Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 12
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


YES! We are still trying to comprehend the monumental challenges.

Remember how it was an 'accepted fact' that there was NO WAY to exceed the speed of sound????

Chuck Yeager used the X-1 in the 1950s to refute that notion.

So, we are now looking at the time period of the Wright Brothers (1903) to about 50 years JUST TO exceed the so-called 'Sound Barrier'.

AND, even when proven to be a non-issue, it fell to the Military, and their extreme budgets, to follow-on with this development. The ONLY commercial transport that exceeded Mach 1 was the Concorde.

{
edit here = I remember being in High School, during the US Carter Administration...early 1970s...when a potential competitor to the Concorde was proposed by Boeing. It needed a Government-backed funding idea, though....because of the incredible risk of investment. Fmr. Pres. Carter's AdMin quashed the deal. I remember it well....
}

IT required a consortium of a British/French co-operation, and it lost money. It was, in terms of marketing, a "Loss Leader" because it stimulated press, and aided both British Airways and Air France. UNTIL the tragic crash of 2000...

So....aviation technology went from 1903 to the late 1950s JUST TO BREAK the 'sound barrier'. Sorry, your assertion that Space technology should follow the same path as aviation technology just doesn't wash....there are far higher hurdles to conquer, in Space.....

[edit on 5/6/0909 by weedwhacker]

edits = typos....prolly missed a few, sorry....

[edit on 5/6/0909 by weedwhacker]




posted on May, 6 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 


jra

posted on May, 6 2009 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
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 In fact, time and time again, People have been replaced by machines and computers for the simple fact that humans come with human error.


Robots are programed by us humans. Robots are only as good as we can make them. They are not immune from errors and other problems. I believe the main reason why people get replaced by machines is because machines are cheaper since you don't need to pay them wages. You just need to pay some people to maintain and fix them.


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


The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, has been on Mars for a little over 5 years now and has traversed over 15km of the Martian surface. It's taken tons of images in various wavelengths for studying the distribution of minerals and rocks. But it can't perform a simple task like picking up a rock. It's pretty much limited to just taking pictures.

Apollo 17 spent 75 hours on the Moon. 22 of those hours were spent doing EVA's and they traversed a total of 30.5km, collected 110.4 kg (243 lbs) of Lunar samples to bring back. As well as setting up the ALSEP package. They also had the advantage of having a Geologist with them on site, who could spot the best samples that were worth taking.

Humans can perform more complex tasks than robotic rovers. Humans can cover more ground in a shorter amount of time. We can think and react on the spot, where as a rover doesn't think at all. It just follows the commands sent to it from Earth. Robots have the advantage of not needing food and oxygen and cost a lot less than a manned mission.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Robots are programed by us humans. Robots are only as good as we can make them. They are not immune from errors and other problems. I believe the main reason why people get replaced by machines is because machines are cheaper since you don't need to pay them wages. You just need to pay some people to maintain and fix them.


Wow, you really need an education on a few things. First and most importantly, yes we build and program them. Of course they can mess up. Unfortunately though, your premise is wrong. Machines are far more PRECISE. They can be programed to do things that the human body does not allow for such as perfctly measure movements for one example. Unless you have something that proves humans are more precise, I would have to say you are not only wrong but way wat off.


The Mars Exploration Rover, Opportunity, has been on Mars for a little over 5 years now and has traversed over 15km of the Martian surface. It's taken tons of images in various wavelengths for studying the distribution of minerals and rocks. But it can't perform a simple task like picking up a rock. It's pretty much limited to just taking pictures.


Dude, that is simply because it was not built to just pick up a rock. We could have done that, it was not necesary. You are really reaching with that one.

By your logic, humans are more accurate and precise than machinse because my dishwasher does not pick up television signals.

Are you trying to tell me that it would be impossible to have built a machine that specifically had the ability to 'just pick up a rock?'

Anyway, that still does not make humans more precise. It just means we come with a larger skill set than some of the machines we build.


Apollo 17 spent 75 hours on the Moon. 22 of those hours were spent doing EVA's and they traversed a total of 30.5km, collected 110.4 kg (243 lbs) of Lunar samples to bring back. As well as setting up the ALSEP package. They also had the advantage of having a Geologist with them on site, who could spot the best samples that were worth taking.

Humans can perform more complex tasks than robotic rovers. Humans can cover more ground in a shorter amount of time. We can think and react on the spot, where as a rover doesn't think at all. It just follows the commands sent to it from Earth. Robots have the advantage of not needing food and oxygen and cost a lot less than a manned mission.


No. Wrong.

You are just plain wrong. You are comparing humans to a machine that was not designed to do the task in question. Unless you are trying to tell me that we could not build a rover that could also do that, you are 100% completely wrong.

My car does not do math for me. I guess that means humans are more accurate than my calculator.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by ngchunter
 

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

http ://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) *ats hates this link, let's try another:
en.wikipedia.org...
www.islandone.org...


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

Self-explanatory. Ever tried storing enough food and water to survive for a month after a hurricane? Now try doing it for 2 years worth and add in the need to bring your own oxygen and carbon dioxide processing facilities, plus spare parts. Now try to cram all of that into a spaceship - it's going to need to be a whole lot bigger than apollo's command module.

................Incompatible comparison?? You have to be Kidding right?

No. See above; you're going to need a whole lot more storage and processing capabilities than apollo ever dreamed of. Neither the wright flight nor apollo's trips needed that kind of long term self sufficiency.

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

You think a robotic mission to mars is going to cost the same as a manned mission?! Even after I explained how 10 robotic missions only equal the cost of SINGLE shuttle mission (and that's being generous). That's quite the claim, let's see you prove it. If you think we're just supposed to accept your assertion that a manned mars mission should cost 1/10th a shuttle mission... that's unreasonable in the extreme.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Machines are far more PRECISE.

Machines are only as good as the assumptions made during their build. A machine that lands tilted up on a rock isn't going to be very precise at all. A machine that gets struck by lightning on launch isn't going to work as intended. Machines lack thinking skills needed to overcome unanticipated problems. That's why 75% of machines sent to mars have failed to accomplish their mission, as have a majority of machines sent to the moon. Had a machine been sent alone on apollo 11, it would have been a complete failure due to unanticipated rocks at landing. Had a machine been sent alone on apollo 12, it would have been lost on launch after the saturn V was struck by lightning and all telemetry was lost. In both cases, a human driving the machine (the rocket or lander) corrected a problem in person that the machine could not have corrected.


Are you trying to tell me that it would be impossible to have built a machine that specifically had the ability to 'just pick up a rock?'

It's not as simple as picking up a single rock. It would have to drive all over the lunar surface to areas kilometers apart, pick up hundreds of rocks, carefully align a retroreflector on uneven terrain, deploy dozens of other surface experiments, deliver hundreds of rocks to a return vehicle, and do it all without human intervention, but within the same short timeframe as the apollo mission. There's no evidence such an amazing robot was ever designed or built in the late 60s, and even today our robots sent to other worlds are always less flexible. A robot is good at specific focused tasks, not such a huge array of massive tasks. More importantly, we know for a fact that such a mission would have failed given the conditions on apollo 11 and 12. It's your burden of proof to show that such a machine WAS built back then that handled those tasks AND could overcome those problems.


Anyway, that still does not make humans more precise. It just means we come with a larger skill set than some of the machines we build.

Try all of the machines we build. No machine ever built back then came close to the skill set required, and even if we built such a thing today it would be lost if lightning struck it and caused telemetry to become scrambled.

[edit on 7-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by evil incarnate
 


Do you really think they had the technology to build a robot during the apolo years.


Are you saying that the Lunokhod rovers did not exist?


Soviet Lunar Missions

You must have skipped my post regarding Luna Ye-8 (a robot):

"Scientific instruments included a soil mechanics tester, solar X-ray experiment, an astrophotometer to measure visible and UV light levels, a magnetometer deployed in front of the rover on the end of a 2.5 m boom, a radiometer, a photodetector (Rubin-1) for laser detection experiments, and a French-supplied laser corner-reflector. Lunokhod was designed to operate through three lunar days (three earth months) but greatly exceeded this in operation. "






posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Yeah...and the Proton booster exploded at launch. The whole mess landed 15 KM downrange.

So, it exceeded expectations!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Greetings,

You must have neglected to follow the link to NASA's website.

Here it is again - Don't forget to read about the robotic landers (they did exist)
:

Soviet Lunar Missions



Cheers!!!

[edit on 7-5-2009 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


No, sir...I read all of that.

Remember, of course, here at ATS many don't believe ANYTHING that comes from NASA. Favorite refrain? "NASA" stands for -- N.ever A. S.traight A.nswer

I think that's a little harsh, personally.

As to the original intent of this thread, as mikesingh originally posited, we've gone quite far afield. But, it's been a fun journey. We've gone from a suggestion that because of a poor 'stitching' of a panorama series of photos to the curious suggestion that the ENTIRE Apollo program was faked!!

I seem to recall a time when mikesingh was a 'Conspiracy Master' here at ATS. His (I assume its a 'he') contributions are always entertaining. And, not disappointed this time, not at all!!!!



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Wrong. At $30B 'Mars Direct Plan' would be less costly than Apollo 11.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by evil incarnate
Machines are far more PRECISE.

Machines are only as good as the assumptions made during their build. A machine that lands tilted up on a rock isn't going to be very precise at all. A machine that gets struck by lightning on launch isn't going to work as intended. blah blah blah blah.



What a tired old useless argument. It is simple to make a machine that knows if it is balanced corectly or not. The moon does have gravity and that is all it takes. Any machine can be made to align to the y axis from the pull of gravity. That is not even new technology.

You are right, a machine that gets struck by lightning on launch won't work well will it. What a great point.

Except, a spaceship that explodes on takeoff or before leaving the atmosphere is not going to work very well either is it?

Come on dude if you are going to get in it, do better than that.



posted on May, 7 2009 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Ok Folks , if we have any more Topic Specific comments,


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


fine...

BUT ...
we have far too many Moon Hoax threads to allow this one to continue to devolve into the same.

If we can't guide this back toward the original topic indicated in the OP, this thread will most likely be closed.


And AGAIN, let's leave the personal jabs and snide remarks out of the debate please.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

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]


LOL, gawlee I gehs u was a wright, Eyes neeeds to getts mee in edyoukation or hows imm evers gunnna beee apples to tallck wit u alls about heavenly typse o things oar abb out da tipes ah cheese da moons maid out oph? Gee whizzz, i's batter get's ta lernin....tanks nghundred

Bart may have crazy tactics, but his question was simple and you know that. I didn't see him throwing punches like Buzz, he seemed very calm and strait forward, yet they refused all except Dr. Mitchell. That doesn't tell you something is fishy? Are you saying if you went you wouldn't answer his question either even for 5 g's to your favorite charity? You would balk seriously?

I have never seen the "lie detector" test he gave them, so I can not comment, though I would like to view it if you could direct me to it's location. I would appreciate that.


The ISS is in free fall correct? If they didn't make adjustments to their course, but were just "free falling" would not their orbit degrade and drop them back to the earth? The moon makes no adjustments, yet it grows farther and farther away?

Back to the op, my claim that you can see clouds in the visor is there for anyone to look at. The video is on youtube to look at. People can make up their own minds which is what they should be doing anyway and not having to argue what they see with someone else as everyone can think for themselves and see for themselves. I see a blue sky and clouds with the sun shinning through them.

All I offer is the evidence...

Sees ya'll on da dark side o da moon

Peace



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I see the clouds. I also see that none of the people arguing with me are actually attempting to dispute the clouds but are rather hung up on personal attacks and trying to prove man went to the moon because of reflectors and other such things they have no real evidence to support.

It is sad that something that is apparently so true, and I am so stupid for doubting, cannot be disputed so the thread has to be derailed.

I would also appreciate no more U2U's just to argue this point. If you have something worth saying about the moon landing and it does not fit the topic, start a new thread, direct me to it, or keep the thought to yourself, whatever. No more U2Us though. Please and Thanks!



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by evil incarnate
I see the clouds. I also see that none of the people arguing with me are actually attempting to dispute the clouds

We already ripped the clouds theory to pieces pages ago. They look nothing like clouds, they go through an astronaut's helmet, clouds don't do that. A video expert already explained what they really are. Do we have to restate what's already been stated again?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Bart may have crazy tactics, but his question was simple and you know that.

There's nothing "simple" about a man who lies to you to bait you into an ambush under false pretenses. The man is a habitual liar and not to be trusted at all.


I didn't see him throwing punches like Buzz,

If you blocked me from leaving after lying to me to get me to come to where you are and preventing me and my daughter from leaving the location (better known as false imprisonment) I'd use force to escape as well.


he seemed very calm and strait forward,

"You're a liar! And a coward! And a *poof*!" Yeah, real calm lol.


yet they refused all except Dr. Mitchell. That doesn't tell you something is fishy?

If Dr. Mitchell didn't refuse then your criteria has been met; you and Sibrel must uphold his lunar mission as being real. Mind you, Mitchell was also lied to and tossed him out of his house "with a boot to his rear."


Are you saying if you went you wouldn't answer his question either even for 5 g's to your favorite charity? You would balk seriously?

I see no reason at all to trust a scam artist who lies to ambush people and then expect him to suddenly act honorably. The standard of evidence you hold for sibrel is amazingly lower than that which you hold for my own photos of ISS.


The ISS is in free fall correct? If they didn't make adjustments to their course, but were just "free falling" would not their orbit degrade and drop them back to the earth?

Their orbital drag has nothing to do with the concept of free fall. ISS is just barely out of the atmosphere compared to the moon - air molecules still reach it in very small numbers occasionally and cause microscopic amounts of drag that gradually lower its orbit.


The moon makes no adjustments, yet it grows farther and farther away?

The moon very gradually robs us of our rotational energy through tidal forces - energy is not destroyed and instead it adds to the moon's orbital speed causing its orbit to grow very slowly.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by evil incarnate
I see the clouds. I also see that none of the people arguing with me are actually attempting to dispute the clouds

We already ripped the clouds theory to pieces pages ago. They look nothing like clouds, they go through an astronaut's helmet, clouds don't do that. A video expert already explained what they really are. Do we have to restate what's already been stated again?

[edit on 8-5-2009 by ngchunter]


A video expert eh?

I think I need to see some credentials because if you knew what I did for a living...well.

ATS is full of 'experts'

how about this, I am a reflection expert.

prove I am not.

OK, I hope you get involved ina RIFF program so you can respond appropriately in the future. I said, i see clouds too. You have this propensity for lack of context and parsing words so there you go. Did I ever once say that I know for a fact they are anything at all? I have not stated that I know anything for a fact. The problem is that neither do you but you sure think you do. I would like to know why you just believe anything NASA tells you and then call me out for not believing them.

You know nothing. You have no proof, no evidence, not even logic on your side. Prove me wrong or give it up.


P.S. Stop sending my private love letters. If you want to discuss something, especially a conspiracy theory, start a thread. Man, it seems like I have said that before. In fact, I did, right after the last U2U when I told you not to U2U me again. Now I have said all of that three times.

When you show that you can actually read what you are responding to, perhaps your words will have some value.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by evil incarnate]



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I didn't see him throwing punches like Buzz,

If you blocked me from leaving after lying to me to get me to come to where you are and preventing me and my daughter from leaving the location (better known as false imprisonment) I'd use force to escape as well.


So Buzz goes around punching people all the time? The only footage I saw of him throwing a punch was when there was more than enough room for him to go in any direction he liked. He was not blocked or being imprisoned. He was asked a question he did not like so he punched that guy. You definitely have your own skewed version of seeing things to go along with your own seperate set of facts.



posted on May, 8 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
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.





That is funny funny stuff. Do I think they had the technology at that time? The Russians did. Oh wait, that is right, so did we. I see two links have been provided for you to see for yourself. Now here are your straws back.

What exactly do you think these robots had to do? The proof everyone harps on is the lazer reflectors. So they had to land and then get into position. Yeah, that seems pretty complicated. How could they ever accomplish that?

Follow the links provided and try not to tell people they are grasping at straws when they are right, you just did not look into it.

[edit on 8-5-2009 by evil incarnate]





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join