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.
How about photographing the edge of light once approaching the lighted side of the moon? Wasn`t really the thin crescent of bright growing lunar circumference of any interest to be filmed or phtographed?
it would simply show how stars disappear as the bright light takes over the camera exposure.
How about walking on the moon behind huge rocks or mountains where astronauts were in complete shadow enjoying no atmospehre, 7% albedo , yet unable to see or photograph stars in any settings available.
Grainy of course, they could buy Swedish phtocameras, yet noone could provide high quality videocameras, so they had to use zenith. so they had to use zenith. Patriots, you know
No crater, oh the ground was pure rock probably.
Oh, they switched the engines off a couple of seconds before landing.
Should I continue?
reply to post by GaryN
Following insertion into Earth orbit, there was quite a bit of debris floating around
the cabin. This contamination consisted of small screws, fasteners, ends trimmed from wiring,
and general trash. The quantity of this cabin debris remained constant throughout the
mission.
Then the vacuum cleaner failed in an attempt to suck up the trash. You'd think the contractors could have given the thing a good vacuuming before delivery. The astronauts were amazingly lucky that none of that trash gummed up the works of such delicate and intricate craft.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by blaenau2000
Armstrong clearly says that they could not see stars when they were on the surface. I don't know what you mean when you say he didn't remember.
Please see the edit to my prior post.
edit on 5/18/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by VreemdeVlieendeVoorwep
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by NeverSleepingEyes
i can sumarise it :
the same old lies , ignorance , missrepresentation , pop psychology , psuedo science and tawddle that goes into all moon hoax ` arguments `
Don't judge before you have seen it mate.
Its this type of preconceived judgement, that is just absolutely absurd. Have a look at it first ffs, before just jumping on the ridicule bandwagon.
vvv
Originally posted by illuminnaughty
So the moon landings were done during the 11 yr cycle. At the peak of it? Yet those photos were so clear, without any radiation damage. Using unprotected cameras? Plus they detonated a nuke there and caused another belt, like the Van Allen belt?. Its a good documentary and Im not sure about all the info. But it does throw into doubt their claim, of NASA landing on the moon as they said.
Originally posted by DoctorMobius
If the moan landing were a hoax the Russians would have been quite vocal about it by now, instead of congratulating NASA for it.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
I don't see anything peeling off.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by zorgon
Here is an ascent stage being delivered for final assembly.
www.ehartwell.com...
Originally posted by Advancedboy
So the lack of stars is not courtesy of NASA,
Originally posted by denver22
Originally posted by mellisamouse
reply to post by denver22
Ummmm, so a feather weighs the same as a hammer on the moon, but the astronauts are so "light" they kinda float????
Makes no logical sense to me....
Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass
A (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory
by galileo all them years ago.
Originally posted by Qwenn
It took 5 years in filming and research, not just a knock-up job.edit on 17-5-2012 by Qwenn because: spelling
Originally posted by Advancedboy
So the lack of stars is not courtesy of NASA, it`s convenience of NASA And Phage, the way you answered , is similar to mass negligence and says more about you than my ignorance.