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.

 

Fake Moon Landing-The Final Proof.

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Now,talking about the moon landings is nothing new,especially on ATS.
But i just want to share my thoughts on this subject.Its my first thread,and i'd like to hear ppl's opinions...

We all know the theories;radiation free pictures,shadows pointing in the wrong way,light in the wrong place,no stars in the sky,the waving flag etc.

Yet i'm always drawn to the moon buggy.Leaving aside the questions of,how did they get that large buggy into the small rocket? and how heavy must it have been to keep it on the ground.
I'm interested in the moon's surface,the loose dust.
No doubt many of you have seen the footage of the different moon landings,have you noticed how the dust acts? As the buggy kicks the loose surface up into the air,something strange happens.It falls back to the surface exactly as it would as if it was in earth's gravity!!

As the moon's surface gravity is 1.6 m/s,compared to earths 9.7 m/s,it is not possible for the dust to fall back to the ground in such a way as shown on the video footage.If it did,it would be breaking the laws of gravity,and we'd have a new phenomenon on our hands!

Is this the final proof then?




posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
www.youtube.com...

To me, the dust *did* seem to fall slower than it would on earth. There isn't much to say about weight issues with the moon buggy: they simply didn't come into play.

"The Lunar Roving Vehicle had a weight of 463 lbs and was designed to hold a payload of an additional 1,080 lbs on the lunar surface."

From wikipedia: lunar roving vehicle.

463 lbs. isn't much in lunar gravity...



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I think they have been to the moon but i also think that when they went the first time there was no way they could film it so they staged a landing.

I actually think that the moon has artifacts on it and could possibly have been towed into orbit so life here could flourish.

Its crazy stuff but there are other people who have the same thoughts they are definitely not my ideas. Who knows for sure i guess.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   
this isn't the final proof....

as, you are assuming that the gravity on the moon is what we've been told it is. Seach out some of John Lears threads on the subject, makes a heck of an arguement about the moons gravity.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   
LOL you want to "close the case" on the moon landing because of the dust? thats the best evidence? please its been discussed before and you cannot close a case based on the way dust falls as it can be easily manipulated and there is tons more evidence the moon landing did happen and just as much evidence that it didnt. Too bad theres no proof for either side........

If anything I would say this is a real big head scratcher

watch closely at 2:07 you can clearly see that the astronot is being helped up by more then his buddy. You can clearly see at one point his right foot for a second is the only thing touching the ground before he gets up right thats not gonna happen in any environment at least without any help.

www.youtube.com...

theres also another one where a picture is taken and you can clearly see a piece of his backpack up behind him and in the video taken from behind him nothing is there? Ill find it and post it here too.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
of course i don't want to close the case on the moon landings! my comment of,"is this the final proof." was so i could open a discussion.and i'm well aware it has been talked about many times before,but haven't most of the topics on ATS!....many say we got to the moon,but no true footage has ever been shown to the public.highly possible.yet,i'm left with the lingering thought;in late 60's early 70's we reached the moon.but in the 21st century we're still struggling to get a working robot to mars! surely,with todays technology,we should be able to do better than that!

of course,we can only theorize on the information that is released by companies such as NASA.and we know how they can jealously guard information,as shown when china said they were gonna map the surface of the moon,and the yanks freaked.is that because there is no evidence of man up there? or is it because there is a secret base? as my dad believes



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   
There are artifacts on the moon, and the astronauts came back with the fear of God in them. I think they saw UFOs, a moonbase, who knows what else. I think they did land, but had no desire to return. If we have the alien technology here on Earth that will allow us to travel to other galaxies, it seems that going to a place as local as the moon would be pointless since we wouldn't need it as a jump point to elsewhere in the solar system.

Besides, you have these Apollo astronauts who claim to have seen UFOs on the moon. So why would they make up landing on the moon when they are making the extraordinary claim of seeing UFOs? It just doesn't make logical sense for them to be telling lies about landing on the moon.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
of course i don't want to close the case on the moon landings! my comment of,"is this the final proof?" was so i could open a discussion.


Yet the thread title is called "Fake Moon Landing-The Final Proof."

[edit on 12-7-2007 by Cloak and Dagger]


jra

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
Yet i'm always drawn to the moon buggy.Leaving aside the questions of,how did they get that large buggy into the small rocket? and how heavy must it have been to keep it on the ground.


I know you wanted to leave these questions aside, but to answer it quickly. The rover folded up and was stored inside the decent module. It's very compact. Also it weighs a bit over 450lbs (on Earth) and it can hold an additional 1000lbs. And just because the Moon's gravity is less, doesn't mean things are going to go flying off the ground at the slightest bump.


I'm interested in the moon's surface,the loose dust.
No doubt many of you have seen the footage of the different moon landings,have you noticed how the dust acts? As the buggy kicks the loose surface up into the air,something strange happens.It falls back to the surface exactly as it would as if it was in earth's gravity!!


Well of course it falls back to the surface. The Moon still has gravity, just 1/6th that of Earths. But it doesn't fall exactly like it would on Earth. Earth has an atmosphere. Have you see what happens when a car drives down a dusty dirt road? The dust is tossed up into the air and it clouds and billows up and stays suspended in the air and slowly drifts back down or drifts with the breeze if there is any. You'll note that this doesn't happen on any of the Lunar Rover video footage. All the particles of dust are tossed up by the wheels and they all follow there own little parabolic like trajectories back to the ground. So dust will fall to the ground faster on the Moon then on Earth due to the lack of any air resistance affecting the particles.


As the moon's surface gravity is 1.6 m/s,compared to earths 9.7 m/s,it is not possible for the dust to fall back to the ground in such a way as shown on the video footage.If it did,it would be breaking the laws of gravity,and we'd have a new phenomenon on our hands!


How do you know it's not possible? Have you done the math to make sure?

Here's an extremely rough calculation.

The rover's top speed was about 8mph. But I don't think it always went at full speed, but lets assume that it's going at a constant 8mph. Now I believe that means that the outside edge of the wheel is doing that speed, that translates to 3.58m/s. I'm also going to assume that the dust is kicked out at a 45deg angle. I'm going to ignore things like friction and particle masses and what not. The formula: Height = .25*v*v/g

so with all the numbers plugged in, .25 * 3.58 * (3.58 / 1.62) = 1.97m in height.

Additionally, if one were to drop an object from 2m in height, it would take 1.57 seconds to reach the surface.

sqrt( 2m / (.5 * 1.62)) = 1.57 seconds

This all seems relatively consistent with the rover footage that I've linked to below.

But like I said, they weren't always at there top speed. Young, from Apollo 16, said he reached 10km/h (about 6mph) at most during this clip of the Lunar Rover grand prix footage. And from the 1min mark, there is a moment were it looks like one of the rear wheels looses its traction for a second and spins at a faster rate and kicks up the dust to what looks like about 2m at a 45deg angle, roughly.

Also, here is the Apollo Lunar surface journals transcript of the event with commentary for further details.


Is this the final proof then?


Not even close. It is how ever great evidence that shows they were actually on the Moon.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by elevatedone
this isn't the final proof....

as, you are assuming that the gravity on the moon is what we've been told it is. Seach out some of John Lears threads on the subject, makes a heck of an arguement about the moons gravity.


But he makes an argument based on no facts whatsoever.
That isnt an argument.

Also dont forget Mr lear also talks about 'Soul Collectors' ?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 05:59 AM
link   
in reply to pjslug....when the first moon landing happened it was the height of the cold war,and in the space race russia had beat america at everything! the government was also going to withdraw all funding from nasa as they saw no future in it....and do you really believe they would show live footage to the public,when any kind of horrific thing could've happened?

I personally believe that we didin't get to the moon until many years later,of course thats just speculation.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to Cloak & Dagger....ATS is very popular,i wanted to attract ppl's attention....and i forgot to put the question mark at the end.i'm sure i can be forgiven for that



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:05 AM
link   
Youtube, astronaut drops a feather and something heavy, hits the ground at the same time. You may have performed an experiment in school where you suck the air out of 2 glass tubes and shock horror, a piece of styrofoam falls at the same speed as a sinker. Theres around a thousand pages in the Moon Hoax thread. I read them all.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to jra..thanks for your reply,very informative...but you said,"Well of course it falls back to the surface." i don't deny that.i believe it reacts as if its in earth's atmosphere....and,just out of curiosity,have you noticed how some books/articles etc give different weights and measurments of the rocket,the moon buggy etc.d'you think they do it on purpose?



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 06:10 AM
link   
yeah,i know about those experiments...i freely admit i'm no expert on the moon landings.thats why i opened my thread,to discuss and learn new things....



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Nice first post jakyll


The rover footage and the 'dust' issue have been gone over and scrutinized for quite some time now. I wouldn't mind given you my two cents of what I know, but a majority of my knowledge has come from John Lear. If your not familiar with him, He is a very interesting man with some fascinating theorys as well as,....well dare I say it "proof" that we never went to the moon in 1969 because we already were there in 1962.

I could go on and on but I sugest you take some free time and read up on His research, and check out all His Apollo photos that he has graciously given to ATS to scrutinize and study


www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 12-7-2007 by highfreq]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Uh, there's no air on the moon. Fine dust should fall FASTER on the moon.

BTW, units of acceleration are not velocity.

Also, all the other things you mentioned have been very thoroughly debunked, which is more attention than any of these silly claims deserve.



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:00 PM
link   
this is the real moon landing


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 02:49 PM
link   
thanks very much
i think a lot of ppl on ATS forget that some of us are still learning,lol.will definatly be checking out john lear and his pictures



posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
jra, you should write a book. You know soooo much about "Moon Landing", they should really promote you.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join