It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 98
29
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 11:33 AM

In the new movie "The Invasion" the NASA officials say that Space is cold, why did the producers of that movie make such a basic mistake if it is a simple knowledge that Space is not cold?

Yes, it would be really cold. Temperature measures the energy per "degree of freedom" (i.e. way something can move) of whatever molecules happen to be around. So, it becomes so cold that the molecules stop all together, then this is the "absolute zero" temperature. On the Celsius Temperature Scale (i.e. water freezes at 0, and boils at 100) this takes place at -273 degrees C.

We usually use the Kelvin temperature scale, where Zero Kelvin is this "absolute zero" temperature -- or -273 degrees C. Water freezes at +273 Kelvin and water boils at +373 Kelvin.

If we put a thermometer in darkest space, with absolutely nothing around, it would first have to cool off. This might take a very very long time. Once it cooled off, it would read 2.7 Kelvin. This is because of the "3 degree microwave background radiation." No matter where you go, you cannot escape it -- it is always there.

If there were some "wrong" details in a science fiction movie, it would not be unprecedented as it is science fiction after all. I can even give you an example(please note, there are THOUSANDS of examples, I just chose and easy one).
Star Trek: The Next Generation, Episode 17: Home Soil (1987)
The line, "Ugly bags of mostly water" were used by an alien species to describe earthlings and a follow up response by Data stating that, it is accurate because humans are over 90% water and if you are some sort of crystal, a human might look quite ugly to you.
In fact, humans are made up of 60-70 percent water which makes an error of 20-30 percent.

So you see in a FICTION based stories, the need for actual facts is simply unnecessary.

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:25 PM

Originally posted by jfj123
...

You want everyone else to provide evidence but you refuse to do it yourself. Why are you even here if the truth doesn't even matter to you?????
...

I love the truth. For this reason I am here.

I have always explained in my posts the reasons that impede to build a rocket that can land vertically going backwards.

If you are able to land a rocket or a probe going backwards, provide evidence, do a real video.

You can’t send rockets or probes to the Moon without testing them on the Earth.

You would be a joker as NASA jokers.

However…

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:34 PM
skepticalfriend,
Here is some footage for the moon lander conspiracy JOKERS.

Lunar lander test vehicle being tested on earth. I don't want to hear that it looks different from the final lunar lander because alot of concept/testing vehicles of all types don't resemble the finished product.

Lunar lander test vehicle being tested on earth.

Armadillo Aerospace at the 2006 Lunar Lander Challenge

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 01:38 PM
skepticalfriend,
since you're not answering anyones questions, it makes me believe you don't even believe what you're saying. Prove me wrong and start answering peoples questions. Try reading back a few pages to get the questions.

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by skepticfriend
I have always explained in my posts the reasons that impede to build a rocket that can land vertically going backwards.

You have not explained your reasoning in any satisfactory detail what so ever. You have ignored my requests that you provide some hard data that helps to prove your case, be it math, or going into detail as to what kind of computer is needed, the things it will need to calculate specifically, etc.

If you are able to land a rocket or a probe going backwards, provide evidence, do a real video.

We have provided lots of evidence and real video's. All the evidence for how the LM and other rockets like it work, is already out there. Since it is you who claims it can not work, the burden of proof lies upon you. And you have not provided any evidence that disproves that the LM can't land vertically.

You can’t send rockets or probes to the Moon without testing them on the Earth.

You can't test things that are made to work on the Moon on Earth. The LM is designed to work in 1/6th gravity, but there are many other ways to do tests. The LLRV's and LLTV's were to help train the pilots. There were numerous probes that soft landed on the Moon, and there's this stuff called math as well. It helps.

But no, they can't test the actual LM on Earth. Just like you can't test a submarine out of the water, or an airplane on the ground. The only real way to find out if it works is to test it in the environment it was designed for. It's risky and dangerous, but that's why they used test pilots. They knew the danger and were willing to put there lives on the line.

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

Yes we saw this the first 5 times that you posted it. We're all glad that you just love Aldrin's euphoria at that press confrence.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:39 PM
www.nasa.gov...

“Three of the five vehicles were later destroyed in crashes at Houston—LLRV No. 1 in May 1968 and two LLTVs, in December 1968 and January 1971.
The two accidents in 1968, before the first lunar landing, did not deter Apollo program managers who enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training.”

If 3 of the 5 vehicles crashed, it means that their technology was not good.

But “managers did not deter Apollo program and enthusiastically relied on the vehicles for simulation and training”.

We know from time immemorial that NASA jokers are stupid.

Look at this video:

www.dfrc.nasa.gov...

Have you seen that the pilot flies that LCCLS (Lunar Carpentry Craft Lander System) moving the stick while observing poor instruments?

At this site:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

“Up to now, a center stick and pedals have been used, but a 3-axis side arm controller will be installed shortly for all remaining tests”.

Ha, ha, ha, STICK AND PEDALS like to fly an airplane.

But LCCLS is a rocket, NOT A PLANE.

At this site:

en.wikipedia.org...

“Built of aluminum alloy trusses, the vehicles were powered by a General Electric CF-700-2V turbofan engine with a thrust of 4,200 lbf (19 kN), mounted vertically in a GIMBAL.”

Ha, ha, ha STICK AND PEDALS to move a turbofan engine mounted vertically in a GIMBAL?

NASA jokers are incredibly stupid.

However…

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

[edit on 21-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:14 PM
You really are willfully ignorant, skepticfriend.

Several of us have repeatedly explained the nature of the LLRV/LLTV. It provided a high-fidelity simulation of a lunar landing vehicle. The astronauts found it an extremely useful training tool. Because it had to simulate lunar operations in an Earth environment, it was a relatively dangerous vehicle to fly.

Yes, several eventually crashed. This does not make them unsuccessful. Many experimental vehicles crash, as do fully operational systems. We have lost two out of five Space Shuttles to accidents. Does this make them unsuccessful? Of course not. They simply operate in a high-risk environment.

If you read back through this thread, you will find technical answers to all of your questions about lunar landers, reentry dynamics, thermal protection systems, etc. All the science is explained in clear, simple terms. Instead of stubbornly insisting that it can't be done, read these posts to learn how it has been done.

posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 05:29 PM
skepticalfriend has NO interest in learning the truth. He is obviously only interested in insulting people who are more knowledgeable then him and making a mockery of NASA's HERO'S.

skepticalfriend has refused to answer questions.
skepticalfriend has refused to read responses to his questions.

I understand that he isn't required to but then why does he want to be here if he only wants to hear himself talk?

I simply don't understand the willfully ignorant attitude

skepticalfriend asks for evidence....it's provided....he ignores it and changes his argument...
he asks for evidence against his new argument...the new evidence is provided...he once again ignores it.... and on... and on... and on....

So what's the deal????

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 06:10 AM
Apollo astronauts brought back to earth, 841 lbs of moon rocks, from the moon. Several museums that have some of the moon rocks actually let the public touch and examine them.

How did they get the rocks back to earth if they didn't go to the moon? Did UPS bring them?

Here's another thought,
Russia, China, East Germany,etc... (Our COLD WAR ENEMIES)
closely monitored the moon missions. They could easily tell the source of the radio transmissions from the moon, so if we didn't go to the moon, why wouldn't they expose the conspiracy to embarrass us?

I love the truth and the truth is we did go to the moon on more then one occasion and there is ZERO evidence to the contrary.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:02 AM
Why ( and where) are the missing telemetry tapes with the original video feed /Apollo 11 !?

The story is: that telemetry data is in storage at US National Archives ('70) and 14 years later - sent to Goddard Space Flight Center ( on there request) - but as today, nobody can find them? Why?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:33 PM
Also at this site:

www.nasa.gov...

“2.2.6 Primary Flight Controls

The LLRV had four primary flight controls to control two basic modes of flight.
The center stick (pitch and roll control) and conventional rudder pedals (yaw control) were used to control roll, pitch and yaw in the lunar simulation mode”.

But LLRV is not an airplane.

NASA jokers are incredibly stupid:

“Built of aluminum alloy trusses, the vehicles were powered by a General Electric CF-700-2V turbofan engine with a thrust of 4,200 lbf (19 kN), mounted vertically in a GIMBAL.”

LLRV has not the rudder. What would be the use of pedals?

A rocket has not the fuselage, has not the ailerons, has not the elevator. When it moves standing vertical it has not the front part, the posterior part, the right wing and the left wing.

The pilot can move only the turbofan engine mounted vertically in a GIMBAL.

Dear jfj123, you that know everything, explain please to us poor ignorant people:

if you move the stick forward, what is the engine movement? If you move the stick backward, what is the engine movement? If you move the stick on the right, what is the engine movement? If you move the stick on the left, what is the engine movement?

We poor ignorant people don’t understand how you can turn on the right, go straight forward, turn on the left with a rocket IN VERTICAL ATTITUDE, thrusted from the bottom, moving A CENTER STICK AND PEDALS LINKED ONLY TO THE ENGINE MOUNTED VERTICALLY IN A GIMBAL.

MANUALLY, WITHOUT HELP OF A 32K COMPUTER.

Please explain in simple words because we are ignorant people.

However…

I like above all the enthusiasm and excitement of THE 3 HEROES OF THE MOON:

I LOVE SO MUCH ALDRIN'S EUPHORIA.

[edit on 22-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

[edit on 22-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 01:16 PM
skepticfriend, if you truly wish to understand how the LLRV flies, check out this report:

riotact.mit.edu...

All the infoirmation you could possibly want is there. Here are the answers to your questions.

For information about another method for simulating lunar landing, check out this report:

ntrs.nasa.gov...

This method was also used by the Russians.

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 03:42 PM

...

All the infoirmation you could possibly want is there. Here are the answers to your questions.

...

Then you don't understand.

NASA jokers have made fun of you too. They talk about a rocket that must move standing vertical like it was an airplane.

If you don't understand the biggest difference between an airplane and a rocket that must move horizontally standing vertical, don't be disappointed.

You must study and learn, when you will be older you will understand:
you can't pilot a vertical rocket by a central stick and pedals as it was an airplane.

Pitch, Roll, Yaw make sense as regard to an airplane.

A rocket thrusted from the bottom that moves in all directions in vertical attitude has infinite Pitch, infinite Roll, infinite Yaw and you can't controll those infinite attitudes with a stick and pedals.

YOU ARE NOT FLYING AN AIRPLANE

NASA jokers say pedals are used to move rudder.

WHAT RUDDER?

HAS LUNAR MODULE ANY RUDDER?

posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 04:14 PM
skepticalfriend,
I see no point in explaining to you how it works as you won't understand. You won't answer anyones questions so really what's the point. You should go someplace quiet and talk to yourself as you believe you are more intelligent then NASA engineers and thousands of other scientists with PHD's.

Look at it this way. You believe the US government has created a grand conspiracy involving thousands of individuals working on many projects, over many years that are so intricate as to fool the top minds in the world, and you are the only one to have a question about the rudder and pedals on the lunar lander??? So you think you're smarter then the people you believe created this vast conspiracy and alot smarter then the top scientific minds of our time??? That seems unlikely, doesn't it?

They're smart enough to fool the top minds in the world but not you?????

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 07:51 AM

Originally posted by MickeyDee
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.

The reason we can't see anything left on the Moon by Apollo landers is amazingly simple.

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest twin telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012", however the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. And no telescope, presently in existence, can see Apollo hardware from Earth.

Sorry to spoil the party, but we'll have to wait some till the Chinese or Indians get there!

One more thing! Why did they never fake a Mars landing!!

Why fake it? How do you know they aren't there already? Have you heard about Alternative 3?
Hmmm...Food for thought!

Cheers!

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 10:26 AM
skepticfriend, why do you bother asking questions when you obviously don't want the answers?

You asked how a pilot could fly the LLRV with conventional controls. The answer is right here:
riotact.mit.edu...

You could not ask for a better report explaining the answers to you questions. Did you even read it?

I'm guessing you didn't. Your posts make it painfully clear that have no interest in truth, facts, or even thorough research.

Frankly, I don't care if you ever know the truth about historical events or understand the science involved. I am posting information for the more intelligent readers so they don't just get taken in by your ignorant rantings.

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:50 PM

Originally posted by jfj123

skepticalfriend,
I see no point in explaining to you how it works as you won't understand.

You don't want to explain how PEDALS MOVE THE GIMBALED ENGINE because you don't know what to say in front of the evidence.

So you think you're smarter then the people you believe created this vast conspiracy and alot smarter then the top scientific minds of our time???

Have you seen the top scientific minds of our time to rebel against Twin Towers crash?

No, because television says always the truth.

Haven't you instead asked yourself how can a ridiculous 150 ton. Boeing raze to the ground a powerful 500,000 ton. skyscraper as if it was made by crap of Bin Laden's camel?

[edit on 23-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 12:58 PM
PEDALS ?

does a helicopter have a rudder ?

no

foot pedal controls are a simple and effective away to transfer a simple opposed single axis control from the operators hands to his feet

your " arguments " are without any merit

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 01:38 PM

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
PEDALS ?

does a helicopter have a rudder ?

no

foot pedal controls are a simple and effective away to transfer a simple opposed single axis control from the operators hands to his feet

your " arguments " are without any merit

en.wikipedia.org...-torque_pedals

"Anti-torque pedals
The anti-torque pedals are located in the same position as the RUDDER pedals in an airplane, AND SERVE A SIMILAR PURPOSE, namely to control the direction in which the nose of the aircraft is pointed. Application of the pedal in a given direction changes the pitch of the tail rotor blades, increasing or reducing the thrust produced by the tail rotor and causing the nose to yaw in the direction of the applied pedal.

Helicopters have RUDDER.

From tomorrow I will be on holiday for a week.

Goodbay

[edit on 23-8-2007 by skepticfriend]

posted on Aug, 23 2007 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by skepticfriend

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

does a helicopter have a rudder ?

no

en.wikipedia.org...-torque_pedals

"Anti-torque pedals
The anti-torque pedals are located in the same position as the RUDDER pedals in an airplane, AND SERVE A SIMILAR PURPOSE, "

Helicopters have RUDDER.

yeah dogs

helicopters do not have a rudder - even your own link states that clearly

what part of ' serves the same purpose as ' do you not understand ?

what are the lunar lander pedals for ?

maybe a direct question that forces you to look at the issue will help

new topics

top topics

29