You must be High on the desert, to think your on the moon.

reply to post by Donny 4 million

If NASA invented and patented all the stuff you claim----every American would be getting a 4 percent royalty check for investing in that research.

Well sorry about the royality checks, but the wireless technology you use today for computers, was developed during Apollo. They had transmitters that used frequencies in the 9GHZ range for radar. A good amount of all technology you touch everyday is from Apollo research and developement.

SO much technology we take for granted daily, comes from Apollo.

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Donny 4 million

 

If NASA invented and patented all the stuff you claim----every American would be getting a 4 percent royalty check for investing in that research.

Well sorry about the royality checks, but the wireless technology you use today for computers, was developed during Apollo. They had transmitters that used frequencies in the 9GHZ range for radar. A good amount of all technology you touch everyday is from Apollo research and developement.

SO much technology we take for granted daily, comes from Apollo.

ta
Not to be a stick in the mud but could you supply a sourse. And how it was used for the Apollo missions.
I would like to see where the (leading -up to technology became NASA property at 9 gig.)
My uncle is sorry was in" Who's Who " in radar. pre-WW2.
Sorry-- he is still in Who's Who.
thanks Donny

[edit on 30-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Give me a moment to find some referrences...

NASA credited with highest grossing film of the 20th century

Houston, Texas - Sorry James Cameron, but the figures are now all in for determining who had the highest grossing film of the 20th century, and it was not "Titanic".

While "Titanic" with Leonardo DiCaprio did bring in $1.8 billion, it was "Moon Landing" with Neil Armstrong that actually won hands down, with a return revenue of at least 7 times that amount each year!

That's right, the relatively low budget sci-fi film about an American moon landing has brought in about $15 billion dollars a year since 1970, or about $585 billion total since it's release in July of 1969.

The movie commanded an enormous share of the world market, in fact more people saw it on it's opening day than any other movie before or since. And the repeat watchings have held the world's attention for decades.

While the movie is rather dated, and the special effects very poor, the movie resonated with people in a way few movies ever have. "It was a movie with a message of hope", said the NASA administrator in charge of the ambitious project back in 1969. "It let people feel that if we really tried, then one day we could make that dream a reality, even if it would take another fifty or sixty years."

Indeed, his prophecy seems eerily accurate, as NASA is now under the impression that if we actually tried, and had a big enough budget, that we could land a man on the moon in about 15 years. Of course, fans of "Moon Landing" will remember that in that fictitious scenario, they were able to do it in less than ten!

"That's the difference between myth and reality.", said the current NASA administrator. "In that movie, they did do it in ten. But for us to actually land on the moon, even with our far more advanced technology, we probably couldn't do it in under 15 years."

Those not alive when the movie came out find it rather silly, but it must be remembered by modern film goers that we didn't know as much about space back then as we do now. The movie doesn't show things like the radiaton of the Van Allen Belt, or how calculations were made without real computers. Were a remake to be done, it would take those things into account.

A remake is unlikely though. Insiders say that next time, NASA would rather it be a documentary, to commemorate a real achievement. It's believed that NASA might have some competition, though. "In the movie", said retired actor Neil Armstrong, "we were in a supposed 'space race' with the Soviets, a nation so backward it couldn't feed it's own people. But in real life, we might have an actual 'space race', with competition like India or China."

What of those who say we actually did land on the moon, and that the government pretended it was a movie for their own purposes? "Kooks.", said Armstrong. "Obviously if we had been there way back then we'd have colonies and mining operations by now. Who would be so stupid as to go, but never go back? It would be like Columbus discovering America then saying, 'no, thanks, not interested'! Those people probably think 'Star Wars' is real, too!"

If my memory serves me correctly those frequencies were used in:

• range
  
• range to range rate
  

On one of the systems in the LM.

Also this system had a closs relationship to doppler.......

reply to post by bokonon2010


You forgot to include your source. Let me help you.

The Spoof

reply to post by bokonon2010

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Lets see some real bs been given here a lot by you and the OP

Google Earth uses sat pics,aicraft pics and now street view so when you see your patio its taken from a plane , when you see your front door its taken from a car! or even a bike know!!

Photographing Apollo sites with a telescope.
Hubble can magnify about 5000x iirc avg distance to moon about 238,800 miles so 238,800/5000 = 47.76 miles so the moon's surface would still look 47.76 miles away the lander is about 15ft across.Telescopes are built first of all to gather as much light as possible not to magnify as much as possible. The smallest object the hubble could resolve on the moon is about 350ft iirc.


Jodrell Bank: Apollo 11 track explains itself see link below

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Another thing you post on the same subject in a similar way as another member bochen181

twins

Any comments on these as you seemed to ignore them

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by bokonon2010

 

Lets see some real bs been given here a lot by you and the OP

Google Earth uses sat pics,aicraft pics and now street view so when you see your patio its taken from a plane , when you see your front door its taken from a car! or even a bike know!!

Photographing Apollo sites with a telescope.
Hubble can magnify about 5000x iirc avg distance to moon about 238,800 miles so 238,800/5000 = 47.76 miles so the moon's surface would still look 47.76 miles away the lander is about 15ft across.Telescopes are built first of all to gather as much light as possible not to magnify as much as possible. The smallest object the hubble could resolve on the moon is about 350ft iirc.


Jodrell Bank: Apollo 11 track explains itself see link below

www.jodrellbank.manchester.ac.uk...

Another thing you post on the same subject in a similar way as another member bochen181

twins

Any comments on these as you seemed to ignore them

Why should I? I have not talked anything about Google Earth, Hubble telescope or Jodrell Bank radio observatory in this thread yet. So, take a hike with your primitive strawman disinformation tactics.

reply to post by bokonon2010


Hey Bokonon

About the moon Moon Rocks,

Have you ever watched any of the Moonfaker Videos?

Because Jarrah White discusses the Moon rock issue here in his 'MoonFaker Exhibit D' video series (in parts 1 through 6). I think you might find it interesting :




*The Debunkers absolutely hate Jarrah White. He destroys Moon Landing Propagandists and there is nothing they can do when he is done debunking their BS except move the gold posts yet again (and lie and throw insults around - par for the course really)



I found this quote in part two - the words came from the mouth of a geophysicist at Arizona University's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory:

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Exuberant1]

Originally posted by theability
If my memory serves me correctly those frequencies were used in:

• range
  
• range to range rate
  

On one of the systems in the LM. Also this system had a closs relationship to doppler.......

Ah well I was hoping for something more than my memory serves me.
You see there is a big difference between using something and developing it.
Radar and sonar were around long before NASA..


Wickapedia

But others think that radar is not so important, since the basic principles were not new. For example, Maurice Pointe, one of the developers in France, said:
The fundamental principle of the radar belongs to the common patrimony of the physicists : after all, what is left to the real credit of the technicians is measured by the effective realisation of operational materials.

"I interpret this to mean that once the principals are laid out (developement-invention) the rest is just in the usage."
Example HAARP

Also
In 1887 the German physicist Heinrich Hertz (1857–1894) began experimenting with electromagnetic waves in his laboratory. He found that these waves could be transmitted through different types of materials, and were reflected by others, such as conductors and dielectrics. The existence of electromagnetic waves was predicted earlier by the Scottish physicist James Clerk Maxwell (1831–79), but it was Hertz who first succeeded in generating and detecting what were soon called radio waves.


[edit on 31-3-2010 by Donny 4 million]

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand

 

Now please find another thread to voice your "opinions" because you're non arguments are getting tiresome....yawn.

Peace

How do you let the reader understand by sending him away from a TOPIC you started, a venue for voicing opinions?

Isn't that part of the debate to disagree, to share sides and extrapolate information as best as possible for defense of ones opinion?

Now since you don't want to hear tiresome or bothersome [my words] you have nothing less left than to send them else where.

HEY YOU STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!! REMEMBER THAT? I know that comment wasn't directed towards me, yet again I state as I have before IN THIS THREAD, how much of a lynch this really is!

If you can't stand the heat of OPINION in your OWN THREADS, don't create them!!

wether one agrees or not, this is EXACTLY WHAT ATS IS FOR, EVERYONE'S OPINIONS!!!!

For you to DENY one that explicit right here ON ATS is for you to be acting IGNORANT!

You don't want to here what others have to say, then don't login to ATS!

Sorry mods, I have said this about this thread a few times, its lynching party!

[edit on 30-3-2010 by theability]

I don't want to lynch anyone, I don't want anything. Carry on....

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand




Hmmm Carry on, Sorry I am not in the Army anymore (wink), I am not moving on as your suggesting. Yet I do still work for a living.

When it comes to Apollo and the Missions having issues, inconsistancies, how hard is it to remember that this was a FULL FLEDGED MILITARY SPACE FARING PROJECT!

Of course there is bound to be issues, that is the way they run things!

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Give me a break, seriously, I have like some hundreds APOLLO RELATED PDF's on my home network and unfortunatly don't remember the PDF DOCUMENT NUMBER AND POINTS TO RECITE TO EVERYTHING!

Come on, you didn't even look at the sugestion I gave you, that radar for rate range rate had to be SUPERIORLY QUICK to continually update TRAJECTORY information to the guidance systems, right?

Again citing reference to doppler effect.

During Powered Decent, your going from about 1.5 miles/sec to a hover.

Better have updates fast, or your dead.

reply to post by Donny 4 million



I have to say again, I research quite a bit about apollo!!!!!

In the Apollo News Section there is Lunar Module reference documents that have all the info you could ever want about [then] new and wonderful Human inventions.

Like the LM landing radar as I stated. OHH just so we understand, I was WRONG they USED FREQUENCIES UP TO 10.5GHZ!!!!!!

www.theability.net...

I uploaded the pdf with the LANDING RADAR DETAILS to my site, I can't find the document on the web at the moment.

AS it says lmnr5.pdf....


Transmitter for the Landing Radar:

Velocity Sensor 10.51 GHZ

Radar Altimeter 9.58 GHZ


Now more questions about Apollo technology?


[edited grammar]




[edit on 31-3-2010 by theability]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by theability]

reply to post by bokonon2010


Well the reason I asked you to comment was your fellow hoax believers claim /state the following.

How can I see my patio on google earth they dont know HOW google earth uses images.

Why wont someone point either the hubble or a large telescope at the Moon to picture sites so explained why hubble could not see it.

When stated in an earlier post that the missions were watched/listened to by radio hams etc you dismissed it, the link to Jodrell Bank site shows the radio trace when they lander went under manual control (apollo 11) to land on the Moon.

Anyhow if you think about it Russia or China would have had a field day if they could have proved the USA faked it just think of the propaganda coup for them telling their people the USA had failed
a bit like yourself!

And if you continue to read about the radar on the LM,

The Rendezvous radar used frequencies 9832.8 MHZ (9.8328 GHZ)

The Transponder used frequencies 9792 MHZ (9.792 GHZ)

With doppler citations all around, like I said, doppler effect and these go hand in hand.

and the list I am sure goes on......

The LM guidance computer in the 60's was a 2.048 MHZ machine!

WOW now your telling me that you don't use technology from Apollo everyday, I think you should read alittle bit more about this fine INVENTION!!!!

Originally posted by theability
And if you continue to read about the radar on the LM,

The Rendezvous radar used frequencies 9832.8 MHZ (9.8328 GHZ)

The Transponder used frequencies 9792 MHZ (9.792 GHZ)

With doppler citations all around, like I said, doppler effect and these go hand in hand.

and the list I am sure goes on......

The LM guidance computer in the 60's was a 2.048 MHZ machine!

WOW now your telling me that you don't use technology from Apollo everyday, I think you should read alittle bit more about this fine INVENTION!!!!

Tell me all about the ancient history of the LEM.
I would say that with any system even today it would be difficult to pull off the greatest hat trick in history.
Sling shot a big tin can into lunar orbit then crap out a little tinfoil can at 20,000 miles an hour and a hundred miles or so above the surface of an unknown celestial body 240.000 miles from home for the very. very first time and have it softly land like a parachute. Way to unbelievable for my taste.
Now the only thing in the universe that could be more difficult than that is---reversing the process. Launching from the surface of this unknown celestial body and gaining enough speed to catch up to the speeding mother ship and make a first time ever pinpoint air tight coupling.
A one in a million and a one in a one point five million case in MHO.
Well they ain 't used a LEM in thirty five years or so anyway.
I still use my old AT&T wall phone to locate my new fangled cell phone when I can't find it. Maybe I could dial up a LEM?

reply to post by Donny 4 million


Well now you said you had all the KNOW HOW, AND WHO IS WHO, in Technology right?

Now after I quote ORIGINAL NASA Documents, do I have to say I told you so?

Seriously, I am no expert, I don't claim to be anyone, but researching Apollo is my passion and I have quite the understanding of the Missions.

There are so many 'awesome patents' that came from Apollo, Like the Radus boot, or Radus Magnet.

I hear you all, that believe the HOAX part of Apollo. But if you actually READ THE DATA about all that they developed, you'd begin to see that they MADE this stuff. Which is so much easier than faking it and then issuing themselves FAKE PATENTS to cover-up a cover-up.

This begins to border on ignorance, if you can't absorb the TECHNOLOGY and how much was developed during the Apollo era in terms of ADVANCES in all forms of industry; and that industry is what you use every single day 40 years LATER, then this conversation is at a loss.

This was one Classified Military endeavor, most of which, [the technology] is like I said still locked under some bunker. So that Template of a wheel [Apollo Missions to the Moon] cannot be reproduced, for the civilian to find out the truth.

You get that, the reason why you can't find everything out about Apollo is cause the Military hates giving away the upper hand!


I look between the lines not at them.

You see what you want, I can understand that.

When I look at The Apollo Project I see One BEAUTIFUL MACHINE!



[edited for grammar and added comment]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by theability]

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Thus you admit the possibility of the lunar samples forgery and your evidence is not direct.

While I don't believe they could be faked. I'm not totally dismissing it either. I still haven't seen any evidence in support of them being faked.

What would you consider as being direct evidence?

If a meteorite has resided on Earth for a long time any fusion crust may have been removed by weathering or wind-ablation.

Thank you for pointing that out. Yes, those meteorites having spent hundreds to thousands of years sitting on Earth have experienced all kinds of weathering and erosion. Something that doesn't happen to rocks on the Moon.

Depending on the type of meteorite and it's location and the weathering it experiences, it can cause the fusion crust to flake off. But it's not just the exterior that's affected when entering the atmosphere. The insides of the meteorites also heat up and can cause internal fracturing as well. So even if you were to find a meteorite with out any crust, there would still be signs of it having experienced extreme temperatures.

To use micrometeorites impacts as the authenticity criteria, you need to show that this phenomena is not observed in meteorites found on Earth.

If they weren't melted away by flying at high speeds through the atmosphere, then any weathering on Earth could have taken care of the rest. All references to the micrometeorite impacts or “zap pits” seem to be only for the Apollo samples. I have yet to find any mention of them on meteorites found on Earth, but I'm still looking.

Here is the paper The simulation of lunar micrometeorite impacts by laser pulses, 1973:
www.springerlink.com...

Quoting from your link:

The simulation in the laboratory of hypervelocity micrometeorite impacts is difficult
and expensive. The only method known is to accelerate the micron sized particles by
giving them an electric charge and allowing them to fall through a large electric field.
Even then the velocities achieved are not as high as those that most commonly occur
in meteorite impacts.

This timing and distribution of lunar meteorites is working strongly against Apollo myth.

I don't follow your reasoning on this. Could you explain further?

There are many scientific studies questioning authenticity Apollo samples, for example by comparison Luna probes samples with Apollo. But you choose to ignore them and resort to all scientists confirm primitive lies.

The US and Russia exchanged samples and the samples from the Soviet Luna missions compare very well to the Apollo samples and show many similarities to one another. I haven't seen any studies that question the Apollo samples. Could you point me to some?

reply to post by jra

www.abovetopsecret.com...