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.

 

We Probably Never Made it to the Moon

page: 29
43
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2022 @ 06:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade
Have they tho?
Until i am able to fly to an elevation adequate to view the entirety of earth (way past moon farther than any manned craft has to date) I am scant to believe it, also, i will not comment on the geometry of the earth as a globalists will then start posting stupid pictures that prove nothing. Over and over again.
At least my ridiculous memery was fresh and new i see it's already starting.
Any bets on how long before the quarter picture comes out or the absolute ones. I got 5 on it



posted on May, 18 2022 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: everyone

That's nice but this is about us landing on the moon and not magic bullet theory.


Its also not about cheese which you mentioned.



posted on May, 19 2022 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: everyone

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: everyone

That's nice but this is about us landing on the moon and not magic bullet theory.


Its also not about cheese which you mentioned.


"I don't know, Gromit. It's like no cheese I've ever tasted."

- Wallace



posted on May, 20 2022 @ 10:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: CrazyFox
a reply to: Grenade
Have they tho?
Until i am able to fly to an elevation adequate to view the entirety of earth (way past moon farther than any manned craft has to date) I am scant to believe it, also, i will not comment on the geometry of the earth as a globalists will then start posting stupid pictures that prove nothing. Over and over again.
At least my ridiculous memery was fresh and new i see it's already starting.
Any bets on how long before the quarter picture comes out or the absolute ones. I got 5 on it


Not sure I quite understand what you mean about "seeing the entirety of Earth" needing to go "way past the moon".

You can never see more than half of a sphere from a given point - unless you are at infinite distance then you will always be seeing *slightly* less than the full hemisphere. But you can see very nearly half of the Earth from the distance of the moon, and you will never be able to see more than 1% more than you can from the moon.

The formula for the visible fraction f of a sphere of radius R when viewed from a point D above the surface is simply:

f = D / 2 (R + D)

For the earth, R is 3963 miles.

If you go up to the edge of space, say 62 miles, then you can see:

f = 62 / (2 x (3963+62) = 0.0077, or 0.77% of the Earth

From 1000 miles up, you can see 10%

From 10,000 miles up, you can see 36%

From the distance of the moon (239,000 miles) you can see just over 49%.



posted on May, 21 2022 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
You can never see more than half of a sphere from a given point

That is, unless it's an extremely massive and compact body like a neutron star, which warps spacetime around it so much that you are indeed able to see more than half of it.



That said, you were replying to a flat-earther, hence the lack of logic.



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Where were any of the wires? Didn't see a single one.
a reply to: xollo6



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 03:20 PM
link   
It will scatter. Not reflect back like the laser targets do.
a reply to: everyone



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 03:31 PM
link   
Honestly, if whomever was piloting the craft had already figured out the principles of an antigravity propulsion system, it stands to reason that they would also have a method of reliably mitigating any atmospheric friction. They could probably enter the atmosphere at any velocity they choose to, and simply shield from the friction plasma, or negate the friction altogether.
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 03:36 PM
link   
If the current working hypothesis of the moon's formation is accurate, then why would you expect material from the same source to be fundamentally different simply because it is in 2 different objects?
a reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 03:52 PM
link   
There are 4 stars visible in those "worst apollo photos" you've ever seen. Right hand side of the image, start just under the horizontal center and going up.
Because obviously, since they didn't think to put stars in the "fake" images, these overexposed frames wouldn't pick up any at all, right?

Right...
a reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 04:11 PM
link   
The astronauts didn't land during the new moon. They were on the near side of the moon, and it's sunlit. Which it can't be for a new moon.
reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Sand is all eroded. There is no erosion on the moon, just fragmentation. Therefore lunar regolith is ALL particles with sharp angular characteristics. Sand is far smoother.
a reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 04:17 PM
link   
For your basalt dust experiment, do it in a vacuum chamber, as well. Get the setup as accurate as possible.
a reply to: cooperton



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 04:21 PM
link   
What you are not addressing is the actual structure of the regolith particles as opposed to any terrestrial soils. Probably on purpose.
a reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 06:02 PM
link   
sand
regolith

a reply to: Grenade



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

In the face of compelling evidence i have re-assessed my opinion. Playing devils advocate is sometimes the best way to entice convincing research.

I agree with your analysis.



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 07:44 PM
link   
I read one time that the hammer a feather test was impossible. They claimed that the feather showed no reaction to the high temperature of the regolith on the moon. Plus they claimed it was too dangerous to have a feather in the pure oxygen cab of the Lunar Module as it was oily and could carry an electrostatic charge.



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Apollo 15 Hammer vs feather drop test

At end of EVA Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott performed a drop test of hammer and feather to prove Galileo theory
that both would fall at same rate

moon.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 27 2022 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
They claimed that the feather showed no reaction to the high temperature of the regolith on the moon.


The Apollo 11 EASAP instrument measured surface temperatures while on the moon. It showed temperatures of about 170F at peak. What kind of reaction should a feather have to that kind of temperature in the brief time that it was in contact with it?


Plus they claimed it was too dangerous to have a feather in the pure oxygen cab of the Lunar Module as it was oily and could carry an electrostatic charge.


The feather wasn't just floating around the cabin on the way to the moon. It would have been stored away where it wouldn't be interacting with the environment.



posted on May, 28 2022 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

At several points in this video, including the conversation with Nixon and the astronauts, there's instantaneous communications and responses, how is this possible if the moon is 1.26 light seconds from Earth? There should be two way delay in every conversation, a minimum of 1.26 seconds, probably more when you include relays.


edit on 28/5/22 by Grenade because: (no reason given)







 
43
<< 26  27  28    30 >>

log in

join