Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Recent Moon Hoax Ideas

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
Personally, I believe that if we were able to walk on the moon in the 60's, then it shouldn't be a problem to do it now, 40 years later! I heard that it would take years and an exorbitant amount of money to accomplish this now. Why? We already did it! With all of the technological advances, why is it harder to do this now than it was 40 years ago?




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Sort of on this topic...During hubble repairs astronaut sliced glove this day before this. Apparently, not enough to decompressurize the space suit and make him implode in zero gravity.

www.jaxobserver.com...




The work was so arduous that Massimino reported the potentially alarming news that a hole was forming in the palm of his glove. But it wasn’t serious enough to force him to retire early.


jra

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
reply to post by InquisitiveGuy
 


I came across a thread in another forum that talks about the varying brightness of the Lunar surface in the photos. It reminded me of your comments here and I thought you might like to give it a read, so here it is.

But to sum it up, from what I understood it has to do with the diffuse nature of the Lunar surface. The angle of the light from the point of view of the camera (like up-sun or cross-sun photos), and the angle of the Lunar surface relative to the Sun, will effect how much light is reflected towards the camera.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by jra]


jra

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by moonleaf
We already did it! With all of the technological advances, why is it harder to do this now than it was 40 years ago?


It's not that it's harder to do now than it was 40 years ago, but simply because all the equipment needs to be designed from the ground up, since we stopped going. Had we continued to go to the Moon for the past 40 years, it wouldn't be an issue. But since there is a 40 year gap, all the equipment needs to be redesigned, taking advantage of new materials and technologies that weren't around in the 60's. So a lot of relearning needs to be done in regards to that stuff. We need new Rockets, spacecraft, lander, rover etc. And it takes time and money to design, build and test all of that.

Going to the Moon ain't cheap.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


...and do not forget the dust spray from the wheels of the rover. the dust spray is just above the rear wheels but should be, i believe, much higher than what you see on film. think about that. i found this out via youtube.



posted on Jun, 20 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by cydonia19.5
 


Well, if you're referring to some of the YT garbage like I've seen, then you should consider the source!

The nonsense spouted is unbelievable in its stupidity, sometimes over there.

I suspect it's some reference to the lesser gravity, 'rooster tails' that should be kicked up by the tires, and rubbish like that?

Those nuts are comparing the Lunar regolith with dry dust on Earth (hint: The regolith is not dust, it is more like heavy sand)

AND...even in the lower gravity, the mass and therefore inertia is the same. That does not vary. AND the electrically-driven wheels didn't have the torque required to kick up big plumes...imagine a golf cart laying 'rooster tails'!!!


Really, watching the videos of the Rovers shows how the regolith arcs back, is constrained by the fenders, and falls back in a manner entirely consistent with low gravity in a vacuum. There is no WAY to fake that on Earth, in an atmosphere.

There ARE some good scientific and accurate videos at YT....but the hoaxers' are some of the most pathetic, uneducated lacking in science knowledge out there.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   
Remember Khrushchev said, "Gagarin flew into space, but didn't see any god there". The moon landing hoax/no hoax debate is as simple as asking that question "Do you believe in God?" or something like that. It's a deep question of meaning. Look how many wars were started over a story and a few books! LOL.
edit on 11201011/30/1010 by SayonaraJupiter because: add lols



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:35 AM
link   
Here is a ridiculous question: What was the technical or scientific reason to cover the lander legs in gold foil? [edit to add 2nd question]: What was all that "The FBI Files of Werhner Von Braun--Part 9" info supposed to be about? If anybody has a clue let me know
edit on 11201011/30/1010 by SayonaraJupiter because: add 2nd question



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


To keep them from overheating and to make them look cool.

*But seriously, We could've faked the moon missions. America could have faked it if they wanted to - they did send a man to the moon afterall.



posted on Nov, 30 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


To keep them from overheating and to make them look cool.

*But seriously, We could've faked the moon missions. America could have faked it if they wanted to - they did send a man to the moon afterall.


I don't understand how the lander legs would overheat? Did the craft have critical sensor electronics in the lander legs? Like in this pic commons.wikimedia.org...:As11-40-5886,_uncropped.jpg



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I certainly do not believe that the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. Perhaps some people (like at NASA) originally brought it out - in order to draw attention away from the extraterrestrial encounters that the astronauts had. It would be a case of "How could they have had extraterrestrial encounters, if they never went in the first place?"


mw

posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
I don't see why the moon landing is so hard to believe...



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   
This subject is right up my alley. For the past 2 years I have been studying the Moon surface, and the Earths surface. I do what I call, reverse image overlays. This is where I take an image of the Moon surface and flip it, then overlay it onto the Earths surface, or the other way around. What I have discovered, as hard as it is for most people to believe, is that the Moon has impacted the Earth many times. I have got to the point where I can take just about any crater on the Moon, and place it on the Earth with near perfect results. Most people would never think about doing this. If they did they would be shocked at how obvious it really is. I highly recommend people try it. I have some videos on youtube where I point out many impact alignments. There is no way I can be proven wrong, and I challenge anybody to try and do so. So in fact there are Moon rocks all over the Earth. In the process of doing this research, I have also discovered much more than just the Moon impacting the Earth. I have also been able to reconstruct much of the Earth surface to show how it was during these impacts. I can prove that the continents were not side by side, but instead layered, on top of each other. Australia I believe is the foundation, as it still shows the impacts around the outside of it as well as direct hits. These impacts push the continents off the top of each other, and push them around the globe. Sort of a high speed continental shove. One more interesting discovery, that I am sure nobody will believe, is that the Plateau and the Himalayas must have been completely flipped over during these impacts. Go ahead and laugh, but I can change your mind in a matter of minutes. As a matter of fact It may have happened twice.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Sorry! but the Moon Landings are a complete Hoax!



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thefalseprophet
 


This is why... First you have to get a rocket to point you toward the Moon. Then you separate from this rocket, and expect to be able to steer yourself into orbit around the Moon. Once there, the lander separates from the capsule, then has to land on the Moon, while someone waits in the capsule above the Moon. Then the lander has to pop off of the Moon, then re-connect with the capsule. Then somehow set a trajectory to fall back to Earth from 250,000 miles away. There is no way in hell they could pull this off as many times as we are told.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by MoonTruth
reply to post by thefalseprophet
 


This is why... First you have to get a rocket to point you toward the Moon. Then you separate from this rocket, and expect to be able to steer yourself into orbit around the Moon. Once there, the lander separates from the capsule, then has to land on the Moon, while someone waits in the capsule above the Moon. Then the lander has to pop off of the Moon, then re-connect with the capsule. Then somehow set a trajectory to fall back to Earth from 250,000 miles away. There is no way in hell they could pull this off as many times as we are told.

Just because you don't understand orbital mechanics doesn't mean no one else does. As a matter of fact as I type this I'm simulating Apollo 8 using the actual apollo guidance computer software which is being run on an emulation of the original hardware inside of an accurate space flight simulator. In short, the AGC thinks its really flying to the moon again and it really does work. I'm 25 hours into the mission and I should pass within about 120 km of the moon's surface where the AGC will perform an LOI burn that will insert me into orbit around the moon, and I will have hit that target having started 250,000 miles away on earth. The heavy lifting was done on earth, that's where the trajectory was calculated. The resulting vectors are then put into the AGC which executes the required burn to get Apollo to the moon and back. It is completely doable, and if you take the time to learn it you can not only understand it, but repeat it yourself in high fidelity simulations.
orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk...
nassp.sourceforge.net...






top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution