It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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 nice video

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:11 AM
reply to post by Mindless

I am not getting your question now, when you first wrote it I was going to post about oxidizers, then you answered your own question…

[edit on 12/7/2007 by defcon5]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:16 AM
Sorry was compiling info . My point is that you cant have one without the other , I was just going to make you argue that point , Then figured i may not have time to come back and defend it so i just re-wrote it.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Mindless]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:26 AM
Actually you can have one without the other.
In the case of making a crater on a planet with an atmosphere, there is free atmospheric gas around the blast site that is not consumed in the actual engine flame, which allows the secondary burning on the ground. In a vacuum, where an oxidizer is used, it would be consumed up inside the engine bell, and there is no free atmospheric gas to allow the burning of secondary ground material.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by defcon5]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 06:47 AM
Im sorry can you elaborate on "this "free atmospheric gas" you mention . And how it is applied here.

I like to try and research things best i can and your statement is a little vague.
Also for note: I'm not trying to get into semantics . Just figure out what your trying to explain.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Mindless]

[edit on 7-12-2007 by Mindless]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:21 AM
Look at the schematic on this page, it shows that the oxidizer is going to be consumed in the combustion chamber, even before the engine bell itself. It’s expanding gases that are coming out of the bell more so then actual flame in a zero atmosphere environment. Those gases may be hot enough to ignite something and cause charring if there was a oxidant in the atmosphere, but not so in zero atmosphere. Also it should be noted that the LEM did not hover for a long period of time over the landing spot, it actually made a bit of a swath in the loose dust as it came down on an angle. The LEM itself only weighed about 6K in the lunar atmosphere and not many Lbs of thrust were required to keep a safe vertical descent rate.

As to what I mean by atmospheric gases, if you had a blow torch (that contained a fuel and an oxidizer) on the moon and you pointed it at a candle, the wick would not ignite as there is no oxygen around the wick to support a flame. The flame on the torch would stay lit as it burned the mixture of fuel/oxidizer in the torches stream of gas, and it would provide heat, but not ignition of something outside the stream. I say gases because there are other gases which work as oxidizers besides oxygen, though on earth oxygen is the most common. it’s a bit hard to try and explain, and I am getting to tired to think clearly, so let me know if that still does not make sense.

Slightly off topic, but free educational simulators relating to the Apollo program:
This one will give you an idea of how an approach was angled and how little time was spent hovering over any one point: Eagle Lander 3D
Another excellent free space flight simulator for learning basic orbital mechanics and such: Orbiter
Beginners guide: Go Play in Space

edit to add:
Also I should mention that a rock that is thrown into a fire is not generally going to char anyway (do not try this at home as it may explode do to water in the rock!), the char marks you see after a ground fire are secondary fires from things either on or in the soil itself. So like if I lit a camp fire and ring it with rocks, those rocks do not turn black, other then with soot from the smoke. The black that is left after the fire is extinguished is from grass, twigs, and other things in or on the soil that burned, and from the wood/fuel of the fire itself. Also heat will remove water from certain stones, but I don’t believe that there is much water content in moon rock.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by defcon5]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 07:42 AM

Originally posted by infinite8
There must have been some kind of wire holding the flag straight on the moon across the top edge. It would not stay straight in that gravity. I watched the wrench drop footage that showed equal drops of different weights. Thr flag would surely fall as well.

It didn't fall because wire mesh was interwoven into the fabric. NASA planned this to allow the American flag to be recognizable on pictures & video.

The importance of this should be obvious. . .Two words-

Cold War.


bad sentence

[edit on 7-12-2007 by 2PacSade]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:36 AM
reply to post by 2PacSade

This photo shows clearly what was keeping the flag was a horizontal rod along the top, along with the wire mesh 2PacSade mentioned:

Edit to add Picture info: This is a photo from Apollo 17 of astronaut Gene Cernan take by astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmitt.

[edit on 12/7/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 08:41 AM
109:20:58 Armstrong: Okay. Can you pull the door open a little more?
109:21:00 Aldrin: All right.
109:21:03 Armstrong: Okay. (Pause)
109:21:07 Aldrin: Did you get the MESA out?
109:21:09 Armstrong: I'm going to pull it now. (Pause)

Armstring says he is going to pull it. Oh my lord. The moon landing was a controlled demolition. No amount of evidence can convince me otherwise. Its right he in the transcript. He says he is going to pull it.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:06 AM
link about insulting the ingenuity of man. Its already been busted, the idea that we never went to the moon and it was faked, why are people still harping on this topic? I suppose man wasn't clever enough to build any of the original 8 wonders of the world either? or that it wasn't a man at all that harnessed the power of the sun long before the digital age? or even that it wasn't a very gay man that conquered the known world by the tender age of 18? come on this thread/topic is insulting to the scientific community and you should be ashamed of yourself for believing we never went to the moon.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:09 AM
reply to post by newworldnews2007

moon landing and walking on moon by usa faked ? i guess you might even think that if the japanese and chinese show us pictures of the footprints and equipment left behind that their pictures will be fakes also----------i dont think even the russians are the least bit sceptical about the usa's success.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:11 AM
reply to post by yahn goodey

We don’t even need that proof, there is equipment that we left up there to measure the distance to the moon by bouncing laser beams off the reflectors.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:16 AM
everyone has seen the various videos debunking the debunkers. The flag is foil. we went to the moon, landed, and left. end of thread.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by communicator

I agree with your post 100%. To say that we "never" went is false. The footage shown to the public way back in the day was fake. We've been there, but it was done covertly, without the public's knowledge. There is a secret space program, of this I have no doubt. To what extent NASA's involved with it is another question.


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:30 AM
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

Ah Yes- I read some more & looked at other photos. You're right. I thought maybe this was only for Apollo 17, but all the photos have the rod in the flag. Matter of fact Apollo 11 couldn't get it fully extended, and that's why there were "ripples", but they thought it was a nice touch & that it looked like it was "waiving", so they kept this format. Thanx-


posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:39 AM
Are people on this Forum always this paradoid?

Man we went to the moon...!!

And the Mars probe actually went to Mars.

No If's no buts, just plain fact. Anything else is just speculation & untill one of the Atronaughts says otherwise on his deathbed, it will stay that way!!!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 09:52 AM
Everyone who thinks we didnt go to the moon should see the new movie "in the shadow of the moon".. Watching the only living astronauts that have seen the earth from alien world, and listen when they talk about it with great passion and feeling. These moon hoax claims are rubbish. Thinking we never went to the moon, is disrespecting those people who went there and the whole human race.
ehy there always must be conspiracy in everything. yeah..right.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 10:36 AM
ON the subject of the moon.....has anyone read this article? Is it a source we can trust ?

Follow the link.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:46 AM
Reading that site, I would say no. Take an example of this article:

Their primary source is The Onion, which is a parody newspaper. They do have a mix of real news stories, but their sources are not reliable, so the newspaper is not reliable.

Now, with regards to the naysayers... I firmly believe we landed on the moon. We had the technology. We did it in steps. We have the lasers for tracking purposes. The Fox News "documentary" (really loosing the term loosely here) was nothing more than drivel.

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 11:48 AM
The rockets that made the landing possible in the first place should have left quite a mess when the craft landed....they didn't, not on any of the photos or video's of the moon landings. but if the video evidence was faked due to whatever reason then the landing scars SHOULD still be there and should be able to be seen by the Japs when they are there.

For the record I don't believe we did make it to the moon, the module that took them there was far to thin in the first place to protect living tissue from the radiation in deep space beyond the Van Allen radiation belts, there are many other reasons but this is the main one and why we haven't even tried to go back since using rocket technology....and dare I say it I think we are all about to find out why!

posted on Dec, 7 2007 @ 12:01 PM
reply to post by Matthew5012

Not true about the equipment used in the flight to the moon, there was a great Discovery Channel show that went into detail how all that worked and why. It all makes sense, the details escape me.

Dont confuse an oxygen-rich atmosphere with a vacuum and the effects of heat etc on such surfaces.

[edit on 7-12-2007 by blueyedevil666]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in