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.

 

Moon landings - faked, met with aliens or the official story?

page: 7
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

And while yes, it still had a mass of over 5000 lbs, if it was at zero velocity when the engines completely the 1/6 gravity of the moon ALSO means 1/6 of the acceleration due to gravity. So, at 32ft/s on earth, it would be less than 6ft/sec on the moon.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




When a plane, or a car or a freaking trash can covered in tin foil - with any type of shock absorbing apparatus falls five feet, will the belly, booster or undercarriage move closer to the ground as the impact is absorbed?


Depends on the setup, and you also need to remember they were slowing down with there rockets prior to releasing the probes for landing.

Here do yourself a favor and look at this...It should explain some things for you.

books.google.com... -H8kwMTSVr05qy0eqU8JguDLT6I&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEsQ6AEwB2oVChMIkrnf0eONxwIVQpmACh2gxA1R#v=onepage&q=why%20the%20LM%20didn't%20penetrate%20the%20moon%20su rface&f=false



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Look, we can all talk about how it could have happened but that's Apollo in a nutshell. None of this was observed outside of the constraints of possible fakery. I've yet to come across anything that couldn't have been replicated here on earth, ever. And until I do, I'll believe it's all been a hoax - for numerous factors other than mentioned above.

I hear what you're saying about the fuel lines diffusing the pressure and still offering some propulsion but it's rather fishy to me that no video of the LEM actually performing a landing outside of the moon trips. I mean really?

This picture just screams back drop. It screams staged. It's hokey and it's just not real and I'd bet my bank account (yeah, I'm that confident) that it wasn't taken on the moon.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008




Who needs a bridge


Who needs a car...




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: zatara

I have looked at that but I believe if you take a picture from our surface of the moon with a 70mm camera it will look extremely small in the background of a picture. I would think that the hoaxers at NASA would have definetly had the Earth at a good size relative to the type of camera. But, I'm not an expert on that



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
You will of course have checked the focal length of the lens used


Thought not.


Exactly. Focal length makes quite the difference.

For example, here are two images of the earth taken from Apollo 11. The first one is taken with a focal length of 80 mm. The second one was 250 mm.






By the way, depending on the focal length of pictures taken of the Moon from earth, the moon can look surprisingly small in those pictures. The moon always looks a lot smaller than you expected it to look in pictures when taken with most consumer cameras, which have a focal length between 24 mm and 35 mm. It always looks bigger in "real life" than it does in the picture:



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




This picture just screams back drop. It screams staged. It's hokey and it's just not real and I'd bet my bank account (yeah, I'm that confident) that it wasn't taken on the moon.


And yet it screams digitized by NASA for a better picture...you can see the same pic you linked to here also.

unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST




I would think that the hoaxers at NASA would have definetly had the Earth at a good size relative to the type of camera. But, I'm not an expert on that


Here maybe this will help...




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

There was no whole-prototype test of the LM that I can find any reference to. Materials, component and systems tests, but not a completely assembled vehicle. Like I mentioned earlier, Apollo was the Cowboy era of space exploration. Plus, with the increased gravity of earth, the landing struts and shock absorbing system would have to be quite a bit larger. As would the propulsion system and fuel tanks.
EDIT... It seems I was wrong about this. Not sure to what extent for landings, but the lm1 and 2 were indeed test craft. My apologies. Will post again when I have more info
edit on 3-8-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
And it's also never diffucult to say you'll bet your bank account on something when you have absolutely no interest in believing anything that doesn't fit your personal views.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnb
Just wondering how many fall in each camp or being ATS probably some other options


1. It was filmed in Area 51 /faked

2. We did go and met/saw/were warned off by something/beings or discovered structures already there...

3. It all went down exactly as NASA et all said

--------------------

I reckon currently I am leaning more to option 2

Option 1 - I would possibly believe if someone can give a good reason why the former USSR or China didn't call it at the time.

Option 3 - When do the govt and their agencies ever give all the information they have on anything without spinning it?



I go with #1.

#2 is same as #3, imo, as if they did land (#3) but never have gone back in almost half a century because of #2.

Silly))


cheers)


D0.

ps. in fact #2 enforces #3. They did go would be bottom line. Masterfully played.
edit on 3-8-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:26 PM
link   
I too am baffled as to why no other country has put a man on the moon. I know of no treaties or agreements that forbid this. Even today the US is using Russian rocket motors and are being ferried to the space station by Russia. I would think that Russia is capable as is many other countries.
Also, from an astronomers point of view, being out of the Earth's atmosphere is ideal for photographing the stars. The astronauts going to the moon had 3.5 days each way to take some really good pictures of the stars for the astronomers back on Earth. That's like 9 missions to the moon or about 63 full days in transit.
Also, the hammer and feather trick on Apollo 15. Has anyone ever simulated the conditons of the moon- Vacuum, the +290F or -290F temp variances, uv radiation, etc. on a falcon feather. Would it not disintegrate or something while exposed and lying on the ground?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy
i realize all the things you mention...you still have to go from 20000 to zero in the LEM, leaving the command mod in orbit, and its orbital velocity is around 5,000...the return module has to go from 0 to 5000 and it still left no blast marks under the lander module. so you have 0 to 17 k, the saturn, then plus 3 to 20k, the moon module, then 20 to 5, to moon orbit, then, lander 5 to 0, then 0 to 5 to get tocommand mod, then 5 to 20 k back to earth , then a bumpy air resistance decel. the fuel to accomplish each leg, dependent on weight of course . not rocket science to figure it out. now is there some nasa pub with the weights and fuel caps for each leg???
my other points, no stars, and why not, and peculiear shadows and the wavy flags...all explained by hand waving among the believers. for me, it is unresolved.
and here is the moon pic of the hasselblad..: it does not show the metering hump, maybe added later...ok cannot figure how to post pic now, here is the link
www.panoramas.dk...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: darkstar57

just realized that the light meter is on top of the hasselblad...so the operator can look down and see the exposure needed. and the hasselblad historians indicate that it contained 200 exposure special thin film kodak...so why no earth or stars...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: darkstar57

just realized that the light meter is on top of the hasselblad...so the operator can look down and see the exposure needed. and the hasselblad historians indicate that it contained 200 exposure special thin film kodak...so why no earth or stars...

I showed you this Apollo 16 image of stars. The exposure for this image was set high enough that the stars become visible -- but then the Earth becomes a bright blob:



The lighting on the moon was similar to daylight conditions on Earth, so the exposure settings for images on the moon were usually at settings that would be similar to your regular consumer digital camera's daytime settings.

If you used your camera and tried to take pictures of a nighttime starry sky while using that camera's daytime exposure settings, you would not get any stars in those pictures, either (even if you could see them with your own eyes). You just wont get enough starlight into the camera for the stars to show up.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: pfishy

Ok, LM-1 was used in a 5 orbit unmanned test to check the reconfiguration procedures in space, and was not equipped with landing gear. It burned up upon reentry.
LM-2 had initially been slated for the same fate, but the success of the LM-1 test prompted the engineers to have it shipped to Houston instead, where it was used in drop testing of the landing gear.
So I was wrong. But there were no powered landing tests. Oh, and LM-2 now sits on display at the Smithsonian.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I would go further and say they did go to the Moon but only to orbit it. No landings.

That would be #4.




D0.
edit on 3-8-2015 by darkorange because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: darkstar57
a reply to: pfishy
the return module has to go from 0 to 5000 and it still left no blast marks under the lander module.

I don't think a good picture was ever taken under the LM descent stage after the ascent stage returned -- probably because thee was nobody left to take that picture. However, I think the descent stage, which remained behind, took a large amount of the thruster blast from the ascent stage (the descent stage was designed with baffles that guided the ascent stage thrust out and away).




so you have 0 to 17 k, the saturn, then plus 3 to 20k, the moon module, then 20 to 5, to moon orbit, then, lander 5 to 0, then 0 to 5 to get tocommand mod, then 5 to 20 k back to earth , then a bumpy air resistance decel. the fuel to accomplish each leg, dependent on weight of course . not rocket science to figure it out. now is there some nasa pub with the weights and fuel caps for each leg???

I already explained to you (back on page 4) that the maximum speed of about 25,000 mph was attained by the three stages of the Saturn V at liftoff, and from that point onward the spacecraft for the most part coasted unpowered to the moon. It didn't need a lot of fuel onboard.

I also explained about the "Free Return Trajectory", meaning they didn't really need a lot of fuel to get back, either, because they took full advantage of the Earth's gravity to pull them back. Like I said before, after an initial engine burn to break them from lunar orbit, they generally just "fell" back to Earth (not totally, but for the most part).




my other points, no stars, and why not, and peculiear shadows

I just explained why "no stars" in a post above, and I explained the non-parallel shadows in my first response to you (in a post back on page 4).




and the wavy flags...all explained by hand waving among the believers. for me, it is unresolved.

Could you explain your "wavy flag" issue more specifically? What do you mean by "wavy flag"?


edit on 8/3/2015 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

The wavy flag issue is, on the video recordings, when the top (horizontal ) support arm of the flag was extended, the free bottom corner waved. This is claimed to be because of air circulation on the 'set', and impossible in the vacuum of space. But it was just the excess energy imparted by the extension of the top pole, being released.
edit on 3-8-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
And as to whether the extreme vacuum and Uv of space would have disintegrated the feather, no. It wasn't as cold as you may think, as the sun was shining directly on it. The vacuum test has been done. And the UV would not degrade the feather that rapidly, or we would already be using that effect as a weapon. We can produce extreme Uv on earth, too. Unless the feather was from a vampire falcon, it would take a good deal longer than it was exposed before filming.
edit on 3-8-2015 by pfishy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join