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.

 

NVIDIA Simulation Debunks Apollo 11 Moon Landing Hoax

page: 6
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme



One thing I noticed is that their simulation is very bright.


That's because they are using an assumed brightness, based on the Total Solar Irradience measured at Earth, but no TSI measurements were made on the lunar surface. All the video cameras had trouble with the poor lighting conditions, and the still shots were all processed by NASA to get the best results. The lunar surface is dim, as the majority of the light is from Earthshine, with some very feeble light from the Sun being created by the thin lunar ionosphere. It is Earths atmosphere that creates the bright light we get at the surface (and the heat), with so little lunar atmosphere it is dim, and cool.




posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ngchunter



You're missing the point. I said they never looked like the weighed 60 lbs.

They never tossed underhand, out of the door, anything that would fall for the camera in 1/6 Earth's gravity.

I presume the video was of the feather and hammer. If they were faking it, couldn't they time that out?

After several astronaut days on the moon, there should be some example of 1/6 gravitational force manifesting itself. There was no regular activity that witnessed 1/6 gravity.

They weighed 60 lbs!

The real point of the moon shot must have been to make people believers, because the lack of evidence is insulting.

Have you ever seen Monty Python and the Holy Grail? They weight about 30 moon pounds








edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ngchunter



You're missing the point. I said they never looked like the weighed 60 lbs.

You said that based on your own ignorance of the physics and the fact that they have far more mass, and therefore inertia, than you clearly realize. They do move like they should in the moon's low gravity.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
They never tossed underhand, out of the door, anything that would fall for the camera in 1/6 Earth's gravity.

Yes they did. Try actually watching the archives of the footage sometime. I've seen it for myself on my Apollo 15 DVDs of the original footage. Before making more a priori and false assumptions DO YOUR RESEARCH.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Mass = Weight X Constant. They are directly proportional and are effectively the same.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mass and weight are two different things. The mass does not decrease simply because it's on the moon. You just failed physics again. An astronaut who weight 60 pounds on the moon has about 163 kg of mass.
en.wikipedia.org...

And by the way, yes they did show a slowed descent rate. You're just lying now.


I never said mass decreases, I said weight,

You said they were "effectively the same." Wrong. Dead wrong. You failed physics. Mass matters, inertia matters. They weigh 0 pounds relative to their spacecraft while in orbit, but it still requires energy for them to push themselves around because they have MASS. It's easier because they don't have to fight against gravity, yes, but it still takes a fair bit of strength to get objects with a lot of mass moving, and the same energy to get them to stop. Same goes for an astronaut who's loaded down with a massive life support backpack which will throw off his center of gravity. And we're back to the same discussion we were at before. See above for the calculations on why they CANNOT do the ridiculous things you suggested without likely killing themselves.
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Or jump really high and fall back really slow. And they never did.

False. A priori assumption which does not take into account ANY of the actual complications including:
The fact that they could barely bend their legs inside their space suits and had to jump flat footed.
The fact that their very lives depended on the life support system that they were wearing on their backs which was also very massive and offset their center of gravity such that they would fall on their backs if they jumped too hard

And yes, Charlie Duke did just that and was very lucky he didn't damage his PLSS. He realized immediately after he had done it how stupid that was.
www.youtube.com...


Suit and astronaut inside of suit together weighed 60 pounds.

Weight != Mass. Two different things. Still flat footed, still offset center of mass. Everything I said stands.


Jumping out of the LM door to a landing the surface of the moon would have less impact than jumping up and down on Earth.

Doesn't matter. There is still a lot of mass involved and a lot of inertia, and to make matters worse you'd be landing on your life support system on a jagged lunar surface and rocks that could damage it. A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height of the LEM) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so.
www.acs.psu.edu...
That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules. Any questions?


And yes, I already showed you the jumps that proved the really could jump high if they wanted, if you want to live in denial that is your issue.


The height to the top of the lander is 17 feet, the height from the door to the lunar surface is more like 6 feet.

Sorry, I was wrong; the height of the lander is about 21 feet.
www.astronautix.com...
www.astronautix.com...
In the above diagram it's 275 pixels tall, which translates to about 13.1 pixels per feet making the little astronaut about 5 feet tall. From the footpad to the door is about 11.4 feet. If you wanted to stand up at the door and jump from there to the lunar surface and you were about 5 feet tall, that means the PLSS pack would be falling from a total height of no less than at least 14 feet or so. The top of the PLSS would fall from a height of... about 16.4 feet. Instead of making drastic underestimations, try actually doing some research into these things sometime.


Wiki says Apollo Lunar Module height is 17 feet 9 inches

Wiki is less reliable than astronautix in my experience but in any case...


Lunar Egress Module is 12.33 feet

Congrats you just verified my calculations.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ngchunter

This is off topic so last one from me.

The astronauts bodies generate the same inertia as on Earth, however the gravity is 1/6 that of Earth.

If being on the moon was a crime, there is no way to prove the astronauts guilty from the films.



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Higher than I thought, not a job requirement, but still doable with the right frame of mind.

Let me be clear so that no one is mislead by you. The ONLY state of mind in which that is doable is SUICIDE.
A 60 pound astronaut (who still has about 163 kg of MASS) falling from about 17 feet up (the height the PLSS would be as you lept off the porch) on the moon would land with a velocity of about 14.4 km/hr and hit with a force of about 1306 joules. To put that in perspective, a major league hitter can swing a 40 ounce bat somewhere around 60 mph or so. That works out to an energy of only about 408 joules. So falling from the LM door to the surface on your back would result in several times more energy imparted to the PLSS than a major league baseball player swinging a bat as hard as he can at it. That doesn't sound safe or less impactful to me. An average 20-29 year old male can jump about 19.7 inches high. The force of a 50kg male jumping that high is only about 245 Joules.
edit on 19-9-2014 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: ngchunter

This is off topic so last one from me.

The astronauts bodies generate the same inertia as on Earth,

And while wearing their space suits with their heavy life support equipment that is a considerable amount of inertia. Jumping off the LEM would be extraordinarily dangerous. The awkward center of mass offset induced by the PLSS would naturally cause you to rotate backwards JUST LIKE CHARLIE DUKE DID from a much smaller jump. Landing on your back from that height would likely damage the PLSS. Your assumptions about "what they should have done and looked like as they were doing it" is based on your own personal and incorrect assumptions and preconceived notions.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: GaryN

Wrong.

The vast majority of the light reflected by the lunar surface is from sunshine. They took images of the lunar surface from orbit visible from Earthshine alone and they had to use special film to do it. You can see Earthshine on the moon from Earth and it is nothing like as bright as the reflected sunlight.



Light does not need an atmosphere to produce a reflection.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Sometimes I believe that the purpose of claiming it was hoax was to bring ridicule to conspiracy theories in general, thus helping to conceal the real ones.

Some may think.. "These conspiracy theories are ridiculous, just like the conspiracy that the moon landing was a hoax, people will believe anything.."



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21

You have a topsy-turvy view of the situation. There are no good arguments in favour of the moon landings being a hoax. There is plenty of solid evidence that they did happen. The arguments of the hoax-believers stem mostly from not understanding physics and technological aspects of those missions. But, as the hoax theory has been peddled for decades, all the arguments have been addressed. The hoax-believers just don't want to listen, or constantly move goalposts when feeling cornered. There's just no winning with you guys, it's like a religion for you. I see a very strong similarity between moon hoax believers, Electric Universe believers, and the Creationists. You are comparing video and photo footage, as well as a plethora of other data, to the Bible? Really?

I'm not an American myself, the moon landings aren't that personal to me, but denying ignorance is. All evidence I look at points to the moon landings really happening.
edit on 20-9-2014 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAZ21
That's quite interesting.

But why don't we have modern astronauts with modern cameras on the moon showing us in high definition today? At the very least can they send up a remote control vehicle with some HD camera attached that we can get some real visuals of the moon surface rather than telescope imagery??

And if this exists already can someone post it, because I can't find anything anywhere...


We don't have that because we don't know how to lift modern astronauts up from the moon surface and bring them back to earth.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 03:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Landing stuff on the moon seems reasonable. The moon could have just about anything manmade on it. A machine could have landed and scooped up some moon rocks and come back to Earth.

The astronauts didn't move around like they weighed only 60 lbs, They should have been able to jump into the LEM without the ladder. Or jump really high and fall back really slow. And they never did.


Wikipedia: Because weight is directly dependent upon gravitational acceleration, things on the Moon will weigh only 16.6% of what they weigh on the Earth.

100 kg = 16,6 kg on the moon
150 kg = 24,9 kg on the moon
200 kg = 33,2 kg on the moon

So, Yes they should be able to jump really high, and they never did




posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Provide some calculations to show that the Saturn V couldn't do this.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

Do provide us with some maths to show how high you think they should have been able to jump in a bulky suit carrying a lot of mass.

Then google the jump salute.
edit on 20-9-2014 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 04:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

I challenge you to jump as high (and fall back as slowly), while wearing the EVA suit, as it happens in this video: www.youtube.com...



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:53 AM
link   
(New member here - but I've been watching for a while)

In regards to physics and mass. A 20kg (44lbs) rock on earth would weigh 3.3kg (7lbs) on the moon and would be incredibly easy to pick up. However, regardless of what it weighs if you were to give it a kick as hard as you could you'd probably smash your foot to smithereens because it would still have a mass of 20kg, if you look at newtons laws of motion (newtons 3rd law) you will see the 20kg mass would impart an equal and opposite force to the kickers foot.

Now considering the mass of the astronaut is constant regardless of the weight he experiences it may be 'easy' to push away from the lunar surface but the thump upon returning is still proportional to the astronauts mass. Think of an astronaut in a zero g environment for a moment holding a 500kg mass, pushing off from one wall and colliding with another.. As that astronaut I would much prefer to be the other side of that mass rather than between it and the wall. It may seem easy to get that mass moving but the energy is gradual in acceleration but he would likely be crushed to death trying to stop it.

So, on the moon, falling with the mass of the suit and body weight is dangerous still even if the moon was 1/100g or 1/6 g. Mass is constant and the forces required to halt (or move) is still the same (in a simplified manner). Pushing, lifting and jumping are slow increases in momentum whereas hitting the lunar surface is rather sudden.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DAZ21




With technology today it would be a thousand times easier to pull off a moon landing.

Also, if they did put some rover up there at least with a high definition camera and went to the site of the moon landing, I'm sure there would still be evidence of the moon landing. This would once and for all prove the moon landing was in fact real and they'd finally shut every one up.

It's almost as if they don't want to prove they've walked on the moon...



It's quite simple, we have already been there many times. It is not interesting, telescopes can see it pretty good. We know what it is. We have craft from other countries flying around it right now. The moon is boring. NASA wants to go to places they haven't been, places that are not boring. It's like a family planning a trip back to Disney Land after they have been there 10 times. The kids are like, can't we go someplace else? Like Vegas?


V



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 06:21 AM
link   
The video was made to prove that the lighting in the shadows was possible. They proved that pretty well. They proved that a light source could be reflected by the suit enough to illuminate parts in the shadows. It doesn't prove what the light source was.

If this was staged they would of had a light source acting as the sun which would still reflect off of the suit causing the same effect.

It doesn't provide evidence to support either view. Just that the image is real, wherever it was taken.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join