Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More Moon fakery

page: 15
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Wrabbit2000
"Apollo Defenders"? Is that what we're called these days? lol.....

A label for everything and to everything must go at least one label. Sheesh...



It is an adequate title for what they do. They defend, therefore they are defenders.

It is not an insult to call someone an Apollo Defender, I respect them. The Apollo Defenders usually do a good job of defending and I respect those who make an good effort. Most of the time they do not respect those who ask legit questions, such as, how many Hasselblads were sent/returned from the "moon". I don't think you have an answer for that either.

It's not an insult, it's a compliment!




posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:14 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by wildespace
 



Are you referring specifically to cislunar and orbital pictures? Because there are photos astronauts took of each other on the surface, including ones taken by Pete Conrad.


Inconclusive. Neil & Buzz took snaps on the lunar surface as did Cernan & Schmidt. I am looking for faces, not space suits.

See my edited post above. Only one of the individual 70mm Hasselblad cameras was in the Command Module during the mission. No big surprise they used it for the actual mission rather than leasurely snaps.

~~~

So, now you want to see faces? Nice cop-out.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:18 AM
link   
For the sake of keeping the thread on-topic:


Komodo
how can this be since the soviet union put a flag on the space station and it was destroyed with less than a year and ...

our flag is still standing after 50 years & enduring cosmic radiation and being bombarded my micrometers ??

The Soviet flag may have been made of regular fabric; the USA version was more resilient. Just a conjecture, but I'm sure there's some documentation somewhere that has the specifics.

The flags may remain there in a bleached and tattered form, but the overall shape and volume remains, which is what was picked by the LRO. www.hq.nasa.gov...
edit on 20-2-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


I'll be honest.. No, I don't have an answer. I have a little area built to the Mercury/Apollo space programs on one of my personal sites as well as the Saturn Rocket Program. Kinda of a neat thing and pretty much built from NASA material, but you could call me a fan of the U.S. accomplishments in space and lunar 'exploration', if bouncing around on buggies could be called that. lol...

That we went, I have no doubt in my mind, whatsoever. I don't know how many cameras they took though. I've never looked into it, nor do I much care. I did look up the clever mechanical set up they used to capture the first man out, with an outside shot though. Creative on that, to say the least...although not entirely flattering for purpose as I also read. They didn't set that up, as one example, to woo and awe a live audience. It was so if the first guy out died horribly, they'd have record of what may have gone wrong and correct it for follow on missions.

Always thinking ahead...those NASA guys.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:22 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

Pete Conrad was a goofball. If he was really in cis-lunar space he would have taken photos of the trip. The fact that he DID NOT TAKE PHOTOS is a red flag that you can't explain, because Apollo 11 took candid images while Apollo 12 did not.

You're reaching. Hard.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
Pete Conrad was a goofball. If he was really in cis-lunar space he would have taken photos of the trip. The fact that he DID NOT TAKE PHOTOS is a red flag that you can't explain, because Apollo 11 took candid images while Apollo 12 did not.

Who took this photo, then? AS12-50-7369
www.hq.nasa.gov...
"According to National Space Science Data Center document NSSDC-70-11 (July 1970), this photo shows the 'fouled hatch window; streaks go (left) away from the CMS cone (right)'. This photo was taken inside the Command Module during the translunar coast."

By the way, if the Apollo missions were faked, why fake a fouled hatch window and take pictures of it?



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:45 AM
link   

wildespace
So, now you want to see faces? Nice cop-out.


Remember Nixon is a better poker player than you. If you have no face cards for Apollo 12 then maybe you should fold for this hand. It's nothing personal wildespace and I respect you a lot for your intelligent postings on the subject of Apollo. However.

If 3 NASA astronauts flew to the "moon" in December of 1969 and they have so many cameras with them on a perilous journey to the "moon" and they didn't take any pictures of themselves doing it then I have to raise a red flag on that.

To me it looks like Nixon is bluffing on Apollo 12. The precision landing at the Surveyor III location is also a red flag. Why? Because the Surveyor is a Hughes Aircraft designed and built machine.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter
and they have so many cameras with them on a perilous journey to the "moon"

Only one hand-held 70mm camera in the CM. Others were mounted for lunar surface photography or for EVAs.

I'm not sure if taking of particular photos during the flight had to be approved by the mission control, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was. Maybe the crew didn't have the liberty to take candid shots of each other during the flight.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

I will gladly destroy you in any formal debate on that subject. Please understand something. You don't know how many Hasselblads cameras went to/or came back from the moon. Therefore, you would be destroyed in a formal debate.

I


YOU always claimed they NEVER went .

NEVER means : not ever: at no time: etc

YOU now say


SayonaraJupiter

I will simply ask you "how many hasselblad cameras went to the moon and how many hasselblad cameras were brought back" and you will be totally destroyed because you don't know the correct answer.

Do you get the picture now?


SO if it NEVER happened as YOU USED TO claim guess what no cameras would have gone NOW you want to know how many cameras came and went back JUST F$£%^*N


As if the number of cameras that went and came back effects what was done, this LAME Nixon obsession of yours has done something to YOUR common sense.

It's like you going on holiday with a suitcase filled with t-shirts and coming back with a different number and me then claiming you didn't go


Why don't you just look at the REAL EVIDENCE they went instead of clutching straws!!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Soylent Green Is People

cprnicus

Looking at the moons surface there is abundant evidence of crater erosion with time. It makes sense that most of this is from gravitational effects but also those effects stated from micro meteors and particles travelling at tens of thousands of mph? Makes me wonder why the flag is still there also. Either its made from the same stuff as Superman's cape or it's not there at all. Another DOH! for NASA?


The meteorite craters you see on the moon have accumulated over 4 billion years time. Some of those craters you see are billions of years old. The flags have only been there less than 45 years. I'm sure a few micrometeors may have struck the flags, but probably not too many.

The bigger threat to the nylon of the flag is ultraviolet light from the sun. The flag is perhaps worn, faded, and maybe tattered, but it could very well still be there on the pole. The video simply shows a shadow, and a worn faded (and even slightly tattered) flag would still cast a shadow. No one is claiming that the flag is still in pristine condition.


The flag on the moon is not made of nylon it is made of tinfoil. The nylon flag we took to the moon we brought back.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

Wrabbit2000
"Apollo Defenders"? Is that what we're called these days? lol.....

A label for everything and to everything must go at least one label. Sheesh...



It is an adequate title for what they do. They defend, therefore they are defenders.

It is not an insult to call someone an Apollo Defender, I respect them. The Apollo Defenders usually do a good job of defending and I respect those who make an good effort. Most of the time they do not respect those who ask legit questions, such as, how many Hasselblads were sent/returned from the "moon". I don't think you have an answer for that either.

It's not an insult, it's a compliment!


There are twelve Hasselblads cameras currently sitting on the Moon.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:48 AM
link   

buster2010

Soylent Green Is People

cprnicus

Looking at the moons surface there is abundant evidence of crater erosion with time. It makes sense that most of this is from gravitational effects but also those effects stated from micro meteors and particles travelling at tens of thousands of mph? Makes me wonder why the flag is still there also. Either its made from the same stuff as Superman's cape or it's not there at all. Another DOH! for NASA?


The meteorite craters you see on the moon have accumulated over 4 billion years time. Some of those craters you see are billions of years old. The flags have only been there less than 45 years. I'm sure a few micrometeors may have struck the flags, but probably not too many.

The bigger threat to the nylon of the flag is ultraviolet light from the sun. The flag is perhaps worn, faded, and maybe tattered, but it could very well still be there on the pole. The video simply shows a shadow, and a worn faded (and even slightly tattered) flag would still cast a shadow. No one is claiming that the flag is still in pristine condition.


The flag on the moon is not made of nylon it is made of tinfoil. The nylon flag we took to the moon we brought back.


Thanks for the info. Do you have a link to a source for that? All I can find was an article like this that say it was nylon (this article from NASA):

Apollo Flags Condition.html


I googled "Moon Flag Tin Foil" and I got a few mentions of Michio Kaku once saying that the flags were made of fin foil, but most of those say that he was wrong.

edit on 2/20/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   

buster2010

Soylent Green Is People

cprnicus

Looking at the moons surface there is abundant evidence of crater erosion with time. It makes sense that most of this is from gravitational effects but also those effects stated from micro meteors and particles travelling at tens of thousands of mph? Makes me wonder why the flag is still there also. Either its made from the same stuff as Superman's cape or it's not there at all. Another DOH! for NASA?


The meteorite craters you see on the moon have accumulated over 4 billion years time. Some of those craters you see are billions of years old. The flags have only been there less than 45 years. I'm sure a few micrometeors may have struck the flags, but probably not too many.

The bigger threat to the nylon of the flag is ultraviolet light from the sun. The flag is perhaps worn, faded, and maybe tattered, but it could very well still be there on the pole. The video simply shows a shadow, and a worn faded (and even slightly tattered) flag would still cast a shadow. No one is claiming that the flag is still in pristine condition.


The flag on the moon is not made of nylon it is made of tinfoil. The nylon flag we took to the moon we brought back.


Are you sure you are not thinking of the solar wind collection experiment? That was essentially a length of aluminum foil on a flagpole. Those were brought back.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   

wmd_2008

webstra

wmd_2008

webstra

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.



It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.


YOU have not contributed one thing to this thread but asinine (look it up) comments not one piece of information or a useful link !!!!


Like GaryN mentions The aulis.com site is a good one.

'An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White'

It's a site where you can learn a lot wmd_2008. Not only people who are new with the apollo fakery, also apollogists maybe finaly can come to grips with the apollo scam.


YOU are the one that needs to LEARN two words answers that BS

TYRES & CONTRAST

Apollo Lander Tyre

If you cant understand why just post many on here can explain it to YOU!!!!


Don't you think it's a lot wiser to put your energy in how to get rid of this hoax of giant proportion then trying to be the debunking-king ?

We just weren't there....get over it !
edit on 20-2-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

webstra

wmd_2008

webstra

wmd_2008

webstra

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.



It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.


YOU have not contributed one thing to this thread but asinine (look it up) comments not one piece of information or a useful link !!!!


Like GaryN mentions The aulis.com site is a good one.

'An extensive study of Apollo imagery by photo analyst Jack White'

It's a site where you can learn a lot wmd_2008. Not only people who are new with the apollo fakery, also apollogists maybe finaly can come to grips with the apollo scam.


YOU are the one that needs to LEARN two words answers that BS

TYRES & CONTRAST

Apollo Lander Tyre

If you cant understand why just post many on here can explain it to YOU!!!!


Don't you think it's a lot wiser to put your energy in how to get rid of this hoax of giant proportion then trying to be the debunking-king ?

We just weren't there....get over it !
edit on 20-2-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)


THEY were there YOU just wont except it that's ALL!!!!



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

buster2010

There are twelve Hasselblads cameras currently sitting on the Moon.


Please go read this thread Hasselblads On The Moon which will probably make you change your mind about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The flags were ordinary 5' x 3' nylon flags purchased at a Houston-area hardware store and modified with a hem at the top for the cross-bar.

Here is an article about them.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   

SayonaraJupiter

buster2010

There are twelve Hasselblads cameras currently sitting on the Moon.


Please go read this thread Hasselblads On The Moon which will probably make you change your mind about it.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Correct. Hasselblad says 12 are on the Moon. All of the cameras were supposed to be left behind, but Edgar Mitchell (Apollo 14) and Jim Irwin (Apollo 15) supposedly brought two back -- Mitchell's was a souvenir and Irwin brought his back because it failed (film jammed) and NASA may have wanted to investigate why it failed.

Hasselblad says 12 are on the moon, so they either have not verified that two actually did come back, or possibly more than two cameras per mission went to the Moon -- maybe 12 ARE there, but two also came back.

edit on 2/20/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


The "2 cameras per mission" refers to the EVA cameras, mounted on the spacecuits' chest. There were additional cameras on each mission. From this link I count 24 cameras brought along on the landing missions (not counting the 4 bracket-mounted ones for spectroscopic experiment). At least one camera per mission was to be used in the Command Module only. Edgar Mitchell could have brought one of those CM cameras back, and left his EVA camera on the Moon.



posted on Feb, 20 2014 @ 06:43 PM
link   

wildespace
...At least one camera per mission was to be used in the Command Module only. Edgar Mitchell could have brought one of those CM cameras back, and left his EVA camera on the Moon.


That's exactly what I was thinking. Perhaps Mitchell's "souvenier" camera that he sneaked back with him was not his chest-mounted camera.

I do wonder about Jim Irwin's camera, though. Alan Bean reports that he thinks one was brought back because it malfunctioned, and NASA engineers wanted to investigate the malfunction. However, if that was Irwin's chest-mounted camera, then would Hasselblad's claim that 12 of their cameras are still on the moon true? Wouldn't it be 11 + Irwin's?

In either case, I don't think Hasselblad is necessarily an expert on what the fate is on all of the cameras they sold to NASA, just like I don't necessarily believe that Mitchell's camera was his chest-mounted one.





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join