An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by SpaceMax
My god...all this time I thought it was the effect of a zoom lens. But maybe it's
SPAAACE MAGIC.....

Your probably right "SPAAACE MAGIC....." would sure explain a lot of whats in thos pictures and films...

But I am surprised you didn't tell me it looks bigger because its near the horizon.



Speaking about Magic... here in Vegas we use spotlights on those Majicians...

So without further ado lets roll the film... and see some NASA Majic

One Giant Spotlight For Mankind



Intermission Mr Magoo





[edit on 9-12-2007 by zorgon]

So without further ado lets roll the film... and see some NASA Majic

Oh Noes....

Hmm, don't think Dave Brock will like someone ripping his tunes...
Care to take a guess about what one of the major differences between light from the sun and light from any type of lamp is? At least the sunlight that gets to the vicinity of the 3rd planet?

So you're posting a TV commercial to demonstrate what point again?

Silly flatlander, your space magic is puny, and hardly worthy of your skills.
Let me shows you some-
Low G Fun

Google Video Link

Hammer&Feather (variable speed)

(hint-One of the videos is phoney as hell, can you spot it?)



[edit on 9-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

[edit on 9-12-2007 by SpaceMax]

reply to post by zorgon



Finally an intelligent person.

You are perfectly right, Zorgon.

Looking at this pic:



we can say with absolute certainty that this image is completely fake.

SINCE ON THE MOON THERE IS NO AIR, THERE IS NO LIGHT

REFRACTION TOO, THEN ALL THE LIGHT OF THE SUN COMES ALONG

STRAIGHT LINES DIRECTLY ALSO IN THE SUNSET.

We can on the Earth observe the sun in the sunset because its light is

refracted from a big amount of atmosphere.

Film of the astronauts' camera WOULD HAVE BURNT.

Oh, yeah.
That's some good science alrighty.


Non so blind.....
etcetera, etcetera..........

Originally posted by SpaceMax
(hint-One of the videos is phoney as hell, can you spot it?)

Why yes Its quite obviously the Hammer and Feather video...

The other one shows exactly what would happen to the rover the way those Astronauts were careening around up there IF it only had 1/6th G... I mean the first bump at that speed they were racing around up there and they would be 'airborne' in no time

Why yes Its quite obviously the Hammer and Feather video...

Yay! I just won five bucks.
(I knew you'd pick that one)

For that I should tell you about the characteristic of sunlight when you are 90 some-odd million miles away from it that I alluded to.

It's rays are almost parallel.

An interesting fact to consider when someone makes claims about the nature of a light source, don't you think?

Originally posted by SpaceMax

It's rays are almost parallel.

An interesting fact to consider when someone makes claims about the nature of a light source, don't you think?

So then the rays of the Sun hitting the Helmet visor on an Astronaut in LEO should be the same as the rays of Sun hitting the Helmet visor on the Moon? And since many claim there is no atmosphere on the Moon should I not then reasonably expect the light reflection of the Sun to look the same on the LEO pictures as it does on the Moon?

Yet the LEO reflections show me a tiny spot with asterisk effect and the ones on the moon are huge...

The LEO Sun reflections match the reason given previously for the small size of the Earth in the Helmet reflection... yet the ones on the moon appear to indicate a much closer light source

So then the rays of the Sun hitting the Helmet visor on an Astronaut in LEO should be the same as the rays of Sun hitting the Helmet visor on the Moon?

Lots of things to consider in such an observation.
Are the diameters of the reflective curved surfaces the same?
Are the reflective coatings identical?
Are the lenses used in the photos the same?
How would the f-stop settings effect what is seen?

Could some of those points be tested with household objects?
Especially this close to christmas?

Originally posted by SpaceMax
Could some of those points be tested with household objects?

Okay fine I will have to do the legwork and clip those helmet shots from photos (had planned to anyway...

But I am pretty certain that there is not a whole lot of difference in the size of the Helmets...

reply to post by zorgon


My Gosh, Zorgon,

Somewhere up a few posts you got into it with SpaceMax after you put up a helmet pic, compared to a pic of 'Earthrise' from the CM in orbit to make the Earth look SOOOOO BIIIG!!!

From a distance of 240,000 miles, give or take, I can put my thumb up and block out the moon...the Earth is four times the diameter, so IF I (can only wish) I could go to the Moon, I could stick up my thumb and block out the Earth. Think about this...Huge coincidence, the 'observed' diameter of the Moon from our vantage point on Earth just happens to be almost the same as the 'observed' diameter of the Sun...hence, total Solar eclipses.

My point is, when using perspective and observations that are not relevant it is just obfuscation. AND, on another post, you pasted an official NASA photo that was obviously a COLLAGE. It was an artistic creation, not an actual mission photo.

OK, pull back your bow and let sling your arrows....

[edit for typo]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey, the real problem to go the Moon is not the helmet.

Have you finally understood what means "to land going backwards"?

IT MEANS THAT THE ROCKET MUST RETROCEDE COMING DOWN WITH

THE ROCKET ENGINE IN ITS ARSE.

If you had a so powerful fart that had the strenght to sustain you above

your chair, would you be able to balance yourself above it at 10 foot and

then to sit down without breaking your bones?

Originally posted by jra-2
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Hey, the real problem to go the Moon is not the helmet.

Have you finally understood what means "to land going backwards"?

IT MEANS THAT THE ROCKET MUST RETROCEDE COMING DOWN WITH

THE ROCKET ENGINE IN ITS ARSE.

If you had a so powerful fart that had the strenght to sustain you above

your chair, would you be able to balance yourself above it at 10 foot and

then to sit down without breaking your bones?

If I came equipped with gyroscopes, 16 computer-controlled reaction control trusters on my shoulders, and my rear-end 'main thruster' was on a computer-controlled gimbal... then yes.

So what's your next point?

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
...

If I came equipped with gyroscopes, 16 computer-controlled reaction control trusters on my shoulders, and my rear-end 'main thruster' was on a computer-controlled gimbal... then yes.

So what's your next point?

No, no, dear Soylent, you must not use computers like Armstrong:

www.solarviews.com...

There was no doubt in Armstrong's mind about landing in the boulder field. It wasn't essential that he land the LM perfectly upright. A tilt of up to fifteen degrees would cause no particular problem with a launch. However, if he hit the engine bell or one of the landing struts on a large rock, there would be a real chance of sustaining structural damage. Two minutes after pitchover and about two minutes prior to the landing, Armstrong took action. He decided to follow an old maxim: "When in doubt, land long." To do that, he would have to overfly the crater and land well to the west of it; and there was clearly no point - nor really much time - to give the computer enough of an update via the hand controller. The Landing Point Designator (LPD) was designed for fine tuning and what Armstrong needed was a big change. So he switched to manual control, pitched the LM forward, and began to fly it like a helicopter. Within seconds, he had slowed his rate of descent from about twenty feet per second down to about three and flew the LM about 1100 feet west beyond the craters and the boulders.

You can use only your joystick.

reply to post by jra-2


I hate to be blunt, but the only one speaking from a rear facing orifice is you. I have read page after page of your comments, and not one of them makes logical or scientific sense. I seldom label anyone as a nitwit, but I may have to make an exception.

Now I am posting here NOT as the FSME of this forum, but simply as a member, so don't go all ballistic on how ATS won't listen to you, or the forum is being worked against you by those that have some staff roll.

The fact is, I have followed your posts closely, I have tried to understand your viewpoints. All that I can conclude from days of this is willful ignorance. You have been provided with many chances to learn math, basic science, whatever. And you resist learning anything because your ego inflates well beyond the scope of your rather limited comprehension. There comes a point where tolerance is overworked. Some of us have actual priorities for enhancing our knowledge base.

Unless you answer those who have wasted their time with you by showing something besides idiotic self professed "proofs", then I for one, find further conversation with you on the same par as writing poetry to microbes. You have abused the right to be taken seriously in the area of spatial mechanics, the general exploration of space, or even useful questions from a novice in these areas.

In the event that you have not yet graduated from grade school, you have my apologies for sounding harsh; but you must understand that you are playing with the "big kids" now, and foolishness is not well tolerated.

Again, I will point out that this in no way reflects on the policies or position of ATS, but is entirely my own personal viewpoint.

reply to post by jra-2


You're over-simplifying it...Armstrong did not "turn off the computer". What he actually did was turn off the AUTOPILOT, and took control of the LEM himself. The computers were still aiding him in controlling the spacecraft, including the reaction control system thrusters (RCS) and the pivoting main thruster.

It's like a modern jet fighter. A pilot at the joystick of a modern jet fighter would find it literally impossible to control without computers helping to make the adjustments necessary to keep it in flight. This has NOTHING to do with the autopilot. If a fighter pilot turns off his autopilot and takes manual control of the joystick, the flight computers are still operating.

When Neil Armstrong turned off the Autopilot that was taking him into a boulder field, he took manual control using the joystick, but the flight computer was still operating making the tiny corrections required to keep the LEM flying (such as minutely pivoting the main thruster and commanding quick bursts from the RCS)

Here is a more detailed account of the Apollo LEM landing. The exciting parts begin about 1/3 down the page:
www.doneyles.com...

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Hey, Soylent

listen to me carefully:

Astronauts are starting to the Moon and NASA jokers say: "We have

controlled all things. Dear astronauts, go there without problems, we have

foreseen what will happen".

"Very nice", astronauts say, "but wait a moment, we have forgotten to test

Lunar Module on the Earth".

"NO PROBLEM, WE DON'T CARE IF LUNAR MODULE CAN LAND ON THE

EARTH. IT'S IMPORTANT IT WILL BE ABLE TO LAND ON THE MOON".

"Hey, you are right", astronauts say.





[edit on 10-12-2007 by jra-2]

reply to post by jra-2



You're half right.

The LEM is not designed to fly in Earth's gravity, so they could not test it here. They did however test fly it in space during Apollo 9. During Apollo 10, they test flew it a few miles above the surface of the Moon and practiced landing manuevers as well as they possibly could without landing. Plus they had simulators. By the time Apollo 11 came along, the astronaut corps had a good idea of how to fly and land the LEM.

These were test pilots. They were used to being the first ones to do things with aircraft (or spacecraft) that had never been done previously. That's what they did for a living.

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

"Very nice", astronauts say, "but wait a moment, we have forgotten to test

Lunar Module on the Earth".

"NO PROBLEM, WE DON'T CARE IF LUNAR MODULE CAN LAND ON THE

EARTH. IT'S IMPORTANT IT WILL BE ABLE TO LAND ON THE MOON".

"Hey, you are right", astronauts say.

They did.
A version identical to the original lem was tested 2 weeks before going to the moon by armstrong in the desert, it crashed and exploded, armstrong ejected in the last moment while trying to control the craft that was crashing there for saving his life.

That was not a LEM. That was the LLRV/LLTV, and it was used to give them an idea of how the LEM would fly and handle when they were trying to land on the moon. No LEM ever flew in Earth's atmosphere. And oddly enough, it was rather successful too. They made 16 successful flights in December of 1965 alone. LLRV #1 made a total of almost 200 successful flights. So how is that possible if they can't land a ship the way they did on the moon? It took off straight up, flew around, hovered and landed straight down. Odd, they did it 198 times in just ONE LLRV, but they couldn't do it in the LEM on the moon?

[edit on 12/10/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That was not a LEM. That was the LLRV/LLTV, and it was used to give them an idea of how the LEM would fly and handle when they were trying to land on the moon. No LEM ever flew in Earth's atmosphere. And oddly enough, it was rather successful too. They made 16 successful flights in December of 1965 alone.

Well what ever it was it sure was supose to simulate the lem
I guess armstrong ejected in the last second, I've seen the crash it just went boom and splashed in to a big explosion, all this right before going to the moon.