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

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:10 AM
link   
I'm just entering this thread not reading all responses, but I am a firm believer that no man has ever set foot on the moon. I have many reasons why politcal, technological, physical, ect. Can someone apply there own good judgment to realistic odds of NASA rocket scientists calcualting and creating engines/ body design/ fuel etc. etc. to include a dune buggy, golf clubs, 800 lbs of supposed lunar soil (on the way back).

Also, they needed every little nuance to be prcise without any error to get the ship off earth's ground, out of the atmosphere 100,000 or so miles away. Then"Plink" one push of a button and thay take off from this unknown moon without a hitch safely to earth in one try. Come on.

Also, the cars in the day couldn't run a week without wrenching under the hood 3 nights a week.

Help me out here to believe this nonsense.




posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Why not read the thread??

ONE Astronaut brought the head of a golf club...it was specially designed to screw onto the end of another multi-purpose tool.

You see, this is the sort of nonsense that gets blown way out of proportion.

All it takes is some idiot like Bart Sibrel to exaggerate, and we're off to the races!!!



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

source: Wikipedia
B-52 Stratofortress
B-52H, 2nd Bomb Wing, Barksdale AFB, LA
Role Strategic bomber
Manufacturer Boeing
First flight 15 April 1952
Introduction February 1955
Status Active: 76[1]
Reserve: 20[1]
Primary users United States Air Force
NASA
Produced 1952-1962
Number built 744[2]
Unit cost B-52B: US$14.43 million
B-52H: $9.28 million (1962)
B-52H: $53.4 million (1998)


10,500,000 to fake a moon mission. Well worth the tax payers money. 744 B-52's....and 76 still active with a gain in value of over 40 million per unit. Not a bad investment, besides we need 744 B-52s in the world...why haven't we been back to the moon yet? Remember, those are the way old planes made in 1962 for 9.2 Million a piece.

How about for the whole Vietnam war? Here are the vehicles used. Not quantities, just the names.

* A-1 Skyraider
* A-26 Invader
* A-26 Invader survivors
* A-3 Skywarrior
* A-37 Dragonfly
* A-4 Skyhawk
* A-5 Vigilante
* A-6 Intruder
* A-7 Corsair II
* A-7D production data
* AC-47 Spooky
* AH-1 Cobra
* Aircraft losses of the Vietnam War

B

* B-50 Superfortress
* B-52 Stratofortress
* B-52 Stratofortress survivors
* B-57 Canberra
* B-66 Destroyer
* Bell Huey

C

* C-123 Provider
* C-124 Globemaster II
* C-130 Hercules
* Lockheed AC-130
* C-141 Starlifter
* CH-37 Mojave


C cont.

* CH-46 Sea Knight
* CH-47 Chinook
* CH-53 Sea Stallion
* CH-54 Tarhe

D

* De Havilland Canada DHC-4 Caribou
* Douglas DC-3

E

* EC-121 Warning Star
* English Electric Canberra

F

* F-100 Super Sabre
* F-101 Voodoo
* F-101 Voodoo on display
* F-102 Delta Dagger
* F-104 Starfighter
* F-105 Survivors
* F-105 Thunderchief
* F-4 Phantom II
* F-4 Phantom II survivors
* F-4 Phantom II variants
* F-8 Crusader
* Fairchild AC-119

G

* General Dynamics F-111

H

* SH-3 Sea King
* H-13 Sioux
* HH-43 Huskie
* Hanoi Taxi

K

* KC-135 Stratotanker


L

* Lockheed DC-130
* Lockheed EC-130
* Lockheed HC-130
* Lockheed MC-130

M

* MH-53 Pave Low
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-17
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-19
* Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21

O

* O-1 Bird Dog
* O-2 Skymaster
* OH-58 Kiowa
* OH-6 Cayuse
* OV-1 Mohawk
* OV-10 Bronco

P

* P-2 Neptune
* P5M Marlin
* Piasecki H-21

S

* SH-2 Seasprite
* SH-2G Super Seasprite
* Sikorsky H-34
* Sikorsky S-61R

T

* T-28 Trojan

U

* UH-1 Iroquois

Y

* Lockheed YO-3


Now, I bet if you found the inventory list of the actual obtained items, do you think 10.5 million would be much to pay in order to shield the billions and trillions of dollars to be made, by fighting a war and supplying it at the same time. I would say you need a diversion. A other worldly one.
I appreciate what you are saying and thank you for your kindness. It just makes no sense that they would do it. Just not business smart to really go.

Think about the money guys. It's no different today.

Peace



[edit on 28-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


reader....you're missing the point!

$10 million? $100 million? $1 Billion?? Wouldn't matter. What happened, during the entire program, could NOT be faked at any cost.

If you like videos, one of the best was done for HBO by Tom Hanks. 12 Episodes of 'From the Earth to the Moon'. It's on DVD.

It is as historically accurate as they could get, using 21st century filming technology...

I've seen the hardware, in museums from around the World. Here in DC at the NASM is a LEM...a real one, built but didn't fly, because Apollo 18-20 were cancelled. Also, an actual Gemini (I think it's 7) and an Apollo CM (not sure...10 or 11). [guess I need to go visit, again!]

In Florida a complete Saturn V on display, at the KSC Visitor's Center.

The proof is out there, when you stop listening to bozos on utube....

edit=Just looked it up. The DVD set is on Amazon at $25. Quite a bargain.
Considering I paid almost $100 for mine...


[edit on 4/28/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 4/28/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Forgive me, I'm just answering as I see them. I will try to reference your response, so we don't get lost.

In regards to the warehouse. Actually a warehouse would not be good because it would be to confined as you said, plus the lighting would not look correct no matter what you did. Even High pressure sodium lamps would not pull it off.

I made an illustration of what I believe it to be.

1st. Film outside to capture true sun light...old hollywood trick
1a. Enclose the set very simply with with stationary beams or Cranes even. You could make this set pretty big if you wanted too, you would have the sun as lights, then curtain the set with black material in a circle type fashion.

ex. Jaws...they were not out on the ocean....back lot and a good mural painter, mechanical shark and a pool....wow still scares me..

use cranes for wires...it can all break down and disappear even if it's a huge set up.

Way easier to film it. Makes no sense to go. Nasa doesn't exist for happy feelings. They are an arm of the military that serve the military.

Anyway, peace


jra

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
1st. Film outside to capture true sun light...old hollywood trick
1a. Enclose the set very simply with with stationary beams or Cranes even. You could make this set pretty big if you wanted too, you would have the sun as lights, then curtain the set with black material in a circle type fashion.


Being an open set, you're going to have to deal with even more atmospheric related problems, like wind and other things related to the weather. What if it's a partly cloudy day? Clouds cast shadows onto your set. You're also going to need a hell of a lot of black curtains if you're going to try and fake Apollo's 15 - 17 that way. The set would have to be several KM in diameter at least and depending on the quality of the air, atmospheric haze can become quite noticeable when dealing with those kinds of distances.

Another problem is the Sun itself. An Earth day and a Lunar day are not the same. Apollo 17 had the longest EVA's, all three of them were over 7 hours long (and each of them were broadcast live, uncut). On Earth, the Sun will move across a good part of the sky in a period of 7 hours. On the Moon it would be hardly noticeable. Apollo 17 stayed on the Moon for 3 Earth days, during that entire time, the backside of the LM remained in the Sun.

Filming outside just makes the atmospheric problems worse as you have even less control over it. I just don't see how that could work at all.


They are an arm of the military that serve the military.


Last time I checked, NASA was a civilian agency that does some joint missions with the Military. The Military already has it's own space program and it has a slightly higher budget than NASA.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by jra]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by FX44rice
Can someone apply there own good judgment to realistic odds of NASA rocket scientists calcualting and creating engines/ body design/ fuel etc. etc. to include a dune buggy, golf clubs, 800 lbs of supposed lunar soil (on the way back).

Hmm, the math checks out. The vehicle was fully capable of doing what they say it did by the numbers:
nassp.sourceforge.net...
No "odds" needed.


Also, they needed every little nuance to be prcise without any error to get the ship off earth's ground, out of the atmosphere 100,000 or so miles away. Then"Plink" one push of a button and thay take off from this unknown moon without a hitch safely to earth in one try. Come on.

Telemetry was used to calculate the needed transfer orbit after they launched. They didn't head off for the moon all in one push of a button. Launching from an airless low gravity moon is the relatively easy part, as long as your engine lights; you just need to time it to the moment the command module's orbital plane is over your location and launch on the appropriate heading.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Here is another one for you.
How can this shadow be this large?

You're not seeing the shadow of the ISS, but what are you trying to prove here? That ISS is fake too? If that's the case, explain my avatar.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I can honestly tell you weed, that the moon landing being a hoax is the only conspiracy on this site, that no one ever needed to tell me about. Since I was a little kid I knew the footage, and that is all that I am talking about here is the footage of our trips, is fake.

As another poster had put forth about 2001, one of my favorite movies, I believe 2001 looked more real as a kid.

If we have been or not, I don't truly know. I am really only talking about what the public is shown.

I don't believe we have been, because for one thing we would be a lot farther then we are today. Space poses no more problems then flying did to those of the preflight era. Once we figure out the basics to things, we are generally pretty good about advancing quickly, simply because today we have more sharp minds working on things and attacking and solving problems faster, plus faster communication. We should have manned bases on mars by now.

I personally hold radical views on what this place is but that is not what this discussion is about.

Another thing, I'm not saying we can't go or that the ISS isn't real, I'm saying you can influence peoples idea's, hopes and dreams with a Tele Vision Set and a stamp that says "Official".

Thanks again Weedwhacker.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Your avatar looks like a hologram. Did you take that picture yourself? I've seen it before on youtube videos or something like it and in the same video they showed mile long spaceships too. All supposedly from someone with a telescope and a webcam.

Do all the scientist perform experiments even if something is established as a law. Once it is a law is it then still tested and experimented with in real time? If the answer is no, then all of those scientists are operating off of data that has been handed to them, so what real science is being done?

I just see it is way easier, especially when you are only accountable through video and press releases, to fake it. Even science fiction movies have scientists go over their fiction for a more plausible feel to the picture.

To the layman public, how easy would it be to fake it?

The money to be made adds up, but the gain from a mission does not. People only live 60-70 years, why would they put up capitol at such a huge expenditure to see no returns? Don't tell me velcro is our big gain.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


"As another poster had put forth about 2001, one of my favorite movies, I believe 2001 looked more real as a kid. "

"2001" was a movie, done by professional movie makers. The real world isn't that slick.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Gawdzilla
 


Did you think apollo 13 was slick? They used the same technique doing most of the film in a vomit commit. You only need a few seconds and you've got 30 each dive.

Very easy to pull that off, especially when America is paying for it.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


What is it the shadow to then? It moves or stays stationary I should say under the clouds as they move over it and never changes distance from the ISS in perspective while the clouds do.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Ron Howard went to Cape Canaveral and asked to see the anti-gravity room.


As for the movies, yeah, they're slicker than the real thing, better cameras, lighting, etc.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 




You can see that I placed marks at the shadow and the station. The shadow isn't moving just filling out as it comes out from under the clouds.

This is close to the first and last from as the shots are cut aways.

Peace

One other thing. See how easy it is to create a parallax without even moving?

[edit on 28-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gawdzilla
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Ron Howard went to Cape Canaveral and asked to see the anti-gravity room.


As for the movies, yeah, they're slicker than the real thing, better cameras, lighting, etc.


I know, I thought that was pretty funny myself. Opie....haha



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
1st. Film outside to capture true sun light...old hollywood trick
1a. Enclose the set very simply with with stationary beams or Cranes even. You could make this set pretty big if you wanted too, you would have the sun as lights, then curtain the set with black material in a circle type fashion.


Being an open set, you're going to have to deal with even more atmospheric related problems, like wind and other things related to the weather. What if it's a partly cloudy day? Clouds cast shadows onto your set. You're also going to need a hell of a lot of black curtains if you're going to try and fake Apollo's 15 - 17 that way. The set would have to be several KM in diameter at least and depending on the quality of the air, atmospheric haze can become quite noticeable when dealing with those kinds of distances.

Another problem is the Sun itself. An Earth day and a Lunar day are not the same. Apollo 17 had the longest EVA's, all three of them were over 7 hours long (and each of them were broadcast live, uncut). On Earth, the Sun will move across a good part of the sky in a period of 7 hours. On the Moon it would be hardly noticeable. Apollo 17 stayed on the Moon for 3 Earth days, during that entire time, the backside of the LM remained in the Sun.

Filming outside just makes the atmospheric problems worse as you have even less control over it. I just don't see how that could work at all.


They are an arm of the military that serve the military.


Last time I checked, NASA was a civilian agency that does some joint missions with the Military. The Military already has it's own space program and it has a slightly higher budget than NASA.

[edit on 28-4-2009 by jra]


You're right, but how long is each clip? I grew up in Nevada and am accustom to whacky weather, but that is the beauty of Nevada. Same weather all the time. Dead calm in the mornings until around 1 or 2 oclock in the after noon, then it is wind hell until about 8 oclock.

The land works like a vacuum to pull in air off of the sea. Obviously the deeper inland you go, away from water the dryer the air will be forcing moisture up with a return pressure front as Newton suggests, no finer an area then 51 to keep a secret at all costs with predictable weather. Stepped in legend for all the wrong reasons. Perfect environment for such a task, with wonderful craters not to far away.

That's the real secret and always has been. Controlling the weather. You control the weather, you control the land. You control the land, you control the people. Never been about money, it's been about control, just ask the Gods. The Gods who control the sky. They have new names now though. Boeing, Halliburton, IMF, Worldbank...etc.... Understand your leaders are also partakers in the business of the show. They own media outlets, baseball teams, have interests that lay on the global stage and not with wither you have health care, or that no senior or person is left without a home, or that power be given to every one so that no one needs to fight to be equal and have a fair chance.

When ever a change is put forth to these "Elected" leaders, it is gunned down. I don't care that they are rich, and I don't care that they are selfish...I'm no worse or better...but I'm honest. I call things as I see them. My opinions have changed and will change again. They are only relative to now anyway, but I just see it simply. Money, in a world of opportunity is made by seizing those opportunities. When others begin seizing those along with you, they dwindle rapidly, so you either marry the one seizing or battle them. Much easier to agree in bed.

Money talks, you know the other thing.

Peace



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


reader....your flashy pic is not displaying 'parallax'...The ISS is actually moving, constantly. In this case the photographs were taken from onboard the Shuttle, which is not moving relative to the ISS. They are both on orbit, moving at a velocity such that they complete one orbit approx every 90 minutes. That big grayish/brownish 'cloud' looks a lot like a volcanic ash plume. Its edges are erose.

Please see MY comments, and ngc's, about "2001"...in 1966-1967, they did the best, to date....but, still not realistic when compared to REAL space.

Yes, the 'vomit comet' in a parabola will simulate 'zero-G' for about 30 secs...but, then, there are several minutes of pull up at higher Gs in order to accomplish another push-over for the next 30-sec 'float'. "Apollo 13" was edited to make it APPEAR that the 'zero-G' lasted more than 30 seconds.

Real Apollo footage uncut, and continuous, could NOT have been filmed on the jet in the Earth's atmosphere.

Furthermore, EVERY shot of the soil being kicked around on the Moon makes it quite obvious there is no atmosphere to speak of, and that it occurs at less than 1G.

But, fiinally....880 lbs of samples. Perhaps that causes some confusion...that is 880 lbs of Earth weight, spread out over six missions of collect and return. That same material would have 'weighed', all at once, about 145 lbs on the Moon. Divide that by six...ultimately that means only about 20-30 lbs apparent 'weight' for the ride back to Earth.

Any more questions? We're happy to help dispel any and all misconceptions.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Well, anyone who ever saw a Saturn V liftoff in person can tell you that an enormous amount of technology and expertise went into driving that monster off the launchpad and out of sight into the sky. I'd even opine that the technology required to push that giant multi-stage vehicle to escape velocity was the lion's share of the technological effort.

The flight to and from the Moon would be relatively easy compared to the initial liftoff, I think.

Which puzzles me when I hear jokers proposing that we could never have sent men to the moon because of our technological limitations in the 60s and 70s. These conspiracy theorists have no qualifications to make such claims — I'm much more inclined to accept the word of those researchers and technicians who spent over a decade making the lunar missions a reality, as well as the testimony of the astronauts who rode that tower of fire.

I think a lot of these nay-sayers simply don't understand the state of our technology in the 60s and 70s. We were preparing missions and refining technologies back then that didn't reach the public awareness for 20 friggin' years. For example, did you know that we (the USA, that is) had already invented a tank-mounted laser cannon that was capable of puncturing a titanium target at a distance of 10 miles at ground level, through the densest part of the Earth's atmosphere? That technology was developed in the mid-1970s, but was mothballed because its chemical power supply was too bulky and awkward for battlefield maneuvers.

Today the laser cannon has reemerged with miniaturized components and power supply and is actually in use for air-to-air intercept as part of SDI. The conspiracy theorists would probably claim this technology was back-engineered from UFOs, but it was built from the ground up back in the 70s.

Point is, don't underestimate the technological ability of those pipe-smoking, crew-cut rocket scientists from the 60s and 70s — I'm confident that they made the manned lunar missions a reality, and I think if JFK had called for us to shoot for Mars by the end of the decade, those friggin' eggheads at NASA would have found a way to do it, simply because they didn't know they couldn't.



— Doc Velocity



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


Indeed! Well put, Doc!

The SR-71 'BlackBird'....the subsequent 'stealth' programs, a myriad other projects since de-classified...all from the geniuses of the 1960s and 1970s.

As someone once pointed out, back then people knew how to use a slide-rule. (I even once knew how....in high school)


:up
oc!





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join