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.
fenson76
reply to post by dragonridr
Not here to convince you of anything. Thanks for the snarky response. Cheers!
choos
its not hard to tell whether or not its cloudy or clearskies in your local area.. this goes for the entire world.. so you think that they decided to just make up the weather for apollo and hope for the best?? like say a tropical cyclone??
turbonium1
It doesn't matter either way, because NASA is in control of the whole thing.
So if NASA's satellite images become 'Apollo' images, nobody would know the difference.
What's the problem?
choos
look at the speed at which they move from point a to point b in your 2x video and tell me that looks real.. you are kidding right?
choos
not a point in my favour?? so you think its in your favour?? were jarrah is claiming they used 2/3 speed and ropes to produce the effect and yet the effect doesnt even line up with john youngs jump?? its supposed to be the same, the height jumped is the same but why does john young stay "airborne" longer than the mythbusters??
turbonium1
I see it as genuine at 2x, and you do not. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter, and move on?...
Why does he stay "airborne" longer?
I went over this point already, didn't I?
I asked you a question -
If they suspended a person (by using wires) in mid-air a bit longer than the Mythbusters guy was suspended, what is the result?
Well, this person would land a bit after John Young did.
Do you understand that wires can be rigged up to suspend a person in mid-air for virtually any length of time, whether it's just for a fraction of a second, or it's for a few seconds, or several hours?
So they could have suspended the Mythbusters guy in mid-air for any length of time, of course.
He could have been suspended in mid-air longer than Young was, which means he would land AFTER Young did.
So what?
You seem to be the one obsessed with personalities, how about you ditch that dead-end approach and consider the evidence I have presented above? You seem to have a blind spot about it.
"Flight, try SCE to 'Aux'", most of his mission control colleagues had no idea what he was talking about. Both the flight director and the CapCom asked him to repeat the recommendation. Pete Conrad's response to the order was, "What the hell is that?" Fortunately Alan Bean was familiar with the location of the SCE switch inside the capsule, and flipped it to auxiliary. Source WIKIPEDIA
turbonium1
choos
look at the speed at which they move from point a to point b in your 2x video and tell me that looks real.. you are kidding right?
I see it as genuine at 2x, and you do not. So perhaps we should just agree to disagree on this matter, and move on?...
choos
not a point in my favour?? so you think its in your favour?? were jarrah is claiming they used 2/3 speed and ropes to produce the effect and yet the effect doesnt even line up with john youngs jump?? its supposed to be the same, the height jumped is the same but why does john young stay "airborne" longer than the mythbusters??
Why does he stay "airborne" longer?
I went over this point already, didn't I?
I asked you a question -
If they suspended a person (by using wires) in mid-air a bit longer than the Mythbusters guy was suspended, what is the result?
Well, this person would land a bit after John Young did.
Do you understand that wires can be rigged up to suspend a person in mid-air for virtually any length of time, whether it's just for a fraction of a second, or it's for a few seconds, or several hours?
So they could have suspended the Mythbusters guy in mid-air for any length of time, of course.
He could have been suspended in mid-air longer than Young was, which means he would land AFTER Young did.
So what?
“Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”
SayonaraJupiter
By the way, posting a photo of yourself with Alan Bean is considered propaganda of the 'testimonial' kind.
edit on 10/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: fix my damn tags
Apollo Defenders often claim, using glittering generalities that there is a universal hegemony amongst the scientific community but when looking at the situation closely it does seem that there are problematic issues with the provenance of moon rocks and the interpretations of seismographic data.
I'm wondering how the Apollo Defenders are going to squirm away from "extreme disagreements" and "considerable controversy". I wait for good answers.
turbonium1
It doesn't matter either way, because NASA is in control of the whole thing.
So if NASA's satellite images become 'Apollo' images, nobody would know the difference.
What's the problem?
So when I get in touch with Australia's Meteorological Office and they send me their own historic copies of NIMBUS images that they downloaded independently of NASA (who launched, but did not manage, the weather satellites) and that show cloud patterns you can see in Apollo images, how does that work?
When you have images of clouds shown live on TV and in newspapers before it could be possible to have all the satellite images combined into a whole image of Earth, how does that work?
Saying NASA must have done it and demonstrating how it must have been done are two different things, and the latter never seems to be forthcoming.
onebigmonkey
So what are you claiming here? NASA faked the weather? Here's the thing - NASA may have launched the satellites but they didn't manage them, that was done by the Environmental Science and Services Administration, so I guess your only argument here is that Americans faked the weather.
Unfortunately for that rather feeble argument the satellite data could be received worldwide by any country that had the equipment, and even by amateurs who had the equipment eg see here.
So, instead of just trying a nudge nudge wink wink approach, how about actually looking at that evidence and producing a considered response. Here is just one example of the dozens I have looked at from every Apollo mission.
On July 16 1969 Apollo 11 made a TV broadcast after TLI. During that TV broadcast they showed a view of Earth. That view of Earth matches exactly what should have been visible in terms of the land mass, position of the terminator and so on.
Several newspapers took photographs of that broadcast, and one of them put that photograph on the front page on July 17th, so we know for a fact that it had to be from before that date. Here's that newspaper front page.
Now let's have a look at that picture compared with a screenshot from the video, just so we can prove it's the same thing:
During the build up to the launch, Hurricane Bernice was developing in the Eastern Pacific. Here are some photographs of it developing:
It should be evident from that images above that the hurricane had a very distinct form on July the 16th, so it should be obvious don't you think?
What the crew also did was take photographs of the same view, and below you can see a section of one of those stills compared with the July 16th satellite photograph of Hurricane Bernice and the video still:
Every other weather pattern can also be made out as on the two satellite images compared with a still iamge of the same view from my site:
I've even added some pretty coloured arrows to help you out
So, we have a TV broadcast on July 16th showing a hurricane in a form only visible on that day, and which can also be seen in the image pictured on the front of the next day's newspaper. The satellite image would not have been available at the time of the TV transmission, because it would have taken several orbits to complete. I'd venture to suggest that it would not have been compiled in time for it to be on the front page of the Coshocton Tribune. Oh, and it was only available in black & white - not colour.
So if you have any kind of rational explanation other than "I don't trust NASA", then I'd love to hear it. None of the above is NASA research - it's mine, and the only thing that's from a NASA site is the original video and photograph.
edit on 13-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: and another thing...
SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr
The video you posted shows a guy using the 400,000 fallacy but he boldly increases it to "half a million."
Joe Rogan would destroy that guy far worse than he destroyed Phil Plait. The 400,000 is a fallacy because only 12 men can claim to have walked on the moon. You are using propaganda of the 'bandwagon'.