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.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. You have sunlight going through the gases and highlighting them, with the blackness of space behind it providing great contrast. On the surface of the moon, you have the bright sunlit landscape in the background, providing far less contrast. It's like trying to see the proverbial polar bear in a snowstorm.
Originally posted by backinblack
Looks pretty well sunlit in that pic Nat..
The sun does not just shine on the moon...
In JW's video the "plume" is just a quick burst when the engine ignites. So even though the camera tracks the LM upwards, any visible expulsion of propellant is long gone.
Originally posted by backinblack
Ohh OK...
I'd have to watch the LM ascent again but doesn't the camera pan and at times show the LM against the blackness of space.??
NOT to single you out, but in another post I read after this one I'm responding to, with your "list"....again, those are ALL easily explained, when the person asking has the ability to comprehend the basic sciences....and is NOT prone to the rampant mis-information spewed by JW, his "mentor" Ralph Rene', and all the rest of them.
Tell me please then why the three apollo astronauts at their first press conference after first 'moon' mission look so depressed... I look forward to your 'easy to explain' answer.
And what about these "tourists" just standing around? They've supposedly traveled thousands of miles to see this world famous historic landmark and they're not even looking at it!!! They should be grinning from ear to ear as they gaze at it in awe.
Projection of fantasized emotions onto others. How many times have Moon Hoax propagandists argued that the astronauts weren't behaving the way they should have. They should have been grinning from ear to ear instead of looking exhausted. They should have brought a telescope. They should have done nothing but take pictures of the Earth instead of the Moon.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by nekomata111
Ok, let's say we didn't land in the moon, so what changes in our daily lives and abroad?edit on 28-3-2011 by nekomata111 because: typo
Just about EVERYTHING.
Scientific hegemony will be splintered and broken, which will release an avalanche of new theories thus jump starting a new possible sustainable space race.
Trust & confidence in government would be eroded (in a good way).
The masses (especially in the US) will reevaluate their positions in life, the taxes they pay, their moral compasses.
'All' easily explained... right. Well done. You're work here is done... how wrong I was. I bow down to your superior knowledge.
Originally posted by manmental
Hey Exponant,
The areas that interest me the most:
Originally posted by nataylor
I now want to present the following...
a plume:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3a58351423f2.gif[/atsimg]
www.hq.nasa.gov...
The S-IVB stage vents propellant during transposition and docking
A couple problems. The excess fuel on the S-IVB was vented in an unreacted state. In other words, the engine is not firing. And the S-IVB used liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen fuel, not a hypergolic propellant.
Originally posted by exponent
I would like to focus on a question at a time, and so I want to start weeding out the weakest from my perspective. The 'blast crater' argument for example. Most of the evidence for the idea that there should be a blast crater comes from NASA. If NASA believed it would happen, and they faked the moon landing, why did they not just blast out a crater with the engine?.
They definitely had the engines, they're on display in museums and it would be suicidal for a conspiracy not to get real engines with the right powers produced, so why wouldn't they either fire the engine into the regolith simulant and use that as the landing crater? It makes no sense to me that NASA incorrectly predicting something is used as evidence of a conspiracy.
Originally posted by FoosM
Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.
And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.
Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.
So one issue determined the other.
If they made a crater, what size would it be?
Which would lead to, why didnt the LM fall into it?
And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.
You would also have to show damage to the LM's landing gear which would have been obviously sandblasted.
Originally posted by nekomata111
I still think we landed in moon, maybe not in 69 but sure later, but, what they found in the moon was so shocking and disturbing that they needed to cover the images and movies, producing those artifacts that scream "FAKE"...
Originally posted by exponent
Originally posted by FoosM
Its like the stars issue, by trying to recreate it, it would generate more questions and problems.
They had to create an environment that the astronauts could "seemingly" safely walk on.
That means, they couldn't have astronauts knee deep in lunar dust.
I don't get why this is a problem, they have the engine, they have the terrain, they have a regolith simulant.
Fire engine into simulant, pretend that it landed. How difficult could it be?
And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.
Any links?
Originally posted by FoosM
It has to do with the fact you stated that this was not a firing, but a venting of fuel.
How did you determine that?
And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?
Also, who commanded the S-IVB to vent? Was it remote controlled? Where are they astronauts?
Third, why would they risk releasing fuel during a docking maneuver?
Originally posted by FoosM
I just explained, how big of a crater would they want to make?
Links to what?
Originally posted by FoosM
It has to do with the fact you stated that this was not a firing, but a venting of fuel.
How did you determine that?
00 03 24 54 CC For your information, at 3 plus 34:24, a nonpropulsive vent in the booster will be sequenced open. We don't expect to see much from it. Over.
00 03 25 06 CDR Say that again, please.
00 03 25 08 CC At 3 plus 34:24, a nonpropulsive vent in the booster will be sequenced open. Over.
...
00 03 31 16 CC Roger. A reminder. You have about 3 minutes until that vent will come open. Keep an eye on that
booster when that happens.
00 03 31 23 CMP Okay. How about you give me a mark on that beauty?
00 03 31 25 CC Will do.
00 03 33 56 CC Stu, this is Houston. That vent is due in 30 seconds.
00 03 34 00 CMP Okay.
00 03 34 15 CC 10 seconds.
00 03 34 24 CC Ready -
00 03 34 25 CC MARK. It should be on now.
00 03 34 27 CMP Man, it's beautiful.
In the transcripts, they mention it was "sequenced open," meaning it was part of the pre-programmed automated sequence for the S-IVB stage.
Originally posted by FoosM
Also, who commanded the S-IVB to vent? Was it remote controlled? Where are they astronauts?
Originally posted by FoosM
Third, why would they risk releasing fuel during a docking maneuver?
Originally posted by FoosM
And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?
Originally posted by DJW001
Are we back to the "stars issue" again? There are no stars in the photographs because they were too dim compared to the lunar surface.
As for the lunar dust question, Surveyor did not sink into the dust either. The Russian Lunakhods did not sink into the dust, and when the Chinese send their lander up, it wan't sink into the dust either.
If they were faking it, they could do anything they want.
And to independent scientists working out the size of the crater, with the type and amount of lunar dust there was on the surface of the moon.
But they would be in on it, wouldn't they?
You would also have to show damage to the LM's landing gear which would have been obviously sandblasted.
No, it wouldn't because the dust wouldn't billow, it would be displaced laterally. We've been through all this before. [Bangs head on keyboard in frustration] hgkj;gvg;hbnlugfvghjgbukjgvjhgkjhhgjfhgswrf/lkjo;lkll
Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by weedwhacker
NOT to single you out, but in another post I read after this one I'm responding to, with your "list"....again, those are ALL easily explained, when the person asking has the ability to comprehend the basic sciences....and is NOT prone to the rampant mis-information spewed by JW, his "mentor" Ralph Rene', and all the rest of them.
'All' easily explained... right. Well done. You're work here is done... how wrong I was. I bow down to your superior knowledge.
You blinkered individual.
Tell me please then why the three apollo astronauts at their first press conference after first 'moon' mission look so depressed... I look forward to your 'easy to explain' answer.
Originally posted by nataylor
Originally posted by FoosM
And finally, I noticed the LM is attached to the S-IVB? Where, in terms of location, in the mission are they then?
What phase is this event occurring?
As you can see from the transcripts, this is about 3 hours and 34 minutes into the mission. This was the coast part of the mission, after the S-IVB had fired the trans-lunar injection burn. Their range would be in the neighborhood of 19,000 km.
Apollo 14, Magazine L
Images AS14-72-10000 to AS14-72-9999
Latitude / Longitude: 3° S / 88° E