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

originally posted by: pfishy
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.

Thanks, but I know of various issues people had with the flag. I just wasn't sure which one 'darkstar' was talking about.

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Oh, ok.

a reply to: TamtammyMacx

Russia had a lander and they gave up after all 2nd place is First Loser.

Do you really think pictures taken on the Moon with a Hasselblad camera of stars would be better than a large telescope from Earth.

9 missions to the Moon really, Apollo 10 orbit didn't land 11,12 ,14,15,16,17

The feather why do you think that ?

Lots of assumptions lots of errors.

was not faked, might be 3, but i think its 2

originally posted by: onebigmonkey....
The Apollo record stands, and will always stand, because it is genuine. Dismissing it out of hand without any kind of proof other than "I don't believe it", "I don't understand it" or "yeah but aliens" is not a way to arrive at reliable conclusions.

It's always worth revisiting historical questions, but try not to zombify old myths that were debunked decades ago, that just exhibits carelessness and superficiality. At least look over fact-based arguments such as this: www.jamesoberg.com...

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
a reply to: pfishy

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...

Lets see you build something to fly in a vacumm and reduced gravity were do you test it ?

Well let me see 35+ years of photography experince so I say you don't know what you are talking about so I will pm bank details for you to transfer the money

Many of us on here go out in the winter to remote locations or sometimes our back yard to photograph the night sky.

Members Astrophotography last time I was out it was a warm - 9 degrees.

For example M42 the Orion Nebula



Now that was done from 15 pictures using DSS, they were taken with a 70-300 zoom lens at 210mm focal length but what really surprised me was the exposure was iso 1600 f4.5 for only 2 seconds each.

Here is a view of what I have to deakl with regarding light pollution.

This photo below is taken at f4, 20 secs at iso 3200, 18mm focal length. I used the high iso to really show the problem.

Orion in the center, Taurus top right and Sirius bottom left.



Yet with a little bit of editing.



That shows it's always better to travel as far from built up areas as possible but if you cant you can still get some pictures done.


Some of us do know what we are talking about.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: IwillbeHONEST

Think of a car up on a lift at your mechanic's garage. The gap between the top of the tires and the wheel well is greater than when it is on the ground, and the distance between the underside of the car and the bottom of the tires is greater than when it is on the ground. That's because the shock absorbers are fully extended rather than pushed in.

When the LM was off the ground, the distance between the engine bell and the bottom of the pads was greater than when the LM is on the surface. That's also because the shock absorbers in the landing gear are in an extended position. Those shock absorbers push in when landing to...err...absorb the shock, which causes the distance between the bottom of the pads and the bottom of the engine bell to become shorter.

Looking at both of these pictures of the LM, it's hard to tell how much of the absorbers are pushed in after landing. Doesn't look like the landing gear got pushed in at all after landing. From before landing to after touchdown the distance from landing pads to the engine bell looks pretty the same.


Before landing


Touchdown

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Theirs one heck of a lot of reasonable questions, that don't seem to have reasonable answers. truthhertzradio.weebly.com...

a reply to: wmd_2008

I said 9 missions to the moon. I didn't say 9 missions landed on the moon. I didn't also say photographs from the moon's surface either. Photo's in transit . To the moon and from the moon back. That is a lot of hours not to get some good pictures traveling.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Theirs one heck of a lot of reasonable questions, that don't seem to have reasonable answers. truthhertzradio.weebly.com...

Well the first comment about the cameras they claim normal Haseelblads a quick check at Hasselblads in Space

Some differences naturally existed between the cameras sent into space and the ones intended for use on earth. These differences included the removal of the TTL flash function, and the replacement of conventional lubricants, which would evaporate in a vacuum, with low friction materials. The leatherette covering was also removed and replaced by metal plates.

Every comment is wrong so maybe you should check whats claimed first.

We had a 635+ page thread were all the hoax claims were debunked what you or anyone thinks is true/false depends on your knowledge of the subject .

Photographic problems with Moon Hoax sites is an obvious one.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
a reply to: wmd_2008

I said 9 missions to the moon. I didn't say 9 missions landed on the moon. I didn't also say photographs from the moon's surface either. Photo's in transit . To the moon and from the moon back. That is a lot of hours not to get some good pictures traveling.

So what missions went to the Moon I listed then ALL it's not 9 is it,room to photograph when they traveled NOT REALLY have you seen windows sizes and space on board

a reply to: kyleplatinum


Re the struts

Kelly goes on to state that, while the crushable honeycomb was designed for an impact of up to ten feet per second, no mission landed at more than four feet per second. This resulted in the struts not collapsing very far

Strut

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: kyleplatinum


Re the struts

Kelly goes on to state that, while the crushable honeycomb was designed for an impact of up to ten feet per second, no mission landed at more than four feet per second. This resulted in the struts not collapsing very far

Strut

"Not collapsing very far" must mean not collapsing at all.

a reply to: wmd_2008

Apollo missions- 8,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17 traveled to the moon. Just saying that is a lot of days of travel to not get some good pictures for astronomy. Maybe they just sent boiler plates.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST.....Soil or any combination of dust/moisture forming a soil/clay type of ground is impossible on what we know about the moon. And this question, well, it made you squirm. Your answers are far from sufficient.

Good on you for the question, the answer is one nobody anticipated in the nature of lunar dirt grains. Try answering it yourself by googling on the nature of lunar grains instead of assuming you've discovered the 'killer question' disproving the Apollo story. You haven't.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
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.

You do realize many Apollo missions were observed all the way out, by telescopes from Earth? Google it.

originally posted by: TamtammyMacx
a reply to: wmd_2008

I said 9 missions to the moon. I didn't say 9 missions landed on the moon. I didn't also say photographs from the moon's surface either. Photo's in transit . To the moon and from the moon back. That is a lot of hours not to get some good pictures traveling.

You mean like this shot of Venus, Mars and Saturn?



Or the photos of the sun being eclipsed by the Earth?

Or of Earth from space?

You can't just point your camera out of the window and demand good photographs. To get that image out of the window I posted above they had to stop the CSM rolling (which it did to manage temperature), dim all the lights and use special film. If you point too far one way you have the brightly lit moon, the other you have the even brighter Earth, and you also have the bright sun to contend with.

Don't let a black sky fool you into thinking it's ideal astronomy conditions.

Option 3 but I guess they could fake it if they chose to. Do not believe in little green or grey men.

originally posted by: JimOberg

originally posted by: onebigmonkey....
The Apollo record stands, and will always stand, because it is genuine. Dismissing it out of hand without any kind of proof other than "I don't believe it", "I don't understand it" or "yeah but aliens" is not a way to arrive at reliable conclusions.

It's always worth revisiting historical questions, but try not to zombify old myths that were debunked decades ago, that just exhibits carelessness and superficiality. At least look over fact-based arguments such as this: www.jamesoberg.com...

I would suggest you look at the link in my sig before claiming carelessness and superficiality on my part. My support for the historical fact of Apollo is not based on some idle whim, it's based on years of reading and research.

originally posted by: IwillbeHONEST
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.

What couldn't have been replicated on Earth are the photos, 16mm and particularly live TV that show time and date specific weather patterns. There is also a small problem of them recreating small rocks and craters that have only recently been confirmed by unmanned probes (not just US ones).

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...

When can I pick up the keys?

The process of taking the sequence of photos, of which that one is a part, was broadcast on live TV to Earth, during which the soil disturbed by their feet behaves in a way entirely consistent with a zero atmosphere 1/6G environment. The magazine on which this photograph occurs contains views of the lunar surface taken from orbit as well as time and date specific images of Earth. The mountain in the background has been imaged by India's Chandrayaan probe, which confirms details visible in the photograph but were not known about before the missions began.

Please re-decorate before I move in, the colour scheme's awful.