It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Moon Landing Hoax Apollo 17

page: 5
1
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by masterp
It is not possible to push with his fingers, because the suit is very heavy (heavier than a person).

I've seen people push around 100+ pound water bags in orbit like they're feathers. He could be pushing with his whole hand and I don't think you'd be able to tell from this distance. The thing about low gravity is that things still have mass which means they have inertia, but the work needed to start accelerating or decelerating an object is significantly reduced.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Phage

The Apollo EMU's weighed about 180 lbs. (including the PLSS)
Astronaut weighed...say 180 lbs.

180 + 180 = 360 pounds
360/6 = 60 pounds. 60!

That's 27.27 30 kilos.

Originally posted by Phage
I can push myself up on one leg. I weigh 165 pounds. Thats 2.75 times what the astronauts weighed on the Moon with all their gear.

You can do it, but can you do it like the astronaut, i.e. leaning forward at around 45 degrees? I bet you can't.

And they were probably in better shape than I am. (and he does use his right arm)

Nope. If you pay close attention, you will see that he does not.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:59 PM

But the moon has 1/6 of Earth's gravity...it's not zero gravity or low gravity.

And if you pay close attention to the video, you will see that he is not pushing with his right hand.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:09 PM
Here is a series of stills from that part of the video:

Frame 1:

Frame 2:

Frame 3:

Frame 4:

Frame 5:

Frame 6:

from frame 2, the astronaut does not touch anything! he is magically lifted to the correct position by an 'unknown force'.

The astronaut is almost horizontal. It is impossible for him to push himself up with his fingers. His arms do not move at all.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by masterp

But the moon has 1/6 of Earth's gravity...it's not zero gravity or low gravity.

LOL. 1/6th IS low gravity. Have you ever been in a 1/6th gravity simulator? I have, it's amazing how light you feel. He could have gotten up easier than you describe, and he had the help of the other astronaut. In fact, to me it looks like the other astronaut provided all the force needed to get up, which isn't that much in 1/6th gravity (please tell me that you realize that by providing sufficient counter-force, neither astronauts' arms need move to push one of them up, he only needs to rotate).

[edit on 27-3-2009 by ngchunter]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:22 PM

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by masterp

But the moon has 1/6 of Earth's gravity...it's not zero gravity or low gravity.

LOL. 1/6th IS low gravity. Have you ever been in a 1/6th gravity simulator? I have, it's amazing how light you feel.

It's not so low that it allows you to move 30 kilos without lifting a finger though.

He could have gotten up easier than you describe, and he had the help of the other astronaut. In fact, to me it looks like the other astronaut provided all the force needed to get up,

But the other astronaut does not move. Did you check the images?

which isn't that much in 1/6th gravity (please tell me that you realize that by providing sufficient counter-force, neither astronauts' arms need move to push one of them up, he only needs to rotate).

To rotate what? over what?

[edit on 27-3-2009 by masterp]

posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:16 AM

err NO go out in DAYLIGHT and look for stars , all apollo surface ops were during the lunar day

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:30 AM

Originally posted by masterp
But the other astronaut does not move. Did you check the images?

The other astronaut doesn't need to move to push his companion up if they apply equal amounts of counter pressure.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:34 PM

To make interstellar travel believable NASA was created. The Apollo Space Program foisted the idea that man could travel to, and walk upon, the moon. Every Apollo mission was carefully rehearsed and then filmed in large sound stages at the Atomic Energy Commissions Top Secret test site in the Nevada Desert and in a secured and guarded sound stage at the Walt Disney Studios within which was a huge scale mock-up of the moon.

All names, missions, landing sites, and events in the Apollo Space Program echo the occult metaphors, rituals, and symbology of the Illuminati's secret religion. The most transparent was the faked explosion on the spacecraft Apollo 13, named "Aquarius" (new age) at 1:13 (1313 military time) on April 13, 1970 which was the metaphor for the initiation ceremony involving the death (explosion), placement in the coffin (period of uncertainty of their survival), communion with the spiritual world and the imparting of esoteric knowledge to the candidate (orbit and observation of the moon without physical contact), rebirth of the initiate (solution of problem and repairs), and the raising up (of the Phoenix, the new age of Aquarius) by the grip of the lions paw (reentry and recovery of Apollo 13). 13 is the number of death and rebirth, death and reincarnation, sacrifice, the Phoenix, the Christ (perfected soul imprisoned in matter), and the transition from the old to the new. Another revelation to those who understand the symbolic language of the Illuminati is the hidden meaning of the names of the Space Shuttles, "A Colombian Enterprise to Endeavor for the Discovery of Atlantis... and all Challengers shall be destroyed."

Exploration of the moon stopped because it was impossible to continue the hoax without being discovered. And of course they ran out of pre-filmed episodes.

www.biblebelievers.org.au...

[edit on 9/4/09 by masqua]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:35 PM

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:37 PM

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:39 PM

In addition most, if not all, of the photos, films, and videotape of the Apollo Moon Missions are easily proven to be fake. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of studio photography, studio lighting, and the reality of Lunar physics can easily prove that NASA faked the visual records of the Apollo Space Program. No color film known to man, then or now, had or has the latitude to produce the excellent detail found in shadow and highlighted areas of the photographs supposedly taken on the moon. Any professional photographer can tell you that those photographs could only have been produced in a controlled environment using studio lighting and could not possibly have been produced in full sunlight in a vacuum on the moon. Some are so obviously fake that when the discrepancies are pointed out to unsuspecting viewers an audible gasp has been heard. Some have actually gone into a mild state of shock. Some People break down and cry. I have seen others become so angry that they have ripped the offending photos to shreds while screaming incoherently.
The Soviet Union planned only one manned moon mission. Soviet cosmonauts related to me that their astronauts were literally COOKED by the extreme radiation in space when sent into high orbit through the Van Allen Belt. The USSR never again attempted to send men into or above the Van Allen Belt. If man could not survive the extreme radiation of the Van Allen Belt how could they put a man on the Moon? The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program.

www.hourofthetime.com...

[edit on 9/4/09 by masqua]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 05:43 PM

Moderator-Note:

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Skyfloating]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:35 PM
I am not sure either way, but what caught my attention is the lack of deep craters under the LEM. I imagine such an engine would create a verry clear impression during landing. However, I fail to see that in these pictures. I could be wrong, and I hope someone is able to prove me wrong with a plausible explanation.

The second picture shows what appears to be a crater, but then it's a bit off, and judging the way the (front-right) leg-plate shoved the dust in the oposite direction, it could just as well be a normal (none engine) crater.

Anyway, I bet there's someone who's able to clarify this for me.

Peace.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:47 PM

Because you throttle down as you approach landing. Otherwise you never get down, and you actually start to lift off again. They started at 100% throttle as they were trying to deorbit, and were at about 20-25% throttle when they landed.

The best example I can give is the AV-8B. If you ever watch a video or see one landing vertically, you'll notice that they start out really loud, with the throttle set at almost full power, and as they come down closer, they get a little quieter, as they pull the throttle back.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 06:52 PM

Makes sense, I suppose.

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 07:00 PM

Originally posted by 2Faced
I am not sure either way, but what caught my attention is the lack of deep craters under the LEM. I imagine such an engine would create a verry clear impression during landing.

The LM's decent engine did blow away the dust, but it's mostly solid rock underneath. The thrust isn't strong enough to blast rock away and dig a crater. The Harrier jet produces more thrust than the LM and it doesn't leave any craters anywhere. Plus the LM's decent engine is throttleable and it wasn't at full thrust when landing.

EDIT: ah beat me to it Zaphod

[edit on 9-4-2009 by jra]

posted on Apr, 9 2009 @ 08:19 PM
all the hoax supporters need to go to the mcdonald observatory in Texas and ask them about the lunar range finder program

then go see big muley (google it)

listen, we left something behind and brought something back

both items can be independently verified by neutral ( even combative) third parties

posted on Apr, 11 2009 @ 07:46 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Apr, 20 2009 @ 11:32 PM
I don't really get into this much, but I find it funny that this speech was prepared for Nixon, if they faked everything.

digg.com...

On July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin became the first men to walk on the moon. The following speech, revealed in 1999, was prepared by Nixon's then speechwriter, William Safire, to be used in the event of a disaster that would maroon the astronauts on the moon:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace. These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice. These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding. They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by their nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown. In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man. In ancient days, men looked at stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood. Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts. For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.

Seriously was the President and all his staff tricked too?

new topics

top topics

1