Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 17
60
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:03 AM
link   
messiah complex much?




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
the US Space Command won't shoot lazers at the star sensors of these new Russian explorer crafts.... like they did with those other foreign space crafts (Kaguya, Chandrayaan) and crippling them before they could reveal the true secrets of the Moon.


You really do post some nonsense, care to back that silly claim up with some facts?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


even if they claimed to have proven the apollo landing sites you still wouldnt believe it, probably say they were paid off by NASA, so whats the point of me bringing that up? unless you happen to believe what china says, and that during their next missions they found evidence of the apollo landing sites you would accept it?

my point bringing up the Chang'e 2 was that you claimed the US space command shot lasers to fry the star sensors for the kaguya and chandrayaan to cripple them from revealing the moons secrets.. yet they somehow forgot to shoot lasers at the chang'e 2?
edit on 4-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by hellobruce

You really do post some nonsense, care to back that silly claim up with some facts?


Sure I'll do that. Right after you oblige the thread by posting the locations the MISSING ascent modules, Eagle and Orion.

Because I find it very hard to believe that an operation, like NASA, that claims scientific precision and engineering exactitude... I find it very hard to believe that NASA could lose two ships. Care to comment?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
Right after you oblige the thread by posting the locations the MISSING ascent modules, Eagle and Orion.


On the moon.... where else would they be?


I find it very hard to believe that NASA could lose two ships.


What makes you claim that they are lost? They are on the moon....



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
...Sure I'll do that. Right after you oblige the thread by posting the locations the MISSING ascent modules, Eagle and Orion.

Because I find it very hard to believe that an operation, like NASA, that claims scientific precision and engineering exactitude... I find it very hard to believe that NASA could lose two ships. Care to comment?


They would have to know the EXACT velocity those two ascent modules were drifting after they were released from the CM. Those two ascent modules were not sent directly to the surface to crash (which would make it easier to determine impact location), but instead were left in lunar orbit which decayed over time before eventually crashing to the surface.

Even a minute difference in actual speed of the released ascent module compared to the theoretical speed of them would, over time, compound the difference between the theoretical impact location and actual impact location.

So would minute "graininess" in the gravitational pull of the moon. I suppose we now know more detailed information about the gravitational pull of the Moon than we did 40+ years ago, and perhaps a new detailed investigation of the data along with revised information about the gravitational pull could probably give us a better idea of the impact site.




edit on 4/5/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:08 AM
link   
This is what really concerns me.
We can clearly view a car from a satellite orbiting earth. Here is a satellite photograph over Area 51.



But for some strange reason we just can't seem to get a clear shot of the 6 descent modules (which are bigger than a car) on the moon, even though satellites orbiting the moon have descended much, much lower than satellites orbiting earth.

It just doesn't make sense.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



We can clearly view a car from a satellite orbiting earth. Here is a satellite photograph over Area 51.


That's not a satellite photo, it's an aerial photo.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Please provide proof that this photograph is taken from a satellite (it's not) and not from an airplane (it is).



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
But for some strange reason we just can't seem to get a clear shot of the 6 descent modules (which are bigger than a car) on the moon,


One of the silliest things I have heard, you think a plane is orbiting the moon, as you showed a photo from a plane....


It just doesn't make sense.


Very true, you make no sense at all!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Finding Eagle. Strike one.
Finding Orion. Strike two.
Finding 700+ boxes of Apollo telemetry tapes. Strike three.




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Weren't those tapes confirmed as having been erased and reused? Has there been some kind of recent development that returned the status of those tapes to "missing"? Also, if telemetry tapes would conveniently "go missing" why would it only be the ones from one of the missions that went missing and not all of them?



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
Weren't those tapes confirmed as having been erased and reused?


yes they were....


hey meanwhile had concluded that the reels of tape with the SSTV signal were shipped from Australia to Goddard and then routinely erased and reused a few years later. Moreover, a backup copy of the tapes which had been made in Australia was also erased after Goddard received the reels.

www.nxtbook.com...#/10

But some people think it is better to rant on about missing tapes as if it was all a silly conspiracy!



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by turbonium1
 


Constellation was a plan for a long term lunar presence (ie moon base)


It was the eventual goal, at least.


Originally posted by captainpudding

not a quick round trip like Apollo.


THE INITIAL MISSIONS PLANNED WERE SHORT DURATION!!

You didn't know this?



Originally posted by captainpudding

Also, they never attempted to go to the moon they only planned it and once the budget proposal was made congress told them they couldn't have the funding needed so it was scrapped. Unfortunately unless someone finds oil or an Al-Qaeda camp on the moon, the funding just isn't there.


They never attempted it??!!?? Are you joking??

A heap of money was spent on the attempt!!


It's not about money.

NASA got all the money they first requested for this project... and even more.

It was soon wasted. But you'll never put that on NASA, of course!

Just make excuses for NASA - ie: the R&D on advanced technologies is costly, so more money is 'needed'.


NASA can spend a fortune to study the VA Belts, so obviously it's their lack of money preventing a moon mission!!


Sheesh, what next?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:10 AM
link   
I don't know if that image of cars is from an airplane or by satellite in orbit.

But let's say it was from an airplane, as claimed. What is the point?

That it can't be done (as well) by satellites?

It can be done, and even much better.

Not any for the moon?

Smells kinda fishy to me...



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Building more boats requires more money. Building ever more specialized boats requires that much more money. Rockets are a known technology; their history goes back over a thousand years. Spacecraft are more recent, but they built upon technology developed for aircraft. There was nothing special about the technology used in the Apollo program; in fact, the current generation of spacecraft draws upon the technology developed then.


We've crossed the English Channel countless times, in all sorts of vessels, for thousands of years.

We've supposedly sent humans beyond LEO a few times, even landing on the moon, about 40 years ago, and never since. We've had rockets for about 60 years.

And a lunar lander is a cinch to build!!

I'm sure....



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



Not any for the moon?


Apollo 11:



Apollo 12:



Apollo 14:



Apollo 15:



As an added bonus, one of the "lost" ascent modules. I'll let Sayanara figure out which one:



www.space.com...

Let me guess: they're not good enough, they look fake, and they're from NASA. Since you knew I would post these, why did you claim that they didn't exist?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by turbonium1
 



We've crossed the English Channel countless times, in all sorts of vessels, for thousands of years.


Because there are people on both sides with valuable trade goods. There's nothing on the Moon but rocks.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1
I don't know if that image of cars is from an airplane or by satellite in orbit.

But let's say it was from an airplane, as claimed. What is the point?

That it can't be done (as well) by satellites?

It can be done, and even much better.

Not any for the moon?

Smells kinda fishy to me...


Let me try to explain this one.
First off, please allow me to put forth a few qualifications...don't take this as an "argument from authority", because it's not intended as anything of the sort.

I've got a bachelor's degree in physics, with about 30 hours of elective courses in optics.
I worked for a year and a half as an assistant to a professional photographer, so I've had some hands-on experience with camera work and film processing.
I'm an amateur astronomer, and I've ground the mirrors for five reflectors between 4" and 20".

Does this make me the God of Optics? Not by a long shot. By all means, research anything and everything I say to your heart's content.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get down to brass tacks.
Aerial photography vs satellite photography: While orbital cameras can do some amazing things, they have limits that are imposed on them, not by some Cabal of Hidden Mysteries, but by the physics of the situation. For any given camera system, there are distinct limits on its resolution. Those limits are determined by the size of the camera aperture, available light, and distance from the subject. In plain English, if you take two equally good cameras, put one in orbit 100 miles up, and the other one in a Cessna flying at 1,000 feet, you're going to get better photographs from the Cessna, just based on distance. Add in atmospheric distortion, and the situation gets even more 'interesting'. In other words, contrary to popular belief, an orbital spy satellite isn't going to be reading the New York Times front page. Unless we can change the laws of physics, and eliminate the atmosphere, it's just not going to happen.

Satellites DO have the advantage of being able to see everywhere on the Earth's surface, which is why they're so useful to the military for intelligence gathering, but if you want really high-resolution photography, you need to get close.

How does all this apply to photographs of the lunar surface?
For one, the distance issue. Even the best cameras we can practically make aren't going to resolve something the size of a Lunar Module descent stage from 240,000 miles away. It would be like spotting a pea from across the state of Arizona. The resolution just isn't there.

For another, there's a problem with film saturation. The Moon is a surprisingly reflective object. If you doubt that, go outside on the night of a full moon, and look up. Please note that you don't have to work to pick the Moon out of the stellar background. Trying to photograph things on the surface means striking a balance between longer exposure (to get more detail and clarity) and background saturation. This is the main reason that the Hubble telescope can't get photos of the Apollo hardware.

For yet another, there's that atmospheric distortion problem again.

Believe me, I really, really, really wish I could point a nice 20" long focus scope Up There and get snapshots of Apollo, but it's just not possible.

When I've had either more sleep or more coffee, I'll be more than happy to provide you with links to (and / or examples of) all the math to back this up...or you can find it via Google, or your local library (I have a fondness for hard copy). Just remember to question everything...on *both* sides of a conspiracy.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by fenceSitter
Can someone please give me a feasible explanation as to why they would fake the moon landings? I just don't understand why they would go through that much trouble to fake it.


apparently half a dozen times


even Alex Jones believes we went to the moon ... go figure





new topics




 
60
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join