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

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 
Thanks for the info. I will agree with any scientific info presented. As I am quite sure all of it calculates out to work precisely for everything alleged to be accomplished.

Having the ability to calculate and present the mission on paper is one thing. Executing is another. We can engineer a building to be 3 miles high. Executing and delivering the successful completion of the project, with our current building technology, equipment, and materials standards is another. I believe the same to be true with the supposed man on moon mission.

Here's what Buzz drove to the launch pad before entering a moon mission capable vehicle:






posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Don't troll....it is NOT funny.

Try some REAL research for a change. We already have one willing student on this thread, someone who is actually able to comprehend and learn. His education is gratis, just because we're nice...........



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Sincerely I am not trolling. I have been a firm believer in the moon mission being a hoax for quite some time. Have watched and read much on both sides of the argument. I believe the moon hoax as much as I believe the official 911 story. No disrespect to the much amassed info and knowledge you have obtained on the subject, but I feel it was an agenda of politics and power to present the illusory of putting a man on the moon.

Question? Why have we not advanced outward farther into our solar system or moon expeditions in 40 years?



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:01 PM
link   
weedwhacker wrote:



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


Interesting comment. Dissemination of information is for the inquisitive mind, regardless of its source. Some uTube vids may have credibility, but i agree, the majority of comments are from the not-so-sharp knives in the rack.



Don't troll....it is NOT funny.


Bit harsh, he was trying to be funny.

-------------------------------------------------------

I only wanted to post in this thread to give some moral support to letthereaderunderstand; i too, believe the moon LANDINGS were fake. However, i believe they DID GO to the moon, did a few orbits, said 'Santa Claus' a few times and came back:

Vid one: @12secs www.youtube.com...
Vid two: www.youtube.com...

They could have easily have dropped drones of some kind or bombarded mirror equipment with parachutes, so they could reflect Earth's lasers. Rocks could easily have been dug up from some strange wasteland on Earth.

The whole moon stuff just sounds fishy to me:

1. Timing with wars and presidential conquest et al
2. Race with Russians
3. Flags, visors, anomalies, etc
4. Lastly and most importantly, why haven't we been back since? The moon would offer an excellent semi-geosynchronous satellite or launchpad to stock supplies for deeper solar system exploration. Even extracting helium-3 to supply deuterium-tritium fusion-based power generation.

I believe the orbits they did way back then, they were warned to stay away from the 'artificial' moon that perhaps has many bases on the dark side.

The whole point of this site is to pontificate and conjugate, so opinions are welcome and keep up the good work letthereaderunderstand



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Wanted to add a further argument about witnesses. Someone mentioned the many of tens of thousands of people involved with the moon 'landings', so why hasn't there been a whistle-blower?

I'd ask the same question about the Manhattan project. Tens of thousands involved with an insidious plan to kill millions, yet secrecy was an absolute must to impart full impact on the morale of the victim nation, to expedite the wars end...which it did.

Q So how did they do that?

A With black box engineering!

Joe Bloogs builds a bolt, John Dow builds a nut, then Company A assembles said pieces and passes it onto company B, and so on. By obfuscating the supply line, no-one but the architect of the product needs know how it will be assembled.

Perhaps the OP has validity in his 3D model, as they could have built the landing site under the guise of a giant Ferris wheel for a company called 'Circus' R Us', who knows.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Simple question: Simple answer: Money!

Funding slashed (a little thing known as 'Vietnam') and a down-sizing to 'ride-out' the (thought at the time) temporary reductions in monies.

Decision to use the slack time to focus on un-manned robotic exploratory missions...cheaper, amassing data, to further help any future manned missions.

(There is a sub-set of theorists who maintain that there is an entire "Secret Space Program" being run by 'black' funding via the Military, and that NASA is just the civilian front).

Further, the Politics of the 1970s were volatile. I think there would have been tremendous opposition and possible de-stabilization if the USA had gone ahead with a planned Base on the Moon, without International co-operation.

Longer-range manned missions have an increased exposure danger....and many technical hurdles. Again, years of LEO experience helps to hone skills and learn from experience.

In aviation, there were pioneers...and sometimes decades for technological progress, usually spurred by outside forces (WWI) and (WWII), for instance.

The manned Lunar 'flights' were risky, but a calculated risk. Equipment and personnel were tested tens of thousands of times.

Long-term exposure, however, to man by Solar radiation outside the Earth's protective magnetosphere is still being studied. By long-term, I mean months and years, not just 6 to 8 days. In fact, Apollo was lucky....there was a large Coronal discharge in 1972 that would have been a danger HAD there been a mission in space at the time. The CM could have been rotated to use the heatshield and the SM as shielding, IF it had happened during a mission. In theory. Still, other than a dose of extra radiation, it certainly would not have been instantly lethal, but cumulative over the lives of the people exposed.

Now, given sufficient funding, International agreement, and current technology, the most logical place to found a permanent Lunar base would be at one of the poles. Why? Because it provides the best protection from the Sun, there is likely water ice there, and it is a good 'central' location for any mining operations that could be conducted during the two-week long Lunar 'nights'. AND, the tech would be adapted to deep cold, and would not have to contend with the vast temperature changes that are encountered at, say, the Moon's equator.

Now, having given a 'freebie' that amounts to, really, my opinion, I hope others will chime in with more ideas. Ultimately, though...there may well be fights over 'land rights'. International 'Battles Royale', so to speak.

This is going to be a LONG story, likely generations in the making.

(Don't forget, a certain minority opinion, also, that posit an ET presence already on the Moon, who didn't want the company!)



So, sometimes....we have to entertain ALL opinions. All are welcome; we will see which stand up to scrutiny.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.


The lines I put in the picture were to show that the point of view doesn't change. It is the first clear frame and the last clear frame of the footage I posted. The shadow and ISS are moving together as anyone can view the footage and see what I'm saying.

I don't need a qualification to look at a picture and see what I'm seeing. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, I'm showing people what I see. If they see it too, they've informed themselves.

I'm not much for religion, but if anything strikes a bell with me it is "the image of the beast". I understand how powerful an image can be especially in the hands of a beast. Hitler was a warning to the world, the nuclear weapon the rehersal, and the Apollo Missions the Heist. As long as you follow the yellow bricked road, you will find the wizard who performs all these things.

Here is ISS crossing the sun and moon. Why the size difference?

(click to open player in new window)


(click to open player in new window)


Peace



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FX44rice
 


Simple question: Simple answer: Money!



Money is a weak answer to non-return.

The US spends something like $1billion per week for their illegal occupation in the middle East. If they want money, nay Fiat money, they just throw out BS words to the public like 'quantitative easing' and create their own wealth at the expense of the tax payer.

There are deeper reasons why they haven't been back, imo.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 
Much appreciated I have learned something. You have much knowledge on this, any first hand in Aeronautics, NASA, or govt agency?

Also, despite the depth of knowledge one can obtain on the NASA moon missions, and rocket science applications; is it possible in your mind that the hierarchy presenting the knowledge and facts or (alleged facts) could be presenting a story of facts not actually performed?

I have done this many times. Why is it not possible for the govt to do so? The only facts we are able to learn are the ones given to us by the ones claiming them legit. Serious question.



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 
I agree. I am unable to eloquently state my belief of a hoax. However, no matter how detailed one wants to get in the argument on supporting the mission, they are only supporting information fed them by the govt. claiming the info to be factual.

I suppose the only way to really know is for Neil or Buzz or the others to state "It was a hoax" and permanently turn their name into mud, and be written out of history books, but pass with moral integrity.

As for the return to moon issue, I believe they realized they were barking up the wrong tree, and had to back pedal as they knew as time progressed, it would become quite clear it would prove impossible even in todays technology to complete the mission. Hence, "its too expensive and dangerous, and no reason to go there"



posted on Apr, 28 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PrisonerOfSociety
 


Prisoner....not 'tens-of-thousands'....hundreds of thousands of workers, support staff, engineers, contracters, et al.

Your use of the term 'dark side of the Moon' shows a lack of understanding of the actual astronomy and celestial mechanics of bodies in orbit. Heck, a simple observation with one's own two eyes, as you watch the Moon go through its phases, as we call it, is convincing enough. ONCE you understand the dynamics involved, and the POV of your observations.

This is common; too few get a good education of the very basics of our own Solar System. The concepts are difficult to comprehend, based on our experiences as Earthbound creatures.......

Most people tend to think in two-dimensions. That is limiting to the extreme. But, it has worked well for thousands of generations of evolution. Hunting on the African savannahs....or following a map to navigate a new city. ALL two-dimensional thinking.

To be able to think, in at least three dimensions, requires a new paradigm of thought. It means to break-away from pre-programmed ingrained patterns of thought.

With apologies to the OP, mikesingh, the premise on page ONE, post ONE is not valid. The ability to take pictures, from varying aspects, with different foregrounds, is hardly in debate, is it??

Thanks to Phage, we can see the tracks of the LRV, and the various 'stations' where stops were made, during the EVAs. Within a 20-30 minute interval, a person can travel quite a few meters, take pictures of the local surroundings....and the distant hills will vary only slightly, which has been shown to be correct. Works exactly the same way on Earth, when taking pictures. EXCEPT on Earth, there are various subtle clues that give our 'trained' eyes certain cues do approximate distance; these 'cues' don't exist in an alien landscape environment.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
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.

There are large clouds all over the place, that's just another cloud's shadow. Tell me, where in this high res image do you see ISS's shadow?
upload.wikimedia.org...
Your cloud shadow isn't even the right shape to be confused with ISS.

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

As stated by weedwacker, your image shows absolutely no parallax of the space station, which is why it appears perfectly flat and stationary in your image. Again, what is this trying to prove? Having tried to get within the "shadow" of the space station before, and having seen others succeed, I know for a fact that the area on the ground where it can be seen over the sun is very small, only a mile or so wide, and that it only covers a tiny portion of the sun for a split second.
spaceradiation.usra.edu...

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by FX44rice
reply to post by ngchunter
 
Thanks for the info. I will agree with any scientific info presented. As I am quite sure all of it calculates out to work precisely for everything alleged to be accomplished.

You insinuated that the equipment would be incapable of reaching the moon, specifically that the precision of calculating the needed orbit for rendezvous over the moon was unattainable. Calculations and simulations running the actual apollo software emulating the real hardware show otherwise. You have yet to present any evidence that the equipment lacked the capabilities described. People witnessed the rocket launch, people watched it travel to and from the moon in their telescopes. There is no reason to believe that it could not reach the moon.

Here's what Buzz drove to the launch pad before entering a moon mission capable vehicle:


Incorrect. This is the vehicle that drove Buzz to the launch pad:
image03.webshots.com...
Does a picture of a crappy looking car disprove the far more advanced space shuttle, a vehicle which in some ways is more complex and demanding than the saturn V?

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

(click to open player in new window)



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Your avatar looks like a hologram. Did you take that picture yourself?

Yes. It's not a hologram.


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.

Gridkeeper has been debunked before. His "ships" look completely wrong to anyone with serious telescope experience. His "iss" looks nothing like real images of the real station, and others are blatantly donut shaped because they're defocused stars. Our own waveguide here on ats recreated his fake ships using tinfoil and mirrors.


Do all the scientist perform experiments even if something is established as a law.

Scientists still ping laser beams off of the apollo retroreflectors, high school students still study the lunar distance by analyzing echoes in the apollo audio.


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

Strawman, they would have had to impossibly fake it to scientists and educated amateurs too.

Don't tell me velcro is our big gain.

Velcro is not a spinoff from apollo. There are plenty of other real spinoffs though, including one of the world's first miniaturized computers.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
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.

There are large clouds all over the place, that's just another cloud's shadow. Tell me, where in this high res image do you see ISS's shadow?
upload.wikimedia.org...
Your cloud shadow isn't even the right shape to be confused with ISS.

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

As stated by weedwacker, your image shows absolutely no parallax of the space station, which is why it appears perfectly flat and stationary in your image. Again, what is this trying to prove? Having tried to get within the "shadow" of the space station before, and having seen others succeed, I know for a fact that the area on the ground where it can be seen over the sun is very small, only a mile or so wide, and that it only covers a tiny portion of the sun for a split second.
spaceradiation.usra.edu...

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]


Are we watching the same piece of footage? The footage I posted doesn't have a cloud anywhere near it. Big clouds to the right and the left throwing there shadows in the direction of the top of the screen. The shadow of the ISS is shaped like it at the last few frames. There are no clouds casting a shadow that moves in relation to the ISS, but even if it were possible, there are no clouds to explain this footage.


(click to open player in new window)


So, did you take the picture of your avatar, and why the comparative size difference between the sun and the moon crossings. Thanks

Sorry just saw your response on the avatar. Thanks

[edit on 29-4-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


That is a phenomenon known as Heiligenschein. It is similar to what is known as a "glory" or Brocken Spectre. The shadow is actually the shadow of the shuttle.



posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
So, did you take the picture of your avatar, and why the comparative size difference between the sun and the moon crossings.

Yes, I took the image, and the ISS is the same size whether it crosses the sun or moon. Keep in mind that the moon is not at a constant apparent size, however.
science.nasa.gov...

I was looking at your gif image, I can't view videos at the moment.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by ngchunter]


jra

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
You're right, but how long is each clip?


It depends on the mission. They weren't "clips". You can watch the entire Apollo 11 EVA uncut for example.


That's the real secret and always has been. Controlling the weather.


So if I'm understanding you correctly, you believed they used weather controlling technology to help fake the Moon landings in Nevada? This hoax theory is getting more complicated and absurd by the minute. You're willing to believe that they had the power to control the weather (that's no small feat), but didn't have the technology to go to the Moon? Ok then...

No amount of weather control is going to prevent the Sun from moving across the sky during the longer EVA's on the later missions, nor is it going to solve the problem of needing a 1/6th G environment. And speaking of the Sun, not all the EVA's happened during the daytime in the US. Armstrong stepped onto the Lunar surface at 02:56 UTC (10:56pm EDT). It would have been rather dark in Nevada at that time I would imagine.


Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Joe Bloogs builds a bolt, John Dow builds a nut, then Company A assembles said pieces and passes it onto company B, and so on. By obfuscating the supply line, no-one but the architect of the product needs know how it will be assembled.


But that's not how any of the Apollo hardware was built. Everyone knew what they were working on. Unlike the Manhattan project, the Apollo program wasn't top secret in anyway shape or form. It was an open program, it had to be. There needed to be lots of communication between the all companies that built the hardware. Especially when it came to building the Saturn V since all 3 stages of the rocket were built by different companies. They needed to make sure it was all going to fit together in the end.


Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Money is a weak answer to non-return.

The US spends something like $1billion per week for their illegal occupation in the middle East.


I think you misunderstand. No one is denying that the US lacks the money, just NASA specifically. NASA wanted to continue going to the Moon and has been wanting to ever since, but they (NASA) lack money to do so. Going to the Moon is expensive. The US Government doesn't have as much interest in going to the Moon. They beat the Russians and that's good enough for them. Plus Apollo was apart of JFK's legacy. I don't think Nixon was keen on continuing it longer than he needed to. Thus why the program was cancelled early.

The US Government spends all that money in the Middle East, because they want to be there (for whatever reason). If the US Government really wanted to go back to the Moon ASAP, they would be giving more money to NASA. But they aren't, in fact the Constellation Program might be hit with a $3.5 billion cut which would push back the goal of returning to the Moon by 2020.

Lack of money is not a weak answer. It's clearly the problem. That and a lack of political interest / will.



posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by FX44rice
 


your avatar reminds me of a discussion I had in another moon thread

sci - fi has given us unrealistic ideas of what a space craft would look like. A real ship isn't designed to look cool, just function

I think that really influences a lot of these "just look at this thing, it would never work" posts.

I noticed the OP started ignoring JRA. That always happens in every moon hoax thread. JRA is knowledgeable and level headed, and the HB's don't know what do do with him so they ignore him

too bad, I've learned a lot from JRA





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join