Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

page: 11
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 4 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by ngchunter
 


If you had bothered to read my post on the subject, you would note that I have been clear that the soviet probe was cited as a proof of concept - and to show that it could be done (weedwacker denied such a thing was done at all).

A probe scooping up a few grams of lunar dust proves that a probe in the late 60s could have transported over 800 pounds of lunar rock collected over a several-kilometer wide area and brought it back to earth? No, it doesn't prove such a thing was possible at all. In fact, it demonstrates that the robotics technology of the time was woefully inadequate for the size of the task.


*The infamous and oft-cited laser reflector could also have been placed by an unmanned probe. I gave an example of a soviet probe that did just this.

Not that I addressed this in my initial response to you, but one of them failed. None of the apollo retroreflectors failed in spite of a greater number of total reflectors (larger as well) because humans are intrinsically far more reliable at performing such technical tasks with good judgement. Take for instance the landing of apollo 11 - had a robot been in control of the landing, as would have been the case for an unmanned landing, it would have set down in an area filled with large boulders and crashed. Fortunately, a human pilot was in command and took over in the final critical moments.


This does not mean the Apollo missions were faked, it just shows that certain objectives on that mission could have been accomplished via unmanned probe.

If it were done by an unmanned probe we would have expected to see a high percentage of failures.


Why do you dedicate so much of your time to suppressing speculation of the sort I engage in?

Please show where I surpressed your opinion. Mitigating with facts is not surpression.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by ngchunter]




posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Please show where I surpressed your opinion. Mitigating with facts is not surpression.


I should have said "attempting to suppress" as you clearly have not had any affect on his member.


However, this sort of behaviour is discouraging to those who would otherwise also engage in a more open-minded speculation - were it not for the persistent desire of certain members to launch attacks and treat every discussion as a debate, we would have many more participants and it would be to our benefit.

Many individuals with unique and interesting ideas will refrain from sharing them solely to avoid being slagged and attacked and engaged by persons using tactics more commonly associated with pre-ban trolls than respectful fellow members.


*In hindsight, I would even go so far as to replace "attempting to suppress" with "actively discouraging", which more aptly describes the sort of behaviour that I have witnessed on this board.

Poor form, indeed.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
I should have said "attempting to suppress" as you clearly have not had any affect on his member.

Please show where I have "attmepted to suppress" you. Baseless accusations of abuse should be against the rules.

were it not for the propensity of certain members to launch attacks and treat every discussion as a debate, we would have many more participants and it would be to our benefit.

So you're confusing the concept of personal attacks with debate. I guess we're supposed to just accept whatever is said and not look at it with critical thinking skills. Sorry, that's not how it works, especially in the space exploration forum.

solely to avoid being slagged and attacked and engaged by persons using tactics more commonly associated with pre-ban trolls than respectful fellow members.

Where have I personally insulted or attacked you?


*In hindsight, I would even go so far as to replace "attempting to suppress" with "actively discouraging", which more aptly describes the sort of behaviour that I have witnessed on this board.

Analyzing the facts in a discussion is not "active discouragement." Where did I say ANYTHING to discourage further posts? If anything your entire post is a form of discouragement designed to prevent others from posting anything critical of hoax theory speculation by labeling it "pre-ban trolling." I've had it with this attempt to derail the thread with baseless accusations, I'm done addressing them.

[edit on 4-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   
The description is right there at the top of the thread:

"Space-Based Science and Discussion. Exploring the Universe."
-and-
'This thread is in the science forum group.'



ALL may discuss. The diversity of opinions enrichens knowledge. However, simply disagreeing with someone is not suppression -- it is an argument to the contrary.

This comports quite well with the ATS theme of denying ignorance. Because, 'ignorance' is not a pejorative term. It is, quite simply, a lack of knowledge. learning, information, etc.

A misconception about a particular technical detail involving an aspect of space science may exist, and someone who is open and willing to learn will fiind that others are willing to offer their help to clear up any misunderstandings or incorrect assumptions. On the other hand, those who simply 'believe' something are then just being dogmatic and are not open to clarification of any sort.



posted on May, 4 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by TeslaandLyne
 


What are you talking about? Your post really does not make much sense but moreso, who are you calling my henchmen?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 10:51 AM
link   
WOW...11 pages! Where have I been...sorry guys. I make the post then forget it...not cool.

I've got some reading to do..."I'll be back"...Peace



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
Not that I addressed this in my initial response to you, but one of them failed. None of the apollo retroreflectors failed in spite of a greater number of total reflectors (larger as well) because humans are intrinsically far more reliable at performing such technical tasks with good judgement.


That is just blatantly not true. Humans are NOT more reliable at such things. In fact, time and time again, People have been replaced by machines and computers for the simple fact that humans come with human error.

Our reflectors and rovers were of better design and fucntioned better. Are you saying it is not possible that we did the same as the Russians just that we did it better?

Please show me some evidence that proves humans have ever been considered more capable or accurate at such complex tasks. If that were true, you should be making millions on a speaking tour explaining to millions of institutions world wide that they need to replace their machines and computers with humans because humans are more accurate.



That just cracks me up that anyone would even say that. Did you have a straight face?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


You aren't really typing this in seriousness, are you?

Because, if someone wished to display a blatant lack of scientific knowledge and embarass themselves, I can think of no better way to do it.

Take a moment, have some coffee (it is early AM there) or...maybe you had too much???

Read that stuff you wrote, and then tell us you actually believe it!!!

*SIGH*....IF one cannot even understand how the Moon stays in orbit around the Earth, then there is simply no hope. If one truly does not understand the simplest basics of celestial mechanics, gravity, mass, velocity and, not to mention, photography, geology...the list goes on.

IF one is unable or unwilling to actually open one's eyes and learn, then that person will NOT find it here, on a web Forum. It would take years, it would seem, of one-on-one tutoring to get an education into the cracks that have developed in that person's skewed understanding of reality.


How about an educational video to share?


[edit on 5/3/0909 by weedwhacker]


I would say by your attitude and pitch with maybe a little yaw, you are unwilling weed. What do you propose I learn? Calculations? Theory? Laws with imaginary lines?

Why would 11 of the astronauts not swear they went and accept 5 grand for their favorite charity refusing on the basis of bad taste of the interviewer if they went? Selfish men if you ask me. Can't admit to something you supposedly did with glory because of bad taste? You know that doesn't fly, but then again you didn't even address it.

Why does earths gravity which holds the moon not effect objects on the moon as to strengthen its gravity to more then 1/6th? Very strait forward question, should be simple to answer yourself and not with a childs science video.

Are these "unwilling to learn" questions? You don't have to go with the scenario for war profiting, though it is more then obvious, that is fine. I know you work in Wash D.C. and that you are the weed whacker. Whack away...but first whack my questions. Belittling my intelligence is just stalling and diverting. I know you can do better then that. No one said I was unwilling to learn. You're here to debunk, so debunk, not divert.

a few simple questions enlightened one....again...why won't astronauts swear they went sighting bad taste if they did actually go and why isn't gravity on the moon effected by the gravity holding it in orbit as to increase its effect on the moon to that of over 1/6th.

www.etymonline.com...

1509, "weight, dignity, seriousness," from L. gravitatem (nom. gravitas) "weight, heaviness, pressure," from gravis "heavy" (see grave (adj.)). The scientific sense of "force that gives weight to objects" first recorded 1641. Gravitate is first recorded 1692.

Peace



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


"The Russians, Brits, and even us. Have you ever seen the leaders of the countries go to war with one another? This may not seem on topic but it will come around. I'm not talking old republics, but since space flight. Have you ever seen one leader of another country have a fight with another leader from a different country. Two men with only the fists on their bodies?"

So ALL the Russians, Brits and US scientists are under the control of the government? And NONE of them spoke out in all those years? Perhaps they were all killed in June 1969 and replaced with doppelgangers? Or, no, the robotics industry made a great leap forward in 1968 and they were replaced with animatronics. That would tie Disney in nicely.

Sheesh.


It is very easy to keep someone quiet. I don't know why you guys think it is so hard. If I wanted to keep someone quiet about things who was high enough up to know about "things" as low level people wouldn't, I wouldn't threaten what would happen to them. They would likely give there life if they felt it important enough, but they wouldn't talk if one of there family members or children were in the sights of a rifle. They would never speak...promise. Ask Jackie Kennedy. Even if they did, who would believe them with the media monster we have.

The tactics are put to use on ATS every day. It tells you to believe, so you do like most of the answers to questions here. They always start the response with how smart they are and don't have the time to walk such feeblie minds through the elaborate gulch of information one must accrue. Layman's terms are below them. I wonder, why even respond to threads you don't believe are true unless to enlighten? Wouldn't your time and mind be spent positively in threads you believed in only further cementing the reality you believe is true?

Images and movies will never make me believe we went. When I go, I will say it is true. Anything else would be just me talking about something I couldn't possible prove was true in reality. I could work up all kinds of jargon, videos, pictures, rocks from Antarctica or the desert, surly if I said there were 400,000 people that worked with me not producing one name you would believe....easy pickens....I could spend all of your hard earned money telling you what ever you wanted to hear, I'd just put it on TV....done deal....gotta love the boob tube.....the false prophet of today. And oh do they profit....another sucker.

"I was the walrus, now I'm John"

Peace



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
That is just blatantly not true.

The failure rate of robotic missions to human missions says otherwise, and that's a fact. Robots are good for some things, but there is an increased risk to failure in spaceflight when a human is not there to correct things in real time. We don't see this problem on earth because we have this neat thing called the "technician," a human who can easily fix things in person or send in a replacement when something goes wrong.


Our reflectors and rovers were of better design and fucntioned better.

LOL! We didn't even have automated rovers back then, the russians were the only ones who did. I dare you to produce a shred of evidence showing we had better automated rovers, you just made the claim, now prove it.


Are you saying it is not possible that we did the same as the Russians just that we did it better?

It's up to you to produce any evidence we had anything magically designed to do it better than the russians, and return huge amounts of rock samples, all with a 100% success rate. You just made the claim, which is quite funny considering our first robotic rover wouldn't be launched for nearly 30 years, and was far below the sophistication needed for correctly placing a retroreflector.


Please show me some evidence that proves humans have ever been considered more capable or accurate at such complex tasks.

I already did. Apollo 11. Look up the landing. All the apollo retroreflectors vs the hit or miss russian reflectors.


If that were true, you should be making millions on a speaking tour explaining to millions of institutions world wide that they need to replace their machines and computers with humans because humans are more accurate.

Your analogy does not apply. Earthbound machines and computers can be operated, accessed, repaired, and replaced by human technicians on the ground. The high failure rate of robotic missions is all the proof I need that you're wrong.

Some facts about how manned exploration is more effective in certain ways, including reliability:
www.perthobservatory.wa.gov.au...

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I would say by your attitude and pitch with maybe a little yaw, you are unwilling weed. What do you propose I learn? Calculations? Theory? Laws with imaginary lines?

Why would 11 of the astronauts not swear they went and accept 5 grand for their favorite charity refusing on the basis of bad taste of the interviewer if they went?

They're smart enough to know it's a trap and that bart sibrel would never admit we went; all he has to do is insult them and make them as uncomfortable during the lie detector test as he does at the hotel to throw off the results. Sibrel can't be convinced by evidence, just as you admit you can't be convinced either. I don't blame them for refusing to entertain someone who holds one of the astronauts against their will by blocking their exit.


Why does earths gravity which holds the moon not effect objects on the moon as to strengthen its gravity to more then 1/6th? Very strait forward question, should be simple to answer yourself and not with a childs science video.

LOL! Sorry, but it seems you should study up on some very basic principles of astronomy and physics. The moon is in "free fall" around the earth, just the same way the space station, that you refused to admit exists despite irrefutable proof, is. The objects on the moon don't become heavier or lighter due to the earth's gravity for the same reason that objects on the space station don't become heavier or lighter from the earth's gravity. They're falling around the earth in orbit, that's the effect that earth's gravity has - keeping the whole moon in orbit. The moon's gravity is the only thing holding them to the moon.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Maybe they found out the moon was a hologramme or something after the photo' s were taken and it was just a glitch in the Matrix because that is the first time man has reached so far out and the programmers forgot.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

"The failure rate of robotic missions to human missions says otherwise"

Why have we not put man on mars if this is true?

We have increased our flight distance capability 199167% from Wright Brothers first flight to alleged moon mission (66 yr period)

We would only have needed to increase our "manned" distance ability 15063% in 40 yrs time from supposed Apollo 11 mission to today putting man on mars.

What? Money? That would be BS otherwise we would not have sent multiple unreliable robotic missions to Mars.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


FX, I'll answer that one, if I may.

Mars is way orders of magnitude more diffcult than the Moon, given our current technology.

We're looking at a 6 to 9-month journey, each way. Compared to 3 days each way, to the Moon. So, the seven or eight days that the Astronauts spent outside the earth's protective magnetosphere was a tolerable dose of radiation. Six months will require some sort of protection better than was used on Apollo.

Then, there is the question of consumables. Because of the orbital periods of Earth and Mars we're looking at a total mission time frame of up to two YEARS!!! (Because, after the 6-9 month journey, and a successful landing, there is a wait for a window of opportunity to return to Earth).

Also, while on the planet Mars, again there is the Solar radiation (and background cosmic radiation) danger. Mars does not have an appreciably large magnetic field. He is a dead world.

On the plus side, the rotational period of Mars is just over 25 hours (called a 'Sol') and its orbital period is close to two Earth years...so, THAT aspect would be somewhat familiar, at least.

A manned mission to Mars would require advance planning, in my opinion. Robotic launches of supplies and material would have to be sent ahead. These items could either be directed to a stable orbit to await the Humans, or (riskier) landed on the surface to later be used after the Humans landed.

Also, consider the time delay for communications from Earth to Mars. I need to look it up, but depending on where we are in our orbits it could be up to 18 light-minutes each way. (AND, there would be a complete black-out period when we are on opposite sides of the Sun).

Now we also have to consider the effects of prolonged micro-gravity on the Human body. Much study has been undertaken, on the ISS for example. Resistance training is thought to help with muscle mass degeneration and bone loss. But, a 6-9 month voyage? Without the technology for 'artificial' gravity, then an alternative would be a rotating living environment, using the centripetal force to simulate a gravity field.

All of these challenges are leaps and bounds ahead of what we 'know' already. The six decades of advancement in Aviation from the Wright Brothers onward is just not a valid comparison.

Now, having written all of the above, it would seem most logical to use these concepts to form a permanent base on the Moon first. Those same techniques could be used, i.e., launch robotic craft with supplies, to Lunar orbit, then follow with Humans to utilize the equipment to begin to construct a base. Also, in order to mount a future Mars mission, it would make more sense to use the Moon as your base, since its gravity well is much smaller than Earth's...less fuel for initial launch. (Speaking of fuel, we run up against the long amount of time required for the journey to Mars. HOW do we take enough fuel???).

Obviously, unless we develop some "Star Trek" -like technology, going to Mars is going to be quite difficult, and VERY expensive...not just in 'money', but in time as well.

To paraphrase the great Science Fiction writer Robert Heinlein, "Space is a Harsh Mistress"!

edit = misspelled 'Heinlein' BAD science-fiction fan!!!


[edit on 5/6/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by ngchunter
 

"The failure rate of robotic missions to human missions says otherwise"

Why have we not put man on mars if this is true?

Because launching a nuclear bomb powered spaceship is politically incorrect in the extreme (that's what killed a potential mission to mars back in the 60s). Plus it's also far more difficult to store enough supplies, oxygen, and water for a human trip lasting 2 years than it is for a week or two. In reality they'd need to grow their own food in space and be completely self sufficient. Even ISS can't do that yet.


We would only have needed to increase our "manned" distance ability 15063% in 40 yrs time from supposed Apollo 11 mission to today putting man on mars.

"Only" 15063% lol. Nice way to ignore the incompatible comparison and all the technical difficulties in the latter not present in the former.


What? Money? That would be BS otherwise we would not have sent multiple unreliable robotic missions to Mars.

Robotic missions can be sent for far less than the cost of a single human mission to mars. Even sending 10 robotic missions, only 2-3 of which succeed is far cheaper (about the price of a single shuttle mission). It doesn't discover as much, but it's all we can afford. Plus you need robotic missions to scout things out to find the best landing location. That's what we did for Apollo, that's what we're doing again now.

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Weed - A good articulate response, however it avoids the analysis of "why."

"Mars is way orders of magnitude more diffcult than the Moon, given our current technology."

- The moon is way orders of magnitude more difficult than the 120 ft. first flight.

"the seven or eight days that the Astronauts spent outside the earth's protective magnetosphere was a tolerable dose of radiation. Six months will require some sort of protection better than was used on Apollo."

- Eight days outside of the earth's protective magnetosphere had required protection better than 0 days outside the prot. megnatosphere.

"Then, there is the question of consumables."

- Nonsense. I have a (2) year supply of dried foods from E-Foods that fits in 9 cu ft area ( and it is not dry rations). Surely they can fit enough for several astronauts on a craft. (They fit a dune buggy for chriz sakes on the alledged moon mission)

"Also, while on the planet Mars, again there is the Solar radiation (and background cosmic radiation) danger."

- Surely in 40 years time we should have been able to develop such protective gear to combat this. I mean we put man a on the moon didn't we. The moon also has such radiation dangers.

Your not giving any good reasons why we have not advanced in 40 yrs time 1/10 of what we advanced from 1903 to 1969.

You're only providing excuses which could have more easily been applied right after Kennedy guranteed from his lips we would have man on the moon.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


FX....good points. However, by 'consumables' I also include the need for water (yes, of course, they are experimenting now, on the ISS, to re-use urine to make potable water). Your analogy of the dried foods, for surviving in the 'wild' on Earth, doesn't account for the lack of water in Space!

Also, we have to be able to let the Astronauts on an extended 6-9 month mission breathe, correct? Every time we Humans breathe, we exhale CO2. The Carbon Dioxide will accumulate, and in an enclosed environment (such as a spacecraft) must be eliminated. There IS technology available, but will that last for 6-9 months?? Plants do it, they use CO2 and excrete O2 in response. So, THERE is an actual idea....PLUS it involves a food source as well...BUT hydroponics still require Solar radiation to be viable.

The more we look at such a long-term endeavor, the more we begin to comprehend just how BIG the endeavor is!!!

So, as to 'consumables', I am not just referring to the food. AND there will be waste. THIS has to be considered. (Certainly, a provision for 'dumping' -- no pun intended -- would be a major component).

A simple sit-down and contemplation will likely result in more obstacles. There are many, many variables to consider.

Thanks for bringing this up!! It gets the creative juices flowing!!!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Do you really think they had the technology to build a robot during the apolo years. There main computer had less memory that a standard cell phone today.Your just grasping at straws if you believe they could have built anything to perform tasks on the moon better than an astronaut.

Here was there main computer system:

The computer's RAM was magnetic core memory (2 kibiwords, where a kibiword is 1,024 words) and ROM was implemented as core rope memory (36 kibiwords). Both had cycle times of 11.72 ms. The memory word length was 16 bits: 15 bits of data and 1 odd-parity bit. The CPU-internal 16-bit word format was 14 bits of data, 1 overflow bit, and 1 sign bit (ones' complement representation).

In truth it wasn't much more than an alarm clock when certain parameters were reached it alerted the astronaut.Learn about facts before coming up with wild speculation,You cant look at todays technologies and apply it to 50 years ago. Thats the same as trying to say i don't know why the roman empire built all those roads they could have just taken a plane!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

-Nuclear "Bomb" power....explain.

-"Plus it's also far more difficult to store enough supplies, oxygen, and water for a human trip lasting 2 years".......Explain.

- "Only" 15063% lol. Nice way to ignore the incompatible comparison and all the technical difficulties in the latter not present in the former..

................Incompatible comparison?? You have to be Kidding right? To go from a 120 ft. flight 1903 to 480,000 miles 66 yrs later is not comaprable. You don't even have an excuse to offer.

"Robotic missions can be sent for far less than the cost of a single human mission to mars"

..........Who told you this the Govt. ? Or did you develop a proforma detailing the costs?


[edit on 6-5-2009 by FX44rice]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Okay....but why have we not advanced enough to own these capabilities 40 years later?

We had not even the capability of flight 66 years prior to alledgedly setting foot on the moon.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join