And again, were they really on the MOON??

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:09 PM
link   
1. Wow ... I'll have too see the video again.
2. Ditto
3. I've ALWAYS thought about this too.
4. Agreed, but how would they recreate the absence of gravity here on Earth?
5. I read somewhere else on this board, that staying in the radiation belt for a long-period of time would kill someone, but passing through it wouldn't. Where is the 'radiation belt' anyways?




posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:18 PM
link   

1.Who filmed Neil Armstrong getting out of the space craft.
The remotely controlled camera on the lander leg.

2. There was 3 shadows on the astronauts implying there is another light source other than the sun.
Don't expect light in a vacuum to look the same as light in an atmosphere that you're used to. Light reflecting off the surface of the moon, and the lander are indeed valid and bright light sources.

3.The Lunar Car would not be able to fit in the apollo.
vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov... The lunar roving vehicle will be carried to the moon in the cargo compartment of the descent stage of the lunar module. To save space, the vehicle's frame will be hinged, with three segments folding together. The four wheels will be folded against the chassis. When the astronauts leave the lunar module for their extravehicular activities, one of them will release the lunar roving vehicle from its stowage compartment. Deployment will be semi-automatic. Springs will unfold the vehicle and its wheels, and they will lock together into the deployed position.

4. The speed of the astronauts defying gravity was inaccurate.
I don't recall them defying gravity.

5.The Apollo missions could have not past through the radiation belt. It would have killed all of the astronauts abored.
Wrong. The radiation is minimal and they passed through quickly. www.lpi.usra.edu... The Laser Ranging Retroreflector equipment is still be used today. It required human intervention by the Apollo 11 astronauts to calibrate the equipment on the moon for proper position. In short, someone needed to be there to set it up and confirm it was set up properly.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Actually if you remember they were jumping through the air. Jumping is a form of defying gravity. The radiation was dangerous and experts agree it could have killed them or at least make them seriously ill. The light can not be bended in 3 seperate directions. A moon would not bend light. There are many reasons and they can be found over the internet



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Zuzubar,
You obviously beleive in aliens. Here is a quote of yours from another thread.

______
No one truly knows where aliens come from. However they may be able to come far away using anti gravity technology. Anti gravity allows you to travel past the speed of light. The aliens might want to even help us.
______

Would mind explaining how an alien could survive a trip through the Van Allen belt but a human could not? No - don't answer that. This has got to stop. BTW, how old were you in 69?

To any mod - I'll provide the oak stakes to anyone who wants to drive it through the heart of this thread!



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:45 PM
link   
IF aliens had anti gravity technology they would pass through the belt in an instant. Less than a nano second. Imagine sticking your finger in a fire for less than a nano second. Would it hurt. No it would not.

At the speed the astronauts were travelling according to NASA they would have been seriously sick or dead.



jra

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 03:58 PM
link   
@ Zuzubar

It's not a well known fact. It's not a fact at all. It's a theory and a bad one at that. The evidence provided by you doesn't hold up well.

1. As far as I know, no one filmed Armstrong. The footage we generaly see is Aldrin. At least the photos i've seen were all of Aldrin. None were of Armstrong since he was taking all the photos.

2. Can you show me a photo of this? I have seen a lot of Photos from the moon, but I don't ever recall seeing one with multiple shadows.

3. You do know that the LRV folds up yes? Here are a few images of it, here and here and here

4. Not sure how to answer this one. I'm not even sure what you're talking about here exactly.

5. No the radiation would not have killed the astronauts. Not all radiation is instantly bad you know. The type of radiation in the Van Allen belts is proton radation. It can be blocked with a piece of wood. Unlike gamma radiation which is the kind you get from nuclear bombs. With that you need lead and lots of it.

to quote the guy who knows the most about the Van Allen belts:


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


I suggest this site for your reading pleasure. It covers many things about the moon landings. www.clavius.org...



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Shadows on the moon were among reasons for the hoaxes. I havn't found the pictures of the multiple shadows yet but I have found some other controversial pictures including this one.

www.forteantimes.com...


jra

posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 04:35 PM
link   
And this photo is controversial how? I see nothing wrong with this photo. The sun is shinning behind them as we all know. Hence the shadow infront of the guy.

The reason why the front of the astronaut is illuminated is because the light is bouncing off the surface of the moon. It's as simple as that. Think about it. The surface is a light gray and you have a bright light shinning down on it. A lot of that light is going to get reflected.

I'm also sure that the shadow wasn't really solid black either. It only is on film because the exposure on film would have had to been quick because it's so bright on the moon surface, so shadows look black because there wasn't enough exposure.

EDIT: here's a better version of the previous photo



[Edited on 30-4-2004 by jra]



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zuzubar
Actually if you remember they were jumping through the air. Jumping is a form of defying gravity. The radiation was dangerous and experts agree it could have killed them or at least make them seriously ill. The light can not be bended in 3 seperate directions. A moon would not bend light. There are many reasons and they can be found over the internet


Jumping is not a form of defying gravity, the experts do not agree, and noone is suggesting the light is being bent. I also don't recall any images with multiple shadows.

Now, here is my standard reply to these junk moonhoax threads:

Standard reply to Moon Landing threads

There is no 'evidence' against the moon landings that hasn't been solidly and repeatedly debunked.

A few sites:

www.clavius.org...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

www.badastronomy.com...

Or you could go to NASAs site and search on Moon Hoax.

Proof...
Now, on the other hand we have the fact that the Russians could tell the landings werent faked from the direction of the radio signals (they would have kicked up a fuss if they could disprove it). The fact that a couple hundred kilos of moon rocks were brought back and have been examined by thousands of geologists on Earth, all of whom can see that the rocks are completely unlike anything on earth and would be utterly impossible to create artificially. Also of course the fact that three missions placed Laser ranging reflection devices on the moon.

www.lpi.usra.edu...



There is also this picture of the Apollo 15 landing site by a lunar orbiter.

www.space.com...

I suggest you read those sites. Starting with badastronomy, and gain some insight into the flaws in your 5 points.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zuzubar
There are many reasons and they can be found over the internet


Ohh, a new sig line.



Kano, that page you posted is Great

These are the same old debunked arguments. The landings were not faked.



posted on Apr, 30 2004 @ 11:20 PM
link   
Zuzubar's linked image... I love this... Okay class... can anyone tell me why this photo does not prove what the moon hoaxers are saying? (It's painfully obvious)



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Deny Ingnorance! Why is this thread here?


God

posted on May, 1 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   


In my views they definitely got there on our moon. But I'm still not sure they didn't see anything weird, strange, alien, big and so on...


Someone told me once that one of the astronauts said something like: OMG, what is that?!? Then that part was edited out or something.... I'd have to talk to the person who told me.

Of course I have no idea weither that's true or not.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by God



In my views they definitely got there on our moon. But I'm still not sure they didn't see anything weird, strange, alien, big and so on...


Someone told me once that one of the astronauts said something like: OMG, what is that?!? Then that part was edited out or something.... I'd have to talk to the person who told me.

Of course I have no idea weither that's true or not.



They supposedly saw a 30 foot wide ufo mother ship or something...

Moon Landing Not Faked Thread

Thread might as well be killed now. Nothing new here...

Deny Ignorance - Use ATS Search (and BTS is the place to post rubbish. Especially regurgitated rubbish)

[Edited on 1-5-2004 by minimi]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Zuzubar's linked image...

I love this...

Okay class... can anyone tell me why this photo does not prove what the moon hoaxers are saying?
(It's painfully obvious)



Uh, reflected light of the suit of the astronaut taking the picture? Film speed and exposure index? Am I close?



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Ok, How about the camera was the remote mounted to the leg of the LEM. That would mean there's a nice, bright shiny spacecraft reflecting light as a fill light on the subject. OK, Enough said, someone please kill this redundant, idiotic thread!


BTW, That's just a guess. With the original pic you could zoom in on the reflection in the face mask. I haven't bothered. But if someone does send me a U2U if it's a Fox News remote truck!


[Edited on 1-5-2004 by CommonSense]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoarkUh, reflected light of the suit of the astronaut taking the picture? Film speed and exposure index? Am I close?
Not quite. The moon-hoax nutters claim that there is a second light source because the front of the moon-walker in the picture is lit... something they say would be impossible on the moon since the sun is clearly behind him because of the position of his shadow. ...right... But... if there is a light source facing the astronaut... why isn't the same light source lighting up the moon surface where his shadow is? His shadow is pitch-black... if the second light source was strong enough to light the astronaut, certainly it would be strong enough to also light the moon surface under his shadow. The only explanation reflected light from the surrounding moon surface lighting him, but not his shadow. ...sheesh... moon-hoax nutters.



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 07:48 PM
link   
well i would have to say that after seeing some sped up footage of the apollo crew walking around i would have to say it did look a bit dogy, and the photo marks not appearing in the right part of the photo. then yes of course theres the question why havnt they gone back, [regardless of the cost argument] and last but not least what exactly did happen to armstrong. yep i would feel much better if they went back to the moon and answered all theses questions as they went. if it was a cold war tactic then i would feel angry that they lied to us for so long even though i wasnt born when it all took place. the fact that they havn't been back is the most annoying part for me.


[Edited on 4-5-2004 by kode]



posted on May, 1 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
And don't forget that if there were a secondary light source, there would also be secondary shadows.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join