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: 151
29
<< 148  149  150    152  153  154 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 11 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   
You would be right if they had been put in solitary confinement for 3 years.

Are there in this forum any persons that think the 3 Heroes of the Space are hiding the truth and are afraid someone can unmask them?



JAK

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 06:22 AM
link   
This might be of interest here:

Mythbustin’ the Moon Hoax… Part I



I’m starting to receive a trickle of email informing me that the Mythbusters are tackling the Moon Hoax myth.

Yes, well, I need to divulge a secret: I know about it. I served as an informal advisor on the show. :-)

Second, no, before you ask: I have no idea how the testing went. They didn’t tell me anything about the results! Grrrrr.

Continued at source.

Jak



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by -bigbrain-
You would be right if they had been put in solitary confinement for 3 years.

Are there in this forum any persons that think the 3 Heroes of the Space are hiding the truth and are afraid someone can unmask them?


How arrogant it is to assume that you can know the mind and heart of a person who's been locked up for a month away from his family. That's plenty of time to reflect on how much time you've already spent away from your family, missing your kids growing up over the last few years as you trained for a moment that has already passed. Yet you assume that it's IMPOSSIBLE that he could be downtrodden for that reason. That's one of the most foolish assumptions I've ever seen a hoax believer make.

What's more likely, that Armstrong, a habitual introvert, appears downtrodden because he's been away from his family for so long and has had nothing but time to think about that and even admits it made him sad in an interview, or he's guilty he faked a moon landing, yet nasa allows the press interview to happen right after release from confinement anyway without any forestalling to whip his attitude into shape, and despite all his guilt he flat out lies about what was bugging him without even looking guilty about it... and before you say "they'd kill him if he told the truth," I say "So what?" The man's already had a heart attack, he's probably not long for this world at this point anyway, and if he were really that guilty about it why not clear his conscience and tell the truth? If he's not going to tell the truth he should look even guiltier about it, but he doesn't. Why doesn't he? The real reason is simple, and as Occam's razor dictates, the simple solution is usually the correct one: the moon landing wasn't faked, and pretending to be a mind reader and assuming only one possibility for post-confinement depression is not proof of a hoax at all.

The only thing that's impossible is to fake a moon landing on a set while panning your camera a complete 360 degrees before the days of computerized video editing. Any jump cut halfway through the pan would be painfully obvious without the aid of computer effects and a carefully photoshopped set of transition frames. They did 360 degree pans during all the later missions too wherever the rover went. Tellingly, you've ignored this entirely because you assume that there's only one possible explanation for armstrong's attitude, therefore nothing else matters. No matter how concrete the evidence, you couldn't possibly be wrong, you couldn't possibly have overlooked an alternative explanation. The moon hoax myth isn't about proof or truth, it's about assumptions and ignorance.

[edit on 12-3-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 





Please, don't ban me over and over. I promise to behave polite.

Also Aldrin and Collins don't seem very happy. They are depressed too.
Were Aldrin and Collins introverted too?


jra

posted on Mar, 12 2008 @ 08:03 PM
link   
And so it begins again.


Originally posted by .bigbrain.
Also Aldrin and Collins don't seem very happy.


Yeah, because we all know how fun and exciting doing a press conference is...

It's pretty bad when your evidence for Apollo being faked is due to some ones facial expression during a formal event. If you're going to judge the validity of Apollo based on facial expressions, than what do you have to say about this one? They've just returned from the Moon and they look happy.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
And so it begins again.


Originally posted by .bigbrain.
Also Aldrin and Collins don't seem very happy.


Yeah, because we all know how fun and exciting doing a press conference is...

It's pretty bad when your evidence for Apollo being faked is due to some ones facial expression during a formal event. If you're going to judge the validity of Apollo based on facial expressions, than what do you have to say about this one? They've just returned from the Moon and they look happy.


Couldn't agree more. Also, a screen capture during a press conference is hardly authoritative. I bet I can snap a whole bunch of odd looking pictures of you bigbrain while you're at a talk, it doesn't mean you looked odd in the context of the entire event. Here's a picture showing aldrin and collins being released from quarantine and they look relieved: science.ksc.nasa.gov...
And look, here's a picture of armstrong looking VERY happy as he's greeted by a friend exiting quarantine. Surprise, surprise, guess it wasn't guilt that was keeping him feeling down:
science.ksc.nasa.gov...



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
And so it begins again.


Originally posted by .bigbrain.
Also Aldrin and Collins don't seem very happy.


Yeah, because we all know how fun and exciting doing a press conference is...


Please, don't ban me over and over again. I promise I will behave politely.

If you had really landed on the Moon and if you had really come back to Earth, you should be very pleased, very contented, very glad, very happy.

You should feel the most strong, invincible, able, brave, courageous, fearless, valiant, bold man in the world.

You should be the most enthusiastic, excited, elated, euphoric, thrilled, satisfied, pleased, gratified, contented man in the world.

Instead

youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


We have mountains of physical proof the moon landings were done. Don't be disingenuous.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


We have mountains of physical proof the moon landings were done. Don't be disingenuous.

Yea right.
And other mountains showing moon sets , lems suspended on a platform above painted as a moon set, and rock piking, sur it was all done for training, training on platforms suspended with the lem pulled up with wiers over the moon set above with plastic craters.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


We have mountains of physical proof the moon landings were done. Don't be disingenuous.


No, you have never tested Lunar Module landing on the Earth going backwards because you had not technology that could land a rocket that had to touch the ground going backwards.


jra

posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Yes, they had training simulators and tried to simulate the appearance of the Moon as best they could. I'm guessing you're trying to imply that these were used to fake the actual Moon landings?



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Yes, they had training simulators and tried to simulate the appearance of the Moon as best they could. I'm guessing you're trying to imply that these were used to fake the actual Moon landings?


Yes but not suspended on a scale, that does not make sence, you would do that only if you are filming and do not want to see the background in to focus, if you only want to see the black sky in the background then you build a scale 60 feet up, you pull up a lem with wiers you paint craters with a brush over plastic and you start filming.



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_
Please, don't ban me over and over again. I promise I will behave politely.



Staff, upon careful consideration, have decided to allow your account to stay active, mainly because of your decision to abide by the T&C's.

Please make sure you have read the rules and understand them perfectly.

Terms And Conditions Of Use

I sincerely hope that your future contributions will be a benefit to, not only this thread, any others you choose to post in, but the membership in general.

Welcome.

 

grammar edit



[edit on 13/3/08 by masqua]



posted on Mar, 13 2008 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Did someone really want to argue that their "expressions" upon coming back from the moon would indicate they weren't there?
I'm not saying that going to the moon is Heaven but, they understood the enormity of it and they probably wept like babies to see our Earth as they stood on the moon. Coming back here had to be depressing as hell after spending so much time and effort and excitement to get to be the first humans there. Have you ever seen a kid after all the presents on Christmas have been opened? Have you ever been the kid after you have opened everything up after waiting since Thanksgiving? Yeah, thats the look that is expected. If they were all giddy at the press conference then I would be suspicious.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Yes, they had training simulators and tried to simulate the appearance of the Moon as best they could. I'm guessing you're trying to imply that these were used to fake the actual Moon landings?


Yes but not suspended on a scale, that does not make sence, you would do that only if you are filming and do not want to see the background in to focus, if you only want to see the black sky in the background then you build a scale 60 feet up, you pull up a lem with wiers you paint craters with a brush over plastic and you start filming.

You're forgetting something, there is no video of the LEM landing. Therefore that setup could not have been for filming. The only video of the ascent module launching came from one of the last missions, but if I'm not mistaken the picture you're talking about is the ENTIRE LEM suspended. We never saw the LEM land from the moon because we didn't have cameras already in place to watch it. And by the way, the background is in focus on these "sets" - there's all kinds of garbage that you can see back there and it's perfectly in focus.
upload.wikimedia.org...
history.nasa.gov...


What you're basically saying is that if they wanted to train they shouldn't have done their best to make it look realistic. That's not how NASA works, even to this day. They want their astronauts to feel like they've already been there by the time they go on the real mission. They want every move they make to become second nature. That's how you get things done successfully in a tight time crunch with only one shot to get it right. If what you're saying had any bearing then they shouldn't go out of their way to make the cosmetic details of their underwater space station models look realistic.
www.atlasaerospace.net...
Why use black sticker decals on the outside, why use any metal parts except for handrails? And for apollo, why practice outside with real soil if you're not really going to go there anyway?
www.lpi.usra.edu...
And finally, if they were using sets 60 feet deep, how come pairs of images showing mountains and objects in the distance taken kilometers apart on the lunar missions show that the mountains are truly 3 dimensional and truly distant? You would need advanced CG to fake that in three dimensions, something they didn't have back then.

i14.photobucket.com...


[edit on 14-3-2008 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

Originally posted by chromatico
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


We have mountains of physical proof the moon landings were done. Don't be disingenuous.

Yea right.
And other mountains showing moon sets , lems suspended on a platform above painted as a moon set, and rock piking, sur it was all done for training, training on platforms suspended with the lem pulled up with wiers over the moon set above with plastic craters.


With that kind of logic, the existence of advanced flight simulators used nowadays by the US Airforce is a proof that wars in Serbia and Iraq were all fake, and the US does not in fact have airworthy warplanes at all.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You're forgetting something, there is no video of the LEM landing. Therefore that setup could not have been for filming.
...


You are right.

This biggest crane



had to be used to test the capability of Snoopy to land going backwards suspended to it.
But NASA engineers were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards, in fact rockets are made to go forward.
Try to balance a glass on your forefinger and you will understand how much difficult it is.
Your finger should move in all right directions at highest speed to oppose to gravity forces that make the glass to fall down at 360 degrees.
It is impossible to balance the glass.
Imagine you are inside the glass and you must balance it with a joystick.
Since you are inside, you can't see where you are falling down fastly then if you pilot Snoopy inside it, you can't do it manually.
Instead Stafford in Apollo 10 did it and piloted Snoopy manually as if it was a helicopter.
But a rocket is not a helicopter. Helicopter is totally different and flies in the air.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


_bigbrain_ please check out your u2u's. It red up in your tool bar.


jra

posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by _bigbrain_
 


How many times do you need to be told that landing the LM "backwards" is nothing like balancing something on your finger. I've said before, the LM thrust from the decent module is at the LM's center of mass or very near it anyway.

You've also been shown many videos of other similar "backwards landing" rockets doing just that, landing backwards. So how can you still insist that they don't work? It's absurd and ignorant.



posted on Mar, 14 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by _bigbrain_

Originally posted by ngchunter
...
You're forgetting something, there is no video of the LEM landing. Therefore that setup could not have been for filming.
...


You are right.

This biggest crane



had to be used to test the capability of Snoopy to land going backwards suspended to it.
But NASA engineers were not able to build a rocket that could land going backwards, in fact rockets are made to go forward.
Try to balance a glass on your forefinger and you will understand how much difficult it is.
Your finger should move in all right directions at highest speed to oppose to gravity forces that make the glass to fall down at 360 degrees.

I'm sorry but this is gibberish. "fall down at 360 degrees"?!


It is impossible to balance the glass.
Imagine you are inside the glass and you must balance it with a joystick.
Since you are inside, you can't see where you are falling down fastly then if you pilot Snoopy inside it, you can't do it manually.
Instead Stafford in Apollo 10 did it and piloted Snoopy manually as if it was a helicopter.
But a rocket is not a helicopter. Helicopter is totally different and flies in the air.

Not this nonsense again. By this logic the shuttle is a hoax. It too must fire its rockets "going backwards" to deorbit. Your example is irrelevant and false: your finger is not rigidly attached to the glass. Permanently affix a stick to the bottom of a glass and hold the stick. No problem. Every spacecraft to ever fly to orbit and return has had to fire its rockets "going backwards" while maintaining attitude. It's no problem of course because of the conservation of angular momentum. You don't induce angular momentum by firing an engine that is aligned to the axis of the spacecraft. The orbiter is actually an exception, it DOES induce some angular momentum because its OMS pods aren't aligned to the axis and so it must constantly correct for that during an OMS burn. Yet it orbits and de-orbits just fine...

By the way, in apollo they controlled their rate of descent using the apollo guidance computer just fine. It's simple orbital mechanics since there's no atmosphere. All the computer had to do was keep the spacecraft pointed opposite of the velocity vector and maintain enough thrust to bring the velocity to near zero at a predetermined point over the lunar surface. It's not that hard, and you can simulate that very event using a modern day computer running the very same apollo guidance software. It still works just as well today as it did back then.
nassp.sourceforge.net...
The rate of descent was measurable and known, they had ground facing radar in case you didn't know, the computer had all the information it needed to calculate how fast they needed to decelerate to reach the surface at a low enough speed for a controlled final descent. And although the LLRV failure and ejection video is popular "proof," it's really just a double standard since everyone ignores all the successful landing practices that occured in the LLRV.
www.youtube.com...
More proof, surveyor 1 landed successfully while using rockets "flying backwards"
wanderingspace.net...



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 148  149  150    152  153  154 >>

log in

join