It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 34
57
share:

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 06:12 AM
Turbonium is clearly not going to do any number crunching, so let's do it for him.

This video:

vimeo.com...

Shows the PLSS eject from Apollo 11. It comes out of the hatch, rolls to the top of the ladder then falls unhindered to the ground, all in one continuous shot.

It takes, as a rough estimate, 2 seconds to get from the top of the ladder to the ground. Let's call distance it has to fall 3 metres to keep the numbers simple. You can verify the height of the descent module quite easily by searching this thing called the internet.

This site www.gravitycalc.com... allows you to work out how far an object would take to fall on the moon in 2 seconds. The answer is 3.24m. How long would it take to fall 3 metres? 1.9 seconds.

Our ballpark figure is pretty reasonable.

The same site allows you to calculate how far an object would fall under Earth gravity. In 2 seconds an object would fall 19 metres. It would take just 0.78 seconds to fall 3 metres.

Turbonium claims that the Apollo 11 footage has been slowed down by 50%, so in reality the PLSS only took 1 second to fall down the ladder. In 1 second an object should fall 4.9 metres.

I look forward to Turbonium providing a new set of goalposts.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:34 AM

originally posted by: DebtSlave

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

Lead, for example, stops the radiation from a nuke plant or x-rays, but lead can be harmful as a shield against cosmic particle radiation. Cosmic particles striking the dense lead can make the lead itself give off a secondary radiation that can affect anyone behind that lead shield.

Oh, ok. That makes sense.

One more argument, watch as the Apollo craft takes off from the moon - the rocket thrusts produce no dust storm.

Only the top half of the Lunar Module lifted off the Moon (known as the "ascent stage"). The bottom half (a platform with legs known as the "descent stage") stayed behind. The ascent stage had its own engine, and the thrust of that engine was deflected away from the surface of the moon by the descent stage.

You can see from these schematic of the descent stage below that the descent stage itself was between the ascent stage thrust and the lunar surface:

Another question you may ask is why wasn't there a crater blasted into the surface of the moon from the descent engine when they landed. There are a few reasons for that.

First of all, the descent engine was fully throttleable. It could be throttled down to 10% of its thrust, which is what they did to land. Also, there were contact probes that were 4 feet long pointing downwards from the bottom of the Lunar Module. When the contact probe indicated contact, the astronauts knew they were about 4 feet from the surface, at which point they shut off the engines (because they thought it might be dangerous if they went down too far with the engine burning, and the engine being totally up against, and being blocked-up by, the surface).

So not only were the engines at just 10% of thrust upon landing, but they were shut down while the Lunar Module was 3 or 4 feet from the surface.

Lastly, while the surface of the moon has a layer of dust, just a few inches under that dust is a harder surface that would have needed a lot of thruster blast to be able to dig a blast crater.

edit on 1/1/2016 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:05 AM
apollo pundits just preceded lecturing how scientific analysis of twentieth generation compressed youtube videos, that were reprocessed at houston, retransmitted & recorded off a screen at cape canaveral wouldn't have legitimacy,
now the propagandists have conversely transposed exposing their convoluted duplicity ...

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:30 AM

The video I linked to of the PLSS is originally from an 8mm recording of the screen at Honeysuckle Creek.

moonscapemovie.blogspot.ch...

The fact remains that I gave all the information Turbo needed to do the calculations. He didn't do that.

He is the one insisting on using videos to proclaim his opinion as fact but fails to back it up with numbers. That was the point.

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:26 AM
that recording is essentially several times additionally problematic, its not even part of the initial purportedly vetted apollo archives & was allegedly found over 30 years later, debatable its chain of custody ...

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 11:34 AM

It's chain of custody is well documented, as is the quality of the feed.

Contact Honeysuckle Creek. Call them liars. See how far it gets you.

Any problem with the maths I presented or are you going to throw some more word salad at it and hope no-one notices your dyscalculia?

posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 10:07 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

It has nothing to do with anyone's opinion!

Saying it is at normal speed, or faster than normal speed, that's just an opinion.

Proof is repeating it - at normal speed.

A movement is proven to be normal speed in our repeating that movement, at normal speed.

It is not a matter of personal opinion, it is an absolute fact.

So cry all you want, it won't save you

it is purely your opinion.. you have nit-picked less than 20 seconds worth of footage, randomly selected other hoax theorists opinion that it should be half speed and claimed that that 20 seconds looks like normal walking.

what about the rest of the EVA, its 2.5hrs long?
have you checked any other speeds? im pretty sure if you speed it up 10%/20%/30% it will also look "normal"

you have proven nothing at all, apart from proving that you have an opinion and you can link to youtube videos.

p.s. its a bit too late to change your mind about the speed now anyway since you called 2x speed as "absolute fact"

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:50 AM

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:37 AM
We all know there are inevitably significant hazards inherent in addressing the potential intrinsic characteristics of the free-fall
analysis process ... Nonetheless, proprietary computer models concerning lunar displacement of associated entities within the confines of apollo chronology is trending towards a recurrence of substantial intermittent aperiodic spatial and temporal anomalies ...

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:46 AM

originally posted by: Misinformation
We all know there are inevitably significant hazards inherent in addressing the potential intrinsic characteristics of the free-fall
analysis process ... Nonetheless, proprietary computer models concerning lunar displacement of associated entities within the confines of apollo chronology is trending towards a recurrence of substantial intermittent aperiodic spatial and temporal anomalies ...

Apercerptive anomalists continue to deform perceived and transcribed data in the pursuit of malformed desiderata.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 11:55 AM

That would be because you have to completely resynchronize the primary and auxiliary autosequencers, or the resulting output decay will cause a catastrophic thoron dump.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:05 PM
Is it ok to laugh at my pure incompetence to understand what you both just said?

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:11 PM
If you don't laugh about it you're in trouble.
www.scifiideas.com...

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:26 PM

originally posted by: Phage
If you don't laugh about it you're in trouble.
www.scifiideas.com...

And there was me thinking I was just being super dumb.

Thanks for making me feel slightly less stupid lol

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 12:45 PM

originally posted by: Phage

That would be because you have to completely resynchronize the primary and auxiliary autosequencers, or the resulting output decay will cause a catastrophic thoron dump.

Proof that Phage is a sock puppet of 'misinformation'.
I knew it.

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:17 PM
dont panic - i just kicked the turbo encabulator - everything should return to normal draconians

posted on Jan, 2 2016 @ 03:47 PM
Don't forget to recalibrate the efficiency of anomalous frequency modulation or the transitory buffer of the variable Honeypot array could destabilize ...

edit on 2-1-2016 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 01:02 PM

Just a word to the wise. Every single "We never went to the moon" documentary has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be nothing more than a collection of lies assembled to sell you something. If you heard it in a documentary, it probably didn't happen. Nobody dealing with a nuclear reactor would be ignorant enough to think that a spacesuit would in any way provide protection. It would be like Ferrari calling Harley Davidson to ask if one of their motors would work in their Formula 1 car.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:28 PM

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
dont panic - i just kicked the turbo encabulator - everything should return to normal draconians

+100 nerd points for mentioning the turboencabulator lol.

posted on Jan, 4 2016 @ 02:56 PM

originally posted by: captainpudding

Just a word to the wise. Every single "We never went to the moon" documentary has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to be nothing more than a collection of lies assembled to sell you something. If you heard it in a documentary, it probably didn't happen. Nobody dealing with a nuclear reactor would be ignorant enough to think that a spacesuit would in any way provide protection. It would be like Ferrari calling Harley Davidson to ask if one of their motors would work in their Formula 1 car.

True, but I get endless hours...no..ummm...endless seconds of entertainment watching both the "apollo was SO fake, dude!" and the "flat-earthers" continue to stumble around in the dark making absolute fools of themselves.

Yes. We landed on the moon. Then we we did it again. 5 more times. The truth of the matter is: YEAH, we really were THAT FRAKKING GOOD! ("We" refers to the engineers, industry, and scientists involved. All 400,000+ of them.) Read "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft" and do the math, and you will find that yes, the math works.

You always see the same old tired arguments (in my best Keanu Surfer-Dude voice):
Dude! Kubrick filmed it all on a soundstage!
Dude! Didn't you see the letter "C" that was left on that rock?
Dude! Don't go through the Van Allen belts! You will SO be dead if you do!
Dude! You can't see the stars, man, you can't see the stars!
Dude! The film is all SO slowed down!
Dude! The film is all SO sped up!
Dude! The flag waved! That is SO bogus!
And on to infinity and beyond...

Thing is, you can throw all the futile arguments that Apollo didn't happen (or that the Earth is flat) against the wall till the end of days, but it simply never sticks to the wall. Pretty much the definitive "Exercise in futility".

But I have to say, I have a LOT of fun watching it bounce around.

PS: One of the best arguments for Apollo, and actually the entire history of aeronautics, uo to and including the space program, is the simple fact that the math works.

Besides, it's a pretty good bet that somebody, whether it's the U.S., Russia, Europe, Japan, India, or China, will be going back within a few years. Then all the fun will be over.

edit on 4-1-2016 by MteWamp because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2016 by MteWamp because: Having trouble spelling today? Don't call me, because I wont be much help...

new topics

top topics

57