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: 23
57
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 9 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman




but the some of the footage is fake and a lot of the photos are fake.

False.

I'm not sure you're capable if making that call if you haven't even done enough research to know or understand how the PLSS worked. If all you have is rehashed errors from Kaysig via Cooper about it. Seems you really don't know much of anything about Apollo at all.

edit on 11/9/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman




"I'm going to tell them that, for me, and my interpretation of everything that's come my way, I cannot arrive at the idea that we have been visited -- either in the past or now," Musgrave told The Huffington Post.

Yes. Like me, Musgrave does not conclude that we have been visited.
Unlike both Musgrave and myself, Mitchell has a different opinion.


edit on 11/10/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

Some type of layered gold based material would reflect radiation and heat and conduct heat away from the suit into the liquid water tubes out into space.


you talked about a vacuum before and how it was a near perfect insulator, so the only thing you need to be concerned about is reflecting sunlight to minimise heating from the sun, in which case any very reflective surface will reflect nearly all the heat from the sun.


Space would not cool the water you would have either needed to re-pressurize it or just let it disperse into space taking heat out of the suit with it.


space will cool the heated water eventually by radiating it itself although the process is comparatively slow


How much water would you need to keep cooling them down?


they carried over 5 litres cooling water for an 8 hour EVA..


Look I am not saying they never walked on the moon. I believe that something happened up there that was censored from the public.(all the fake moon video and photos).

Ruins? ET contact? Off world space bases? Who knows. There has to be a reason for the fake photos.


it doesnt matter what you say about the moon landing, what matters is that you are trying to refute the science behind it.

international astronauts around the world that do EVA's in LEO are in the same environment none of them have been cooked by the sun yet.. theres no special unheard of super secret technology that magically dissipates heat, its just intelligent use of existing technology.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 04:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

Cooling in space is definitely doable. It just takes a different approach.

You have to mostly depend on radiating the heat away. This is eased somewhat by the fact that your radiative sink is at absolute zero. You can also sublimate, and that was done a lot.


Radiate into what?

Space is a near perfect insulator there is nothing to radiate into.

There is no gases or matter to transfer molecular vibration to.

Space has no temperature there is almost nothing there to vibrate(heat) and its a near ideal insulator.


There are several ways to transfer energy by heat. Among them convection and conduction, which as you point out, won't be happening. However, you seem to be unaware that objects transfer heat energy as the fourth power of the temperature difference between them. A hot object, given essentially an absolute zero radiative sink (the space background away from the sun), will merrily radiate its heat energy as EM.

It doesn't take metamaterials. Or anything else, really, it's basic basic physics. How do you think the Sun warms you?



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 09:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
...and the whole van allen belt killing you with radiation with ALOT of lead protection.

Bad idea.

Lead (and other heavy metals) are the worst type of shielding for the types of charged particles in the Van Allen Belts. The radiation in the Van Allen Belts consists of relatively heavier particles -- protons and neutrons -- than normal EM radiation (such as X-rays) that are carried by photons, which are far lighter particles (in fact, only a photon's momentum gives it mass).

By using lead shielding in an attempt to stop these heavier charged particles, you would actually be causing a secondary radiation -- known as "Bremsstrahlung" (which means "braking radiation" in German) -- to be emitted from the lead shielding itself. This is due to the interaction between the cosmic particle radiation and the heavy atoms of the lead.

So if you shielded a person in a lead cocoon and subjected the outside of that cocoon to the type of radiation found in the Van Allen Belts, you would cause a shower of dangerous secondary radiation -- Bremsstrahlung -- from the lead itself to rain down on the person inside. Aluminum works much better in stopping the type of radiation found in the Van Allen Belts.


edit on 11/10/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
One of the most compelling conspiracies to me is the Apollo Moon Missions. I have seen a lot of information on different theories of how or why they could be fake and here is my take on it. Granted some of these are circumstantial or opinonated, but as they say where there's smoke there's fire and with this much smoke there has to be a fire somewhere.

1. Moon landing tapes got erased, NASA admits
www.reuters.com...

Lost and then recreated. Sorry, that's suspicious to me.

2. NASA Has Lost Hundreds of Its Moon Rocks, New Report Says
www.space.com...

3. Why would they lose moon rocks? Maybe because they're fake?

Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin is fake
www.telegraph.co.uk...

4. Nasa didn't provide a feed of moon landing video, the news media had to film it from a TV screen! This is very suspicious to me, very controlling.
www.apfn.org...

5. There are no flaws in the moon pictures. Going through radiation, heat and subzero temperatures yet the film all made it back in pristine condition? There aren't even some blurry pictures that you might expect. Extremely suspicious.

www.apfn.org...

6. Dangerous stunts on the moon. Golfing, running, jumping on the moon? If you traveled to one of the deadliest places in the universe and the only thing keeping you alive was some layers of cloth and a helmet would you risk instant death by cavorting around like a 12 year old? Or a slower death by using up your oxygen? Not to mention most of the astronauts were ex military people who would be more serious and methodical than acting like buffoons.

7. Astronauts differing accounts of viewing stars from the moon.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

8. Strange moon pictures. I am not a photographic expert, but it sure looks to me like the background and foreground on many of the pictures are two different pictures spliced together, or made with a backdrop, like Stanley Kubric is famous for using in 2001 a Space Odessey. In this picture you have the foreground, then you have a mountain in the background that looks like it was filmed from 50 or 100 miles away. Maybe it was, filmed from a probe and then that photo used as a backdrop in a studio?

www.google.com... korea.co.kr%2Farticle%2F2295%2Fspace-exploration-korean-government-aiming-launch-its-own-space-vehicles-2020&ei=td28Ve33INC2ogSQw7qYBQ&bvm=bv.99261572 ,d.cGU&psig=AFQjCNERhRjC09ETpFNfWigoV14p4z0W3w&ust=1438527290960423

9. Disney has a giant moon surface set that the descent could have been filmed with. The capsule descent footage sure looks like a model to me. I can't find a link to this but I saw a video once of the huge moonscape with a camera boom in front of it for filming moon footage.

10. How did they travel at thousands of miles an hour to reach the moon, then slow down enough so that they could descend and land without flipping over, then after redocking speed back up to get back to earth in the same amount of time as the trip out when they had a giant Saturn rocket to get the up to speed?

[snipped]



The moon landings were not faked. There is too much evidence to prove that they were actually there.

Not they may have saw UFOs and edited that out.



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman




"I'm going to tell them that, for me, and my interpretation of everything that's come my way, I cannot arrive at the idea that we have been visited -- either in the past or now," Musgrave told The Huffington Post.

Yes. Like me, Musgrave does not conclude that we have been visited.
Unlike both Musgrave and myself, Mitchell has a different opinion.



The point is he believes there are ETs.
Another point is that astronauts believe in ETs and UFOs or may have seen them directly.
Its silly to think there are no ETs.

Its also unlikely they haven't visited us.(some of them may have millions of years of propulsion technology it isn't a stretch to believe they have visited us at one or more times in the past).
Maybe they have their own prime directive and are not allowed to interfere with developing lifeforms.

I was wrong about the refrigeration unit they used and the efficiency of it that is why I thought the heat from the sun would cook them without the heat being removed from the suit by some medium.
seeing how they can just use water as heat transfer medium it solves the "hot suit" problem.

Again I don't believe the moon landings were faked.
I believed the technologies used to keep them cool and shielded from solar/cosmic radiation was more advanced than they disclosed to the public.

I am not saying for certain anything. This is just my opinion. I didn't work as a NASA engineer in 1965-1968 nor am I an astronaut myself.


edit on 10-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content

edit on 10-11-2015 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: added content



posted on Nov, 10 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
...and the whole van allen belt killing you with radiation with ALOT of lead protection.

Bad idea.

Lead (and other heavy metals) are the worst type of shielding for the types of charged particles in the Van Allen Belts. The radiation in the Van Allen Belts consists of relatively heavier particles -- protons and neutrons -- than normal EM radiation (such as X-rays) that are carried by photons, which are far lighter particles (in fact, only a photon's momentum gives it mass).

By using lead shielding in an attempt to stop these heavier charged particles, you would actually be causing a secondary radiation -- known as "Bremsstrahlung" (which means "braking radiation" in German) -- to be emitted from the lead shielding itself. This is due to the interaction between the cosmic particle radiation and the heavy atoms of the lead.

So if you shielded a person in a lead cocoon and subjected the outside of that cocoon to the type of radiation found in the Van Allen Belts, you would cause a shower of dangerous secondary radiation -- Bremsstrahlung -- from the lead itself to rain down on the person inside. Aluminum works much better in stopping the type of radiation found in the Van Allen Belts.



So lead causes secondary radiation from heavier charged particles but shields low mass charged particles. Hmm didn't know that.

So lead based nuclear suits work with radiation in fission reactors but not in space with cosmic radiation/heavy charged ions?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   
Been reading this thread with interest in particular cooling can someone say what the daytime temperature on the moon is?



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: John_Rodger_Cornman

The energy of the two particles is radically different. Lead works great in reactors because they're low energy particles. Lead is deadly in space because they're high energy particles.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
Been reading this thread with interest in particular cooling can someone say what the daytime temperature on the moon is?


It depends.

There is no ambient temperature, because there is no air to be warmed up, so there is only the temperature of objects in direct sunlight.

That temperature varies with the lunar day, and materials receive more solar radiation at lunar mid-day compared with lunar morning.

Apollo missions landed during the early part of the lunar day, so did not experience the highest temperatures achievable by something in constant sunlight, which would be around 123 degrees Celsius.



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey
Great thanks for that, out of interest how did they cool down the lander when they were inside?????



posted on Nov, 11 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: redchad
a reply to: onebigmonkey
Great thanks for that, out of interest how did they cool down the lander when they were inside?????


The lander also had sublimation equipment to help with cooling, and bear in mind that while half of it was in the sun the other half was in the shade, which helped to balance the heat budget.

ntrs.nasa.gov...



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
What I will keep repeating is that all you are doing is fiddling with video speed and insisting it proves something, which it doesn't.


No, like old movies are clearly faster than normal speed, we have only to see it, to know that it is faster...

What proof would you require?


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Once again you are deciding for me what your argument is. Kind of you I'm sure.


No, you want me to prove one is faster than the other...

Old movies are faster. Can we also prove it is faster?

Same as the case for Apollo, then...


originally posted by: onebigmonkey
What you need to do here is either prove your point or give up trying to make it. You have nothing but your own unsupported, unmeasured opinion to go on. You are relying solely on "gee, it kinda looks funny".


There are two films, not one film...

You know that, of course.

You also say 'it' looks 'silly', as if two films are one, as 'it'...

So why is one film 'silly'?...because they move much faster than 'normal', Earth speed. The speed makes them look 'silly', to us. And that's why everyone - even you, and every other Apollo-ites - say it looks 'silly'.

And we know that, without any measurements done.

You don't have proof. You say it is silly. You say it is too fast.

Because you know that humans cannot move that fast - not on the Earth, or the moon, or in the vacuum of space ...

You don't need to measure anything to prove they move at different speeds, when these two films are set to 2x speed. Apollo-ites say that astronauts look silly, funny, goofy, when the film is set to 2x original speed. So do you.

How do you know the astronauts move at the same speed? You have no proof they move at the same speed, in fact.

You say that they are moving too fast, in both films, at 2x speed. You have made no measurements, to prove they are all moving too fast....right?

You just see it, and you say it all looks funny, and goofy, to you - in both of the clips, set to 2x speed.

How do you know if it is too fast? Because, you've compared it to normal, Earth-bound speed. It looks faster than normal speed, to you...

You've proven my point, clearly.



originally posted by: onebigmonkey
If you can insist that people measure every gain of sand in a rooster tail video, I am insisting you back up your claim that the two different videos show different movement speeds. I'm sure someone out there has done the maths so that you can copy and paste it.


Nobody could ever match to your superb 'dust' fiasco, being complete non-science.


After seeing the Apollo 15 clip at 2x speed, you Apollo-ites (like all of us) thought it looked silly, and goofy. This was based on all of us knowing for a fact - that we are not capable of performing those movements, at that speed, here on Earth.

We know that old movies are faster than real, normal speed, in the very same way. No doubt.


You want me to make measurements, which is just another red herring. You won't ever say what specifically to measure, so this way, it goes around, and around, in circles. Just like you want it to..

No measurements are needed, to prove my claim....

In science, one has to be able to REPEAT a claim, or a theory, in order to make it a valid claim. To prove the claim, we must replicate it. Or, in the opposite case - by showing that it CANNOT be replicated....


This is how to prove that the Apollo 11 astronaut is at normal speed, while the Apollo 15 astronauts move faster than normal speed

All we need to do is show whether or not the astronauts' movements can be replicated on Earth...and perform the movements at the exact same (or within range) speed, of course.

I have already compared the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed to the Apollo 11 crew on Earth, walking towards the launchpad...

The speed is normal. They replicate their own walk, in terms of the speed - their walking movements can be easily done on Earth.

All other movements of the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed appear to be easily repeatable on Earth, as well. Nothing the astronaut does is beyond doing here, or even remotely too fast, as to be not repeatable by humans on Earth.
Only the wires are needed to replicate everything, at the same speed. This isn't relevant to the speed, anyway..so now...

Apollo 15 at 2x speed...

Can we replicate the astronauts' movements at the same speed, here on Earth, or not?

Can you finally see the serious problem, now?



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
No, like old movies are clearly faster than normal speed, we have only to see it, to know that it is faster...


Prove it.



What proof would you require?


Measurements, maths, that kind of thing - you know, proof instead of your unsupported conjecture and opinion.


No, you want me to prove one is faster than the other...


Yep, pretty much it. I also want you to prove that it is sped up at all, and that the motion they are presenting (and that of the material they disturb) is somehow impossible and unrepresentative of a lunar environment. Any time you like.


Old movies are faster. Can we also prove it is faster?


Yes. Off you go. Prove your point or stop making it.



Same as the case for Apollo, then...
There are two films, not one film...

You know that, of course.

You also say 'it' looks 'silly', as if two films are one, as 'it'...


I do know there are two films. I do know that the movements of the astronauts when they are sped up by some arbitrary value plucked out of thin are not those that you would see on Earth.

Ever.

Prove your point, or stop making it.


So why is one film 'silly'?...because they move much faster than 'normal', Earth speed. The speed makes them look 'silly', to us. And that's why everyone - even you, and every other Apollo-ites - say it looks 'silly'.

And we know that, without any measurements done.

You don't have proof. You say it is silly. You say it is too fast.

Because you know that humans cannot move that fast - not on the Earth, or the moon, or in the vacuum of space ...


That's right, when you speed up the Apollo LIVE TV FOOTAGE (important point that, you keep forgetting it) it looks ridiculous and not like any human motion you ever see anywhere. Neither broadcast looks right sped up.


You don't need to measure anything to prove they move at different speeds, when these two films are set to 2x speed. Apollo-ites say that astronauts look silly, funny, goofy, when the film is set to 2x original speed. So do you.


But you are repeating the claims of others that the footage has been slowed down to make it look right, and have (or rather the people you are parroting) have plucked a value out of thin air with absolutely no justification for that figure whatsoever. So justify it.


How do you know the astronauts move at the same speed? You have no proof they move at the same speed, in fact.

You say that they are moving too fast, in both films, at 2x speed. You have made no measurements, to prove they are all moving too fast....right?

You just see it, and you say it all looks funny, and goofy, to you - in both of the clips, set to 2x speed.

How do you know if it is too fast? Because, you've compared it to normal, Earth-bound speed. It looks faster than normal speed, to you...

You've proven my point, clearly.


So you're saying I should provide some kind of proof that the footage, when speeded up, is too fast, but you don;t need to justify the arbitrary values you have copied and pasted from other people?


Nobody could ever match to your superb 'dust' fiasco, being complete non-science.


So you have absolutely no calculations or science that proves that the maths done on footage like the rooster tail video are wrong? You are offering no proof at all that the material disturbed by the rover wheels is not in a lunar environment other than your own unsupported opinion based on what some basement dwelling ignoramus has told you?


After seeing the Apollo 15 clip at 2x speed, you Apollo-ites (like all of us) thought it looked silly, and goofy. This was based on all of us knowing for a fact - that we are not capable of performing those movements, at that speed, here on Earth.

We know that old movies are faster than real, normal speed, in the very same way. No doubt.


Because you can tell that the movements are not normal, just like they aren't normal in Apollo footage when you speed it up.


You want me to make measurements, which is just another red herring. You won't ever say what specifically to measure, so this way, it goes around, and around, in circles. Just like you want it to..


Find something. You want us to prove things but you don't have to. You either have the material to analyse or you don't. You claim that the speed of movement is slowed down. You know where the camera is, you know where other features are on the moon that astronauts are moving between. Get some measurements. Do some maths.


No measurements are needed, to prove my claim....


How convenient. Why do I need to prove stuff and you don't?


In science, one has to be able to REPEAT a claim, or a theory, in order to make it a valid claim. To prove the claim, we must replicate it. Or, in the opposite case - by showing that it CANNOT be replicated....


And here you are refusing to do any measurements at all. There are 5 lunar surface missions with live TV to go at, lots of things to measure. Off you go.

Maybe you need a week.


This is how to prove that the Apollo 11 astronaut is at normal speed, while the Apollo 15 astronauts move faster than normal speed

All we need to do is show whether or not the astronauts' movements can be replicated on Earth...and perform the movements at the exact same (or within range) speed, of course.

I have already compared the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed to the Apollo 11 crew on Earth, walking towards the launchpad...


No, you didn't do anything. You copied other people's stuff, and those people tell lies. You have nothing but an arbitrary value plucked from thin are and a "look, see" with nothing to support it but opinion. That is not science.


The speed is normal. They replicate their own walk, in terms of the speed - their walking movements can be easily done on Earth.

All other movements of the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed appear to be easily repeatable on Earth, as well. Nothing the astronaut does is beyond doing here, or even remotely too fast, as to be not repeatable by humans on Earth.


In your unsupported opinion.


Only the wires are needed to replicate everything, at the same speed. This isn't relevant to the speed, anyway..so now...


What wires? Show me the wires. Show me where they are attached, show me how astronauts can manage to cross without getting entangled. You have no proof of wires other than your false starting point.


Apollo 15 at 2x speed...

Can we replicate the astronauts' movements at the same speed, here on Earth, or not?


No, you can't. Feel free to show me some. Show me live footage on Earth with exactly the same characteristics, right down to how the lunar dust behaves when it is disturbed.


Can you finally see the serious problem, now?


The only thing I see is you failing to provide proof of anything.

Did you identify those surface markings I gave you yet, or did you run away from that as well?



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The Apollo 15 astronauts at 2x speed are clearly not normal speed of humans on Earth.

Can we actually repeat their movements, at the same speed, on Earth?

But even if it was possible to replicate their movements, at the same speed, here on Earth, it would go far beyond our normal, Earth speed.

It is obviously faster than normal movements done on Earth. It is not likely even repeatable, or at best, it would take superhuman abilities, and effort, to ever repeat. As it would not be done with normal human movements, it fails, anyway.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
It is obviously faster than normal movements done on Earth. It is not likely even repeatable, or at best, it would take superhuman abilities, and effort, to ever repeat. As it would not be done with normal human movements, it fails, anyway.


What are you babbling about? Again, you make no sense at all.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 06:33 AM
link   
They were faked. Someone posted pictures of the film site with a comparison to moon footage and they were deleted. The poster has not been seen since.



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

That's right, when you speed up the Apollo LIVE TV FOOTAGE (important point that, you keep forgetting it) it looks ridiculous and not like any human motion you ever see anywhere. Neither broadcast looks right sped up.


But you are repeating the claims of others that the footage has been slowed down to make it look right, and have (or rather the people you are parroting) have plucked a value out of thin air with absolutely no justification for that figure whatsoever. So justify it.


So you're saying I should provide some kind of proof that the footage, when speeded up, is too fast, but you don;t need to justify the arbitrary values you have copied and pasted from other people?

Because you can tell that the movements are not normal, just like they aren't normal in Apollo footage when you speed it up.

No, you didn't do anything. You copied other people's stuff, and those people tell lies. You have nothing but an arbitrary value plucked from thin are and a "look, see" with nothing to support it but opinion. That is not science.



Explain what you think the Apollo 11 astronaut, at 2x speed, does which cannot be duplicated here on Earth....

I've shown walking is simple on Earth, at that very same speed. This is not an opinion, it is an absolute fact.

Do you think the Apollo 11 astronaut at 2x speed is walking faster than normal? Do you think we cannot walk as fast on Earth? Look again, if you think so, because no movements he does are faster than normal. Come on, now!

What is faster, specifically? Can you actually back up this claim, or not?


These are not random speeds, in any way.

To slow it down to a perfect half-speed, so that's what you call a 'random' number?! That's a total joke!

I've already explained the 66.66% speed, as well.

If you shoot footage at 24 fps, and then, you put the film into a projector running at 16 fps, what do you get?

Wow, look at that - your film is now at ....66.66% speed!!


Very random, of course. As if.

They used 66.66% speed because it could show hours of continuous footage, at that speed. As Warhol did with a movie, years before NASA used that very same trick, to fool the world.

The speeds were not a bit random.

But it was a mistake, and they got caught..



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Anyone can see Apollo 11 is normal at 2x speed, and Apollo 15 at 2x speed is faster than normal.

We can easily repeat the Apollo 11 astronaut movements, set to 2x speed, because he moves in normal speed.

We cannot repeat the Apollo 15 astronauts' movements, at 2x speed, because they move FASTER than normal speed.


The two speeds have been explained. Half-speed and 2/3 speed - hardly random numbers.

Humans cannot move at two different speeds in the same environment, which means they were hoaxing it, and slowed the films to perfect 1/2 and 2/3 speeds.

Truth is not always what we want, or wish for..... but it is still much better than denying it.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join