's surface, about a meter square. Four photons per square meter, You're the doctor, decisively. Just how bright would you say that laser would look to a human eye?


Not an absolute, but perhaps even all the more interesting; How bright would cities look from space "at night" by 1971 ? Perhaps we can bust Irwin's chops flat out here. He is saying the Earth looked black. With no other light but that of the stars, a thin crescent of earthshine, and city lights. Could the latter have been seen ? Should they have been seen ? Can we bust Irwin's chops here ?


No, you can't. The images you see of bright city lights taken from orbit are time exposures. True, astronauts can see them with their dark adapted eyes, but they are not as bright as the maps you see might lead you to believe. Here is how the most famous of those maps was made:


The images were taken by a Defense Meteorological Satellite Program’s (DMSP) Operational Linescan System (OLS). This network of satellites was originally designed to pick up on lunar illumination reflecting off of clouds at night* in order to aid nighttime aircraft navigation. What the Air Force discovered is that on evenings when there was a new moon, the satellites were sensitive enough to record the illumination from city lights. Over a period of several new moons, the data the satellites retrieved could be pieced together to produce a global image of city lights.


earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

The Moon is a thousand times further away from those lights than satellites in near Earth orbit. Apply the inverse square law, and you get the cities being 1,000,000 times dimmer from the Moon. You tell me, doc, would city lights be visible from the Moon?


* Ie, they are very sensitive. --DJW001



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by decisively
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Not sure what you are trying to imply.

FYI, I am of the opinion that Apollo was a cover for U.S. efforts to place military equipment on the moon and elsewhere. If you are suggesting "Apollo was real" because look at all of this hardware, you would get no argument from me there. That is exactly what I would expect, hardware in earth orbit, on the moon, in libration points.

My view is that Apollo was a cover for US efforts as regards surveillance, reconnaissance, ICBM tracking/targeting/performance, Dyna-Soar development, MOL development.


Obviously, and so much so that the "cover" was transparent. The point was made very clear to the USSR: "We have the capability to build complex integrated systems of hardware, software and people to overcome extraordinary scientific and technological challenges. Think your missiles are so hot stuff now?" And many of the specific capabilities were intrinsically dual-use. Lightweight integrated circuits, high-precision space metrology and tracking, re-entry (duh!). From the USSR's point of view, the most important observation they'd have from the space landings is the newsman saying "The spacecraft re-entered right on target, in clear sight of the awaiting Navy vessels". The point is that the tracking, and mechanics and re-entry technology necessary to do this directly relates to the accuracy (and hence military utility) of ICBM warheads.

Recognize that in the late 1950's the USSR's superior (at least early) development of ICBMs completely devastated the ego of the US military establishment which had previously had profound superiority in air attack and defense---billions spent and obsoleted by Korolev. And the USSR knew it and was getting cocky, so they thought.


In a more immediate sense, do you see a problem with my point here, H. David Reed has no idea where the Eagle is ? Why don't they tell him the landing coordinates ? He needs them to launch the Eagle. They gave the coordinates, the EXACT coordinates, to Joseph Wampler at Lick Observatory. I of course have much more to say, tip of the iceberg here as mentioned, but don't you have a problem with this already ? They seem to not know where their spaceship is, but at the same time, they told some people exactly where it was.
edit on 4-5-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 4-5-2012 by decisively because: added ?

edit on 4-5-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 4-5-2012 by decisively because: spelling


Sounds like normal human confusion. There were multiple estimates back in Houston from various groups. One of them was correct, and it so happened this group was the one who talked to the observatory in California.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
lost bird proves the misions were real

human frailty and all

if it was a hoax, they wouldn't leave the window open for doubters now would they ?

silly boy



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

You could not be more wrong....

reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


With regard to the completion of the running of the reverse rendezvous radar solution, H. David Reed wrote in his chapter of the book, FORM THE TRENCH OF MISSION CONTROL TO THE CRATERS OF THE MOON;

"Now we had the data we needed to run the problem (a rendezvous radar problem in reverse) and get the correct liftoff time."

The statement above is in turn footnoted, and that footnote is quite literally the most remarkable, the most profound, the most significant, the most TRUE, and the most damning line ever spoken or penned by anyone connected to Apollo. That footnote by H. David Reed reads;

"This technique, born in the fires of real time mission control would subsequently be used in all remaining flights as standard procedure."

So this was a technique, a solution, never used before, never tested before, never drilled before, never theretofore imagined, for a problem never previously anticipated. Were the problem anticipated, this essential method of solution would have been drilled.

The Eagle never would have found Columbia without this technique, UTTERLY NOVEL, UTTERLY ESSENTIAL AND "BORN IN THE FIRES OF REAL TIME MISSION CONTROL".

Yet had anyone reading these ATS Apollo fraud threads ever previously heard of this solution, not readers such as myself who have looked literally a dozen times at everything published by Apollo flight officers, but rather, the casually interested reader, the casually interested Apollo enthusiast ? The answer is NO.......

They would send a man to the moon, unaware as to exactly where he would land, unaware as to how it would be that they would find their spaceship once its location proved to be unanticipatedly indeterminate, and then these space cowboys would be utterly nonplussed by the solution's method AND CHANCE SUCCESS, a method which was not only unanticipated, but once SIMPLY GUESSED by Pete Williams the DYNAMICS computer officer, was by no means guaranteed to be realized.

They would have us believe that they flew to the moon and thought little of the fact that not only had Pete Williams not hit on this possible solution, but also, had said solution not worked, the astronauts would quite matter of factly have DIED, there having been no alternative entertained nor offered by anyone, an alternative that might provide a method whereby the Eagle/Columbia dynamic relationship could have been ascertained/defined.

The official story is one in which the Eagle was never expected to land where it was intended to land, nor where it DID land, and furthermore once it landed, the official story tells us that before Apollo 11 was launched, NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA HOW ONCE LANDED , WHEREVER IT LANDED, THE EAGLE COULD BE FOUND AND LAUNCHED TO FIND COLLINS IN THE COLUMBIA. ABSURD !!! Simply no other way to read it, and so, as a genuine mission, Apollo 11 cannot be true.

In sum, as it turns out, they launched the Apollo 11 Saturn V on 07/16/1969 without the slightest idea whatsoever how they ultimately would first find the Eagle, then launch the Eagle, and then bring it back. Utterly preposterous.
edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: added "by H. David Reed"

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: added "AND CHANCE SUCCESS"

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: added "have been"

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: spacing

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: comma

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: added "Saturn V on 07/16/1969"

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: added "first find the Eagle"

edit on 10-6-2012 by decisively because: removed "That is were they even lucky enough to find the thing."



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


again

your opinion is not proof

please google the definition



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Fair enough. Best to you, Have a beautiful day.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Speaking of " Utterly preposterous"....I see a perfect example of such a sentiment:


In sum, as it turns out, they launched the Apollo 11 Saturn V on 07/16/1969 without the slightest idea whatsoever how they ultimately would first find the Eagle, then launch the Eagle, and then bring it back. Utterly preposterous.


Each and every post of this nature demonstrates that you have virtually no concept of orbital mechanics, and orbital rendezvous procedures:


.....the official story tells us that before Apollo 11 was launched, NO ONE HAD ANY IDEA HOW ONCE LANDED , WHEREVER IT LANDED, THE EAGLE COULD BE FOUND AND LAUNCHED TO FIND COLLINS IN THE COLUMBIA.



Because, you and you alone seem to be unable to comprehend the science does not mean it did not happen.

Here, once more.....(I've posted this two-part NASA video previously) ---- a video which (if one would pay attention, and perhaps learn something from it) explains in great detail the procedure for Lunar Orbit Rendezvous.

(Please note.....the primary sole requirement for a successful LOR flight is for each spacecraft to be orbiting at the same inclination. "Inclination" is the angle relative to the equatorial and polar references for the Moon or planet. As in ALL the Apollo missions, when the LM descended from the CSM, it did not "diverge" to the North, nor the South, of the inclined orbital path of the CSM that remained in orbit.....the LM was directly "underneath" the orbital path of the CSM):



In the (^ ^ ^) video, go to 1:30 for the Overall Mission Plan Review.

@3:40, in order to understand the nature of this rendezvous, it is necessary to understand basic concepts and terminology involved. (THIS is where one might wish to pay close attention).

@3:50.....we begin to shed some light of knowledge on the process......the CSM is in a known orbit....and the LM Ascent stage lifts off, and enters a lower safe "parking" orbit. The LM, again....is in a LOWER orbit....therefore, it is moving faster......drawing a line from each spacecraft to the center of the Moon, you get an angle between the two spacecraft. This is called the "Phase Angle".

The altitude difference between to the two orbits is called the "Height Differential". Together, the two terms are called the "Phase-Height Relationship".

(The video has animated diagrams to show a visual representation of these concepts).

The initial "simplified" explanation (and diagram) was to set the concept in your mind.....the LM Ascent stage is not in a circular orbit, however...but, and elliptical "parking" orbit.(See video @5:00). So, the LM being in an elliptical orbit also climbs towards the CSM, and thus decreases the "Height Differntial" at the same time the "Phase Angle" is decreasing. This is pure and simple orbital mechanics. (The video continues, if only someone would watch, and get educated.....*sigh*).

As long as the LM Ascent stage is in orbit at the same inclination (well-known, remember? Think of it as a "heading" relative to North).....as long as the LM is in orbit, and "below" the CSM, it will always catch-up to the CSM.....of course, it will pass the CSM, then catch-up with it again, at the next rendezvous opportunity.

This is why the procedure is referred to as the "Concentric Rendezvous Plan" (I hope the member knows the definition of the word "concentric"??)

@5:30 --- "The Command Module is always in a known location, in orbit, relative to the Lunar Module
on the Moon". (AND, no!......the "exact" location of the LM, down to the slightest centimeter, is NOT required!! Because even a few kilometers difference can be easily accounted for, in flight!)

Although it seems "complicated", it really isn't.....takes some planning and calculating in order to make the actual rendezvous occur where and when you wish it to, though.....which is further explained in the video!

Some terms to learn for the "Pop Quiz" later on:

CSI -- "Concentric Sequence Initiation"

"apolune" -- (Research for definition)

CDH -- "Constant Delta ('differential') Height Maneuver"

TPI -- "Terminal Phase Initiation"



Below is "Part 2"....it is just the rest of the same film....its total 21 minute length had to be broken into two segments for YouTube:



The last half of "Part 1" and remainder in "Part 2" go into more details about the specifics of the LOR maneuvers.

Standard time to intercept, By The Way, is about 42 minutes, nominally.

Now, isn't it nice to see the reality of science, instead of wallowing in (and attempting to spread) ignorance?


edit on 10-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


Per Reed, the technique was BORN IN THE FIRES OF REAL TIME MISSION CONTROL.
Never done before. Reed again;

"This technique, born in the fires of real time mission control would subsequently be used in all remaining flights as standard procedure."



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 


Total baloney:


Per Reed, the technique was BORN IN THE FIRES OF REAL TIME MISSION CONTROL.
Never done before. Reed again;

"This technique, born in the fires of real time mission control would subsequently be used in all remaining flights as standard procedure."


(And, as is usual in the case of people attempting (and doing a poor "job" of it) to claim the so-called "hoax".....this is just another instance of taking something out of context, and not thoroughly understanding all of the background that is being described. It's called "rhetoric", too....)


The video I posted was produced in 1968!

Furthermore, it references the experience gained in Earth Orbital Rendezvous during the Gemini Program (if only you'd watch it!! Why won't you watch? Afraid?).

Gemini was primarily to prepare, by gaining more expertise and knowledge, for the eventual Apollo program. This is already well-documented historical fact, and well understood by those who conduct proper research.



edit on 10-6-2012 by PluPerfect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


There is no question there is "non-Apollo", meaning not having to do with manned landings, equipment on the moon. It is just what we would expect. There is bound to be equipment in libration points as well. This was Apollo, a cover for planting the garbage.

Love your creative spirit Pervius , perhaps you are correct, but I always say, "why send a man to do a robot's job?" , less risk ya' know.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



Love your creative spirit Pervius , perhaps you are correct, but I always say, "why send a man to do a robot's job?" , less risk ya' know.


Which is one of many reasons why have not yet returned.



posted on Jun, 10 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


No incorrect,

The man, H. David Reed, is your launch FIDO. SELECT is expected to simply say, " MSFN is our best solution. H. David, it is at 0.631 N and 23.47 E. Our AGS solution plots only 0.59 miles from here, and PNGS .38 miles from the NSFN solution. H. David. We are in fabulous shape, all of our real-time solutions agree. We can go ahead and solve for the launch using these excellent numbers".

That simply should have been the case, not complicated, no confusion there at all now was there ? This was in fact quite simply the MSFN landing site coordinate solution that appeared in the Apollo 11 Mission Report, only three quarters of a mille from the ultimately determined official landing site numbers at 0.6875 N and 23.433 E once the trajectory to map correction is factored in.

So you are incorrect mbkennel, as that landing site solution ; 0.631 N and 23.47 E was reported in the Apollo 11 Mission Report, and as such, was very much so available to H. David Reed in real-time. There was no confusion, none at all.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by decisively
 



There was no confusion, none at all.


Except that the real world is messy. Try actually reading Wittgenstein.



posted on Jun, 17 2012 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Landing Site Nonsense, Selenopgraphic/Geologist Perspectives



One of the sub-topics that I would like to introduce here deals with the role(s) played by some of the geologists.

I recently posted this over in the Apollo Fraud PERP LIST thread;

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Obviouslty, it is ever more than relevant over there where our focus is on naming PERPS and giving our reasons as to why we have named them as players in the Apollo con. The post above asks the very reasonable, surprisingly sober question, "Could Gene Shoemaker have been an Apollo Program Fraud Perpetrator ????"

As important as the question was to ask in the context of the PERP LIST thread, the post has relevance here in the LOST BIRD thread as well. The geologists involved in the Apollo program were quite active that evening, 07/20/1969(pm)-07/21/1969 (early am) in any one of a number of ways. The most important role that the Apollo geologists were TRYING to perform that evening was one of Eagle landing site locator, the bird's landing site being unknown.

What is it that the geologists' failed landing site coordinate identification efforts might tell us ? Could Gene Shoemaker be a PERP, or simple an insanely gullible elite level scientist ? Certainly the Lick Observatory astronomers were gullible as all get out. 10 plus smart, and every bit as much royal chumps, played by the Houston MAVENS OF CON like the contempt worthy step and fetch it photon bouncing geeks that they were perceived by the Houston guys to be.

I'd like to expand the LOST BIRD perspective now a bit. HERETOFORE, I have focused primarily on the H.David Reed vs Apollo 11 Mission Report contradiction, and the H. David Reed vs LRRR Scientist Experience contradiction. What I'll be doing now is posting on the subject of the geologists' contribution to LOST BIRD, whether intentioned or not. As we explore this subject, we are more likely than not to discover some PERPS, PERPS in addition to Harrisson Schmitt.

Harrisson Schmitt has already been mentioned as a key player, one who teaches the astronauts not how to find rocks of the greatest scientific value/interest, but rather, how to lie in an interesting way and so PRETEND to have discovered rocks of the greatest scientific interest/value. Harrisson Scmitt was in the business of helping the astronauts fool honest Apollo workers, especially the MOCR guys, into thinking the astronauts actually knew a little bit about what it was/is they were looking for and pretending to find. ( Keep in mind, when dealing with moon rocks, when we say "bogus" we do not mean that the rock is necessarily terrestrial, though it may have been picked up here on earth, say in Antarctica for example, but rather, "bogus moon rock" refers to all of the pretended 800 lbs of Lunar stone alleged to have been collected by men on the surface of the moon, but now known to NOT have been collected by hand by men .

So, lunar geologists and the landing site con, what was the story there ?


edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: caps

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added (pm), removed "m"

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: spelling

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added "having been"

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added "coordinate identification"

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: having been> being

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added "?"

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: added "So lunar geologists and the landing site con, what was the story there ?"

edit on 17-6-2012 by decisively because: comma, added "?"







 
14
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join