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.
originally posted by: turbonium1
Yes, it is beyond our capability.
There is a huge difference sending a probe into deep space, compared to humans...
Radiation, primarily, among other severe hazards existing within that environment.
originally posted by: turbonium1
You actually think these engineers would ever speak out against NASA, that they hoaxed the moon landings???
Are you serious??
There is NO engineer, afaik, who has ever come forth to claim the moon landings were hoaxed. Not one has ever said they doubted the moon landings were genuine.
Do you think that's because every engineer around the world over the past 45 years has always believed it is 100% true, and not a shred of doubt that the official story is 100% true??
Not a chance..
As you know, Constellation engineers were working on our 'return' to the moon, by 2020. They were instructed to use 'heritage' technology as much as possible, to reach this goal. 'Heritage' technology was actually the famous Apollo technology, in fact. The technology that got man to the moon, which would basically guarantee a successful 'return' by 2020, quite obviously...
Do you know why it would fail so dismally?
Why would these engineers call in Apollo engineers, to help them?
Because they couldn't figure out how it worked, in the first place. They were totally baffled. That's why they asked the Apollo engineers for help.
What happened, after that?
They dropped the famous Apollo technology, and looked for other technologies - that would work...
So here's the point - these engineers were told to use Apollo technology to get to the moon. They didn't know how it would work, though. But if anyone knew how it worked, the Apollo engineers did. So they were brought in for that purpose. The Apollo engineers were no help, obviously, since they dropped it like trash and looked elsewhere instead.
What would these engineers think about Apollo's veracity, from that point?
It's very clear, no?
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, I am showing the entire clip to support my argument.
That is not nitpicking, in any way.
You showed a clip that is much shorter, and shows the astronauts much farther away than my clip. Yet, you claim it supports your own argument, and somehow believe it refutes mine.
I have yet to confirm the speed is correct in your clip, but I have confirmed my clip is the correct speed. I will find out if your is, or is not, then I can go ahead from that point....
The clip I cited still has to be explained, that's the main issue here.
Your clip shows movement faster than normal, but I still need to confirm it is correct. I'll stand by the result, no matter what it shows.
I am only assuming it is correct, at this point. You assume it is already known to be correct, when you have no proof at all...as usual.
Are you aware of what I am arguing, here?
Are you aware of why my clip is more important than any other Apollo clip?
This clip showed the world that a human being was really walking on the moon, for the first time ever.
Show me any other clip you believe is/was more significant, or equal to it, if you can.... Not many can even compare to it, that's for sure.
How many clips show the astronaut(s) move near the camera, like my clip does?
You talk about 2.5 hours of footage, so why haven't you shown me similar clips to mine? You've only shown a clip shorter than mine, with astronauts far away from the camera - so that's it?
originally posted by: turbonium1
We can move slower than normal, sure.
And that's why none of them ever knew Apollo really didn't work, at the time,
originally posted by: choos
its not just AN engineer, its not even JUST AMERICAN engineers.. its engineers, scientists from AROUND THE WORLD that realise the reality of Apollo.
the ONLY "humans" that claim Apollo to be fake seem to have limited education in the field of science.
originally posted by: choos
and yet you think that every single engineer in the entire world knows it is impossible even with todays technology yet they all remain 100% silent for over 45 years is a much more plausible scenario..
originally posted by: choos
we have scientists trying to make new discoveries every day trying to prove or disprove einstein and yet when it comes to the moon landing they are too afraid because they might lose out on their livelihood.
get real.
originally posted by: choos
because such technology from the 60's is not good enough when we have access to todays technology.
originally posted by: choos
and 60's health and safety concerns were not at the level as todays.
originally posted by: choos
and they dont have a seemingly unlimited long term budget to play around with (before you complain that their budget is increased do can you answer me how many other side projects NASA needed to fund while funding the Apollo program and can you compare it with the current NASA).
originally posted by: choos
also what do you mean by heritage technology?? cause as far as i know they are using heritage technology with new technology engineered into it.
originally posted by: choos
and thats why they are using the same design as the apollo command module?? the same heat shield?? similar stages in rocket design?
originally posted by: choos
why would you use ONLY apollo technology?? your understanding of them saying heritage technology is skewed.
to you thats like saying you want to build the worlds fastest super computer using 1960's technology. what a load of rubbish.
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, it's because we can speak the truth, as independents who have nothing to lose or gain in the issue.
The scientists and engineers are not experts in camera images and film footage. They are experts in rocket propulsion, etc.
The experts in camera images and film footage are movie producers, directors, photographers. They know about stage lighting, special effects, and so on.
If you've noticed, there are many, many movies which reference the moon landings as faked. Kubrick above all. NASA visited him on his stage sets, before Apollo 11 even began. Why would NASA visit a movie director? Because they are fans of his movies? If you really believe that, I have some swamp land to sell you!
NASA even gave Kubrick a special Carl Zeiss camera lens, as a gift, after Apollo ended.
originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: turbonium1
And that's why none of them ever knew Apollo really didn't work, at the time,
what EXACTLY " didnt work " ??????????????
the saturn 5 launch vehicle clearly worked
as you conceed that space probes have been launched - the ability to exit earths orbit also clearly worked
you also conceeded in previous post threasds that you accept that unmanned landers sucessfully deposited payloads on the lunar surface
so all the operations of trans lunar trajectory , lunar orbit insertion and lunar landing - clearly work
further - you doint dispute that the missions returned lunar samples to earth - so lift off from the lunar surface etc all the way back to atmospheric re-entry and splashdown on earth clearly work
this leaves astronauut life support - which clearly works - unless you are now going to claim that no manned space missions ever occured [ i cannot find a cite for you confirming or denying this - so i leave it open ]
so - what " didnt work " ?????????????????
originally posted by: turbonium1
No, it's because we can speak the truth, as independents who have nothing to lose or gain in the issue.
The scientists and engineers are not experts in camera images and film footage. They are experts in rocket propulsion, etc.
The experts in camera images and film footage are movie producers, directors, photographers. They know about stage lighting, special effects, and so on.
Get the idea?
Many other films, and TV shows, have referenced the faking of the moon landings. 'Diamonds Are Forever' showed James Bond running onto a fake moon stage set. Someone told him he couldn't enter the set without wearing a 'radiation badge'! The people who wrote this into the film were not only showing the moon landings were faked, they deftly included the main reason it had to be faked - space radiation.
The film industry was/is well-connected, and they knew what was really going on. They can't say 'It is a hoax', so they spell it out in their films, or release dates.
I never said "every single engineer in the world" knows it, first of all.
I said that every engineer in the world over 45 years has never said it was a hoax, or implied it was a hoax, or even questioned it, or had a sliver of doubt.
None of these engineers have ever landed on the moon, or flown to the moon, or flown beyond LEO, or flown in LEO. They have never landed a LM on the moon, or witnessed it first-hand.
Scientists question Newton, to Einstein, and everything else....
But they do NOT question the moon landings. They have not been to the moon, and do not see anyone actually land on the moon. By that, I mean first-hand. Not on TV.
The Constellation engineers were given the Apollo technology, and they trashed it. They didn't question the moon landings, either..
Despite all that, none of them have a sliver of doubt that the technology DOES work, and that we landed on the moon!!!!
So that's your story?
So what? The Apollo astronauts returned safe and sound, no?
Dredge up the money excuse, once more!l...
I've told you many times that NASA got all the money they requested.
They spent it all, getting nowhere,
They asked for more money, and once again, they got it.
And again, they spent it all , getting nowhere.
When they asked for even more money, they didn't get it. This time, they were asked for an exact amount of money.
They said they didn't know how much money would do it.
If they don't know how much money would do it, you sure don't know it either.
The Constellation project was told to incorporate as much 'heritage' (Apollo) technology as possible.
In other words, the technology used for (supposed) manned moon landings, back in 1969, would serve as a foundation for their new efforts. It worked, so they thought.
You want to show me your sources for those claims?
Are you saying that they had the Apollo technology on hand, were told to incorporate it for a 'return' mission, and trashed it, and tried to develop other technologies that would work, which failed to work.... and now, they are using the same designs, which they trashed earlier?
I didn't say they were told to use ONLY Apollo technology. I said they were told to use as much Apollo technology as possible.
They weren't told to build a 1960's Apollo computer, because, obviously they already had much better computers to use.
originally posted by: TerryDon79
So some movies implied the moon landings were fake? I watched a film once. It was called Dumbo. OMG! They must be telling us elephants can fly!!!!!!!!!!!!!
originally posted by: TerryDon79
And why exactly would they not ask someone who has extensive knowledge of video cameras about, um, video cameras?
originally posted by: TerryDon79
The reason the scientists don't contest the landings is because of tenge mountain of proof there is for them PLUS all the data.
Why would NASA visit Kubrick on many occasions?
Why did NASA give Kubrick a special camera lens, as a gift?
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Because Kubrick asked NASA for advice on how to make sure 2001 looked as real as possible. Kubrick started shooting that in 1965 before we even had a picture of the entire Earth to look at it. If you knew anything at all about how Kubrick made 2001 you would know just how many people would have been involved if he faked Apollo and how long it would have taken.
originally posted by: turbonium1
NASA is in the middle of their Apollo project. Why would they be concerned about sci-fi movies? What is so important about making sci-fi movies look realistic? Why, oh why, would NASA take people off the Apollo project, fly them over to the UK, just to help someone who wants realistic-looking sci-fi films?
They would never, ever, do such a thing. It is ludicrous, in every way.
It only makes sense if NASA wants to make a realistic-looking moon landing film.
'Eyes Wide Shut' was released exactly 30 years after Apollo 11's supposed 'moon landing'. This shows what Kubrick thought about NASA's 'realistic' moon landing, beyond a doubt!
originally posted by: DJW001
Kubrick was making a science fiction film and asked for their help in making it as realistic as possible. NASA's Public Relations department saw it as an excellent opportunity to sell the public on space exploration.
originally posted by: DJW001
They did not give him anything as a gift. They loaned him a lens that could gather enough light to film by candlelight, allowing his period drama to look more authentic. 2001 was an excellent advertisement for space exploration, NASA was grateful it was portrayed positively. Kubrick was principally known as a social critic; he could have made the space program look like a boondoggle.
originally posted by: turbonium1
By releasing 'Eyes Wide Shut' exactly 30 years to the day of the 'moon landing' said it perfectly, then!
Don't you mean it was an opportunity to sell the public on faking space exploration? Since it was, as we all know, a fake.
It seems to me that NASA would have been putting all their efforts into ACTUAL space exploration if they were trying to sell it to the public. The public knows 2001 is a sci-fi movie, it doesn't sell the public anything but that movies can fake space exploration better than ever! That's what it did, mainly.
NASA should have no involvement in ANY sci-fi movies, that is quite obvious.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Really? You're the professional expert in this now? I suggest you look at a whole range of science fiction films and see how many times NASA gets an acknowledgement for their services. I also suggest you look at how poor science fiction at the time was at representing the moon and also the Earth from space - any film that tried to be convincing used actual NASA images taken by either Gemini or Apollo. Kubrick used neither because when he started his project these photographs weren't available. His special effects team had to re-do his lunar models many times because Lunar Orbiter photographs gave new details. And he still got things wrong.
originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Nope. It shows that you are attaching far more significance to this release date than is reasonable, particularly as Kubrick was actually dead by then.