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: 24
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Nope, you've copied and pasted numbers that other people have plucked form thin air and decided are right with absolutely no justification of scientific analysis whatsoever. 2/3 and 1/2 are just as valid random numbers as any other fraction you can pick out on a whim.

Prove they are moving at different speeds. Give us some measurements, analysis, anything.

Provide some proof that the Apollo TV broadcasts had the speed altered. Provide some evidence of equipment that will allow for hours of continuous live feed and matching audio.

Your opinion is that when you double the speed of Apollo 11's live TV broadcast it looks normal, I suggest you watch all of it for the many occasions when it absolutely does not.

When you'e done that, explain how the surface material they disturb behaves exactly how you would expect it to on the lunar surface. Explain how it is that the signals were received by Honeysuckle Creel when their dish pointed at the moon. Explain how amateur radio enthusiasts received audio when they pointed their equipment at the moon. Explain how they got photographs showing surface details not known about before the mission, explain how photographs taken on the surface of Earth show weather details that match exactly weather satellite images from two different satellites, explain how lasers pointed at a laser reflector exactly where the lunar module landed returns a laser beam, explain how the seismometer returned data to dishes when they pointed at it.

You have answers for none of these things, just your interpretation of someone else's lies and ignorance using a totally arbitrary figure to weave some emperor's new clothes that you think people will fall for if you repeat it often enough.

If the best you have is this, give up.




posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
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.


if your above explaination is how you are "proving" your claims of the half speed and 2/3 speed.. then what you are doing is using your opinion as proof, since you have no maths at all to support your opinion you have used 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.


oh here we go again, grand claims about what you believe are human limits that everyone must follow..
apparently a person running 100m will be at the same pace as the same person running 10km??

walking to get lunch is the same pace as power walking?

im pretty sure if i wanted to i could walk at 1km/hr and later walk at 5km/hr.

if you watch any dancing video you can also see people moving at various speeds in the same environment also.


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


speaking of truth, when will you realise that opinions is not proof?



posted on Nov, 14 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Here, you can even have some help.



At 2:59:00 in this there is footage filmed from the screen at Honeysuckle creek by a technician's 8mm camera.

It shows a PLSS being dumped from the LM.

Time it. Find out how far it is falling.

Work out whether its rate of fall matches lunar gravity or Earth's at whatever speed you like.

I await your proof with interest.
edit on 14-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: time correction



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: PraeterLambo
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.


So you're going to claim that someone proved a well documented historical fact was faked but you conveniently can in no way show this proof or give anyone any directions on how they may find this proof themselves? Do you not see the problem with your argument?



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Nope, you've copied and pasted numbers that other people have plucked form thin air and decided are right with absolutely no justification of scientific analysis whatsoever. 2/3 and 1/2 are just as valid random numbers as any other fraction you can pick out on a whim.

Prove they are moving at different speeds. Give us some measurements, analysis, anything.

Provide some proof that the Apollo TV broadcasts had the speed altered. Provide some evidence of equipment that will allow for hours of continuous live feed and matching audio.

Your opinion is that when you double the speed of Apollo 11's live TV broadcast it looks normal, I suggest you watch all of it for the many occasions when it absolutely does not.



You don't have any evidence that the Apollo 11 astronauts move faster than normal, as I asked you to show me...

Apollo 15 is too fast, and no evidence is needed to prove it - because it's very obvious to see it is too fast...

It doesn't show anything faster in the Apollo 11 movements, that's the problem here...

You say it is faster, but you don't show anything in the footage to support that claim...

I've told you any normal movements can be easily replicated on Earth, by humans...Likewise, any movements we can't repeat on Earth are NOT normal...

We can easily repeat all of the Apollo 11 astronaut movements at 2x original speed, here on Earth.

This proves it is NOT too fast. We can easily repeat all the movements, here on Earth.

I've been asking you to show his movements are too fast, specifically...

...



posted on Nov, 20 2015 @ 11:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

oh here we go again, grand claims about what you believe are human limits that everyone must follow..
apparently a person running 100m will be at the same pace as the same person running 10km??

walking to get lunch is the same pace as power walking?

im pretty sure if i wanted to i could walk at 1km/hr and later walk at 5km/hr.

if you watch any dancing video you can also see people moving at various speeds in the same environment also.



So, we can dance fast, or slow? Who knew??

Look -

You are claiming at 2x original speed, both Apollo 11 and Apollo 15 astronauts move too fast, compared to our normal, Earth speed...

What movements of the Apollo 11 astronaut do you think are too fast compared to normal, Earth speed ?

What movements of the Apollo 11 astronaut cannot be replicated on Earth, because it is too fast, when compared to normal, Earth speed??



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Movements in the Apollo 15 video at 2x speed look silly, goofy, since it's too fast, compared to our normal movements, here on Earth.

Simply by looking at it, we all know that it is too fast...

And no measurements are needed to prove it is too fast..

Throughout the video, we can see that it is too fast...

We should, and would, see the Apollo 11 movements exactly the same way, as too fast, throughout the footage.

Clearly, it is not the same, in any part. Let alone throughout it.


Normal movements can be replicated. THIS proves whether or not it is normal movement.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   
You have a video of an object being dropped from a known height on the lunar surface during Apollo 11.

There is also one available for the same type of object from the same height on Apollo 17.

There are websites out there that will tell you how far an object would fall on the moon over a given period of time.

Here, let me spoon feed you it:

www.gravitycalc.com...

You can also work out from that website how far an object would fall on Earth.

Change the speed, do the figures still match?

You have the opportunity to provide your calculations using the information available that will prove your point. You've had a whole week.

Still waiting.

In the end, in the unlikely event that you put your money where your mouth is (or even someone else's money) all you will prove is that a youtube conversion of one TV broadcast might produce tiny differences from a youtube conversion of another youtube conversion of a different TV broadcast.

It will never prove that they were not on the moon. Why? Because they were on the moon. All you are doing is copypasting of other people's messing around with metadata and ignoring the data.

If you do your figures properly (which I am confident you will not bother doing) using the resources that have been handed to you on a platter, you will find that they do prove they are not on Earth.
edit on 21-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 03:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
You have a video of an object being dropped from a known height on the lunar surface during Apollo 11.

There is also one available for the same type of object from the same height on Apollo 17.

There are websites out there that will tell you how far an object would fall on the moon over a given period of time.

Here, let me spoon feed you it:

www.gravitycalc.com...

You can also work out from that website how far an object would fall on Earth.

Change the speed, do the figures still match?

You have the opportunity to provide your calculations using the information available that will prove your point. You've had a whole week.

Still waiting.

In the end, in the unlikely event that you put your money where your mouth is (or even someone else's money) all you will prove is that a youtube conversion of one TV broadcast might produce tiny differences from a youtube conversion of another youtube conversion of a different TV broadcast.

It will never prove that they were not on the moon. Why? Because they were on the moon. All you are doing is copypasting of other people's messing around with metadata and ignoring the data.

If you do your figures properly (which I am confident you will not bother doing) using the resources that have been handed to you on a platter, you will find that they do prove they are not on Earth.


This is not addressing the problem, whatsoever.

The object falls after the astronaut has left the scene, so the film's speed could be anything, at that point.


Here is the problem..

Their speed of movement changes radically, which is simply impossible, in the exact same environment.

This shows it was a hoax, without a doubt.

Normal movement can be replicated on Earth, by humans - simply by moving in normal fashion, at a normal speed.

Apollo 11's astronaut (at 2x original film speed) moves at normal, Earth speed. We can replicate his movements, at the same speed, here on Earth, easily.

Why? Because his movements are all at a normal Earth speed.


Apollo 15 is not normal speed, at all. The astronauts move much faster than normal.

This cannot happen, in the very same environment. Speed of human movement is at a constant rate, in any single environment.

That's a fact.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:40 AM
link   
Normal movements don't need measurements to prove they are at a normal, Earth speed. If we can replicate them, at normal speed, that proves it.

That is real science. Not claptrap 'measurements', posing as science.



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 04:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Speed of human movement is at a constant rate, in any single environment.

That's a fact.

What!? Hahaha that's the most ludicrous thing I've read on here in awhile (which is saying a lot). You silly moon hoaxers are really grasping at straws, aren't you? Hahaha
edit on 11/21/2015 by AdmireTheDistance because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Calculations.

Any time you like.

I'll make it simple for you:

How long does it take to fall the roughly 3 metres in the film?

How far would an object fall in Earth gravity in the same time?

In your own time.
edit on 21-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: Making it even simpler



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 07:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

So, we can dance fast, or slow? Who knew??


apparently you didnt know and continue to feign stupidity as you still try to say that humans can only move at one constant speed.

so therefore dancing fast and then dancing slow is impossible in your mind.


The object falls after the astronaut has left the scene, so the film's speed could be anything, at that point.


this is retarded reasoning..

so apparently nasa slowed all the footage of the astronauts down to 50% for the apollo 11 mission to make it realistic, but as soon as they are in the LM and about to leave they immediately switch the slow down to 33% because it looks more realistic??

what reason would they have to change the slowdown speed mid mission??



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The moon footage doesn't look right to me. For example, in this footage of astronauts jumping up and down on the moon (which seems like a very risky thing to do in a deadly environment with a completely different level of gravity compared to what you've been accustomed to your whole life) ...

youtu.be...

... they go up at about the same slow speed as they come down. In a low-gravity environment, when jumping, shouldn't they have gone up fast, and then come down slowly?

According to the dialog, one of the astronauts weighs 380 pounds (which would be his body weight, plus the weight of his EVA suit, as measured on Earth). On the moon that is about 63 pounds, which is about the weight of a 5- or 6-year-old child. However, he still has the muscular strength of a 180 pound adult male in good physical condition.

I would expect true 1/6 g walking/jumping footage to be a bizarre combination of extra fast and extra slow, compared to what you would see on Earth. Muscular-induced movements should all be faster than normal; not only jumping up, but even random arm movements. Gravity-induced movements would all be slower than normal.

Can anyone explain why they are accelerating from a jump at such a slow rate, despite having a 3-times higher strength-to-weight ratio than normal, and not even having any atmosphere to offer the slightest resistance? A given rocket could accelerate from the moon's surface at a much faster rate than from the Earth's surface (due to no atmospheric resistance and a much weaker gravity force to overcome), so why can't a human do the same when he is jumping from the moon's surface?



posted on Nov, 21 2015 @ 11:51 PM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You stop accelerating when your boots leave the surface, unless you have been eating Taco Bell.

Also, it's not a great idea to jump as hard as you can when you're in a spacesuit.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You stop accelerating when your boots leave the surface, unless you have been eating Taco Bell.


What does that have to do with anything?


Also, it's not a great idea to jump as hard as you can when you're in a spacesuit.


It is not a good idea to be horsing around at all in their situation, yet they are. And would you expect someone who specifically says "I decide to try to set the high jump record on the moon", as part of what he called the "Lunar Olympics", to only barely be putting any effort into the jumps? The weakest jumping effort that would actually get you barely off the ground on Earth would have you moving upwards far faster on the moon than it would on Earth, and of course, it would get you a lot higher too. So what are they doing in that video? Just barely twitching a calf muscle?

Is there any example in any moon footage of any fast movement whatsoever? From what I've seen, everything looks like slow-motion, even though gravity-induced movement is the only thing that would necessarily be slow compared to what we are used to on Earth.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
This thread really turned into a handbag fight.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil
The moon footage doesn't look right to me. For example, in this footage of astronauts jumping up and down on the moon (which seems like a very risky thing to do in a deadly environment with a completely different level of gravity compared to what you've been accustomed to your whole life) ...

youtu.be...


Aside from the point that because it doesn't what you think it should look like doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong, the video you link to demonstrates exactly the point: when you try and put maximum effort into a jump in a bulky suit where the centre of gravity is not where you're used to it being things go wrong. The number of astronaut falls also demonstrate that. That's what why Charlie Duke decided it wasn't a good idea and they abandoned their 'lunar olympics' pretty quickly.



... they go up at about the same slow speed as they come down. In a low-gravity environment, when jumping, shouldn't they have gone up fast, and then come down slowly?


Does that happen on Earth?

The laws of physics are exactly the same on the moon as they are here, the only difference is that one of the constants (gravity) has a different value. As someone else has pointed out, you don't continue to accelerate when you leave the ground. You jump, and as soon as your leave the surface you stop accelerating, which means you slow down. You get to a point when your acceleration is cancelled out completely by gravity and you begin to fall, which will get faster as gravity accelerates you. If they jump higher because they put more effort in, their speed when they reach the ground again will also be faster because they have had more time to accelerate due to gravity.



According to the dialog, one of the astronauts weighs 380 pounds (which would be his body weight, plus the weight of his EVA suit, as measured on Earth). On the moon that is about 63 pounds, which is about the weight of a 5- or 6-year-old child. However, he still has the muscular strength of a 180 pound adult male in good physical condition.


Correct, but they still have to manoeuvre that mass.



I would expect true 1/6 g walking/jumping footage to be a bizarre combination of extra fast and extra slow, compared to what you would see on Earth. Muscular-induced movements should all be faster than normal; not only jumping up, but even random arm movements. Gravity-induced movements would all be slower than normal.


It's a commonly held fallacy that movement on the moon is in slow motion. It is not. If you watch the TV broadcasts you will see that their speed across the surface is not much different to walking pace on Earth (which is why speeding up the video makes them look wrong, no matter how many times people will insist it doesn't).

What you see is them moving carefully to compensate for, as you point out, their Earth strength operating in a moon environment. When they move forward they travel further in each step and leave the ground more than they would on Earth.



Can anyone explain why they are accelerating from a jump at such a slow rate, despite having a 3-times higher strength-to-weight ratio than normal, and not even having any atmosphere to offer the slightest resistance? A given rocket could accelerate from the moon's surface at a much faster rate than from the Earth's surface (due to no atmospheric resistance and a much weaker gravity force to overcome), so why can't a human do the same when he is jumping from the moon's surface?


Again, you're prejudicing the outcome of your analysis by deciding how you think they should behave. Have you measured the acceleration? Have you tried comparing what you could do on Earth with what they are shown to be doing? Don't know about you, but my jumps from a standing start aren't that hot.

Air resistance is meaningless in this context - we don't jump high or fast enough for it to make an appreciable difference, and rockets have the slight advantage of a big engine pushing them away from the ground continuously, whereas human feet stop pushing immediately after the jump.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: MaximRecoil

Can anyone explain why they are accelerating from a jump at such a slow rate, despite having a 3-times higher strength-to-weight ratio than normal, and not even having any atmosphere to offer the slightest resistance? A given rocket could accelerate from the moon's surface at a much faster rate than from the Earth's surface (due to no atmospheric resistance and a much weaker gravity force to overcome), so why can't a human do the same when he is jumping from the moon's surface?


because the majority of their power has been restricted by the suit.

if they had were wearing a singlet and shorts they would jump much much higher than any NBA player in history, they would also die after several seconds.


they go up at about the same slow speed as they come down. In a low-gravity environment, when jumping, shouldn't they have gone up fast, and then come down slowly?


this is just a lack of understanding basic highschool physics.

not to be rude or anything but if cant grasp highschool physics i dont recommend making bold claims about what should happen and what shouldnt when related to physics, a trap that the "knowledgable" Turbonium1 falls into all the time.

assuming they jump straight up and land straight back down, the velocity going up as soon as they leave the ground will equal the velocity just as they touch the ground again. laws of physics cant change this fact.

the only way to make your comment true is if they were jumping onto a higher platform.



posted on Nov, 22 2015 @ 03:39 AM
link   
a reply to: MaximRecoil

You asked "why are they accelerating so slowly after they jump". You would never accelerate whatever after a jump. The force causing the acceleration ends when the boots leave the ground.

eta: I think you may also be confusing mass, weight, and inertial effects. Lighter gravity doesn't mean you can accelerate a given mass faster.
edit on 22-11-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join