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.

 

Faked Moon Landing - Amazing Documentary

page: 28
67
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

This is a completely logical argument, but most refuse to look at the bigger picture and see the common thread.


Actually, it isn't.

In fact, it lacks any resemblance to logic whatsoever. For something to be logical, the factors you discussed would have to be valid. In reality, it was all pure speculation. Complete conjecture on your part.

Illogical. Irrational.
Like all moon hoaxers.
edit on 5-30-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2012 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Also when you have got some free time feel free to debunk the reflector on the moon my friend maybe you think stanley kubric faked it somehow lol
Since my 12 posts you say were nonsense then it would appear that you think that we never landed on the moon.

Right back to your questions regarding the moon.
Whats your next question sir ?
No more whining please i am sick of it now.

P.S the reflectors can wait till later for you to answer as kubric could not fake them buddy
I don't care how much budget he has.



posted on May, 30 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv
It could have happened

Baysinger was supposedly

might make this



really ? that's your best shot ?

the russians got spoonfulls of soil and some little rocks. muley was much too big and bulky for any probe. Muley was lifted by a man. there is no doubt of that

here is a run down on baysingers work. it is fair. please point out the technical apsects you would like to dispute


I've run a preliminary radio link budget using the best numbers for Baysinger's receiving station and found that although it's quite marginal, it's entirely consistent with his very noisy recording.

A link budget is simply an accounting of the signal and noise powers reaching the detector in a radio receiver so that the performance of the link can be calculated.

His recording would have been of the VHF transmitter in Neil Armstrong's PLSS, which transmitted both his voice and that of Buzz Aldrin to a receiver in the lunar module, which relayed it to earth over S-band.

Although NASA did not use VHF beyond earth orbit, Baysinger was wise to try it as Eagle's S-band transmitter would have been out of the question for him. During the EVA, Eagle transmitted wideband FM for video, with voice riding on a subcarrier. This was an "all or nothing" mode; anything less than a signal strong enough to produce video would produce nothing at all, not even audio. At all other times the downlink was PM, with voice on a narrowband FM subcarrier that could be (and was) received with an antenna of a practical size for radio hams. The PM mode was required to provide Doppler and ranging, so it was always used during flight. (The LM had a single transmitter switchable between FM and PM, the CSM had one transmitter of each type.)

The bottom line is that for the following parameters:

PLSS transmitter power of 500 mW on 259.7 MHz
cable and diplexer losses of -1.2 dB
PLSS antenna gain of -2 dB
distance 386,000 km
receiving antenna size 96 sq ft
receiving antenna efficiency 100%
receiving system noise temperature 300K

then the signal-to-noise ratio in a 3 kHz bandwidth would have been -10.8 dB. This is certainly not broadcast quality or even good quality, but neither is his recording. I am much more certain of some of these numbers than others. The PLSS figures came from a Bellcomm analysis of A15 surface propagation (using PLSS figures from A14) so they're probably good, although the -2 dB antenna gain seems pessimistic to me.

The distance came from JPL Horizons for the center of the moon as seen from Louisville KY on 0400 UTC July 21, 1969, minus the 1700 km radius of the moon.

The receiving antenna area came from the above article. Every antenna has an efficiency factor, but it is not given here so I assumed unity, which is perhaps a little optimistic.

I am least confident with my figure for system noise. An antenna pointed at the horizon will see noise from the earth filling half of its beamwidth. The sky will fill the other half. The noise temperature of the sky depends on direction and frequency; at 300 MHz it is already quite low, in the tens of kelvins in most directions.

To this "antenna noise" would have to be added the noise temperature of Baysinger's preamplifier. When I got involved in amateur satellite communications in about 1980 it has been fairly easy to get VHF amplifier noise temps well below 100 kelvins. But I don't know what he was actually using.

Radio hams have been involved in EME ("moonbounce") since the 1950s. It's exactly as the name suggests. They usually run full legal power into the biggest antennas they can build, and even then the links are often highly marginal. But it turns out that when the moon is rising or setting (it was just setting at the time of Baysinger's recording), the antenna picks up multipath reflections from the ground that can either enhance or subtract from the direct signal. Many hams doing EME with marginal setups have made quick contacts during a peak in the multipath fading.

Careful listening to Baysinger's tape shows that the signal did indeed fade quite slowly. At times it's pretty much gone. If I knew his antenna height above ground I could calculate the expected fade period for that VHF frequency.

While it's never possible to rule out a sufficiently elaborate hoax, so far I haven't found anything that says it was impossible for Baysinger to do what he did.

.



and as far as the cataracts, if you are just going to make nonsense up, it's just not worth discussing it with you

sorry, you lost. accept it



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



p.s. I will post some pictures and stuff soon, i need to go over it and get it in order first.


Here's a typical Apollo 11 photograph. Please us it to explain how the foreground objects are used to mask the front projection of the background:



AS11-40-5873


How did that lander get there without stirring up any moon dust? The surface under the lander is smooth and undisturbed, the feet of the lander are not the slight bit buried in the dust they appear to be sitting on top of the dust and there is no dust berms around the feet of the lander. it just looks really odd to me.You can see the astronauts foot prints in the dust so the lander should be heavy enough to leave some type of marks in the dust from it`s weight.



If you have a really close look at the feet of the lander they had probes see picture



Now look at your picture YOU posted you can see the probe bent out from the pad so it landed on a solid surface with a thin layer of dust as stated by others.

Here is a nice picture which shows the probe this is the picture Armstrong took of Aldrin.



Hope that helps you



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


What utter ROT!!!:


Personally I think that the astronauts are under deep mind control, and were chosen because they could be affected by it.


Well......this illustrates the most base effort of the so-called "Apollo Hoax" mindset.....

I TRULY hope that others see this, and then hang their heads in shame, to realize the depths to which the silly "hoax" concept has dived..............



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Whats really tiresome about the IDIOTIC reasons people come up with for the Moon landings being fake is the simple FACT that all the excuses the HOAXERS claim would actually be more difficult than doing it for real.

They NEVER seem to accept actual evidence against their wild claims.

No STARS in pictures , exposure is the reason and plenty of pictures on the net to prove it.

Shadows being wrong, shadows follow the terrain they land on, same happens here on Earth
and its the SAME light source as on the Moon ie the Sun!!!

Even views of the Earth as they travelled to the Moon have been shown to match weather patterns here on Earth at the time of the missions.

They were being watched by the Russians, Chinese etc if it was faked they would have said
just think of the propaganda victory for the Chinese for example.

Also as I have said before the Americans could not have known when another nation could have sent a mission, a probe or built a telescope large enough to image the landing sites that could have been days, weeks , months or years it wouldn't matter how long after, they could not have risked that.

The other thing often said by HOAX believers on here is get the Hubble to picture the sites
SORRY the Hubble can resolve objects about 300ft across at the distance of the Moon that is down to physics and optics which the HOAXERS can check!

The last hope of the HOAX believers has always been of course the fact that pictures could not show detail of the landing sites.

Now we have images from the LRO OF ALL THE LANDING SITES, we can see positions of equipment on the surface and of course surface features, which match with the images taken on the Moon by the Astronauts.

Distances between objects can be checked with what was recorded 40 yrs ago!!!!
Nice example here which I have shown before first post by jra who had the same idea as me when the LRO images started to appear.



Top half a still from the DAC camera as Apollo 17 left the Moon.
Bottom from the LRO taken almost 40 years later IT'S A MATCH.
Now since these images have started to appear of course the HOAXERS claim fake but that just shows the logic employed by HOAX believers


edit on 31-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-5-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tardacus




How did that lander get there without stirring up any moon dust? The surface under the lander is smooth and undisturbed, the feet of the lander are not the slight bit buried in the dust they appear to be sitting on top of the dust and there is no dust berms around the feet of the lander. it just looks really odd to me.You can see the astronauts foot prints in the dust so the lander should be heavy enough to leave some type of marks in the dust from it`s weight.
Although people have pointed out these things to you, you must remember to not think of the moon as earth buddy. DJW001 and wmd-2008 Gives a good explanation of the lander.

This i post that a person claims is irrelevant is actually relevant to your question sir..




A large amount of dust was generated during the landings, yet no dust can be seen on the Lunar Module footpads.


This thinking draws on our common experience from Earth but, as we all know, the Moon is not Earth. If wind picks up dust on Earth we get billowing clouds that tend to settle all over everything. This occurs because Earth has an atmosphere. The Moon has no atmosphere so any dust that was blown by engine exhaust would follow a simple ballistic trajectory and fall immediately back to the surface. The dust would be blown outward away from the LM, thus the lack of dust on the footpads is exactly what we would expect to see. I would say pretty relevant to your question which explains more about the lander landing etc.. Any more questions feel free to ask

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

The last hope of the HOAX believers has always been of course the fact that pictures could not show detail of the landing sites.


Correct as it is common knowledge to anyone who has basic understanding of science knows this, as all the claims have been debunked easily by professionals not just by NASA, but by people all around the world .
The only thing hoaxers can cling too now is Lack of logic by years of following charlatans is fantasy..



posted on May, 31 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Originally posted by sensfan
Every point brought up in this documentary has been debunked time and time again here on ATS and many other web sites, publications, etc. There is nothing there that holds an ounce of truth, except to those who have no understanding of space travel, and those that just like to be spoon fed garbage believing it tastes good because they are told so.

Do some research on your own and then make up your mind. This documentary is full of, for lack of a better word, POOP.
Here vv3vv3vv , this post is from an ATS archivist , Hope this helps ..



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Phage, for a respected member of this community...

You sure are a certain type of skeptic.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I sometimes to work for NASA, for several of their subsidiaries as well as them directly.

Whether or not the moon land the public knows was real or fake, I know one thing for certain...

They're not the miracle working super-scientists we often assume.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by PluPerfect
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


What utter ROT!!!:


Personally I think that the astronauts are under deep mind control, and were chosen because they could be affected by it.


Well......this illustrates the most base effort of the so-called "Apollo Hoax" mindset.....

I TRULY hope that others see this, and then hang their heads in shame, to realize the depths to which the silly "hoax" concept has dived..............



Well everything you say sounds like rubbish too. Most people that discover something to confirm that there are deeper occult motives in establishments that claim to be harmless or even beneficial are already past the point of argument. They know the truth around them. And the fact that these rumors haven't gone away isn't due to an increase in paranoid and delusional people. It is credit to the undeniable evidence that there is more to the story than we were led to believe. For what or why? I do not know. But the same story has happened again and again. And those same players are very involved in NASA. So you can be certain that they are committing the same occult acts as they have throughout history.

The people who end up here bickering all day are the ones who are dull enough that they can't even imagine a world bigger than the one they are told to believe in, and they get scared at the thought of even considering such a difficult question and make up their mind beforehand. They are as proud and steadfast in their belief as were the nazis marching for hitler. I will always admit that I can consider their side, and accept more evidence as to the legitimacy of the accepted space history. But anyone who is arguing against the space conspiracies will refuse to give them the smallest consideration even if a valid point is put forth, they seem to be blind or not willing to see anything besides their one and only theory forever and ever amen. I feel sorry that you all are so inconsiderable and hope something will change in your life and allow you to see the crumbling pillars of society and seek to rebuild them from your heart.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 


Originally posted by sensfan
Every point brought up in this documentary has been debunked time and time again here on ATS and many other web sites, publications, etc. There is nothing there that holds an ounce of truth, except to those who have no understanding of space travel, and those that just like to be spoon fed garbage believing it tastes good because they are told so.

Do some research on your own and then make up your mind. This documentary is full of, for lack of a better word, POOP.
Here vv3vv3vv , this post is from an ATS archivist , Hope this helps ..


Are you upset at me because I pointed out your name calling? Or because I showed that you posted the same thing twice when you posted 12 replies to no one? Thank you for making me feel good about myself that I can win an argument against some depressed and drunk British kid. But this isn't even about the argument anymore (in which you never gave the slightest chance before you decided), this is just a platform for you to try to make yourself look cool and make me and others look bad because we are different from you. I am sorry that you lost somebody, please don't take that burden out on everyone else that feels differently from you.

re: I haven't even watched the video that you are referring to, the matter of this forum topic has evolved, please try to keep up.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 04:53 AM
link   
The question of why wouldn't people come out about this, and how they would keep all those workers silent. Well if it was shot in a studio in Britain in 1965 it would only have about 6 people per shooting to keep quiet, and the things they were doing weren't widely recognizable yet as people hadn't seen America accomplish its televised moon landing yet.

You sometimes see astronauts for hours working on the moon surface, but you never see any type of release of the CO2 that is building up inside his suit. Wouldn't there be some sort of sign of this air release?

There have been numerous attempts by nasa to prove their case by an outside source, but every project was met with resistance and eventually cancelled. Their handling of their original material was intentionally poor to cause the destruction of the evidence similar to 911 where they won't release or have misplaced the original or the camera wasn't on.

Hasselblad was the camera used for the moon landings, but it isn't mentioned even once by Hasselblad EVER! They should be proud that they were part of something so great, and yet no where can you see them even openly admit to their involvement.

Nasa is a branch of the navy, which is the only constitutionally allowed agency to go beyond our national boundaries and operate to ensure our defense. Because they have admiralty law and can go anywhere it makes this an opportune branch to fund black budget projects and the real secret space program. There have been people to come forward to try to warn us, ex-navy William Cooper tried to bring light to nefarious affairs that he claims encouraged him to speak out. And there are others that have tried to bring light to the loose ends that were covered up by the simplified official version.

Just another documentary that proves that other incidents have had coverups is the new film A Noble Lie. The evidence there is almost indisputable, and this kind of thing happens over and over again. There is a subversive agenda, and if you can't accept that your are trying to keep yourself from seeing it. Download this documentary from any torrent p2p for free and see the rampant corruption that our taxes go towards hiding.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Also as I have said before the Americans could not have known when another nation could have sent a mission, a probe or built a telescope large enough to image the landing sites that could have been days, weeks , months or years it wouldn't matter how long after, they could not have risked that.


You tried to explain this as a reason before. You didn't explain it well then OR now. Could you elaborate or add some punctuation that would help clarify your message into something a little more coherent? I assume that English isn't your first language. Unlike half the people on here, I actually do want to learn something more so that I can weigh EVERYTHING fairly and not just my foremost opinion.



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by vv3vv3vv
 



The question of why wouldn't people come out about this, and how they would keep all those workers silent. Well if it was shot in a studio in Britain in 1965 it would only have about 6 people per shooting to keep quiet, and the things they were doing weren't widely recognizable yet as people hadn't seen America accomplish its televised moon landing yet.


Clearly, you are one of those people who leave the theater before the credits have finished.


You sometimes see astronauts for hours working on the moon surface, but you never see any type of release of the CO2 that is building up inside his suit. Wouldn't there be some sort of sign of this air release?


Do you see clouds of carbon dioxide wafting around people on the street?


There have been numerous attempts by nasa to prove their case by an outside source, but every project was met with resistance and eventually cancelled. Their handling of their original material was intentionally poor to cause the destruction of the evidence similar to 911 where they won't release or have misplaced the original or the camera wasn't on.




Photo at left, data from Kaguya, a Japanese orbiter.


Hasselblad was the camera used for the moon landings, but it isn't mentioned even once by Hasselblad EVER! They should be proud that they were part of something so great, and yet no where can you see them even openly admit to their involvement.


www.hasselblad.com...


Nasa is a branch of the navy, which is the only constitutionally allowed agency to go beyond our national boundaries and operate to ensure our defense. Because they have admiralty law and can go anywhere it makes this an opportune branch to fund black budget projects and the real secret space program. There have been people to come forward to try to warn us, ex-navy William Cooper tried to bring light to nefarious affairs that he claims encouraged him to speak out. And there are others that have tried to bring light to the loose ends that were covered up by the simplified official version.


Wow. Just wow. Where is that in the Constitution? Are you saying that the Army is unconstitutional? Oh, and here's where NASA sits on an organizational chart of the US government:




Just another documentary that proves that other incidents have had coverups is the new film A Noble Lie. The evidence there is almost indisputable, and this kind of thing happens over and over again. There is a subversive agenda, and if you can't accept that your are trying to keep yourself from seeing it. Download this documentary from any torrent p2p for free and see the rampant corruption that our taxes go towards hiding.


I think you're the one who is trying not to see something.
edit on 2-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

You sometimes see astronauts for hours working on the moon surface, but you never see any type of release of the CO2 that is building up inside his suit. Wouldn't there be some sort of sign of this air release?



Do we have to do everything for you. P.S pay attention and read slowly and learn.


By creating an Earth-like environment within the suit itself, space suits allow humans to walk around in space in relative safety. Space suits provide:



Pressurized Atmosphere

The space suit provides air pressure to keep the fluids in your body in a liquid state -- in other words, to prevent your bodily fluids from boiling. Like a tire, a space suit is essentially an inflated balloon that is restricted by some rubberized fabric, in this case, Neoprene-coated fibers. The restriction placed on the "balloon" portion of the suit supplies air pressure on the astronaut inside, like blowing up a balloon inside a cardboard tube.

Most space suits operate at pressures below normal atmospheric pressure (14.7 lb/in2, or 1 atm); the space shuttle cabin also operates at normal atmospheric pressure. The space suit used by shuttle astronauts operates at 4.3 lb/in2, or 0.29 atm. Therefore, the cabin pressure of either the shuttle itself or an airlock must be reduced before an astronaut gets suited up for a spacewalk. A spacewalking astronaut runs the risk of getting the bends because of the changes in pressure between the space suit and the shuttle cabin.




Oxygen

Space suits cannot use normal air -- 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other gases -- because the low pressure would cause dangerously low oxygen concentrations in the lungs and blood, much like climbing Mt. Everest does. So, most space suits provide a pure oxygen atmosphere for breathing. Space suits get the oxygen either from a spacecraft via an umbilical cord or from a backpack life support system that the astronaut wears.

Both the shuttle and the International Space Station have normal air mixtures that mimic our atmosphere. Therefore, to go into a pure oxygen space suit, a spacewalking astronaut must "pre-breathe" pure oxygen for some period of time before suiting up. This pre-breathing of pure oxygen eliminates the nitrogen from the astronaut's blood and tissues, thereby minimizing the risk of the bends.



Carbon Dioxide explanation just for you...

The astronaut breathes out carbon dioxide. In the confined space of the suit, carbon dioxide concentrations would build up to deadly levels. Therefore, excess carbon dioxide must be removed from the space suit's atmosphere. Space suits use lithium hydroxide canisters to remove carbon dioxide. These canisters are located either in the space suit's life support backpack or in the spacecraft, in which case they are accessed through an umbilical cord.




Temperature

To cope with the extremes of temperature, most space suits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric (Neoprene, Gore-Tex, Dacron) and covered with reflective outer layers (Mylar or white fabric) to reflect sunlight. The astronaut produces heat from his/her body, especially when doing strenuous activities. If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated; astronaut Eugene Cernan lost several pounds during his spacewalk on Gemini 9. To remove this excess heat, space suits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present.



Micrometeroids

To protect the astronauts from collisions with micrometeroids, space suits have multiple layers of durable fabrics such as Dacron or Kevlar. These layers also prevent the suit from tearing on exposed surfaces of the spacecraft or a planet or moon.



Radiation

Space suits offer only limited protection from radiation. Some protection is offered by the reflective coatings of Mylar that are built into the suits, but a space suit would not offer much protection from a solar flare. So, spacewalks are planned during periods of low solar activity.


Since you have a very poor understanding of basic knowledge regarding the facts, I have put it into words even you could understand .

Good day sir...

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv.

re: I haven't even watched the video that you are referring to, the matter of this forum topic has evolved, please try to keep up.
Aha, really, everyone asked you pages ago for your evidence sir.



It is credit to the undeniable evidence that there is more to the story than we were led to believe


Still waiting for yours

.

P.S please try and keep up sir and post your evidence



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I am sometimes accused of treating hoax believers as if they are stupid. The problem I face here is that if I am asked a really stupid question it is very difficult, if not impossible, to answer without making them appear to be stupid. Who's fault is that?

Many of the assertions made clearly show that no independent research whatsoever has been carried out, they are merely repeating information as if it were a proven fact, when in fact it's utter nonsense, isn't that right vv3vv3vv.

They tend on average to know very little about science - spaceflight, vacuum, gravity, geology, astro-photography, radiation, orbital mechanics, thermodynamics, etc. - yet feel amply qualified to challenge known facts on these subjects. This part at least make sense, for if they knew the facts they wouldn't believe it was a hoax


edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by vv3vv3vv

Also as I have said before the Americans could not have known when another nation could have sent a mission, a probe or built a telescope large enough to image the landing sites that could have been days, weeks , months or years it wouldn't matter how long after, they could not have risked that.






You tried to explain this as a reason before
.
But you did not listen.



You didn't explain it well then OR now.

Yes he did.



I actually do want to learn something more so that I can weigh EVERYTHING fairly and not just my foremost opinion.
You could of fooled me but hey open your eyes ATS can teach you

edit on 24 4 2012 by denver22 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
67
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join