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: 86
29
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Jra, I think Swimmer is BigBrain. How absolutely entertaining to read a thread with input from somebody with multiple personalities. Don't be a billy goat and pay the trolls. Simply deny them. They are ignorant. And I suspect need a good lie down.




posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   
Then you have not still understood anything about LEM and gravity forces.


I hope this image can tell you something:





Nothing and nobody could keep vertical this strange UFO that had to land going backwards.








posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
Then you have not still understood anything about LEM and gravity forces.


PMSL...........oh the irony





I hope this image can tell you something:






yes it tells me you have no clue , and are dishonest

first :

you have drawn the thrust vector incorrectly

also you dishonestly ommit the ffact that the main rocket motor is on a gimball - allowing it to

also you ommit the attitude thusters - thier role was vital -

why do you pretend they were absent - and pretend that forces that they SPECIFICALLY countered made LEM operations " imposible "


PS - please explain why you drew the " barycentric axis " where you did



Nothing and nobody could keep vertical this strange UFO that had to land going backwards.


6 sucesfull apollo mission - all filmed , plus other systems using similar technolgy are evidence that you are deluded

[edit on 16-6-2007 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by maninblack
It is kind of to say the moon landings were faked,or else were would we have gotten moon rock from?
But I think more happend at the moon landing then we know.


I THINK THAT MAYBE WE DID ACTUALLY LAND ON THE MOON, BUT WHATS THE REASON WE HAVENT GONE BACK? AND WHY DID WE BUILD A FLOATING SPACE STATION INSTEAD OF BUILDING ON THE MOON?! DO THE CREATURES THAT WE ALL FEAR ALREADY HAVE A SPOT ON THE MOON AND THEREFORE WE CANT EVEN GO THERE FOR FEAR OF THEM?! I ALREADY KNOW WHAT SOME WILL SAY WHICH I KNOW THAT IT IS HARD TO LIFT OFF FROM THE MOON ONCE YOU GET THERE, BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT WITH ALL THE TECHNOLOGY WE HAVE NOW AND THE EVOLUTION OF THE VERTICAL LIFT OFF HELICOPTER PLANE THAT GOING BCK TO THE MOON WOULD BE LIKE PARALLEL PARKING, SEMI-HARD BUT EASY AFTER YOU DO IT A COUPLE OF TIMES....



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
...

also you dishonestly ommit the fact that the main rocket motor is on a gimball - allowing it to

also you ommit the attitude thusters - thier role was vital
...


You forget that computer of LEM didn't work close to the moon and Armstrong took hand controller and LANDED MANUALLY THE LEM LIKE A HELICOPTER, CONTROLLING A THOUSAND OF GRAVITY FORCES.

LEM IS NOT A HELICOPTER THRUSTED FROM THE TOP AND THEREFORE EASY TO CONTROL.

LEM IS THRUSTED FROM THE BOTTOM AND THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL BECAUSE IT ROTATES IN ALL DIRECTIONS AT 360 DEGREES.

UNFORTUNATELY, HELICOPTERS DO NOT WORK ON THE MOON.





[edit on 16-6-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 06:11 PM
link   
bigbrain --

Well, this is a little off topic, but if you don't even understand how a helicopter works, dthen on't use it in an LEM analogy.

A helicopter does not work by the rotors "creating downward thrust". The downward wash from a helicopter creates no lift (or actually negligable lift), much like the backwards wash from a convetional plane's propellor does not create lift. Lift in a helicopter is created when the winged-shaped rotors (the airfoil or aerofoil) cut through the air which creates pressure differentials, thus causing lift. A helicopter's lift is created much like a conventional air plane, except instead of propelling wings fixed to the aircraft through the air, the wings (rotors) are rotated through the air.

If helicopters relied on the downward thrust of the wash of air coming off of the rotors, then a helicopter would not be able to fly at 5,000 feet, where there is not much for that wash of air to push against.

I'm sorry to everyone else for going off topic, but if someone is going to use other examples to make their case (IMO a very weak case), then they should first understand those examples.


jra

posted on Jun, 16 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
You forget that computer of LEM didn't work close to the moon


You forget or didn't know, that there were other missions that landed after Apollo 11. And not all of them were manual landings.


and Armstrong took hand controller and LANDED MANUALLY THE LEM LIKE A HELICOPTER


Yes it landed vertically, like it was designed too. And no, it will not tip over because the rocket is on the bottom. It's not like balancing a coke can on the tip of your finger.

You could try one of these simulators to get an idea of what it's like to control the LM.
www.eaglelander3d.com...
www.easylander.com...


CONTROLLING A THOUSAND OF GRAVITY FORCES.


What is "a thousand of gravity forces" in reference to exactly? If you meant the amount of thrust/force coming from the LM's rocket. It put out over 9,000 lbf. That isn't a lot, it's less than what the Harrier jet puts out. So it should be no problem for an experienced pilot to manually control something that puts out thousands of "gravity forces", as you put it.


LEM IS THRUSTED FROM THE BOTTOM AND THEREFORE IMPOSSIBLE TO CONTROL BECAUSE IT ROTATES IN ALL DIRECTIONS AT 360 DEGREES.


Fortunately the LM has reaction control system (RCS) which are thrusters near the top which help the LM maneuver, making it very possible to control.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...

You could try one of these simulators to get an idea of what it's like to control the LM.
www.eaglelander3d.com...
www.easylander.com...
...



You are a poor guy. You think it's child's play to land a rocket on the moon going backwords.

You have not understood anything.

YOU PLAY TOO MUCH WIYH PLAYSTATION AND THINK REAL ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE THINGS.

You wrote:
"You forget or didn't know, that there were other missions that landed after Apollo 11. And not all of them were manual landings".

THEN YOU ARE COMPLETELY STUPID


YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.





Announcement: Civility & Decorum are Expected

[edit on 17/6/2007 by Umbrax]


jra

posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
You are a poor guy. You think it's child's play to land a rocket on the moon going backwords.


I never said or implied it was an easy thing to do. I certainly don't think it's easy, but it's definitely not impossible.


THEN YOU ARE COMPLETELY STUPID


Read the terms and conditions of this site. Calling other people stupid and other name calling doesn't go over well here, plus it's a very childish thing to do. We've all tried to discuss the subject with you politely, it would be best if you could grow up and do the same.



posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Yes, bigbrain, we all know that there is no problem with landing a rocket on the Moon - backwards. It is even easier to do it manually. Piece of cake.


Now, let's just say (write) that again: landing a rocket on the Moon backwards. With humans in it. Think about it. Does it sound like something NASA is capable of doing even today? Even 50 years from today (in the future)?

LANDING A ROCKET ON THE MOON BACKWARDS!!!!

To me, it is a good joke, but sometimes it makes me a little sad that us humans can be tricked into accepting nonsense like that as "science".




posted on Jun, 17 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer

Yes, bigbrain, we all know that there is no problem with landing a rocket on the Moon - backwards.

It is even easier to do it manually. Piece of cake.
...


Swimmer, don't you think Jra wants to make fun of himself?








posted on Jun, 19 2007 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I'm bigbrain

A moderator have banned me.

USA are not the land of the free.

What a pity: that moderator

is deficient as his president.









posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
bigbrain, you should not be surprised...if you check the names of the forums and how everything is moderated, you will see that everything that is not "official truth" is treated as a joke...

But, I am grateful to even read ANYTHING that is not official media...

You were just too convincing, and too self-confident. Here you can only really be accepted if your knowledge is so-so.

You were making waves...


So, please keep up, I am looking forward to reading your posts, and I am sure there are more people who read, even if they don't understand completely, at least they are exposed to authentic reasoning...

For the moderator(s): it would be nice to explain why you banned bigbrain...?

p.s. 30 years ago, a grandmother told me, whispering: "who knows if they really went to the Moon"...I thought she was just not educated. I was wrong.



posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Uh, he WASN'T banned. That's why he has "member" under his username. He was probably post banned for some of his posts in the 9/11 forum, but he's definitely NOT banned, or it would SAY "banned".

From a mod: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6/20/2007 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Meanwhile, there were a few other threads on this topic - some people are not even aware that there was such a thorough discussion as this one. It is a shame that this thread is not fixed on top of the forum, as it used to be.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
That's because you and your other personality ruined a perfectly good thread with your childishness. Way to go. You should be ambassadors for your country.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
I have a question, seriously, I heard about the moon hoaxes, and I heard/read the rebuttles, like "Bad Astronomy", but rescently, a new problem came to mind that threw me off, and has me thinking again that maybe NASA "didn't go to the moon" NASA says that the stars were not picked up by the astronots camera's because there is no atmosphere, well how come the Hubbel Telescope, picked up stars? even when it was only using it's "Optical lense" another thing, there are vaccum chambers here on earth, has anyone did an experiment were they take an object and put it inside the chamber and put it in a vaccum, and raised the object a certin amount of feet in the air, and dropped it to time how many seconds it takes to fall, because some skepticks have argued that a hammer takes a little less than a second to hit the ground here on earth, but on the moon it would take a little over 5 seconds, scince it's 1/6 the earth's gravity. Moon landing believers have counterd back by saying "there is no resistance on the moon so the hammer would fall faster on the moon" scince there is no air (resistance) All it takes is simple experiment, take a Hammer and a feather put then in a 3 foot vaccum, and vaccum it the raise the feather and hammer 3 feet high and drop them both at the same time, if for example they both drop at lets say .5 seconds EACH, them they bothe would drom at 3 seconds EACH on the moon, there reason I'm saying this is becaue I think it was "APOLLO 14" they did an experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer, and they both landed at the same time, but may have said even if there is a vaccum, the feather would STILL NOT land at the same time as the hammer, and it would be visable, so I was wouldering if any one on ATS has a vaccum chamber can you do the experiment so we can see


[edit on 30-6-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
NASA says that the stars were not picked up by the astronots camera's because there is no atmosphere,


hi , can you please cite exactly where NASA states this[ please link to or quote a primary source , not heresay - thanks ] - because that is certainly not the correct answer

the correct answer is that as the apollo landing sites were lit by direct sunlight - the pictures taken were exposed for that light - the magnitude [ brighness ] of the stars was way too loow to capture them

here is a simple experiment to verify this

using a digital camera on " manual mode " go outside in direct sunlight and calulate the correct exposure settings [ shutter spped and arpeture - about 1/250th , f6 ] to correctly expose a person standing 5 m from you

then use the exact same settings to take a picture of the stars @ night -

then reverse it :

still at night - open the arpeture and dial in a 20 second shutter speed - the stars are now visible

use the same settings in bright sunlight

what happens ?

now do you understand why the stars are not visible in photographs that are correctly exposed for daylight conditions on the lunar surface



another thing, there are vaccum chambers here on earth, has anyone did an experiment were they take an object and put it inside the chamber and put it in a vaccum, and raised the object a certin amount of feet in the air, and dropped it to time how many seconds it takes to fall, because some skepticks have argued that a hammer takes a little less than a second to hit the ground here on earth, but on the moon it would take a little over 5 seconds, scince it's 1/6 the earth's gravity. Moon landing believers have counterd back by saying "there is no resistance on the moon so the hammer would fall faster on the moon" scince there is no air (resistance) All it takes is simple experiment, take a Hammer and a feather put then in a 3 foot vaccum, and vaccum it the raise the feather and hammer 3 feet high and drop them both at the same time, if for example they both drop at lets say .5 seconds EACH, them they bothe would drom at 3 seconds EACH on the moon, there reason I'm saying this is becaue I think it was "APOLLO 14" they did an experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer, and they both landed at the same time, but may have said even if there is a vaccum, the feather would STILL NOT land at the same time as the hammer, and it would be visable, so I was wouldering if any one on ATS has a vaccum chamber can you do the experiment so we can see




the " air resistance " on the hammer in earths atmosphere is minimal - and over short distances - it would be difficult to measure a difference between its preformance in air or vacum

the feather OTOH has massive air resistance - thus its rate of fall is notacibly slower in air
but in vacum - it would plumet @ a rate constrained only by the local rate of acceleration due to gravity

consider parachitists - in free fall the maximum ternimal velocity is aprox 200kph , whereas the raste of descent under a chute is < 5kpm

in vacum it would fall @ the rate set by local accelration due to gravity

the apollo ` hammer and feather experiment was conducted to show that air resistance , not mass diferences affected the rates of fall

the fact that on the moon - the feather and hammer fell in synch - proves that

the acceleration due to gravity " @ the lunar surface is 1.62m/s2 - as opposed to 9.81m/s2 on earth

the hammer would fall faster on earth - both in air and gravity than on the moon



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by YASKY
NASA says that the stars were not picked up by the astronots camera's because there is no atmosphere,


hi , can you please cite exactly where NASA states this[ please link to or quote a primary source , not heresay - thanks ] - because that is certainly not the correct answer

the correct answer is that as the apollo landing sites were lit by direct sunlight - the pictures taken were exposed for that light - the magnitude [ brighness ] of the stars was way too loow to capture them

here is a simple experiment to verify this

using a digital camera on " manual mode " go outside in direct sunlight and calulate the correct exposure settings [ shutter spped and arpeture - about 1/250th , f6 ] to correctly expose a person standing 5 m from you

then use the exact same settings to take a picture of the stars @ night -

then reverse it :

still at night - open the arpeture and dial in a 20 second shutter speed - the stars are now visible

use the same settings in bright sunlight

what happens ?

now do you understand why the stars are not visible in photographs that are correctly exposed for daylight conditions on the lunar surface



another thing, there are vaccum chambers here on earth, has anyone did an experiment were they take an object and put it inside the chamber and put it in a vaccum, and raised the object a certin amount of feet in the air, and dropped it to time how many seconds it takes to fall, because some skepticks have argued that a hammer takes a little less than a second to hit the ground here on earth, but on the moon it would take a little over 5 seconds, scince it's 1/6 the earth's gravity. Moon landing believers have counterd back by saying "there is no resistance on the moon so the hammer would fall faster on the moon" scince there is no air (resistance) All it takes is simple experiment, take a Hammer and a feather put then in a 3 foot vaccum, and vaccum it the raise the feather and hammer 3 feet high and drop them both at the same time, if for example they both drop at lets say .5 seconds EACH, them they bothe would drom at 3 seconds EACH on the moon, there reason I'm saying this is becaue I think it was "APOLLO 14" they did an experiment on the moon with a feather and a hammer, and they both landed at the same time, but may have said even if there is a vaccum, the feather would STILL NOT land at the same time as the hammer, and it would be visable, so I was wouldering if any one on ATS has a vaccum chamber can you do the experiment so we can see




the " air resistance " on the hammer in earths atmosphere is minimal - and over short distances - it would be difficult to measure a difference between its preformance in air or vacum

the feather OTOH has massive air resistance - thus its rate of fall is notacibly slower in air
but in vacum - it would plumet @ a rate constrained only by the local rate of acceleration due to gravity

consider parachitists - in free fall the maximum ternimal velocity is aprox 200kph , whereas the raste of descent under a chute is < 5kpm

in vacum it would fall @ the rate set by local accelration due to gravity

the apollo ` hammer and feather experiment was conducted to show that air resistance , not mass diferences affected the rates of fall

the fact that on the moon - the feather and hammer fell in synch - proves that

the acceleration due to gravity " @ the lunar surface is 1.62m/s2 - as opposed to 9.81m/s2 on earth

the hammer would fall faster on earth - both in air and gravity than on the moon

1. Why not use a non-digital camera, scince the Apollo camera's were not digital also?
2. I don't understand, would the hammer and feather both hit the moon surface at the same time



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
American Mad Man, you foolish person!

You expect logic or coherency from the hoax-believers?

Here is how it really happened:

The Greys exist, of course, and they have been selling us their technology since 1942 in return for people to eat.

The first deal was made at the Treaty of Nieue Schwabenland with the Nazis in 1943, where the Greys gave Hitler (who liked Antarctica so much he moved there and lived there until his death in 1989) the designs for their weaponry. The cost, of course, was three Jews per Grey per week (which is why the Holocaust isn't a hoax; but the Jews weren't gassed , they were given to the Greys).

For the next 25 years, the Nazis and their successors (John F. Kennedy, his half-brother Lee Harvey Oswald, Ho Chi Minh, and the entire Board of Directors of the International House of Pancakes) were too busy investigating and settling Pellucidar (the interior of the hollow Earth lit by a tiny sun in the exact center) after winning the Great Underground War with the Niburans and their Atlantean allies. By the time the war was over, they had begun the second phase of the Plan which was to design instructions to the center of the earth as well as the secrets of the Ancient Krishnavedanta Indian Nuclear devices. This work, carried out by Erich von Däniken and Cliff Carneycon, is available (in code) at the Denver International Airport for all to see.

The plan almost failed when Jeff Rense, a secret neocon and half-brother to both George Bush; and Art Bell, the illegitimate offspring of Queen Elizabeth as the result of a teenaged romantic fling with Nikita Krushchev and thus the Rightful King of England, both threatened to blow the whistle on the whole thing. They was killed, of course, and were replaced by cleverly-disguised Greys.

And that’s why we didn’t go to the Moon.



Goodness gracious me, do you really believe this stuff




top topics



 
29
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join