Is the Moon Landing a Hoax?...

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Revel
 



As of this day I have not heard of any other nation making it to the moon, although the Chinese were supposed to make a fly by a few years back taking images of the surface which would have shown if the US did land or not. I have seen no images from this voyage if it even happened.


Well, you have your opinions...unfortunately, you seem to have not done enough research yet.

China already orbited the Moon, so did the Japanese. Was in all the papers!!

AND, no, neither satellite had the resolution necessary to image things as small as the LM descent stage...which is the biggest piece.

Stay tuned for the LRO images. They will image down to just under one meter, if all goes well.

Really....I see you're new here, so you haven't had time to look into all the corners. You'll see how mistaken you are, soon enough.



jra

posted on Jul, 1 2009 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Revel
As of this day I have not heard of any other nation making it to the moon, although the Chinese were supposed to make a fly by a few years back...


No other Nation has the resources or money to do a Moon landing. Only the US and the former USSR did. And if Russia's N-1 rocket worked, they would have made it to the Moon as well.

As for China, they sent a Lunar probe recently, but it's camera didn't have the resolution needed to spot the left over Apollo hardware.


Now take into consideration that even on the first try, we are led to believe that we sucessfully landed a manned mission on the moon, sucessfully launched the craft back in perfect timing to land in safe waters. On the first try, with no major errors or casualties? A little hard to swallow in my opinion.


Why is it hard to swallow? They spent years training and practising for every imaginable scenario. But there were still plenty of errors and close calls that happened on just about every Apollo mission. On Apollo 11 specifically there was the 1201 and 1202 program alarms. Also during there decent, the navigation computer was heading for a landing target in an area filled with large boulders. Armstrong took over and landed them in a safer spot. Later on, when returning from there EVA on the Moon, Aldrin accidentally broke a circuit breaker that armed the main engine for lift off from the moon. Fortunately they were able to activate the switch with a felt pen.

The other missions had some close calls too. Apollo 12 was struck by lightning twice, during its launch. That caused a number of serious problems, but due to Alan Bean remember something from a training simulation a year prior. Managed to solve the problem and prevented them from having to abort the mission.

And then there was Apollo 13 and we all know how that went.


As for Doctored images and videos, again very posibble, there is footage of suposed to locations when overlapped show the same hill.


Photos that show the same hills in the background are from the same mission. There's nothing odd about that. I live in an area with lots of hills and mountains around. I can take photos around town that are KM apart and still have similar looking backgrounds.



posted on Jul, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
If it was a hoax its still working.
It will take some time to resolve to some people.
Its like the balloon guys in ufo threads.
There will always be a few uninformed.
100s of remote Landers could have been roving all over the
Moon by now to see the remains of man on the moon by now.
Plus Tesla instantaneous solid beam communication would give
ultimate control over the rovers.
Still game people would say its a CGI Moon.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:47 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

This might be of interest.

"A treasured piece at the Dutch national museum - a supposed moon rock from the first manned lunar landing - is nothing more than petrified wood, curators say.

It was given to former Prime Minister Willem Drees during a goodwill tour by the three Apollo-11 astronauts shortly after their moon mission in 1969.

When Mr Drees died, the rock went on display at the Amsterdam museum.

At one point it was insured for around $500,000 (£308,000), but tests have proved it was not the genuine article.

The Rijksmuseum, which is perhaps better known for paintings by artists such as Rembrandt, says it will keep the piece as a curiosity.

"It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency.

"We can laugh about it."

The "rock" had originally been been vetted through a phone call to Nasa, she added.

The US agency gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in the 1970s.

US officials said they had no explanation for the Dutch discovery. "


Odd that the astronauts didnt see the difference between petrified wood and the rock they had just been collecting.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Shilver
 

The rock did not come from the moon. There is no indication that the astronauts ever saw it. It was given to Drees, who got it from Middendorf, who got it from the State Department. At this point there is no confirmation that NASA was involved at all.

She said the space agency told the museum then that it was possible the Netherlands had received a rock: NASA gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries in the early 1970s, but those were from later missions.

www.google.com...

Drees received the rock in 1969.



posted on Aug, 28 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   


Researchers from Amsterdam's Free University said they could see at a glance the rock was probably not from the moon. They followed the initial appraisal up with extensive testing.

"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," Geologist Frank Beunk concluded in an article published by the museum.

He said the rock, which the museum at one point insured for more than half a million dollars, was worth no more than euro50 ($70).

Van Gelder said one important unanswered question is why Drees was given the stone. He was 83 years old in 1969 and had been out of office for 11 years. On the other hand, he was the country's elder statesman, the prime minister who helped the Netherlands rebuild after World War II.

Middendorf was treasurer of the Republic National Committee from 1965 until 1969, when President Richard Nixon dispatched him to the Netherlands.

Wow...I suppose it's just me, but this story stinks of dis-traction.

These students of Amsterdam's free university were the first to "glance" at it and notice something was fishy? I know they said it wasn't displayed all that much, but come on. What really prompted these guys to do the testing, who authorized it, and why now?

And 4 threads and 12 pages of posts in one day on ATS? Someone knows how to do their job, I'd say.

Again, stinks would be an understatement, IMHO. Wonder what else happened today...



posted on Aug, 29 2009 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by theutahbigfoothunter
 


The last astronaut and evasive.
Thanks for sharing.

The Moon Landing and the Space Sham seems more messed up than ever.

From the people that rose objection back in 1969 about the Van Allen
belt and space radiation are still around saying it didn't happen.
We have people going back to the greatest engineer and natural scientist
Tesla who measured and discovered Cosmic high speed particles that
said the Earth's atmosphere give us 36" of lead protection.
And thus whole sale reject the Moon Landing and space travel as possible.
You can write you own scenarios how it was done without proper
radiation protection.



posted on Apr, 9 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
The rocket technology of Russia in the world market made Russia
superior for many unaligned countries in 1957.
America had to go for the end of the decade plan from Kennedy.
Who was replaceable with the more agreeable Nixon.
Did it do any good, perhaps or perhaps not.
Superior technology owned by Russia and America after WWII had
already gone to the Moon a decade earlier by Germany.
Present day technology still can't land man on the moon as
it had even less of a chance with the equipment years ago.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
With regard to "Men landing on the Moon" we are not in the realm of science, however we are in fact dealing with politics. Science and politics are at opposite end of the spectrum having nothing what so ever in common with each other.

If you ask my opinion [few ever do] I first say RADIATION. Radiation is the problem. Such a huge problem that the manned landings are just simply entirely out of the question. The GEMINI astronauts and the MIR and SKYLAB and now the ISS astronauts are in low earth orbit [LEO] and thus relatively shielded. Even thus they suffer burns. Think how much worse it would be further out ? On the moon ? They would in fact be cooked.

That alone said it all as far as I am concerned. However, for those who want to labour the matter to deeper extent, one must ask the question, since the Russian launch systems are so vastely superior to anything yet developed in the USA, or else where either, then why have the brave Russian men folk not yet landed even one astronaut [cosmonautics in my vocabulary is a branch of paranormal reasearch] on the moon ?

The American and their supporters will never let go of the idea that they allegedly got there first. However, as time is proving, we are going to be waiting a very long time for any return missions. In the waiting we see other explorers in India and in China and perhaps in Brazil lining up to out do the USA by sending astronauts of their own out there to the moon. But once again it will all be seen as just a huge piff of hot air. Politics.

One must also realise that all this FRAUD will have to be prosecuted in a future court of law. Unfortunately the SCAM is so profitable that the court proceedings will no doubt be corrupted by bribery scandle so that the SCAM can continue as ever. Politics.

Please try to think out side of the box. Look beyond the psychosis of your education and conditioning. What if the truth is so radical and so different to your present pre-conceptions that you cannot even think of it ? A great deal of the "science" which you were taught at school is actually not real science at all. In order to understand what is really going on and thus be able to understand what the cover up is hiding from you, you need to learn a whole new paradigm. In effect a science which to your present psychosis might appear to be not science at all.

If we examine the mathematics and the engineering of the Apollo missions, thus I do believe that the fabric of lies will be made so clearly manifest that we will simply have to laugh at the nievity with which everyone were believing that the USA put men on the moon.

It will take for ever and a day to convince people of anything that is coming to them from out side of the box. The psychosis that people are suffering is very deep insanity. Once sent off in a certain direction, usually to their premature death in a trench, it is very hard to persuade any of them to break ranks and thus turn around. Remember it is a long tradition that "traitors" are usually hung or simply shot dead.

The truth is actually stranger than fiction. Also to understand it one requires a broad spectrum of knowledge. Few will ever know the truth even though they go searching for it.

[edit on 11/4/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 

Please provide a source indicating that ISS astronauts recieve radiation burns.

The USSR manned landing program suffered four catastrophic launch failures. It ended in 1974.


* February 21, 1969 – Due to unexpected high-frequency oscillations in the gas generator, one of the pipes broke apart and a fire started. This fire reached the engine control system which at the 68.7 s of flight sent the command to shut down the engines.[3] The rocket exploded at 12,200 m altitude, 69 seconds after liftoff. The emergency rescue system was activated and did its job properly, saving the mockup of the spacecraft. All subsequent flights had freon fire extinguishers installed next to every engine.[4]
* July 3, 1969 – At liftoff a loose bolt was ingested into a fuel pump, which failed. After detecting the inoperative fuel pump, the automatic engine control shut off 29 of 30 engines, which caused the rocket to stall. The rocket exploded 23 seconds after shutting off the engines, destroying the rocket and launch tower in the biggest explosion in the history of rocketry.[5] 2,600 tons of fuel had the power of a small nuclear bomb. The destroyed complex was photographed by American satellites, disclosing that the Soviet Union was building a Moon rocket.[4] The rescue system saved the dummy spacecraft again. After this flight fuel filters were installed in later models.[4]
* June 26, 1971 – Vehicle serial number 6L – experienced an uncontrolled roll immediately after liftoff beyond the capability of the control system to compensate; the vehicle was destroyed 51 seconds after liftoff at 1 km altitude. This vehicle had dummy upper stages without the rescue system. The next, last vehicle had much more powerful stabilization system with dedicated engines (in the previous versions stabilization was done by directing exhaust from the main engines). The engine control system was also reworked, increasing the number of sensors from 700 to 13,000.[4]
* November 23, 1972 – Vehicle serial number 7L – the engines ran for 106.93 seconds after which pogo oscillation of the first stage caused engine cutoff at 40 km altitude; a programmed shutdown of some of the engines to prevent over-stressing of the structure led to an explosion of the oxygen pump on the engine number 4.[4] The vehicle disintegrated.

en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Dear PHAGE , you ask me, to provide you, such a link that will show that astronauts suffer burns ? Look it up for yourself. Why do you expect me to do all the running around for you. DIY. Do it yourself. Also I am rather tired of the fact that I seem to be the one doing literally all the brain work around here.


Obviously you have never looked at how much it is costing the countries involved [not just the USA] to keep the ISS continually in Low Earth Orbit. It would cost considerably less if the ISS were to be injected into a more permanent higher altitude orbit. The ISS has to be in Low Earth Orbit so as to be avoiding the dangerous and actually lethal radiations at higher altitude. Being in Low Earth Orbit is thus necessary to prevent the astronauts from being burnt. That is burnt inside of the ISS. Think how much more burnt they would be during their EVA [Extra-Vehicular Activity] events.

Russia are continually launching big refuelling missions to the ISS which enable the ISS to computer controlledly fire rockets to counter the atmospheric drag which is continually pulling the ISS back down to Earth. Without these thrustings the ISS would re-enter the Earths atmosphere and burn up after only a few months. It is that critical. Why make all these expensive efforts except that RADIATION really is the big problem that we are told it is.

Not wishing to distract from the thread by digressing into the paranormal, nevertheless in the context of this thread, I remember a dream I had several years ago now. In the dream we were a crew of a space ship at a landing facility either loading or unloading cargo. We came under attack by gun fire from pirates in the warehouse and immediately we ran to enter the protection of our craft. A huge gigantic egg dwarfing the buildings standing around it. What struck me was the amazing thickness of the hull. We are talking several feet of solid metal. The doors slided open to allow us entry [heavy hydraulics] with massive weight. There were three such door. One big cargo door at the centre with two at each side for persons. Unfortunately one of our pirate attackers had tried to enter illegally and was trapped by his arm by the massive weight of metal forming the outer shield hull at the right side personel door. We left him to perish. I felt like shooting him right there but thought that he will die a more fitting death when we lift off with him pinned to the outer shield hull. Once through the outer shield hull the outer doors shut automatically behind me and my fellow crew member running for cover with me. We were safe inside of the inner pressure hull. The lighting came on automatic. Atmospherics internally were refreshing after tolerating the stench outside. We immediately started our lift off procedures which would take a while but we were secure behind the massive shielding of the outer hull of our inter-planetary perhaps even inter-stellar space ship. Last thing I remember was strapping into my seat and feeling the melodic humming as the ship began warming up for lift off. These are technology commonly regarded as Sci-Fi but which I know to be real science.


[edit on 11/4/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 

I tried to find such a link. I could not. That is why I asked you for it.

What does the need to boost the ISS periodically have to do with radiation? You said yourself that it is to prevent the station from falling into the atmosphere.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAELENIUM
reply to post by Phage
 


Dear PHAGE , you ask me, to provide you, such a link that will show that astronauts suffer burns ? Look it up for yourself. Why do you expect me to do all the running around for you. DIY. Do it yourself. Also I am rather tired of the fact that I seem to be the one doing literally all the brain work around here.


Sorry...if you are taking it upon yourself to refute the 'status quo', it's you that has to provide proof...that's just how it works. It's called 'walkin' the walk'.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 

I tried to find such a link. I could not. That is why I asked you for it.

What does the need to boost the ISS periodically have to do with radiation? You said yourself that it is to prevent the station from falling into the atmosphere.


Dear PHAGE, are you lacking the brain funtionality.
If the ISS were to be in a permanent higher orbit, then it would be possible to save a VERY CONSIDERABLE amount of TAX PAYERS MONEY, by not having to continually refuel the ISS. The point we are making is that, to put the ISS into that permanent higher orbit is not possible, because the astronauts would end up being cooked by the lethal RADIATIONS out there.

It is because of this kind of hard evidence, as regard to the RADIATION PROBLEM, that the USA and others are being seen for the FRAUD and SCAM that they are. The Apollo Moon landings were a FAKE.


I am not interested in up holding any "Status Quo", because that "Status Quo" is simply POLITICS. I am simply not interested in your political agenda. I am a scientist.

Allow me to put it this way. If you and such like are so eager to believe that there is no such RADIATION PROBLEM then we can easilly arrange for you to go out there on an excursion ?

Rather than me having to provide the proofs, I think that you are the one's who need to present the proofs. You believe that there is no RADIATION PROBLEM, but were is your proof ? You will discover that science is not on your side. Science is not about politics. As soon as science is corrupted by politics then ofcourse it is nolonger science.

[edit on 11/4/2010 by CAELENIUM]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by CAELENIUM
 




Dear PHAGE, are you lacking the brain funtionality.

No.
My brain is functioning just fine and that is considered an ad hominem attack, a personal insult. That kind of behavior is not tolerated on ATS.

Yes, if the ISS were in a substantially higher orbit the astronauts would be exposed to greater radiation levels. Long term exposure to that radiation would be dangerous but they would not be "cooked". But there is no reason for the ISS to be in a higher orbit. If it were it would be more difficult to reach with the space shuttle and soyuz spacecraft.

You still have not provided any information that:

Even thus they suffer burns.



[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Yeah, this is old news. Everyone knows that US diplomats and politicos used to hand out petrified wood in celebration of the moon landing. That is just common knowledge right? Doesn't every country have an official US MOON LANDING COMMEMORATIVE HUNK OF WOOD?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

Well, one ambassador does seem to have given a piece of petrified wood to a retired Prime Minister but it wasn't to commemorate the Moon landing.

A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.

abcnews.go.com...

There were actual Moon rocks given as gifts to countries and States though. None were given to individuals...ever.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

Well, one ambassador does seem to have given a piece of petrified wood to a retired Prime Minister but it wasn't to commemorate the Moon landing.

A jagged fist-size stone with reddish tints, it was mounted and placed above a plaque that said, "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts." The plaque does not specify that the rock came from the moon's surface.

abcnews.go.com...

There were actual Moon rocks given as gifts to countries and States though. None were given to individuals...ever.



Please tell me again why it was generally understood to be a moon rock until tested. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

I don't know why. The plaque doesn't say that.
Why don't you tell me?


[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by K J Gunderson
 

I don't know why. The plaque doesn't say that.
Why don't you tell me?


[edit on 4/11/2010 by Phage]


Really? You do not know? Funny because when I first joined ATS you were the first person to tell me exactly why they thought they had received a moon rock. Funny, I thought you had all the answers.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join