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.

 

NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

page: 7
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: uktorah


I wasn't making an analogy. I was merely stating a fact that one can be tested, the other can't.


But the other can be confirmed or falsified by future discoveries. As it is, there is a great deal of evidence from non-NASA space probes that the historical record is accurate. You are ignoring my point that one is a physical law, the other an historical event, and the standards for confirmation are different.

Before I answer, everyone who's been following this thread will have realised by now that you have a tendency to dance around my questions (no mention of why dust compacts in a vacuum, but the astronauts somehow left footprints), or answer with another question (D-Day landing analogy), or try to draw the conversation in a different direction (question whether the sky is blue), or even try to suggest you have a kind of superior knowledge, such that you believe you are educating us (I welcome any opportunity to educate).

No-one here is ever going to influence your beliefs, but I'll answer your first question.



The moon landing videos were controlled by a single agency with a point to prove. First nation to be seen to land there would become the most powerful. At least that's one thing we can agree did happen to some degree.


Why do you keep emphasizing the videos?

Because of the title of the thread. (NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?).

Surely that deserves a




posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   

edit on 1-2-2016 by uktorah because: Reply button went twice



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Attention



The topic of this thread is:

NASA Moon Landing Videos: Fake or Real?

The topic of this thread is not other ATS members. That is ALWAYS off topic.

Please discuss the topic. Not each other.

Failure to do so will result in post removals and post bans.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:43 PM
link   
The videos look like staged productions.

Absolutely nothing in the videos shows anything that could not have been recreated on Earth in a studio, with effects they had access to at the time.

Of particular note is the lack of a blast crater beneath the landing pod. We are told this is because they landed on solid rock. However, we are all familiar with the "footprints on the moon". Footprints in solid rock.

Which is irrelevant because when they take off at the end, they produce a visible dust cloud. A dust cloud on a solid rock surface that would be clean from the landing.

Also of note is the lack of dust in the air. If you have ever lived in an arid climate, you know that dust, once airborne, spreads and lingers for several minutes. In a reduced gravity environment, this dust could probably linger for a half hour.

The force from a rocket would be powerful enough to create a zero visibility situation with even a light covering of surface sediment, as even something as small as a a piece of plywood dropped on the ground can clear out a room in such conditions.

We are talking about a rocket on an undisturbed planetary surface. We are talking about a bottle rocket in a bag of flour.

I do not need to hear any responses, because I already know what they will be:

1) This was already debunked.
2) Only a stupid person would think this.

Don't be surprised if I don't dignify all posts with a response...

However, anyone who might be prone to actually thinking critically about these things... and you know who you are... I am talking to you, specifically. Observers. Thinkers.

It is interesting to think about, isn't it? How might you pull off a hoax like this? Cranes? A scale model of a portion of the lunar surface with a camera on a rig?



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
The videos look like staged productions.

Absolutely nothing in the videos shows anything that could not have been recreated on Earth in a studio, with effects they had access to at the time.



are you sure?? have you actually checked it??

how do you suppose they faked lunar regolith falling and rising according to lunar gravity?

you wouldnt make bold statements without proof would you? surely you would have looked into it and found evidence, perhaps you want to share?



Also of note is the lack of dust in the air. If you have ever lived in an arid climate, you know that dust, once airborne, spreads and lingers for several minutes. In a reduced gravity environment, this dust could probably linger for a half hour.

The force from a rocket would be powerful enough to create a zero visibility situation with even a light covering of surface sediment, as even something as small as a a piece of plywood dropped on the ground can clear out a room in such conditions.


wait a minute..

you think the moon has an atmosphere thick enough to suspend lunar dust?
edit on 1-2-2016 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: choos

"you think the moon has an atmosphere thick enough to suspend lunar dust?"

...it did in the video...

You just helped my case.

Watch the video. It's fake.
edit on 1-2-2016 by misterz because: addendum

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



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: choos

"you think the moon has an atmosphere thick enough to suspend lunar dust?"

...it did in the video...

Watch the video. It's fake.


theres a video available showing lunar regolith suspended in the "air" for several minutes/half an hour??

can you show me this?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   
a reply to: misterz


The videos look like staged productions.


Why? Be specific.


Absolutely nothing in the videos shows anything that could not have been recreated on Earth in a studio, with effects they had access to at the time.


Please post a video of a film made in 1969 that shows, for example, a feather and hammer falling at the same rate.


Of particular note is the lack of a blast crater beneath the landing pod. We are told this is because they landed on solid rock.


Really? Please provide a link to someone saying this is because they landed on solid rock. If you cannot do this, please retract the statement.


However, we are all familiar with the "footprints on the moon". Footprints in solid rock.


Please provide a link or retract the claim.


Which is irrelevant because when they take off at the end, they produce a visible dust cloud. A dust cloud on a solid rock surface that would be clean from the landing.


Can you possibly jam your foot down your mouth any further?


Also of note is the lack of dust in the air. If you have ever lived in an arid climate, you know that dust, once airborne, spreads and lingers for several minutes. In a reduced gravity environment, this dust could probably linger for a half hour.


Wow... just wow. Do you actually expect anyone to believe that you you've never heard that there is no air on the Moon?


The force from a rocket would be powerful enough to create a zero visibility situation with even a light covering of surface sediment, as even something as small as a a piece of plywood dropped on the ground can clear out a room in such conditions.






We are talking about a rocket on an undisturbed planetary surface. We are talking about a bottle rocket in a bag of flour.


In. A. Vac-u-um.


I do not need to hear any responses, because I already know what they will be:


Then why...?


1) This was already debunked.


Correct, Many, many, many times.


2) Only a stupid person would think this.


Your words, not mine.


Don't be surprised if I don't dignify all posts with a response...


Trust me, no-one will be surprised.


However, anyone who might be prone to actually thinking critically about these things... and you know who you are... I am talking to you, specifically. Observers. Thinkers.


Go on....


It is interesting to think about, isn't it? How might you pull off a hoax like this? Cranes? A scale model of a portion of the lunar surface with a camera on a rig?


BINGO!!! Please, pretty please, would one of you super-geniuses please explain how it was done? That's exactly the premise of my thread here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 2-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-2-2016 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:12 AM
link   
a reply to: choos



In the ascent video, there is a dust cloud that grows. You can see it expand as the camera pans upward.

Next up, I will be told that I do not have the credentials to visually confirm the presence of dust. This should be riveting.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:14 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001




posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: misterz

Dust? Or rocket propellant?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Vapor?

As stated, I cannot identify dust now. Need an MIT degree for that, I suppose?

Ok.

Why doesn't this cloud continue to be emitted from the pod during ascent?

THIS answer will be pure gold.
edit on 2-2-2016 by misterz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: misterz
a reply to: choos



In the ascent video, there is a dust cloud that grows. You can see it expand as the camera pans upward.

Next up, I will be told that I do not have the credentials to visually confirm the presence of dust. This should be riveting.


ok, im lost here, the dust cloud was visible for about a second before it was out of view.

and why are you using an ascent video??

you realise that the LM requires propulsion to get it into lunar orbit right?

i might have somehow understood where you are coming from IF there was no further disturbance after unsetlling the regolith such as after engine shutoff, or deliberately shoveling lunar regolith.



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:34 AM
link   
a reply to: choos

I am also confused what you are saying.

So how about this.

Why doesn't the camera shake when the LM takes off?

Have you ever been near an explosion?
edit on 2-2-2016 by misterz because: nother question



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: misterz

the blast was not huge, the camera is sufficiently far enough away to not be largely affected by the ascent.. there is no atmosphere to affect the camera..

why would it shake?

p.s. are you referring to the glare on the camera being the dust? when the camera was already pointed upwards? if so, is it possible that dust could be attached to the lens during the initial blast?? what about propellant??

p.p.s i havent been near an explosion, but a shockwave from a blast occurs because of interaction with a dense atmosphere. how is a shockwave going to happen without an atmosphere..

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



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: misterz

the blast was not huge, the camera is sufficiently far enough away to not be largely affected by the ascent.. there is no atmosphere to affect the camera..

why would it shake?

p.s. are you referring to the glare on the camera being the dust? when the camera was already pointed upwards? if so, is it possible that dust could be attached to the lens during the initial blast?? what about propellant??

p.p.s i havent been near an explosion, but a shockwave from a blast occurs because of interaction with a dense atmosphere. how is a shockwave going to happen without an atmosphere..


The rocket achieves lift by emitting its own fuel at an incredible speed, and the opposite reaction that occurs when the fuel is deflected downward across its own thrusters is sufficient to achieve escape velocity.

Without any atmosphere, that fuel can expand rapidly at high speed. No atmosphere is needed in rocket physics. Atmosphere would actually reduce the blast radius.

This expanding gas would not be perfectly uniform, there would be turbulence.

Just how far away was this remote-controlled interplanetary TV station from the ascent site?



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People


The "earth in the window" hoax evidence you mentioned usually tries to claim that the Apollo craft was in low earth Orbit, thus the earth would have filled the entire _ This film claims the earth was some sort of fake transparency. Another similar film named "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" claims the Earth was a stencil cut out put in the window -- i.e. to make it look as if they were far away from Earth, they made a stencil "cut out" that they put in the window that made the Earth look small (because all you could see was the small cut-out portion).

As you mentioned, this video claims that the "gotcha!" moment when they could tell it was a hoax is when the window lit up completely blue. There are a few reasons why the window would look blue, one being that there was a blue-green coating on the window that may have caught some glare from inside the capsule.
I don't agree there should be such strong shades of blue in both windows. Space is black, and the sun is a "natural" white. So why blue? I do believe the opinion of light physics experts would have to be there to provide an opinion on this either way. I doubt any simulations of this are possible at the moment but may be that is the case. I believe that the lighting in the video is consistent of a craft in low-earth orbit, but not with a craft far away from a blue atmosphere. The implied claim of a cloud can of course be questioned and I consider it a good guess that may be wrong.

And speaking of lighting, here is another interesting anomaly as defined in 36:39 of the following video:
yo5w0pm24ic
as physics expert David Grove claims there is an additional light source. It is accepted by NASA that additional lighting was not onboard the LM. If someone can show me a picture of a round object with such a line of glare simply from reflected ground light, please do show it to me. It seems as though this can be confirmed with an additional physics expert. Personally I'll plan on contacting one myself though perhaps not anytime soon.

The photo is looking at the shadow side of the LM, and the worker is in the shadow of the craft. Yet, glare can be seen on the workers boot. Full quality NASA source: www.lpi.usra.edu...

I didn't have much time today, so be continued tomorrow...
edit on 2-2-2016 by centarix because: added link to photo



posted on Feb, 2 2016 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: misterz

The rocket achieves lift by emitting its own fuel at an incredible speed, and the opposite reaction that occurs when the fuel is deflected downward across its own thrusters is sufficient to achieve escape velocity.

Without any atmosphere, that fuel can expand rapidly at high speed. No atmosphere is needed in rocket physics. Atmosphere would actually reduce the blast radius.

This expanding gas would not be perfectly uniform, there would be turbulence.

Just how far away was this remote-controlled interplanetary TV station from the ascent site?


you are thinking 2 dimensional.. space is 3 dimensional..

atmosphere would reduce the radius making it affect things further away..

space is a vacuum meaning the propellants would expand in every direction imaginable. and it will keep dispersing into infinity the further it goes.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join