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.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 2
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   
There are only three questions needed to be asked to debunk this theory, in any situation:
1. Why no accusations of fraud from the Soviets?
2. Why can we literally see the landing site?
3. Why has nobody come forward? Unlike an operation like 9/11 thousands of people would have to have been involved.

Answer me these and I might start giving credence to this, but until then this, to me is one of the most farfetched conspiracies out there on the same tier as hollow earth and gangstalking.




posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
You do realize that the Soviets and US cooperated on the day of the first manned moon landing? The Soviets tried to beat the US in returning lunar samples back to Earth. The Russian unmanned craft crashed into the Moon while Apollo 11 was on the surface. The Soviets informed the US of the unmanned probes flight plan to ensure that it would not collide with Apollo 11. The Soviets were closely monitoring Apollo 11 so where is the claims at the time from the Russians that the US never successfully completed a manned mission to the Moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

Why did the Soviets congratulate the US on the mission and invite Neil Armstrong to visit and give talks in Russia? The Soviets monitored and acknowledged that the US had successfully won the Moon Race.


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   
Recently Putin called for an investigation into the Apollo moon landings. During the moon landings, the USA and the USSR were allies in space with the Apollo Soyuz project.

With so many of the Apollo photos airbrushed it is not hard to imagine, especially in this day, that the satellite imagery could also be a ruse. Even today the Hubble telescope can't image the sites.

I would guess that nobody would ever come forward because it would be too dangerous, ridicule, and loss of pensions, jail time.

Who will ever know all the truths nowadays when we live in a time where everything is classified and leads to speculations. We would all be amazed if we knew the true histories.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

You can see the landing site with even consumer-grade telescopes. It is a fairly popular target among even amateur telescope enthusiasts and there are guides to doing it online.

Putin and the Russian government's opinion on any US-related conspiracy is the furthest thing from objective possible and therefore worthless. Russia and the USSR have had nearly half a century to make their case that the moon landing was staged and they haven't, it is only being dragged out by Putin now out of sheer political convienience and pettiness.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: TamtammyMacx

No they didn't. In fact they said that they were NOT saying the landings were faked, they wanted to investigate the missing moon rocks, because they were so historically important. And it wasn't Putin, it was a lawmaker.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

You don't need atmosphere to slow down. You need a thruster firing in the opposite direction. And you don't have to slow down all at once.
edit on 8/1/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

The lander was 2 seperate parts, each with it's own propulsion system. The actual lander stayed on the surface, while the return capsule launched back to orbit to dock with the command module.
It left behind a good deal of the mass that was carried to the surface, such as the LEM, seismographs, various other equipment, and the bottom half of the original configuration. As for the fuel tanks which were utilized for the landing rockets, you're quite correct. They were essentially empty upon touchdown.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
So, apparently the capsule was going about 2100 miles per hour when they got to the moon (3800 feet per second).

history.nasa.gov...

How can you slow the lander down from two thousand miles an hour with no atmosphere so that you don't crash, and then get it back up to 2100 mph after take off for docking? If you don't reach 2100 mph again then you'll be obliterated when redocking. Even at 1/6 gravity that would still take a hell of a lot of fuel which I seriously doubt they could fit in that lander.


Look up the specs - more than half the mass of the LM was aerozine and NTO for thrust. It had more than enough delta-V, especially in that gravity.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
I just looked up the escape velocity of the moon and if my math is right 2.4 kilometers per second equals about 5000 miles per hour that the lander would have to get up to to escape the moon en.wikipedia.org...

Then they would have to fire more fuel to slow down to 2000 miles per hour for redocking with the capsule in orbit. Add that to the fuel they used to slow down and position for landing and that's probably to much fuel for that lander to carry.


That's not the way "escape velocity" works. Escape velocity is the speed you have to be going (for a ballistic object) to leave another body and keep going. Not the speed it takes to get into orbit.

So, no, they didn't have to reach escape velocity and then slow down to orbital velocity.

Go back and re-read your cite, for content and not keywords.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days and still being used by scientists today ?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Which original tapes were recreated? I don't think any were, or if so just a few scraps.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: CB328

How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days and still being used by scientists today ?

Those were faked by Kubrick too, or didn't you know that?



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Reallyfolks
a reply to: CB328

I've seen a theory posted that the landing was real but the pictures and transmissions were faked due to what was found. Who knows. I suspect if any of the conspiracies are true we would never know anyway.
I like that theory, I've read/heard it before too, it makes sense if they had to cover up some of the stuff they found up there. Like if there was any evidence of prior visitors to the Moon.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   


How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days


They could have been left there by the robotic lander.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328



How would you explain the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment left up there during the Apollo days


They could have been left there by the robotic lander.


How could the robotic lander land? It, too, would have had to slow from orbital velocity to a touchdown speed of zero, right? Right?


+5 more 
posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I am not sure what to believe when it comes to the Moon landing. It definitely seems suspect, but I don't know. What I do find irritating, is that so many people refuse the possibility of it having been faked. They act like it's totally impossible for such a thing to have been faked and become infuriated by the idea, which to me screams emotional bias.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Funcaldunkal

Because there are certain facts that believers in this theory refuse to ever directly address, such as the lack of cynicism from the Russians and the fact that the landing site is perfectly visible even to amateur telescope enthusiasts.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Funcaldunkal




What I do find irritating, is that so many people refuse the possibility of it having been faked. They act like it's totally impossible for such a thing to have been faked and become infuriated by the idea, which to me screams emotional bias.

To me it screams they know what they're talking about , the evidence of the Moon landings is there if you chose to look.


They are still being used today.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Questioning things is good. Asking how things work is also good. Assuming things are bad.

You said that they were going so fast, that they would need a tremendous amount of fuel to slow down. You also said that they would need a tremendous amount of fuel to leave the moon and get aback up to speed.

As you pointed out: the moon's gravity is only 1/6 of the Earths. Also, while in space, your craft is weightless. It does have mass though, but without an opposing force (gravity, drag, etc), it does not require quite as much fuel as you would think to change direction, slow down, or accelerate.

2,100 Mph is a CRAWL compared to orbital velocities closer to Earth, or interplanetary speeds. You have small missiles here on Earth that can achieve that velocity with out much fuel, and with stronger gravity and drag acting upon them.

The entire LEM module for Apollo 11 weight 33,500 pounds, here on Earth. On the moon it was only 5,583 pounds. So in order to land on the moon, you would need an engine that can thrust that. The Descent Stage engine had a thrust of 10,125 and the tanks of fuel for the Descent Stage was 18,000 pounds, so it had more than enough to slow the lander and bring it down with a soft landing, since even with all it's fuel, it only weight 5,583 pounds on the moon.

The Ascent Stage weighed (with fuel) 10,300 pounds here on Earth. On the moon it was only 1,716 pounds. A LOT lighter. The Ascent engine was able to thrust 3,500, more than enough to get the Ascent stage up and accelerated to orbital velocity for the moon, especially when of the 10,300 pounds the stage weighed here on the Earth, 5,780 pounds of it was fuel for the Ascent engine.

In order to land, the LEM only had to burn it's engine long enough to decay it's orbit around the moon so that orbit would intersect with the moon itself. That burn doesn't take very long, especially if your orbital velocity is so low already. That leaves plenty of fuel to move around and slow the craft down for a gentle landing.

Taking off: again, with the weight of the Ascent module being only 1/6 of what it would be here on Earth, the Ascent engine was not only more than powerful enough to lift the Ascent Stage into orbit, but had plenty of fuel to do so.

You do not have to take my word for it. Do the research and the math, you'll find that all the numbers check out. Which is a good reason that Moon Hoaxers do not try to go down this path, because they know they are barking up the wrong tree here. Even they know that the LEM's engines and fuel with the moon's gravity were more than enough to work just fine.



posted on Aug, 1 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Shamrock6
And yet decades later, not one of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who were involved with the moon landings has ever come forward to say they were faked.

People are such good secret keepers.

Not to mention the other nations like Russia who were watching every minute of the landings would have been the first ones to scream fake.
Ooooh, so you think Russia isn't in on the game, huh? You really believe it's Us vs "Them", huh? The only "enemy" we have is GOVERNMENT! And government feels the same about us.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join