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: 135
29
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jetpilot

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


The Lunar Landing Research Facilty (LLRF) at Langley was NOT used to test the LEM, but was instead used to simulate THE PROCEDURES for landing on the Moon and controlling the LEM down to the surface of the Moon, which has 1/6 the gravity of the Earth.



This is your interpretation. I think instead Langley crane had to be used to test LEM and other probes. But NASA engineers were not able to build a spaceship that could land going backwards, then they faked all the story.

Imagine LEM running fastly towards the ground of the Moon. What should you do to brake its run? You have not the foot-brake. Then you turn the LEM and run going backwards, switch full throttle and begin to whirl
crashing on the ground. I'm a jet pilot, I know aerodynamics.


Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon. There's nothing to make the LEM whirl at all, the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity. It's no different than for the various unmanned probes that have gone to various planets and used thrusters for landing. Are those all faked too?




posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter


Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon. There's nothing to make the LEM whirl at all, the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity. It's no different than for the various unmanned probes that have gone to various planets and used thrusters for landing. Are those all faked too?



LEM is running fastly towards the ground of the Moon going backwards. You switch on full throttle to brake its run.
Put a coke can on your finger and move your hand down, then stop it.
The coke can falls off with an incredible quickness. You can't control its attitude. In the space LEM would whirl like a whisk if you tried to brake its run.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by jet.pilot]


jra

posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jet.pilot
Put a coke can on your finger...




You can put as many Coke cans on as many fingers as you like. It still won't have anything to do with the LM and other "backwards landing" rockets.

And speaking of "backwards landing" rockets. SpaceDev successfully tested its prototype.


From: space.com

The Poway, Calif.-based firm, SpaceDev, launched the lunar lander prototype approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the air on a tether, where it hovered before descending for a careful landing. The test represents the first ever for a hybrid rocket powered lander vehicle.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jet.pilot

Originally posted by ngchunter


Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon. There's nothing to make the LEM whirl at all, the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity. It's no different than for the various unmanned probes that have gone to various planets and used thrusters for landing. Are those all faked too?



LEM is running fastly towards the ground of the Moon going backwards. You switch on full throttle to brake its run.
Put a coke can on your finger and move your hand down, then stop it.
The coke can falls off with an incredible quickness. You can't control its attitude. In the space LEM would whirl like a whisk if you tried to brake its run.

[edit on 21-12-2007 by jet.pilot]


They know exactly how "fast" the lem is descending, all you have to do is thrust in the opposite direction. It's really not that hard. My hand doesn't have the precision of a machine, and your description of what to do isn't exactly analogous either. The reason the coke bottle falls off is because you aren't pushing into the coke bottle's center of gravity. A rocket placed directly in the middle underneath the spacecraft will ALWAYS push towards the COG.



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Here's a possible end to the conspiracy...

www.space.com...


There's something bothering me here. I've looked at the foto's and films of the Apollo landings and there wasn't any sign of a rocket blast under the lunar module. The explaination herefore given by Nasa is that the moon soil is to hard to leave any traces of the blast. But what do we read if we follow the above link:


Rocket blast

Using Clementine photos taken of the Apollo 15 touchdown zone, several anomalies can be seen. "All of them but one are related to small, fresh impact craters. The only one not related to any crater, exactly coincides with the landing site," Kreslavsky said.

The disruption in the structure of the lunar regolith is caused by the landing, Kreslavsky said. He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown.

The anomaly is within a 165-foot (50-meter) to 490-foot (150-meter) radius around the landing site, Kreslavsky said. "Unfortunately, the Clementine data do not allow similar studies for any other landing sites."


How can they spot traces of a rocket blast on a picture taken from miles above the surface if there wasn't a trace of one on pictures taken on the surface of the moon of the actual lander?


But hey, you can always say that I'm just being paranoid!



posted on Dec, 21 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You have been posting in this thread for over a year, but have NOT provided any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE of a hoax.


And I've been trying to get swimmer to debate the subject for that long, but he just seems to avoid debate and would rather insult and attack others.

Here's hoping he has a change of heart. I'm all for debating and researching further into the topic. Are you swimmer?


jra, sorry, but I have no interest in having any debate with you or anyone like you. I just don't have time for that any more. I have posted links with scientific explanation of why IT NEVER HAPPENED. Other people have, over and over again, proved that it absolutely could not have happened. Enough.
I might start a topic for those people who simply know that NASA's "Moon Landing" never happened , just talk about HOW it was faked. I am totally not interested any more in any discussion about IF the mission was faked or not. I KNOW that it was faked, and it was not too hard to figure it out. I leave this topic to you jra, and your band of NASA dummies.





[edit on 21-12-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by swimmer
 


Swimmer,

This is called 'An End to the Moon Conspiracy'. It is not called "I Know it Never Happened, so There!... (and anyone who disagrees with me is a NASA dummy)" thread.

BTW, that was your word choice, calling another ATS member a dummy. I feel that your lack of any convincing proof, combined with your continued attacks on ATS members in good standing, are indications of your lack of any substantial evidence, combined with a rabid desire to 'believe' something to the exclusion of all valid refutation, all has been provided to you, over and over again. Your ad hominem attacks grow tiresome...

Perhaps you can provide your own valid reasoning as to why, and how, Apollo was completely faked? Along with your proof. And, perhaps, you can do it in a scholarly way without resorting to personal attacks?

Looking forward to your posts...



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by swimmer
 


Swimmer, on 6-11-2006 you wrote that it would be your last post. Oh, tell us it ain't so!!!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon.

Silly Lemming "P

You haven't been paying attention to John




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

The Poway, Calif.-based firm, SpaceDev, launched the lunar lander prototype approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the air on a tether, where it hovered before descending for a careful landing. The test represents the first ever for a hybrid rocket powered lander vehicle.






I think that is not a big test, I see a cable that sustains the rocket.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by jet-pilot]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpijkerMuis

How can they spot traces of a rocket blast on a picture taken from miles above the surface if there wasn't a trace of one on pictures taken on the surface of the moon of the actual lander?


But hey, you can always say that I'm just being paranoid!


That interpretation of clementine's data is just plain wrong imho. In my opinion, there is no trace of any apollo missions from clementine, the resolution was far too low to pick anything up. The idea was not that clementine detected a crater though; the thrust needed to land softly on the moon is not that great thanks to the moon's low gravity, besides, when was the last time you saw a VTOL make a crater on earth (except when crashing)?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You have been posting in this thread for over a year, but have NOT provided any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE of a hoax.


And I've been trying to get swimmer to debate the subject for that long, but he just seems to avoid debate and would rather insult and attack others.

Here's hoping he has a change of heart. I'm all for debating and researching further into the topic. Are you swimmer?


jra, sorry, but I have no interest in having any debate with you or anyone like you. I just don't have time for that any more. I have posted links with scientific explanation of why IT NEVER HAPPENED. Other people have, over and over again, proved that it absolutely could not have happened. Enough.
I might start a topic for those people who simply know that NASA's "Moon Landing" never happened , just talk about HOW it was faked. I am totally not interested any more in any discussion about IF the mission was faked or not. I KNOW that it was faked, and it was not too hard to figure it out. I leave this topic to you jra, and your band of NASA dummies.





[edit on 21-12-2007 by swimmer]


Actually I've seen people prove over and over again that it DID happen and I've seen the explanation for every major point anyone has ever raised in trying to prove it didn't happen. Why are you so afraid to debate us on the matter if you're so confident that your idea is right?



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jet-pilot

Originally posted by jra

The Poway, Calif.-based firm, SpaceDev, launched the lunar lander prototype approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the air on a tether, where it hovered before descending for a careful landing. The test represents the first ever for a hybrid rocket powered lander vehicle.







[edit on 22-12-2007 by jet-pilot]


The cable is attached vertically and is completely vertical in the picture. How is that going to prevent any lateral motion or "whirling" from occuring? In fact, it would seem to me that if the rocket were to go off course here, the cable would only cause it to stay confined to the area while swinging wildly. That's not what it's doing here.
I think that is not a big test, I see a cable that sustains the rocket.

[edit on 22-12-2007 by ngchunter]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by SpijkerMuis

How can they spot traces of a rocket blast on a picture taken from miles above the surface if there wasn't a trace of one on pictures taken on the surface of the moon of the actual lander?


But hey, you can always say that I'm just being paranoid!


That interpretation of clementine's data is just plain wrong imho. In my opinion, there is no trace of any apollo missions from clementine...


Thanks, ngchunter, that's what I thought too. For me it's just another proof to never trust scientists claiming they have proof to end the moon conspiracy theory! Glad you agree!


It was impossible then (and still is) to get human beings past the Van Allen radiation belts without it resulting in their dead,. And even if they survive, they will at least suffer severe organ and DNA damage. The Van Allen belt was put there with the sole purpose to avoid us from leaving the earth's circumference in the first place, and I must say, it's doing it's job!



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra


And speaking of "backwards landing" rockets. SpaceDev successfully tested its prototype.


From: space.com



Only deficient people would test their rocket close to a building.
THIS TEST IS FAKE.




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpijkerMuis
It was impossible then (and still is) to get human beings past the Van Allen radiation belts without it resulting in their dead,.


Better get your sun block ready then when the Van Allen belt drops with the coming pole shift and the magnetic field drops to ZERO...



Now that Spacedev test... I saw that rocket not going up to straight I bet if the cable wasn't there it would have gone wild... and coming down all it had to do was slide down the cable...

Now then how will they get that cable from here to the moon?




posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   
[edit on 12/22/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Then you send Lunar Module to land on the Moon going backwards and you don't test it on the Earth.

In Apollo 10 astronauts named Lunar Module "Snoopy" and Command Module "Charlie Brown".

www.youtube.com...

You went to the Moon as in a comic-strip story.







You went to the Moon with these toys.



[edit on 22-12-2007 by pollok]


jra

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jet-pilot

Originally posted by jra

The Poway, Calif.-based firm, SpaceDev, launched the lunar lander prototype approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the air on a tether, where it hovered before descending for a careful landing. The test represents the first ever for a hybrid rocket powered lander vehicle.


I think that is not a big test, I see a cable that sustains the rocket.


Hi bigbrain, greatbrain, skepticfriend, jra-2, jetpilot and now pollok.

It's called a tether and it's mentioned in the part of the article that I quoted. It's for safty reasons. If you watch the video, you can see the cable go limp when the rocket goes up.

Link to video: www.spacedev.com...


jra

posted on Dec, 22 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpijkerMuis
How can they spot traces of a rocket blast on a picture taken from miles above the surface if there wasn't a trace of one on pictures taken on the surface of the moon of the actual lander?


The Lunar moduals did blow a fair amount of dust around when landing. Enough to make a subtle, but noticeable disturbance. That Clementine image would have been taken in either infrared or ultraviolet and would reveal details not visible to the naked eye. Disturbances in the soil would show up a lot more in those wavelenths.

I've seen a normal colour image of a landing site, taken by one of the Apollo missions. The area of the landing site was slightly lighter in shade, if I remember right. It's not something you'd really notice on the ground.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 132  133  134    136  137  138 >>

log in

join