Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Moon Landing Hoax

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by webstra
 


Fairly obvious that you missed the sarcasm aspect of my reply...

The evidence of a moonlanding happening is only blindingly obvious to anyone with eyes to see with, and ears to listen with, and more than two brain cells to rub together to form a coherent thought.

The moonlanding hoax, on the otherhand...is foolishness writ large. I've looked at the so called evidence on a number of occasions and each time am less and less impressed by the psuedoscientific claptrap passed off as evidence.




I know I know I know......

It's not easy to let go certain certainties from the past.

Do you believe me you try ?


[edit on 14-5-2008 by webstra]




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   




Are you speachless ?

Hopefully finally thinkin ?

Pffffff Finally ;-)

It's very easy to get people like you gettin giving reply's....normally.

Saying things like....they are all idiots who think this.

bla bla bla.....

So in a very childess, stupid way.

But let me give you a next try.

Try to give a really intelligent response....Good luck !



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
seagull, you're right. We more than likely landed on the moon.
But it is less than likely that we would have photographic and video evidence of the landing.


[edit on 5/16/2008 by JPhish]



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


My, my, such a testy little responce.

You, and others like you are the ones making the accusations of a moonlanding fraud, it's up to you and the others to make the proof, little that there is, stand up. Grand suppositions require grand proof.

Good Luck...you're going to need it...



posted on May, 19 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



Why? this was a monumental undertaking, I mean we're going to the moon, essentially another planet. The astronauts aren't going to take cameras? Seems a little bit of an oversight to me.

I'm curious to hear your thinking on this.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by seagull
 



In fact, temperatures on the surface of the Moon swing wildly from one extreme to the other, from an average of -184°C (-300°F) in the shade to an average of 101°C (214°F) in the sun,


www.teachersdomain.org...


The outer surface of the 500EL data camera was colored silver to help maintain more uniform internal temperatures in the violent extremes of heat and cold encountered on the lunar surface.


history.nasa.gov...

Remind me to paint myself silver the next time i plan on going skinny dipping in lava.~

I'm sure you can figure out the rest yourself.


jra

posted on May, 20 2008 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish

In fact, temperatures on the surface of the Moon...


The surface temperatures have no effect on the camera itself. And since the camera, as well as the astronaut, were constantly moving around. No one side of it was in constant sunlight and when it was, it would be reflecting a lot of the Suns energy. So it wouldn't have reached any extreme temperatures.



posted on May, 20 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


source? im not saying you're wrong; but wouldn't the same light that is heating the surface of the moon, heat the camera as well? You can dance around in the sun on a hot day all you like, you won't get any cooler unless you stand in the shade. Were the cameras coated in a reflective material? That would make some sense

[edit on 5/20/2008 by JPhish]


jra

posted on May, 21 2008 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
source? im not saying you're wrong; but wouldn't the same light that is heating the surface of the moon, heat the camera as well?


Yes, but the lunar surface stays in the sunlight constantly through out the lunar day (which is 27 Earth days). Only by noon, does the surface reach its peak temperature. The Apollo missions all happened durring the Lunar morning, so the surface temperature wasn't that high.

Also, different materials absorb and reflect heat and different rates. So not everything will heat up equally.


You can dance around in the sun on a hot day all you like, you won't get any cooler unless you stand in the shade.


Well, one part of you is always in the shade. What ever part of you isn't in sunlight, is radiating whatever heat it absorbed before. You don't need to be in complete shadow to cool down.


Were the cameras coated in a reflective material? That would make some sense


Silver is reflective.



posted on May, 21 2008 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra Yes, but the lunar surface stays in the sunlight constantly through out the lunar day (which is 27 Earth days). Only by noon, does the surface reach its peak temperature. The Apollo missions all happened durring the Lunar morning, so the surface temperature wasn't that high.

Also, different materials absorb and reflect heat and different rates. So not everything will heat up equally.


Ok, so it takes time for the white/silver/gray surface of the moon to heat up. The same way it would take a while for the camera to heat up if it was the same color. Of course things don't heat up equally. It's just hard for me to believe that cameras back then could have stood up to the temperature high and lows, even if they were cut in half.


Well, one part of you is always in the shade. What ever part of you isn't in sunlight, is radiating whatever heat it absorbed before. You don't need to be in complete shadow to cool down.


If you're in a closed system, you'll never cool down. If you're in an open system, you'll maintain you're temperature if the amount of heat being absorbed equals the amount of heat being emitted. They were in an open system, so yes, if the sun was leaving, they would slowly cool down but eventually freeze. If the sun was arriving (as you state it was) they would slowly heat up.


Silver is reflective.


sure silver is reflective, but isn't the temperature differential of heat absorbed by a white car and a black car on a summer day negligible?

I'm not discrediting anything you're saying. You are more than likely correct as i am just postulating at this point. I'm just trying to apply my layman's logic critically.



posted on May, 22 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
A reaction like : The astronauts are constantly moving around......

No....they are not !

I have seen lot's of standing still video camera recordings of standing still atronauts for a long time.


jra

posted on May, 22 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
It's just hard for me to believe that cameras back then could have stood up to the temperature high and lows, even if they were cut in half.


Well I don't think the camera would have experiance any major temperature changes at all to begin with. And film camera's haven't changed much since the 60's. Only advancements in the film itself (and now digital) have changed really.


If you're in a closed system, you'll never cool down. If you're in an open system, you'll maintain you're temperature if the amount of heat being absorbed equals the amount of heat being emitted. They were in an open system, so yes, if the sun was leaving, they would slowly cool down but eventually freeze. If the sun was arriving (as you state it was) they would slowly heat up.


I'm not really understanding what you wrote here. I may not have explained it well to begin with. But here's a site that does, if you're up for reading more about it. The link also briefly mentions that Hasselblad gave the camera's a shiny polished metal finish to reduce the amount of light it would absorb.



posted on May, 24 2008 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


thanks for the link Jra, that site explained things quite nicely.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 02:28 PM
link   
John Glenn was not the first man in space. He wasn't even the first American in space. No wonder no one takes the moon landing hoax serious.
Please get the facts right... Hmm, are you paid by Nasa or some other agency to confuse and make the hoaxer's look silly. I wonder.

Thanks,
Apache1055



posted on Jun, 23 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
woow that sounds very interesting ¡¡¡



posted on Jul, 12 2008 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by freight tomsen
 


Text White
Lda 7839. Nev 990. Hpo 1902.
It is not what you think. This grand conspiracy regarding Masons is rediculous. who cares about the masons. and nazis are not taking over the world. GEORGE BUSH IS NOT A FASCIST!!! the new world order is not coming. IT IS ALREADY HERE!!! yes. aliens exist. they really do. there is no getting around that. not to sound like a cliche but if you want to know where you can find the truth i have a clue. are you ready--------
GROOM LAKE AND DULCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! again not to sound like a cliche as i know many of you will say but wow. look. for anyone who KNOW what in the world i am talking about then i want you guys to know (you know who you are) G198NX12 ZULU 34RT618HJU. you guys know what that mean. but for you others you guys will respond saying "thats just a bunch of nonsense" i say i don't care what you think. i am really sorry for being so cryptic but......anyone who does a little digging and know a thing or two about the airforce will figure out what those cryptic messages mean.
remember truth seekers- it's G198NX12 ZULU not G198NX12 zulu.



posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   
It makes me sad that people actually post threads like this. No one researches anything before they post their incredibly ridiculous ideas... and they just end up filling similarly minded people with the same garbage ideas.

I'm doing my very best to control my anger at this thread... because people are just so incredibly naive... and it really ticks me off how people can just take a horrible tragedy or something, and throw it in their little mix for some other dumb conspiracy theory. Masons? really?

I stopped reading about halfway through the article you presented when you took the Apollo 1 tragedy... and explained it as "Three of them “accidentally” had their test capsule pumped full of high pressure oxygen until it exploded." ... Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee are rolling in their graves right now.

First off, a little history.

During the early plugs out testing done by the NASA program, the test capsule would be pumped full of pure oxygen (the same exact pure oxygen content used in each of the Mercury capsules) in attempt to re-create the conditions that would be present while the craft was beyond the earths atmosphere... and to complete a cabin leak test to make sure that the pressure in the cabin remained stable.

Since the tests were done on earth and not in the vacuum of space, to recreate the exact pressure that would be present in space, the craft was pumped to a higher than normal level of 16.7psi. This was not uncommon! especially for the time period. A similar fire took the life of Russian astronaut Valentin Bondarenko in March of 1961, and had the actual nature of the fire been made available to the North American Aviation scientists, they would have most likely changed the materials that they had used inside of the capsule, and possibly have used a nitrogen oxygen mix which would have been far less flammable. But because of the incredible pressure put onto NASA and North American Aviation by the desire to reach their goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of 1969, The problems faced by pumping a capsule full of pure oxygen were not surprisingly overlooked.

However... all of this aside, the most interesting aspect of this entire event was the evidence acquired during the investigation of the disaster, it was made clear that the main cause of the highly accelerated fire in the command module was the absurdly high amount of flammable material used in the command module by North American Aviation. Instead of using the allowed 500 sq inches of Velcro, North American had used ten times the amount allowed.

In tests conducted after the tragedy, it was clear that this amount of Velcro was unstably flammable in a pure oxygen environment, and all that was needed was a small spark to ignite the entire capsule into an uncontrollable blaze. Had there been only the allowed amount of Velcro used, one of the astronauts may have been able to control the inferno inside of the capsule.

THE COMPANY MOSTLY AT FAULT FOR THE APOLLO 1 DISASTER WAS NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION, A COMPANY CONTRACTED BY NASA, NOT NASA ITSELF. hence... why North American Aviation took the majority of the blame for the tragedy.

Why would a company contracted to build space craft for NASA intentionally kill three of the greatest astronauts NASA had? Gus Grissom? the second American in space? Ed White... First American space walk? Roger Chaffee... flew the U2 spy plane which took the pictures of Soviet missiles in Cuba? why kill them?

exactly... it was not intentional... and the fact that you actually took this tragedy and placed such light weight on it by saying "Three of them “accidentally” had their test capsule pumped full of high pressure oxygen until it exploded" in some silly grudge you hold against masons, just angers me beyond belief.

some people... ugh... some people should just keep their ridiculous ideas to themselves.

Anyone who doesn't believe me... look it up.

history.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by freight tomsen
 

Hello, this post is good writing but not very accurate. For one, there are many color videos, and some really good ones of the later missions. This post seems mainly to take a little from several hoax theories.
I also believe we never landed a man on the moon. However it takes some hard research and critical thinking before you speculate. I say this because it is a good hoax and hard to crack, mainly due to the support it has both from laymen and professionals. The evidence is in the details, not only the images, but the whole program. Thanks and remember its in the details.



posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 03:23 PM
link   
What about all the other non masons that went to the moon? This has to be the funniest thread ive read in weeks



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The two camps always work with the following lemmas:
Fake photos => fake landings
vs
real landings => real photos

But what if the landings were real and the photos were fake.
There are several good reasons to think that the astronauts couldn't take good photos on the moon.
If Nixon saw lousy photos taken by the astronauts and very good photos made in a studio which were looking like they were taken on the moon, isn't it conceivable that he might have chosen the latter?
I have good reasons to think that there are severe problems with the photos which can't be overlooked.
I have made a thread to explain what these problems were, which make very difficult for me to accept these photos have been taken on the moon.
See my thread (at the end I give a link to a video I made on youtube

www.angelfire.com...

I have made this video in two versions: one for large monitors (by default), and another one for small monitors you can accede by clicking a link at the start of the thread.






top topics



 
4
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join