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: 90
57
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

I told you why it failed, many times...

Grasp the point, for once!!


likewise to you, also you havent said specifically why it failed. you have only given blanket opinions such as "technology was why it failed"

im asking which technology.


The documents say it failed due to sorely lacking in mature technologies, required in landing humans on the moon.


what like pure aluminium being a poor shield??? that has been solved already since they are using aluminium alloy duh.


One paper mentions that they were told to use 'heritage' technology, as much as possible, to reach that goal, and he wonders what the #%% happened...

So now, this doesn't make any sense, as he points out.

But he does not say what the hell happened, or say if he asked them what went wrong, or say anything else, at all.

Right, it's no big deal, of course. Move along now, folks!


ahem,
the launch vehicle is based on the saturn V
the aerodynamics of Orion is based on the Apollo command module
the parachute system is based on the Apollo parachute system
constellation program was planned to use the lunar orbit rendezvous method the same as Apollo
the earth entry procedure was similar to Apollo missions.
the original booster engine was planned to be similar to the saturn V engines

just going to ignore all these??




In Apollo-land, nobody ever asks rational questions!! It works better that way....

It is just not reality, of course.


thanks for your opinion.


A technology that works, and is the only technology ever proven to work, will always work in future, the very same way. It will not change over time.

But it has to work, in the first place, to ever be used, later on.


oh so changes in regulations will still make that piece of equipment completely fine to use??

like say if for some reason carbon fibre was outlawed for use in aviation, it will be completely fine for Boeing to build its new generation aircraft with carbon fibre and nothing but????

so what you are suggesting is that NASA should ignore all regulations that are have been set, and just make the Saturn V again because safety standards have not increased one bit?




posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

likewise to you, also you havent said specifically why it failed. you have only given blanket opinions such as "technology was why it failed"

im asking which technology.



The real question is - what technology DID work, first of all??

They didn't have any of the spacecraft built, after years of trying, and spending all the money - while not even closer to being capable of any sort of manned moon landing...

It is not a specific technology they don't have, it is each and every one of them, all working together as one, as a greater whole, that is actually lacking.

That is why they were supposed to use Apollo's technology, because it was not lacking in any way. Or, so they thought, at the time.


Apollo's technology would not be dropped if it worked, when it is the only technology that works, and after being told to use it, too!!


Imagine it...

'Hey, Frank. I know they told us to use Apollo's technology. But it's so old, and primitive. Why don't we try to develop a new technology for the moon landings?'

'Good idea, Steve. It sure would be more exciting, and fun, to try it!'

'Wow, let's tell the gang about it, Frank, and see if they also like the idea!'

'Okay, Steve, but one problem - they told us to use Apollo's technology, so what happens if we don't?'

'I guess we better develop our technology really quick, so they don't have a reason to crap on us, right?'

'Right on, buddy!'


Sheesh...



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Adding footprints is done to lend more 'authenticity' to the claims.


No-one has added any footpaths to LRO images, they are there on the moon.



They did it after we saw images taken before Apollo supposedly landed, showing the same features claimed to be Apollo gear.

Footprints were added in response to being caught. It's absurd, really.


BS. You still haven't produced images of the Apollo landing sites showing the same level of detail in Apollo images taken before Apollo landed. The equipment and other surface features in Apollo are an exact match for those taken from lunar orbit by modern probes. The reason for this is that they are actually there. They have not been caught, and all that would be required to 'catch' them again would be to put a satellite in lunar orbit with the same imaging capabilities as the LRO. Any country with the money and expertise could do it.

As for 'added after they were caught', they weren't 'caught' when they were publishing photographs in scientific reports showing the LM on the ground long before any other countries sent probes. Here, you can even buy one:

www.ebay.co.uk...:g:dKAAAOSwO VpXVFft&autorefresh=true

Read the back of the image as shown in the photos: November 1971. It's a Panoramic Camera image taken after the first Apollo 15 EVA. You can see the footpaths from the LM:



It's different to the images taken before the first EVA, which I discuss here

onebigmonkey.com...

How did they do that?



Images didn't show footprints from other sources, but now, it's a big deal if they don't show up on their later images??


You don't seem to grasp this: there are no images of the moon taken before Apollo that show anything like the level of detail shown in the Apollo images, that also includes images taken from lunar orbit. Those surface features, and the hardware and evidence of human activity, is revealed only by probes sent ling after Apllo and those probes confirm the features and hardware positions seen in Apollo photographs, 16mm film and live TV.

Speaking of other sources, here's a reminder:

Apollo 14 from Chandrayaan:



Apollo 15 from Chandrayaan and Japan:



Apollo 16 from Chandrayaan:






You don't have much of an argument, here...


I have way more than you have ever added - where is evidence? The absence of evidence you claim as evidence of absence is false.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

ahem,
the launch vehicle is based on the saturn V
the aerodynamics of Orion is based on the Apollo command module
the parachute system is based on the Apollo parachute system
constellation program was planned to use the lunar orbit rendezvous method the same as Apollo
the earth entry procedure was similar to Apollo missions.
the original booster engine was planned to be similar to the saturn V engines

just going to ignore all these??


oh so changes in regulations will still make that piece of equipment completely fine to use??

like say if for some reason carbon fibre was outlawed for use in aviation, it will be completely fine for Boeing to build its new generation aircraft with carbon fibre and nothing but????

so what you are suggesting is that NASA should ignore all regulations that are have been set, and just make the Saturn V again because safety standards have not increased one bit?


What do you think was banned, but was used for Apollo?

If you have any, please list them, and cite your sources for them.

I'll be happy to reply, afterwards.

Now, your turn..



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

Adding footprints is done to lend more 'authenticity' to the claims.


No-one has added any footpaths to LRO images, they are there on the moon.



They did it after we saw images taken before Apollo supposedly landed, showing the same features claimed to be Apollo gear.

Footprints were added in response to being caught. It's absurd, really.


BS. You still haven't produced images of the Apollo landing sites showing the same level of detail in Apollo images taken before Apollo landed. The equipment and other surface features in Apollo are an exact match for those taken from lunar orbit by modern probes. The reason for this is that they are actually there. They have not been caught, and all that would be required to 'catch' them again would be to put a satellite in lunar orbit with the same imaging capabilities as the LRO. Any country with the money and expertise could do it.

As for 'added after they were caught', they weren't 'caught' when they were publishing photographs in scientific reports showing the LM on the ground long before any other countries sent probes. Here, you can even buy one:

www.ebay.co.uk...:g:dKAAAOSwO VpXVFft&autorefresh=true

Read the back of the image as shown in the photos: November 1971. It's a Panoramic Camera image taken after the first Apollo 15 EVA. You can see the footpaths from the LM:



It's different to the images taken before the first EVA, which I discuss here

onebigmonkey.com...

How did they do that?



Images didn't show footprints from other sources, but now, it's a big deal if they don't show up on their later images??


You don't seem to grasp this: there are no images of the moon taken before Apollo that show anything like the level of detail shown in the Apollo images, that also includes images taken from lunar orbit. Those surface features, and the hardware and evidence of human activity, is revealed only by probes sent ling after Apllo and those probes confirm the features and hardware positions seen in Apollo photographs, 16mm film and live TV.

Speaking of other sources, here's a reminder:

Apollo 14 from Chandrayaan:



Apollo 15 from Chandrayaan and Japan:



Apollo 16 from Chandrayaan:






You don't have much of an argument, here...


I have way more than you have ever added - where is evidence? The absence of evidence you claim as evidence of absence is false.


So, the landing sites have been repeatedly imaged, for many years, by the US, China, Japan, India...

A lot of money was spent, and effort, in getting to the moon,to image the landing sites.

They show the same little dots and blobs, give or take a few dots or blobs....

A great interest in landing sites, a lot of time, effort, and money, what could possibly show it better than dots and blobs!!

Sure, we can always get close-up images of the equipment, from the surface, but we prefer showing it as little dots and blobs, imaging the same dots and blobs, over and over again, decade after decade!!


Who needs a silly close-up, anyhoo??



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

The real question is - what technology DID work, first of all??


just deflecting because you cant answer the question..
there is no piece of technology on the saturn V nor the command module nor the lunar module and all the other components that didnt work.

pretty much all of it is equipment that exists back then and today that had been integrated together.

but feel free to pick which one of those equipment that you hold adamantly did not work.


They didn't have any of the spacecraft built, after years of trying, and spending all the money - while not even closer to being capable of any sort of manned moon landing...

It is not a specific technology they don't have, it is each and every one of them, all working together as one, as a greater whole, that is actually lacking.


so you admit that they have all the individual technology that can work, but putting it all together was the "technology" that didnt and still doesnt exist???

have you ever in your life ever heard the word "Engineer"????



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:29 AM
link   
We cannot see the astronauts footprints from orbit.

Where do we see these footprints from the surface?

We don't, right?

Yet, we can see all sorts of footprints, on the surface, right?

So many footprints go over and back in the same exact line that it creates a path visible from orbit - but those are the footprints we can't see from the surface!!

That's how it all works in the magical Apollo-land!



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

What do you think was banned, but was used for Apollo?

If you have any, please list them, and cite your sources for them.

I'll be happy to reply, afterwards.

Now, your turn..



what?? are you trying to suggest that safety regulations from the 60's have not at all improved compared with todays standards??



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

That it?

I have claimed that no pre-Apollo photos exist showing the details in Apollo images confirmed by Apollo probes. You have claimed that there are, but somehow can't seem to find them. I have given you a link to my website analysing the pre-Apollo and post-Apollo images of the moon. Feel free to prove any of it wrong with analyses of your own.

You claimed that the footpaths were added to modern images because they weren't there originally. I've proved you completely wrong.

Japan and India's satellites confirm the LRO observations. The LRO observations confirm those of Apollo. China's probes also confirm the details in Apollo's orbital images. Proves you wrong again.

You have absolutely nothing.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
Just to emphasise this even more, here is a photograph from my own copy of Peter Cadogan's "The Moon: Our sister planet", published in 1981. Mine is a second hand copy from the University of Manchester Institute of Technology, with stamps dated 1982. Pre-Photoshop, pre-Internet:



read what it says.
edit on 13/8/2016 by OneBigMonkeyToo because: tyop



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   
All I know is that commies were listening in during the missions and would have gladly called out any fakery if it was all just a bunch of show.



posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 12:09 PM
link   
a reply to: I3amI

What you would have done is irrelevant, these men were professionals and there's no way they would have risked their lives, the lives of their crew and the mission to act like idiots.

The moon landings were repeated 6 times, how many times do you think would be enough? Nobody wants to spend the massive amount of money to build a large enough telescope to be able to see apollo hardware when it's much easier to just photograph them from lunar orbit which has been done multiple times with the hoax theologians screaming photoshop every time.

The serious reason they erased the tapes was because they needed tapes so they erased the old ones, should they have realized that one day the technology would exist to remaster the old SSTV signals, probably, but hindsight is 20/20. Also, since the "original" tapes from apollo 12-17 are still available, does that mean you only doubt apollo 11?



posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   
And to emphasise again to turbonium that this not just about the hardware that can be seen from lunar orbit, it is about all the other details.

Seeing as I am reading Amrstrong's biography and it is getting to the point documenting the landing on the moon (which they did), I got to thinking about the 'landing long' thing and decided to have a look at it. The planned landing area was actually 4 km away to the east and was missed thanks to a kick of extra speed they were given separating from the command module. Armstrong's equipment was putting him in a new area that looked interesting but, as he described to Houston:


Hey, Houston, that may have seemed like a very long final phase. The Auto targeting was taking us right into a football-field-sized crater, with a large number of big boulders and rocks for about one or two crater diameters around it, and it required us going in P66 and flying manually over the rock field to find a reasonably good area.


These boulders were not something they were aware of - here's the best image they had of the area, near West crater:



And here's the same area as seen on the 6mm footage (right) compared with the LRO on the left. Pretty arrows pick out the same rocks:



They haven't even got to the ground and the camera on the LM is showing details that they just didn't know about, details that caused them to have to find an area another 600m further west, using up precious fuel in the process.



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
You say they have the technology, over and over again..

Not any reason you offer to keep on saying that, but who cares!!

To claim they have the technology, and were specifically told to use it again, but tried to develop new technology instead, and failed dismally soon afterwards...

So you argue they were trying to develop some technology for different missions, not just short stays like Apollo's were??

The reality is that they were trying to reach the moon, as they stated.

Not anything more than Apollo supposedly did, at that point...

Then, you suggest they had to abide by stricter safety guidelines, which made it so much harder than Apollo, and they failed for that reason, too..

Do you really think they would have specifically told them to use the same technology as Apollo used, if it was not intended to use it???

Good one...



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: turbonium1

What do you think was banned, but was used for Apollo?

If you have any, please list them, and cite your sources for them.

I'll be happy to reply, afterwards.

Now, your turn..



what?? are you trying to suggest that safety regulations from the 60's have not at all improved compared with todays standards??


No.

What I'm saying is that you cannot use it as an excuse .

They told them to use Apollo technology, entirely, if possible..

Safety guidelines were already known, so if anything was a problem, they would not tell them to use the same technology as Apollo...

Get it, now?



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

No.

What I'm saying is that you cannot use it as an excuse .

They told them to use Apollo technology, entirely, if possible..

Safety guidelines were already known, so if anything was a problem, they would not tell them to use the same technology as Apollo...

Get it, now?


and that logic is flawed..

safety standards would have increased since then. the Saturn V, command and service module and the lunar module were built with 60's technology safety and standards.

those standards have increased. meaning alot of those things need adjustments.

and also they have used Apollo era technology, but for some reason you continue to ignore it, is the reason why you continue to ignore it because you know it contradicts your argument??


The reality is that they were trying to reach the moon, as they stated.


as one of their 3 stated goals..
the first of which is to launch astronauts to the ISS..

and since you claim that the constellation program "failed" does that mean the space shuttle was a hoax also??
since NASA failed miserably to make a spacecraft and rocket capable of launching man to LEO???
edit on 17-8-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
You argue about images...

So now, to 'prove' that Apollo 15 landed on the moon..

Images taken from lunar orbit show the Apollo 15 LM on the moon, at the exact spot it was always said to have landed on the lunar surface..

Indeed, the lander disturbed the surface around it during its descent, great enough to be visible from orbit....

Somehow, this great disturbance of lunar soil does not show up anywhere in images from the actual surface, though!!

Apollo-ites have invented an amazing excuse for this, too...

They claim a never before known to exist 'phenomenon' has now been discovered, by these genius Apollo-ites!!

Being there is no excuse for it, they invent one, as if it works out all problems..



posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 11:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
You argue about images...

So now, to 'prove' that Apollo 15 landed on the moon..

Images taken from lunar orbit show the Apollo 15 LM on the moon, at the exact spot it was always said to have landed on the lunar surface..

Indeed, the lander disturbed the surface around it during its descent, great enough to be visible from orbit....

Somehow, this great disturbance of lunar soil does not show up anywhere in images from the actual surface, though!![/quot]

Surface scouring was documented and discussed on the surface in many mission.

What would you expect to see? What do you think should have been there?




Apollo-ites have invented an amazing excuse for this, too...

They claim a never before known to exist 'phenomenon' has now been discovered, by these genius Apollo-ites!!


Such as?

Do the Apollo surface photographs, live TV and 16mm video show the same features as those visible from orbital probes or not? Are any of those small details visible in pre-Apollo images, yes or no?



posted on Aug, 18 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Somehow, this great disturbance of lunar soil does not show up anywhere in images from the actual surface, though!!



so your claim is that while NASA spent so much money on attempting to fake the landings they forgot to put in the disturbance of the soil but remembered to put it into the aerial images??
(ofcourse you are ignoring the close up images of beneath the lander with evidence of regolith disturbance)

and since you havent commented on the Apollo 11, 14 and 16 images, im guessing you have no issues with OBMonkeys claims of them??



posted on Aug, 19 2016 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Travelling out of the earth is actually rigurously regulated and that's the reason why attempts at doing so have mostly failed and we "haven't gone back" to the moon. Earth is a Quarantined area whose Planetary Citizens need to wake up and come together before space travelling rights are given.

Wake up meaning: Inform ourselves of spiritual governing reallity, deny ignorance by being single minded about repelling disrruptive influences (intents or thoughts aimed at creating upheaval, chaos, pain, to create an easy "gain" by the fear mongering bussiness, who are lazy and have not understood that all debts are settled sooner or latter) by a proccess of self aware recognition and by assertion of values aimed at protection of life, cooperation, good living, forgiveness and mutual understanding.


edit on 19-8-2016 by Balkanization because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2016 by Balkanization because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 87  88  89    91  92  93 >>

log in

join