Apollo Hardware Spotted!

page: 32
58
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


My view is that the LM's are/were pieces of military hardware, landed unmanned.
edit on 11-10-2011 by cannotfoolme because: are>are/were




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by cannotfoolme
 


The evidence does not support your view, nor does it make sense.

You have a much higher chance of success landing a manned vehicle than a robotic one. Humans are great at adapting to unexpected situations. Apollo 11 would have crashed in rough terrain if Neil Armstrong hadn't taken-over for the computer and guided it in. If the crew hadn't been aboard to fix the landing radar, Apollo 14 would've ether crashed or aborted.

The Lunar Modules were built by civilians, and they were proud of what they achieved. Link. Read Moon Lander: How We Developed the Apollo Lunar Module by Tom Kelly, the LM project manager, and Building Moonships: The Grumman Lunar Module by Josh Stoff. Imagine spending years building these things with your own hands, and then seeing it sitting on the surface of the Moon?
How cool would that be?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by cannotfoolme
 


The evidence does not support your view, nor does it make sense.


You are referring to the evidence made available by the perpetrator of the hoax.

I have yet to see the russian image that depicts the landers on the surface - this is a necessity for the 'Soviets would have blown the whistle' theory to be plausible...



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
Why don't the SELENE data account for the Apollo equipment? the Apollo equipment being scanned by SELENE should have resulted in bumps in the data where the equipment is supposed to be. The 3d computer representation shown above should have shown a small terrain bump. As the SELENE data are, it seems the Lunar terrain is devoid of any Apollo equipment.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
You are referring to the evidence made available by the perpetrator of the hoax.


Logical fallacy. The same evidence would be presented by the same sources if the landings are genuine.

Teacher: "Show me your book report."
You: "Here it is."
Teacher: < skims the introductory paragraph> "This doesn't prove you read the book."
You: "Yes it does, if you just read..."
Teacher: "Of course you'd say that. You have a vested interest. You could have faked it."


I have yet to see the russian image that depicts the landers on the surface.


Teacher: "I'll only believe you read the book if Steve shows me a picture of you reading it."


- this is a necessity for the 'Soviets would have blown the whistle' theory to be plausible...


So, Steve's detailed, point-by-point review of your book report does not prove that you read the book. Only a photo of you reading the book will do?

And you call yourself a "master of debate"?
edit on 11-10-2011 by Saint Exupery because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Don't get so worked up over the facts.

The only pictures wherein the descent stage of the LM is visible come from NASA.

No other nation's cameras can see them.

This includes the Soviets, so they couldn't have blown the whistle like some people pretend they would have.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
No you're not going to see high resolution images outside of NASA of the lunar landers in progress but you'd have to try and prove that independent astronomers world wide that visually, and with data aided instruments, tracked every Apollo mission to the moon including Apollo 8. You'd have to be calling people without a vested interest liars as well. Not to mention the live feeds from the moon to receivers in Australia, Spain, as well as a couple places in the US that operated independently with NASA at the time. There is just too much widespread open source independent verification that the missions took place to be able to brush off as being some worldwide conspiracy especially to insinuate people with nothing vested in the missions besides their own expertise in astronomy decided to support some hoax conspiracy, that didn't even get any legs until well after the advent of the internet. People are quite lax in verifying information put up on the internet that doesn't support their conspiracy theory, especially by cross referencing reputable sources.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Why don't the SELENE data account for the Apollo equipment? the Apollo equipment being scanned by SELENE should have resulted in bumps in the data where the equipment is supposed to be. The 3d computer representation shown above should have shown a small terrain bump. As the SELENE data are, it seems the Lunar terrain is devoid of any Apollo equipment.


The Lunar Lander descent stage (the part still on the Moon) is less than 10 feet tall. The SELENE laser altimeter (LALT) and lunar radar sounder (LRS) did not have a fine enough resolution to "see" the LEM descent stage as anything more than just a mound in the surrounding terrain at best.

Can you please show me the information that you have showing that the terrain at each of the lunar landers is completely flat?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by cannotfoolme
reply to post by ngchunter
 


My view is that the LM's are/were pieces of military hardware, landed unmanned.
edit on 11-10-2011 by cannotfoolme because: are>are/were


I have an uncle who helped design and build the LM's. He is not and was not in the military. I've simmed the missions myself. Show me how you would propose to land the LM's without anyone being in them, as well as compensated on the fly for the unanticipated navigational errors induced by undocking the LM and by uncharted masscons - there was no way to update the spacecraft's state vectors from the ground while the LM's AGC was running a program; astronauts had to manually enter corrected coordinates to land at in order to make precision landings after the near-accident that was the Apollo 11 landing (the aforementioned sources of unanticipated navigational error caused them to land off-course, which is why the LM nearly put them down in a field of boulders until Neil took manual control and nearly ran out of fuel trying to find a suitable landing spot).
edit on 11-10-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The light source is is coming from two different directions if you look closely.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Its funny you should mention this. Just a few weeks ago i meant to make a post regarding the ball that fell from space and landed in Africa.
Here is the link to just one of the stories. I am pretty sure its from one of the over priced pieces of junk we keep putting up there at ridiculous cost for little reward to the majority of earths population.
Just thought i would mention it as i havent seen it posted anywhere as of yet. What would be interesting would be to determine which craft has the same spherical objects attached?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


That is correct. The LM must be manned.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I honestly have jumped shipped over this type of thing and now find myself among the ranks of advocates for Apollo as hoax. If they can take photos of our license plates from earth orbit, they sure have the capability to takes some shots with a lunar satellite. Why don't they just photograph the Apollo 11 LM base in all of it's glory the same way they can take a photo of my car from space and show us a picture with stunning resolution? They don't because despite the imaging technology being there, the LM base is not there. We would know the thing is fake if they took such a picture. I think the whole thing is disgusting.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorrosenbaum
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I honestly have jumped shipped over this type of thing and now find myself among the ranks of advocates for Apollo as hoax.

Oh look, "doctorrosenbaum" who just registered today pretends he changed his mind from the other side.


If they can take photos of our license plates from earth orbit, they sure have the capability to takes some shots with a lunar satellite.

"Sure." In other words, you're ASSuming they do. The LROC camera's limit of resolution is not nearly enough to read license plates if a car were on the moon. You can see that just by applying Dawes' limit to it given its altitude over the moon. Prove that the LROC camera is capable of more resolution than they are showing.


Why don't they just photograph the Apollo 11 LM base in all of it's glory the same way they can take a photo of my car from space and show us a picture with stunning resolution? They don't because despite the imaging technology being there, the LM base is not there. We would know the thing is fake if they took such a picture. I think the whole thing is disgusting.

They have showed Apollo 11's descent stage.

The resolution is consistent with the LROC specifications.
edit on 23-4-2013 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:18 PM
link   
NASA is lying. They made these photos up with Photoshop and they're kid's sandbox in the backyard. There is no U.S. hardware on the Moon. Man has never set foot on the Moon. Only other 'better' countries can put things on the Moon like China, and Monaco. You have been fooled. NASA has never launched a payload that has left Earth orbit. It's all faked, either using they're kids sandbox, or that big closet in the basement. You have been fooled again! I know this because ATS says so. Deny ignorance.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I am not talking about the LROC. I am talking about sending something up there that can really take a picture, not this low quality junk, so they always have an excuse. And I registered about a half an hour ago because I am sick of reading this junk . And I changed my mind about 2 years ago to be precise. Hope that's ok.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CarbonBase
 


They have plenty of hardware on the moon. What they don't have are LMs that men landed. That is for sure. If they did, they would have taken a picture of them by now. Like I said, it's disgusting.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorrosenbaum
reply to post by CarbonBase
 


They have plenty of hardware on the moon. What they don't have are LMs that men landed. That is for sure. If they did, they would have taken a picture of them by now. Like I said, it's disgusting.

I just showed you a picture of one of the descent stages. Just registered today, just as I thought, I smell a troll.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by doctorrosenbaum
reply to post by ngchunter
 


I am not talking about the LROC. I am talking about sending something up there that can really take a picture, not this low quality junk, so they always have an excuse.

LROC is not "low quality junk," it's the most high spatial resolution camera ever to orbit and map the moon. No other country has ever mapped the moon in this high resolution, not even close. It's the best that's up there. If you claim otherwise, then prove it.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
This is a good example of NASA laughing in our face - very funny har har ...........






new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join