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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 123
29
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra-2
Nobody know the real gravity of the Moon because nobody went there and measured it.

However gravity of the Moon has not to be so little if it can lift Oceans water.

It is instead a big truth that neither Northrop Grumman (Lunar Module builders) nor Lockheed Martin Corporation (Shuttle builders) have technology to build a rocket that can be used on the Moon to land there going backwards.

Actually LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE is open to all big space companies.

The real American RETROROCKETS technology is this:

youtube.com...





Excuse me for repeating things but I'm waiting for someone that tell me:
"You are right".

[edit on 4-12-2007 by jra-2]


Now, that is a bit too much, the harier can do it here on earth, and so can the F23 if I'm not mistaking, it would be harder on the moon to do that, that is true because of the velocity of the object that is descending from lunar orbit, I figure it would pick up speed once it heads for the lunar surface, it would be hard to aply jet propulsion breaks at high speeds because this stuff is unstable, I don't know if a harier would pull it off, hariers do this but they are able to glide and reduce speed before aplying vertical jet thrust, tho it's harder to aply it to an object that does not behave like a plane because that object does not have any way of reducing speed before using vertical jet power, also the entry of the lunar lander looked like the moon has no gravity, 1/6 is enough to make you stick to the ground, the jumps and flips they preformed on the moon would be imposible in 1/6 gravity.

I was going to post this any way.
For the astronauts to do what they did they would have to be about the weight of a leaf on the moon.
Anything that weights above 1 kilo (in moon's gravity) on the moon would act like it is 1 kilo here on earth, it would fall and it would fall hard.

The moon gravity is lighter but one kilogram represented in moon's gravity will act just like one kilogram here on earth.

Let's take an object.

Points:
The object would be heavyer here on earth but it would weight 1 kilo on the moon.

Conclusion: the object would act like an object that has 1 kilogram in earth's gravity, 1 kilogram in moon's gravity acts the same as 1 kilogram in earth's gravity.

Result:The moon landing is a fraud.

Notes:
1
the lunar lander weight would it made it imposible for the lunar lander to use jet probultion since iit had no glideing abilities to reduce speed before using it./

2
The tricks preformed by astrounauts are fake, they seem light as a fether.
An amout of weight in moon's gravity is the same as an amout of weight in earth's grivity.

Finaly for who did not understand me....
6 kilos would act like 1 kilo on the moon, that one kilogram would act as one kilogram, it would not float ..because it's 1 kilogram, 1 kilo is kind of heavy. how much did the astrounauts weight 10 kikos? how were they able to jump around in slow motion, 10 kilos is enough to fall like a brick.
how much did the lunar lander weight?

It's a fraud...hoax...there you go it never happened.




posted on Dec, 5 2007 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Pepsi, everything is SO OBVIOUSLY FAKE on those videos from "Moon Landing", all one has to do is watch them.
Still, poor jra will now again have to respond to you, coming up with acrobatic logic, explaining the impossible...he has done a great job doing that.
The more I learn about Space, the more I am puzzled...one cannot really trust NASA and official science on a lot of things.
But, it is not only about Space....the whole concept of the world we live in that we are taught is - wrong. And, sadly, most of the wrong teachings are done on purpose, and mixed with real knowledge. It is hard to make a distinction between real science and countless lies.

"Moon Landing" is only good for a good comedy now, like those Germans' video on Youtube that I linked on this topic.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:13 AM
link   
OK...getting a little confused here...ATS is a scholarly forum, at least for the short time I've been here.

This thread started well, had many great and intriquing comments...then the last three posts above mine came in. I had to start shaking my head in disbelief. I am appalled at what seem to be incoherent and, in my opinion, intentionally non-sensical posts just to stir up trouble....'punking', as it's been called.

I will only refer to one, and if I run afoul of the T&C then I'm sorry...but an ATS member who uses a real member's screen-name, but just appends a "-2" after it, then goes on to write nonsense....well, all are welcome, although these sorts will just be ignored?

Whew! Off my chest.....carry on!



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
...Anything that weights above 1 kilo (in moon's gravity) on the moon would act like it is 1 kilo here on earth, it would fall and it would fall hard.

The moon gravity is lighter but one kilogram represented in moon's gravity will act just like one kilogram here on earth.

Let's take an object.

Points:
The object would be heavyer here on earth but it would weight 1 kilo on the moon.

Conclusion: the object would act like an object that has 1 kilogram in earth's gravity, 1 kilogram in moon's gravity acts the same as 1 kilogram in earth's gravity....


No it doesn't. Objects fall more slowly on the Moon because of the Moon's lesser rate of "Acceleration due to gravity".

Acceleration due to gravity is what causes a parachutist to speed up as he/she freefalls. The longer the parachutist falls, the faster he/she will go, because of this acceleration rate (until air resistance keeps him from surpassing "terminal velocity", but we shall ignore air resistance for this debate).

"Acceleration due to gravity" on Earth is 9.8 meters per second per second (or m/s/s). "Acceleration due to gravity" on the Moon is only 1.6 m/s/s, so something dropped on the Moon would fall at a much slower rate on the Moon as it does on Earth, because gravity accelerates it faster as it falls on Earth than it would on the Moon.

So, going back to the parachutist example...on Earth, after 5 seconds he will be falling at a rate of approximately 49 meters per second (9.8 m/s x 5 seconds). On the Moon, that same parachutist will only be falling at a rate of approximately 8 m/s after 5 seconds of freefalling (1.6 m/s x 5 seconds). As you can see, an object on the Moon falls at a slower rate than on Earth.

By the way, It's irrelevant how much something weighs. A 1 kilo steel ball here on Earth will fall at the same rate as a 1000 kilo steel ball on Earth. If both balls dropped at the same time and from the same height, then they will both hit the ground at the same time.

Those two balls would also both fall at an equal rate on the Moon, and both will hit the surface of the Moon at the same time if they were dropped at the same time and from the same height -- although that rate WILL be less than on Earth, for the reasons described above.



[edit on 12/6/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker and someone can calculate the rate at wich objects are observed to fall,


Well I have asked that in several threads and since we have a resident Phd here in physics maybe he could do that for us... The best film would be the hammer and feather drop...

It should be real easy to calculate, compare it to the same experiment done on Earth (in which both hit the ground at the same time as well) and then also calculate how long that would take in .64 g

No ofcourse that would have to presuppose that the videos are in real time and not 'speed adjusted' but we won't go there..

But so far no one has stepped forward to help...

It is interesting though that in the feather drop on the moon if you watch it frame by frame the feather does NOT fall perfectly straight... it shows wobble, almost as much as the experiment in a windless lab on Earth




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78 the jumps and flips they preformed on the moon would be imposible in 1/6 gravity.


Could you please show me the videos where they do these jumps and flips? JRA also said they jumped 4 to 5 feet...

Surely one of you has the links to these videos?



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by weedwhacker and someone can calculate the rate at wich objects are observed to fall,


Well I have asked that in several threads and since we have a resident Phd here in physics maybe he could do that for us... The best film would be the hammer and feather drop...

It should be real easy to calculate, compare it to the same experiment done on Earth (in which both hit the ground at the same time as well) and then also calculate how long that would take in .64 g

No ofcourse that would have to presuppose that the videos are in real time and not 'speed adjusted' but we won't go there..

But so far no one has stepped forward to help...

It is interesting though that in the feather drop on the moon if you watch it frame by frame the feather does NOT fall perfectly straight... it shows wobble, almost as much as the experiment in a windless lab on Earth



HI, Zorgon!

Not to be a 'negative nancy' here....

The 'hammer and feather' video was originally broadcasted at the end of the last Apollo 15 EVA.

The incident was re-created in an episode of the HBO series 'From the Earth to the Moon', which has been released to DVD.

For Hollywood to do it, in the HBO series...yes, it had to be done in an atmosphere, of course.

I've seen some silly YouTube videos where it is "re-created" --- but the 'feather' is a red rubber fake that is obviously weighted at the bottom, the quill end, since that's how it is dropped in the 'Hoax' video.

Up there you said the Falcon feather shows a 'wobble' as it falls....this is in reference to the Apollo 15 film of the 'hammer and feather' drop we mentioned...I have watched the video, and sure, the feather 'wobbles' a bit....but so does the hammer. The 'wobbles' are due to the fact that they were dropped by a man in a spacesuit...one in each hand. Not a 'scientific experiment', just a demonstration for the camera.

Maybe the air was really thin, that day, at that time, of Apollo 15 at their landing site. It was, after all, early Lunar 'morning'...I hope you won't deny that the six Apollo landings were timed to co-incide with early Lunar 'morning'....for obvious reasons.

Or maybe the full atmosphere on the Moon is on the Farside (not 'Darkside', hope No One on ATS ever uses that term again!).

Anyway, that's Apollo.....ended in 1972. I would just like to acknowledge that Apollo did accomplish what we were told about.....

Anything else, that we weren't told about (or are not being told about) is part of a new discussion thread.

Thanks for your indulgence,

TJ



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by weedwhacker and someone can calculate the rate at wich objects are observed to fall,


Well I have asked that in several threads and since we have a resident Phd here in physics maybe he could do that for us... The best film would be the hammer and feather drop...

It should be real easy to calculate, compare it to the same experiment done on Earth (in which both hit the ground at the same time as well) and then also calculate how long that would take in .64 g

No ofcourse that would have to presuppose that the videos are in real time and not 'speed adjusted' but we won't go there..

But so far no one has stepped forward to help...

It is interesting though that in the feather drop on the moon if you watch it frame by frame the feather does NOT fall perfectly straight... it shows wobble, almost as much as the experiment in a windless lab on Earth



HI, Zorgon!

Not to be a 'negative nancy' here....

The 'hammer and feather' video was originally broadcasted at the end of the last Apollo 15 EVA.

The incident was re-created in an episode of the HBO series 'From the Earth to the Moon', which has been released to DVD.

For Hollywood to do it, in the HBO series...yes, it had to be done in an atmosphere, of course.

I've seen some silly YouTube videos where it is "re-created" --- but the 'feather' is a red rubber fake that is obviously weighted at the bottom, the quill end, since that's how it is dropped in the 'Hoax' video.

Up there you said the Falcon feather shows a 'wobble' as it falls....this is in reference to the Apollo 15 film of the 'hammer and feather' drop we mentioned...I have watched the video, and sure, the feather 'wobbles' a bit....but so does the hammer. The 'wobbles' are due to the fact that they were dropped by a man in a spacesuit...one in each hand. Not a 'scientific experiment', just a demonstration for the camera.

Maybe the air was really thin, that day, at that time, of Apollo 15 at their landing site. It was, after all, early Lunar 'morning'...I hope you won't deny that the six Apollo landings were timed to co-incide with early Lunar 'morning'....for obvious reasons.

Or maybe the full atmosphere on the Moon is on the Farside (not 'Darkside', hope No One on ATS ever uses that term again!).

Anyway, that's Apollo.....ended in 1972. I would just like to acknowledge that Apollo did accomplish what we were told about.....

Anything else, that we weren't told about (or are not being told about) is part of a new discussion thread.

Thanks for your indulgence,

TJ



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleIf both balls dropped at the same time and from the same height, then they will both hit the ground at the same time.


Unless 1 ball has two Neodymium magnets forced pole to pole inside




posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by pepsi78
...Anything that weights above 1 kilo (in moon's gravity) on the moon would act like it is 1 kilo here on earth, it would fall and it would fall hard.

The moon gravity is lighter but one kilogram represented in moon's gravity will act just like one kilogram here on earth.

Let's take an object.

Points:
The object would be heavyer here on earth but it would weight 1 kilo on the moon.

Conclusion: the object would act like an object that has 1 kilogram in earth's gravity, 1 kilogram in moon's gravity acts the same as 1 kilogram in earth's gravity....


No it doesn't. Objects fall more slowly on the Moon because of the Moon's lesser rate of "Acceleration due to gravity".

Acceleration due to gravity is what causes a parachutist to speed up as he/she freefalls. The longer the parachutist falls, the faster he/she will go, because of this acceleration rate (until air resistance keeps him from surpassing "terminal velocity", but we shall ignore air resistance for this debate).

"Acceleration due to gravity" on Earth is 9.8 meters per second per second (or m/s/s). "Acceleration due to gravity" on the Moon is only 1.6 m/s/s, so something dropped on the Moon would fall at a much slower rate on the Moon as it does on Earth, because gravity accelerates it faster as it falls on Earth than it would on the Moon.

So, going back to the parachutist example...on Earth, after 5 seconds he will be falling at a rate of approximately 49 meters per second (9.8 m/s x 5 seconds). On the Moon, that same parachutist will only be falling at a rate of approximately 8 m/s after 5 seconds of freefalling (1.6 m/s x 5 seconds). As you can see, an object on the Moon falls at a slower rate than on Earth.

By the way, It's irrelevant how much something weighs. A 1 kilo steel ball here on Earth will fall at the same rate as a 1000 kilo steel ball on Earth. If both balls dropped at the same time and from the same height, then they will both hit the ground at the same time.

Those two balls would also both fall at an equal rate on the Moon, and both will hit the surface of the Moon at the same time if they were dropped at the same time and from the same height -- although that rate WILL be less than on Earth, for the reasons described above.



[edit on 12/6/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



SoylentGreenIsPeople,

Pepsi78 is trying to 'punk' you, and now me....

Do not fall for it. Sorry, I've been told I'm naive, but in this instance I think I have a point to make.

I would hope a Moderator (or two or three?) would eventually see that some of the latest posters are not playing with a full deck.

I DO NOT include SoylentGreenIsPeople in that opinion, by the way...

Thanks



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Perhaps ATS member 'pepsi78' does not use English has his/her first language? IF so, we should try to understand.

Perhaps ATS member 'swimmer' ( who has a lot of ATS points [?] )
Nevertheless is a long-time member, and has some agenda?

I don't know...does anyone else know?

Should I not ask this question at all? Just wondering.....



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
It should be real easy to calculate, compare it to the same experiment done on Earth (in which both hit the ground at the same time as well) and then also calculate how long that would take in .64 g


I did that already somewhere on ATS after I was kindly pointed to that hammer & feather video. The time taken was consistant with 1/6 earth's gravity.

A formula to use is S=u.t + 1/2a.t^2
S=distance - let's say 1.3m (4.3')
u=inital velocity (0 in this case)
a=acceleration due to gravity in m/s^2
t=time taken in seconds

Because U=0 we can eliminate the u.t term and conveniently transpose it to t=sqrt(2S/a)

for a=9.8 m/sec^2, t= 0.52 sec
for a=6.3 m/sec^2, t= 0.64 sec (64% earth's gravity)
for a=1.6 m/sec^2, t= 1.26 sec (1/6 earth's gravity)



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I appreciate the science used here to demonstrate the accuracy of certain events. But there is little point in trying to answer doubts that are trollish in nature, because there seems to be no desire to learn, only to parrot line after line of gibberish.

Now that is not to say that all who question are trolling. Zorgon certainly raises points that the opposition rightfully needs to answer. But the trolls who feign stupidity are worthless to an intelligent conversation. They are playing just barely within the T&C, but I expect they cannot maintain that level forever.

My opinion.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


NGC2736,

I hope I do not qualify as a 'troll'.

(Yes, I know that it isn't about appearance).

Just didn't want to be categorized as such.....



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


No indeed! I think you know who I refer to. I may not always agree with you, but you are always reasonable.
As is my friend Zorgon, whom I find myself at odds with time to time.

I too find myself against certain dogmatic scientific positions, and feel that we only go forward when we question science and scientists. But when that questioning is met with proof, even mathematical proof, and is still denied, then one has to think that some people just want to argue, not learn.

Ignorance can be overcome, stupidity cannot.

You are neither.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by jra-2
Try to balance a coke can on your finger. Difficult? Impossible?


Sure that's hard to do, but that has nothing to do with a VTOL rocket. It's a horrible comparison really. A coke can has its mass uniformly distributed throughout the entire can, where as the LM, for example, has most of it's mass on the bottom half and its center of mass is close to the point of thrust, so it's quite balanced, unlike a coke can on top of ones finger.


Hi jra, I'm your best friend

Look at this image:




Dear friend,

look at this old crock carefully.

Lunar Module center of mass is NOT close to the point of thrust, so IT IS NOT quite balanced.

Lunar Module is quite as a coke can that you must balance on your finger.

If you want to see vertical take offs and landings you must not go to

LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE, you must go to the

VERTICAL CHALLENGE AIRSHOW

www.hiller.org...

This is the predecessor of lunar module

www.hiller.org...

If it worked, we could see it on the beach in the next summer holiday.




[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


jra-2,

I don't know what your problem is, I don't know what kind of fight you have with the 'REAL' jra, I don't even understand most of what you post.

For instance, was it you who said something about no one being able to build a spacecraft that could 'land' backwards? What does that mean?

I think a moderator mentioned the term 'troll'...I can be naive at times, but I'm not stupid and I can, after being told three or more times, discern the meaning based on context.

Perhaps I don't have enough points or 'stars' to say this, but here goes...
jra-2, your posts make no sense and do not contribute anything to any discussion, as far as I have seen, and in my opinion. If it is a language issue, and if I have offended in any way, then I apologize in advance. If, however, you just came here to 'have a laugh', then please stop. GO back to YouTube, if you did indeed just come in to 'have a laugh' at others' expense.

Hope this made some sense...



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

...

For instance, was it you who said something about no one being able to build a spacecraft that could 'land' backwards? What does that mean?

...


It means that a rocket can go forward but not backwards. No computer

and no mechanical device is able to move the gimbaled rocket engine

opposing to gravity forces that make the rocket fall off in all directions at

360 degrees.

It is impossible that Armstrong, when computer did not work, could land

Lunar Module flying it like a helicopter.

Lunar Module is not a helicopter that can fly thanks to the air.

On the Moon there is no air.

Think to the Lunar Module as a piece of metal that can lift by a hydrant

that pushes from the bottom. How can you control that hydrant to keep

that piece of metal in vertical balance?

YOU CAN'T.





[edit on 6-12-2007 by jra-2]



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by jra-2
 


Oh, my....

OK...let me get this straight. You are focusing on Armstrong, meaning you wish to focus on Apollo 11, AND you assert that the LM could not be controlled in any way while the Lunar landings were underway?

Well....this IS a conspiracy forum, after all. And, I guess, we should welcome all -- up to a point.

Seems to me, you are trying to 'troll' (did I get the gist here?) into a thread about whether or not the "Moon Consipiracy" is or is not valid??

If you can read, then you would already know that your posts are nonsense. If you can read, then you'll have seen what intelligent people are saying and have said. If, as I suspect, you're just trying to punk this site....then go back to YouTube and be stupid there.

If you are really a 'special' person, and I have offended you, then I apologize.



posted on Dec, 6 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   


Lunar Module center of mass is NOT close to the point of thrust, so IT IS NOT quite balanced.


Remind me again exactly where the LMs center of mass is located?

Oddly, my coke can has a gyroscope and attitude thrusters, I can't seem to tip it over....



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 120  121  122    124  125  126 >>

log in

join