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 PsykoOps
reply to post by XaniMatriX
Ok, I'm just saying. We can have ruskie translated in a wiff. So post ahead. Sorry for the reply. I can't resist.edit on 6/11/2012 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by XaniMatriX
...they never found the solution to pass the Van Allan belt.
Remember the dog they sent up there? it never came back alive.
Originally posted by badgerprints
That top secret powder that they truck out of coal plants in the wee hours of the morning so nobody sees it.
It all goes to a giant vacuum chamber where actors drive around in moon buggies?
O.K. Case closed.
I am sure this has all been discussed here but worth going through the exercise for myself. Visible light imaging from the moon would give smaller star images.
Would give bluer star images.
Would give different aberration displacements.
The common center of gravity of the earth-moon system travels pretty much the same as the earth itself around the sun for the purposes of my assessment. But the camera points differently with respect to the barycenter and the moon rotates differently vs earth?
Light travel time to the moon for the planets would be different than for the planet light to earth travel time so the planets would be displaced a little from their earth perspective.
No atmospheric refraction so stars would photo a little different there too.
The atmosphere filters out a lot of UV but I am writing about visible light here. Maybe that is why they went for UV photos.
Let's assume we can come up with a good motive and so then let's say Apollo was a hoax , maybe they take UV photos because of all these visible light issues.
Maybe that would be hard to hoax.
Get everything just right so the stars look a little bit smaller and a little bit bluer and less refracted without an atmosphere and with different aberration because the moon rotates differently and the camera needs to point in a different direction to take into accout the change in position of the camera's aperture with respect to the direction of the earth-moon barycenter direction of travel. And the moon rotaes differently vs earth so tiny aberrational effect there. And the planets are slightly displaced because of altered light travel time to the moon vs earth. All of this added up would be hard to hoax?
I don't know that, just a hypothesis. So then they do UV photos which gets around not all of it but perhaps a little of it. How well have the UV photos been scrutinized for this kind of thing? If you don't know exactly where the camera is then it would not really be assessable. Maybe if they were not really on the moon that is what they would argue. They would say the camera is near here, but not exactly here. That way they could avoid most of this.
Originally posted by wildespace
Russian is my first language. I'll happily translate stuff for you, provided it's not too long.
Originally posted by r2d246
Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by r2d246
TOTAL and UTTER BS the pictures have been posted here many times will dig some out for the LAZY hoax believers!
Well prove it then.