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
It is consistent with the argument that we didn't go to the moon, which makes it supporting evidence. It is not evidence in itself, it confirms the case, as a whole.
Now, to your point that Apollo missions were kept short because of aluminum making radiation worse in deep space....
They DID NOT KNOW that aluminum was a poor shield in deep space, at the time of Apollo.
We only found that out recently, long after Apollo (supposedly) flew in deep space, in aluminum craft, without any problems.
originally posted by: Misinformation
The propagandists
have yet to discover the smoking-gun that validates the validity of apollo,
Ylet alone how human beings processed the three-dimensional phenomenon known as the van allen belts,
your fiscal illiteracy makes me shudder,
and I wouldn't flaunt your ignorance by telling anyone apollo paraphernalia is worth anything.
originally posted by: Misinformation
No other object has been misidentified as originating from the moon more often than a rock.
Even the former leader of the Rijksmuseum thought he had a moon rock, but it's been proven he only had a piece of petrified wood.
You probably thought it could be nothing other than a moon rock also, but I assure you, it was petrified wood.
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
lunar photography by probes from many nations blow you out of the water
This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites and their descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release photography. That is, imagery would show close to what current systems can achieve.
originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
lunar photography by probes from many nations blow you out of the water
No it doesn't... Apollo has long since been compromised, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites and their descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release photography. That is, imagery would show close to what current systems can achieve.
This resolution has been matched but never surpassed by the successor satellites—the KH-11 and its descendants—and could be one reason the government might not want to release KH-8 photography. That is, KH-8 imagery would show what the NRO’s current systems can achieve.
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
It has nothing to do with lunar probes, or Apollo
NASA discussed the future of the Lunar Mapping and Survey System program with officials. Ordering a comprehensive review of basing the landing decision on the imagery returned by Lunar Orbiter.
Earth orbit testing would have been particularly problematic because it would have attracted a great deal of attention.
Intelligence community officials were uncomfortable with any public acknowledgement even of the existence of satellite reconnaissance, and would have been completely opposed to revealing any information on Apollo satellite cameras.
The article also raises an interesting question about the Lunar Orbiter program. Specifically, was the contract competition rigged? Several companies competed to build the spacecraft, each of them proposing a spacecraft/camera combination.
What happened to that hardware remains classified.
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
nowhere have I said that they didn't have better resolution than Lunar Orbiter
Maybe you're not old enough to have experience with film, but just about every roll has some messed up pictures in it. If nothing else because the film usually doesn't fit exactly into a discrete number of pictures, so you get pictures cut in half or two thirds.
originally posted by: Misinformation
a reply to: DJW001
Undoubtedly the propagandists are still reeling from their recent overreach,
...So moving on one small step,, I think we're starting too lose sight of the real issue here, which is, why Middendorf gave Drees a hunk of petrified wood. And I think it comes down to a choice between whether Middendorf was just a fossil enthusiast or he was under direction of some sort of nefarious operation.
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo
There is no issue here.