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: 94
29
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
...

LEM had a swinging, oscillating rocket engine at the bottom.
Only a powerful computer would have been able to control the engine to counteract gravity forces that made LEM falling off in all directions at 360 degrees.
But that computer had 2k RAM.
I think not even today computers would be able to keep LEM vertical.
Try to keep vertical a coke can on your finger tip.







[edit on 2-8-2007 by skepticfriend]



jra

posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigbrain
LEM had a swinging, oscillating rocket engine at the bottom.


And a bunch of Reaction Control thrusters at the top.


Only a powerful computer would have been able to control the engine to counteract gravity forces that made LEM falling off in all directions at 360 degrees.


I'd like to see "bigbrains" calculations for why a powerful computer is needed and what it needed to do exactly. Unfortunately he doesn't supply such information.

The forces of gravity on the Moon are not that strong. The reaction control thrusters at the top help for manuvering as well. Piloting the LM is not like trying to balance a coke can on your finger.


I think not even today computers would be able to keep LEM vertical.


I gave bigbrain at least several links to projects very similar to the LM that are being worked on now. They all work without "powerful computers". There are videos you can see of these things in action and they were public demonstrations, some from competitions, but bigbrain simply and ignorantly dismissed them as fake.

There is pleanty of solid evidence out there that supports that the LM works as advertised. To simply just deny it without reason is incredibly foolish and silly.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by skepticfriend
I think there are somebody here in the pay of NASA that takes
people away from real evidences in order to debate about
nothing over and over.


Do tell. Who?

You must show your work to get full credit.


Have you seen?

Jra is surely in the pay of NASA.

He talks over and over and doesn't stop in front of the evidence.

Dear Jra, should you go to the moon with a rocket that will land going backwards without testing it on the earth?

Before my post yesterday views were 80000. Now they are 80180. Only Jra answered because he is paid to do it.


jra

posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by skepticfriend
Jra is surely in the pay of NASA.


Than surely you have some evidence to back up your claim?


Dear Jra, should you go to the moon with a rocket that will land going backwards without testing it on the earth?


No, but the LM was tested before landing on the Moon. There was the LLTV and LLRV which the Astronauts who piloted them, found there experiance with them to be quite invaluable. They also tested the LM in Earth orbit on Apollo's 8 and in Lunar orbit on Apollo 10. There were also all the Lunar Surveyor probes and the Russian's Luna probes that landed on the Moon years before Apollo. They landed much the same way as the LM does by using rockets on the bottom to slow there decent. So there are many pre-Apollo and post Apollo examples of rockets landing the same way.

Why you and others willingly choose to ignore this evidence is beyond me.

I'd like to see some hard evidence provided by you or others, that shows why you think it can't work. And by evidence I mean things like math, showing that it's not physically possible. Or going into detail why a powerful computer is needed and what it needs to do exactly. Saying, "it's like balancing a coke can on your finger", is not evidence.


Before my post yesterday views were 80000. Now they are 80180. Only Jra answered because he is paid to do it.


What do the page views have to do with being paid to post here? (which I am not!). 180 page views isn't a lot, as this is a rather large forum you know. I'd also appriciate it if you wouldn't accuse me (or anyone else for that matter) about being "paid to post" here. I find such baseless accusations offensive, plus in my opinion, it says a lot about your character and how you're willing to believe what ever you wish to believe, without any support to those claims what so ever. But I digress...



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra


No, but the LM was tested before landing on the Moon. There was the LLTV and LLRV which the Astronauts who piloted them, found there experiance with them to be quite invaluable. They also tested the LM in Earth orbit on Apollo's 8 and in Lunar orbit on Apollo 10.



1 >>> LLTV and LLRV have nothing to share with LEM!!!




2 >>> You can't test LEM in Earth orbit or in Lunar orbit. You can't land in orbit !!!

3 >>> Look at this pic




NASA engineers are sending Phoenix to Mars but!!! they have never tested
this probe on the earth!!!
Have you seen Phoenix landing on the Earth?
Phoenix has the same problems of LEM, it must land going backwards and its computer must control 12 jet engines. Just this once they have not spared at NASA.

It will be child's play to control 12 jet engines.
And we will see all at the distance of 56 million kilometers.

We will see only and always animated cartoons.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Of course we landed on the moon.
There is a ton of evidence showing that.
There is ZERO evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand why some people still refuse to accept the fact that we landed on the moon. Unfortunately those people will continue to wallow in ignorance and there is nothing anyone can do to help them.

Therefore, if you really believe that we did not land on the moon, PROVE IT.
Use actual scientific evidence to PROVE IT.
There is NO evidence so you can't but please feel free to try.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Of course we landed on the moon.
There is a ton of evidence showing that.
There is ZERO evidence to the contrary.

I don't understand why some people still refuse to accept the fact that we landed on the moon. Unfortunately those people will continue to wallow in ignorance and there is nothing anyone can do to help them.

Therefore, if you really believe that we did not land on the moon, PROVE IT.
Use actual scientific evidence to PROVE IT.
There is NO evidence so you can't but please feel free to try.

WELL the challenge comes right back to YOU, "Please show NON-NASA scinetific EVIDENCE that U.S.A. went to the moon?"



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Yasky,
Innocent till proven guilty. Since you make the claims of guilt, go to it big guy. Also, I will provide a few things not that they'll be believed anyway.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:14 PM
link   
yasky, one more thing, to make it fair, please provide NASA evidence that the moon landing was hoaxed.

I'm putting the ball back in your court using your argument. My point is that if you're going to require me to use non-nasa evidence, it's only fair you provide nasa based evidence for your argument.

Remember, just because it comes from nasa doesn't automatically make it invalid. Evidence stands on it's own. A fact is a fact, a lie is a lie no matter the source.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I'm sure this has been said many times before, and that someone will eventually quote me saying that and respond with "why post it", but seriously:

Is there a good reason (being out of view from NA, etc) that someone can't just get the co-ordinates that we landed on the moon at, use a nice, fancy, high-powered telescope, and take a look up there to see if any of the landing features are kicking around? I mean come on en.wikipedia.org...

Apollo 17 descent stage? Surely that is large enough to see with a telescope. Or did they land somewhere not visible from earth?


[edit on 4-8-2007 by D.E.M.]



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Here's an interesting site to debunk some moon landing misconceptions.

www.clavius.org...



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Here's an interesting site to debunk some moon landing misconceptions.

www.clavius.org...
The EVA videos show the astronauts falling and landing on their knees. Wouldn't this risk puncturing the space suit?
There's always a risk, of course. The Apollo 11 astronauts were not allowed to kneel down except in an emergency because of this [Reports11b, 79]. Armstrong and Aldrin reported that they had difficulty reaching items they had dropped without the ability to kneel. It was also not known if an astronaut wearing a lunar space suit (EMU) would be able to get back up again if he knelt or fell down. Apollo 11 astronauts helped verify that this was possible.
Source: www.clavius.org...
I went to this site two Saturdays ago, it did nothing but give more proof NASA faked it, as you can see in the above post with the link, NASA was affraid the space suites would "Puncture" if knelt on, well if kneeling on them, so tell me jfj123 do you REALY think NASA forgot to make the suites strong enough to not be punctured by microscopic-non microscopinc meteorites
this does nothing but give more proof they NEVER WERE ON THE MOON


BTW Smart-1's pictures didn't show anything, despite claiming the could show moonlanding sites, why do you think they never showed anything? THEY NEVER WERE THERE

www.space.com...
www.space.com...
As I stated before this guy hits the nail right on the head with these simple questions/statements:
www.space.com...
Science Challenge # 24-25-26

www.erichufschmid.net...



www.erichufschmid.net...


www.erichufschmid.net...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
wow, I think you got the wrong site somehow or simply didn't understand what you're reading. Maybe your brainwashing has been very successful. Either way, what are you talking about regarding kneeling and micro meteors?




posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Yasky wrote

I went to this site two Saturdays ago, it did nothing but give more proof NASA faked it, as you can see in the above post with the link, NASA was affraid the space suites would "Puncture" if knelt on, well if kneeling on them, so tell me jfj123 do you REALY think NASA forgot to make the suites strong enough to not be punctured by microscopic-non microscopinc meteorites this does nothing but give more proof they NEVER WERE ON THE MOON


How fast does a knee accelerate toward the ground during a kneel? approx. 2 mph maybe? that would translate to .00061 miles per second.
What would it take to re-enforce a EV suite to prevent a puncture from kneeling?

How fast does a micro meteor travel ? approx. 25 miles per second
What would it take to re-enforce a EV suite to prevent a puncture from a micro meteor?

Just to give you a comparison, a rifle fires a bullet at approx. 4000-5000 feet per second.
This would equate to .76-.95 miles per second
Information obtained from "The World Book Encyclopedia"

So now lets compare again side by side
Kneeling speed .0061 miles per second
Rifle speed .76-.95 miles per second
Micro meteor speed 25 miles per second

And you are asking why they couldn't prevent damage from a micro meteor?
Keep in mind that bullet proof body armor BARELY stops high caliber bullets.

Does this help answer your question YASKY?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 03:04 PM
link   



























You test landing on the moon with that carpentry machine and then you use this strange contrivance to land on the moon:





Is it o.k. for you?
Is it normal for you?
Is it right for you?
Is it intelligent for you?



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
wow, I think you got the wrong site somehow or simply didn't understand what you're reading. Maybe your brainwashing has been very successful. Either way, what are you talking about regarding kneeling and micro meteors?

This site here, scroll down and READ where he talks about the "EVA"
www.clavius.org...

[edit on 5-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Yasky wrote

I went to this site two Saturdays ago, it did nothing but give more proof NASA faked it, as you can see in the above post with the link, NASA was affraid the space suites would "Puncture" if knelt on, well if kneeling on them, so tell me jfj123 do you REALY think NASA forgot to make the suites strong enough to not be punctured by microscopic-non microscopinc meteorites this does nothing but give more proof they NEVER WERE ON THE MOON


How fast does a knee accelerate toward the ground during a kneel? approx. 2 mph maybe? that would translate to .00061 miles per second.
What would it take to re-enforce a EV suite to prevent a puncture from kneeling?

How fast does a micro meteor travel ? approx. 25 miles per second
What would it take to re-enforce a EV suite to prevent a puncture from a micro meteor?

Just to give you a comparison, a rifle fires a bullet at approx. 4000-5000 feet per second.
This would equate to .76-.95 miles per second
Information obtained from "The World Book Encyclopedia"

So now lets compare again side by side
Kneeling speed .0061 miles per second
Rifle speed .76-.95 miles per second
Micro meteor speed 25 miles per second

And you are asking why they couldn't prevent damage from a micro meteor?
Keep in mind that bullet proof body armor BARELY stops high caliber bullets.

Does this help answer your question YASKY?

You don't get it, here let me explain there are microscopic, and NON-microscopic meteorites flying and crashing on the moon, NASA would not put astroNUTS up there with space suites that could not protect them from those things, yet this site says NASA didn't want them to fall down and knell, AND it states NASA didn't want them to not just fall down knelling, but even just knelling with out falling down, read it carefully, it was just saying "FALLING DOWN TO KNELL, but just knelling also.
BTW the July 2007 issue of "POPULAR MECHANICS" has arctiles of U.S. Military talking about thier Satalites that are alsways getting "PUNCTURED" by microscopic meteorites, well the same astroNUTS if they were really up there would have been puctured along with that FAKE LUNAR MODEL.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:34 PM
link   
YASKY,
You're making huge leaps in logic.
Just because they were there doesn't mean they were hit by any micro meteors. Going to the moon was incredibly dangerous and being hit by one was a risk but you have a risk of being hit by a car walking across the street but you still walk across the street.

You're making incredible assumptions about how those suits were built without knowing anything about them.



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
YASKY,
You're making huge leaps in logic.
Just because they were there doesn't mean they were hit by any micro meteors. Going to the moon was incredibly dangerous and being hit by one was a risk but you have a risk of being hit by a car walking across the street but you still walk across the street.

You're making incredible assumptions about how those suits were built without knowing anything about them.

READ carfully what I post, I didn't say they were hit, I'm saying they would have been hit with NON-Microscopic and Microscopic meteorites if they were really there.

[edit on 5-8-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
YASKY,
You're making huge leaps in logic.
Just because they were there doesn't mean they were hit by any micro meteors. Going to the moon was incredibly dangerous and being hit by one was a risk but you have a risk of being hit by a car walking across the street but you still walk across the street.

You're making incredible assumptions about how those suits were built without knowing anything about them.


READ carfully what I post, I didn't say they were hit, I'm saying they would have been hit with NON-Microscopic and Microscopic meteorites if they were really there.


I read what you said. Let me rephrase SLIGHLTLY , "Just because they were there doesn't mean they were hit by any micro meteors OR NON-MICRO METEORS. Going to the moon was incredibly dangerous and being hit by one was a risk but you have a risk of being hit by a car walking across the street but you still walk across the street."

You can't say they WOULD HAVE BEEN HIT because that would mean every millimeter of the moon would be continually hit with meteors. This is obviously not the case.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 91  92  93    95  96  97 >>

log in

join