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.
What is diffusing solar radiation while being on the moon's surface?
You dont know?
Well I dont know either.
So, being on the moon is no different than floating in space when it
comes to being hit directly by the sun.
So if the sun is hitting the entire side of an astronaut, it is heating the entire surface of that area. And plenty of photos and videos show the astronauts being from tip to toe exposed to the sun.
The only factor the moon itself has is SECONDARY.
In other words if the astronaut is walking on a sun heated surface, or picking up stones heated by the sun. And lets not forget ionizing radiation from the moon's surface.
Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by FoosM
EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing?
Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.
Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.
EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.
It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.
Originally posted by turbonium
I see this failed argument come up all the time.
...Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?
Just a damn picture of the buggy or buggy tracks or lem base will do. Is that really so much to ask for? Why wouldn't NASA do it for PR purposes alone
Satellite photos of Earth are taken from about 280 miles up. The moon is 238,857 miles away. If you zoom in (+), cars are visible but fuzzy. Remember, that's from 280 miles away! Satellite photographs are taken by satellites, small spacecraft in close orbit around a moon or planet. We had to put a satellite in orbit around the moon to get satellite-quality photos there!...
At the distance of the moon, the Hubble can't see anything smaller than 60 meters wide. The lunar module's landing gear is 9 meters across...
Originally posted by Pinke
Originally posted by FoosM
Its quite simple really.
I'm not really interested in this debate as much any more but I'd rather not have someone have to dig through FoosM's posts to try and read 'how it was possible' - FoosM you forget this thread is heading towards 150 pages long.
I'll try to be as objective as possible.
FoosM believes that the moon was surveyed around 1967 to get the correct dimensions. He then believes that a film crew run by director Stanley Kubrick created a fake moon landing using a combination of built objects and front screen projection. The astronauts were then made mobile using a collection of techniques such as wire work and possibly slow motion.
FoosM and supporters believe this would have been easy to conceal and the astronauts were not taking the mission seriously when communicating on the moon about it.
Others believe too many people would need to be involved. That certain key post technologies weren't available. That front screen projection has several severe draw backs preventing it from being used without being detected.
FoosM also believes that the 'black' back ground would make the wires etc easier to conceal using film painting techniques.
I'll state, however that I don't think FoosM has any form of qualification in the VFX or film industry and isn't really qualified to make these statements. I only say this since I'm mostly cataloging FoosM's beliefs and without some kind of balancing statement they might look convincing at least by themselves. There are technical issues I don't have time to go into regarding front screen projection and other proposed techniques.
Originally posted by FoosM
The other issue:
Distraction. People were worried about Vietnam, Civil Rights, they were recovering from assassinated leaders, there was the red scare. You think the
average man was keeping up with details coming out of NASA?
No.
As for intelligence agencies... name the ones you think were on any level decent enough to infiltrate the US? Which foreign spy agency outed project MOL? Or Keyhole? Or any of the other DoD secret space missions?
The Soviets? The Soviets lied about their missions too, and the US knew it
And who in the west would believe the USSR anyway if they called fake?
People forget that information on the US side was and is controlled. And dont tell me its not.
On a side note ... People didn't have time to follow the moon landing?! This was before the internet and it was one of the biggest events of the time?! I know you tend to cover all possibilities FoosM (or hit from all angles as you put it) but please this point is really leaning towards wasting people's time to refute. The red scare etc ... didn't incapacitate the collective populations of all the countries receiving information about the moon landing.
I'll also point out that even to a lay person like me - the 60s weren't exactly a golden age of national security by any stretch. The fact that you know the names of certain projects that allegedly existed would kind of go against your own examples.
Originally posted by FoosM
"I'll try to be as objective as possible. "
Having a hard time eh?
Did I say they didnt have time? I said they weren't concerned with keeping up the details. Do you even comprehend what my point was?
These programs didnt allegedly exist. They did exist! Yes MOL was announced publicly, but the public didnt really know what MOL would entail. This is the hide in plain sight tactic.
Originally posted by turbonium
Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.
Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.
EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.
It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.
I see this failed argument come up all the time.
Thousands of people would know if it was a hoax? Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?
compartmentalization... the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.
The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information[1] to prevent disclosure of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the opposition.
Originally posted by FoosM
Originally posted by turbonium
Originally posted by WolfofWar
the KGB was on par, if not superior to the CIAs espionage abilities. There were games going on to infiltrate the highest levels of government. McCarthy wasn't entirely unwarranted in his suspicion. So you are telling me that the KGB didn't sniff out such a large hoax and exploited it? they were complacent, and 40 years later, still are? When has that ever occurred? It's a rhetorical question, it never has. Everything is leaked eventually, most of the time rather shortly after the event.
Journalists didn't sniff it out because of being too pre-occupied with Vietnam? Didn't stop the other political scandals from breaking, like Watergate.
EVERYBODY in NASA was somehow willingly lieing? A company of thousands, most of whom who were working in a capacity to know where or not there was a hoax being perpetrated? Most people can't even work at Mcdonalds for more then 2 months before they start whistleblowing about the broilers being set too high.
It's been 40 years, with some people who were once in NASA and behind the politics now reaching their death beds. No confessions, no leaks, nothing of any validity. Just on the basis of reality, a moon landing hoax doesn't hold up.
I see this failed argument come up all the time.
Thousands of people would know if it was a hoax? Give me just one specific example from these many 'thousands' who would know if it was a hoax. Please explain how a guy who, let's say, tightened bolts on a saturn V rocket, know if it was a hoax?
People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of
compartmentalization... the limiting of access to information to persons who have a need to know it in order to perform certain tasks.
The basis for compartmentalization is the idea that, if fewer people know the details of a mission or task, the risk or likelihood that such information could be compromised or fall into the hands of the opposition is decreased. Hence, varying levels of clearance within organizations exist. Yet, even if someone has the highest clearance, certain "eyes only" information may still be restricted to certain operators, even of lower rank. In intelligence administration, officials believe that it is useful to keep a close watch on "sources and methods" information[1] to prevent disclosure of the activities and people whose lives they believe to be at risk if such information were to be publicly disclosed or fall into the hands of the opposition.
They also fail to admit to the fact that most people will not stick their necks out if they are witness to a crime, especially one being committed by the government. I mean, where would you go?
Even when it comes to direct crimes. How many women dont speak up when they get sexually harassed at work, or have been victims of date rape? How many business owners go to the police when a gang or mob extorts money from them? Simple fact is, most people dont want to attract attention to themselves, they understand that the truth doesn't guarantee you justice.
Perfect example is Bill Kaysing. He is a witness, claims to know information, and look how he has been treated since he came out.
"We Never Went to the Moon" was self-published in 1974.
I say 1974, two years after the last mission. Someone who worked
for Rocketdyne, where Saturn V rocket engines were built, seven years that didnt believe, like the USSR, the US couldn't pull it off before 1970.
Here your whistleblower. Maybe if the general public demanded answers more people would be willing to come out that were directly involved in the scam.
The US couldnt even pull off
The Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL)
the USSR did:
Three Almaz stations were launched: Salyut 2, Salyut 3 and Salyut 5 in response to MOL.
The US had a shuttle,
The USSR had a shuttle.
So I dont get how the USSR/Russia couldnt respond with a manned mission to the moon by 2010.
Originally posted by FoosM
People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of
"compartmentalization..."
Originally posted by WolfofWar
reply to post by turbonium
So the moon landing is the only time, possibly in the history of man, definitely in the history of the modern world, that not one single person: Involved in the operation, opposed to the operation, researching the operation, didn't leak a single thing. It was 100% perfect. KGB saw no fault in it, muck-raking journalists got no inside sources, nobody got a change of heart, nobody tried to score political points by talking about it, no senator even was suspicious enough to dig around - Nothing, nada, zilch. It was so compartmentalized that there was never once a single leak of information reliably on this falsification, so much so you guys have to rely on blurry pictures and bad physics. This all happened, and for some reason, nothing else is as compartmentalized in government ever again?
Who really has the flawed argument there? I'll give you a hint, it's not me.
[edit on 7-11-2010 by WolfofWar]
Let me ask you this. If NASA can send not one but two rovers in 6 to 7 months to Mars (54 million miles from Earth), why can’t NASA send at least one rover in 3 days to our moon (430,000 miles from Earth). We don’t need to rely on NASA’s stupid orbiter’s definitive proofs images, which is totally laughable. Once the rover lands on the moon’s surface, we can get highest resolution images up and close too. Come on, smart people. Answer me. Why is NASA avoiding this option? Remember, they are spending our money in billions of dollar to accomplish their lies.
When it comes to Apollo, there are only so many things you can rationalize away until they begin to conflict with each other. And this thread is revealed an enormous amount of contradictions. Practically every aspect of Apollo is in question.
If it really happened, we would have enough evidence by now to prove it.
This would include return missions and other countries going to the moon.
Originally posted by jra
Originally posted by FoosM
People dont understand or dont want to acknowledge the concept of
"compartmentalization..."
many
And you clearly have no idea how impossible it would be to work on a project as big as Apollo was with it all compartmentalized. First there's the fact that it was an open and public program. How do you hide what the people are building and working on, when the whole project is public knowledge? My head wants to explode at that bizarre sense of logic.
The three stages of the Saturn V were built by three different companies (Boeing, North American, and Douglas). With the amount of communication and coordination needed between all these companies working together along with NASA, it would be quite a task all by itself. How would you compartmentalize something like that?
I've never seen any evidence of NASA ever operating in that manner, or any Aerospace company for that matter.
It would be absurd to try and build something like that. If you're going to make a claim like that, then show me some evidence of compartmentalization.
(5) The Contractor shall provide NASA, including the NASA Office of Inspector General, access to the Contractor’s and subcontractors’ facilities, installations, operations, documentation, databases, and personnel used in performance of the contract. Access shall be provided to the extent required to carry out IT security inspection, investigation, and/or audits to safeguard against threats and hazards to the integrity, availability, and confidentiality of NASA information or to the function of computer systems operated on behalf of NASA, and to preserve evidence of computer crime. To facilitate mandatory reviews, the Contractor shall ensure appropriate compartmentalization of NASA information, stored and/or processed, either by information systems in direct support of the contract or that are incidental to the contract.
Originally posted by theability
Well can we finally put to rest the people who have ignorantly claimed that Apollo was a hoax:
Jarrah White
Ralph Rene
Bill Kaysing
And most of all, one who has wasted 2395 replies and 135 pages of ATS space:
Foosm!!!
:shk:
Well can we????
Originally posted by wmd_2008
files.abovetopsecret.com...
One half of image taken as Apollo 17 left the MOON you can see the tracks of the Astronauts movements.
The other half the LRO image of that area it shows the tracks are 100% INDENTICAL .
You are the kind of person that even if they took you to the Moon you would say they faked that as well!