It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission

page: 8
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by Lillydale
We still have the knowledge and technology to build jets and boats. No one is out there proclaiming that we no long have an idea how to build supersonic jets or carriers.


We also know how to build rockets. However, I wasn't talking about just any boat or jet, any more than you are talking about just any rocket. We are talking about very specific machines built at certain times for very specific purposes.



Yes we can still make rockets. That is not getting a man to the moon. You are comparing a boat with a submarine not a boat with a boat.




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


That surface is not flat


We clearly see a flat surface in the image.

We clearly do not.

In this cross-eye stereogram you can see it slope down before coming back up near the LM's foot.


There was no other mission from USA or any other nation that has sent astronauts beyond the Van Allen belt. And none is planned for the future.

Wrong. Constellation is planned, russians sent all kinds of animals through the van allen belts including dogs, and astronauts experience the edge of the lowest belt in the SAA every day on ISS.

The astronauts in the studio received Houston's transmission directly from Houston, not through the moon and back.

Doesn't matter, it still adds extra delay before the signal can be sent to the moon.


Perhaps, if the Challenger was going to the moon ;-).

Wrong. You're using confirmation bias based on a dogma against moon landings to say one accident was staged and all the others were not. You must prove that the one accident was staged while the others were not.


Where is the shadow created by the crater's side that is hidden from the sun?

It's not steep enough to create its own shadow at that sun angle, it's too shallow.


every picture with a crater shows a shadow. We see no shadow in the picture.

Where are the shadows in the craters on the right side of the moon in this picture?
farm3.static.flickr.com...
Shadow presence is a dual function of sun angle and crater steepness.


Indeed, but for the shadows to converge in such a manner, there needs to be a very huge slope.

No, there does not. The terrain is clearly sloped, you said it was not.


It depends on how light the material is.

You want it both ways, you can't have it both ways.


Combined with lack of air

No such thing since there isn't a vacuum chamber large enough to accomidate what you're claiming.


Except if the materials are strong enough to withstand the pressure.

Handwaving to unobtainum.


The effect would be unnoticeable and you wouldn't know the difference because we haven't seen any real pictures from the moon.

Putting the cart before the horse. It's up to you to prove we haven't seen any real pictures from the moon.


Wrong. NASA is the contractor, NASA should have kept all the documents.

Wrong. NASA did not build a single spacecraft that was launched in Apollo.


a) where is the shadowed part at the opposite side of the downward slope.

See above


b) why the astronaut's shadow is not elongated?

Prove it isn't.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by ngchunter]



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by Lillydale
We still have the knowledge and technology to build jets and boats. No one is out there proclaiming that we no long have an idea how to build supersonic jets or carriers.


We also know how to build rockets. However, I wasn't talking about just any boat or jet, any more than you are talking about just any rocket. We are talking about very specific machines built at certain times for very specific purposes.



Yes we can still make rockets. That is not getting a man to the moon.


You quoted me, but apparently you did not read what you quoted. I'll say it again: I wasn't talking about just any boat any more than you are talking about just any rocket. We are talking about very specific machines built at certain times for very specific purposes.

A Moon rocket is a specific machine built for a specific task. We stopped doing that task, so we stopped building those machines. The same goes for battleships.


You are comparing a boat with a submarine not a boat with a boat.


That is so wrong it is bizarre. Are you actually suggesting there is no significant difference in purpose, complexity and construction time between this and this?



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
You quoted me, but apparently you did not read what you quoted. I'll say it again: I wasn't talking about just any boat any more than you are talking about just any rocket. We are talking about very specific machines built at certain times for very specific purposes.


No, you did not understand my response. Boats are for traveling across water. We still build things that do that every day. Boats are not for deserts, space travel, underwater discovery, or inter dimensional travel. They are to move about on top of water. They always were and still are. We used to build ships to float on water, we still build ships to float on water.

There is a huge difference between getting metal objects up in the sky and getting people onto another body floating in space with it's own gravity and landscape. You cannot make that comparison to boats. You are talking about adding things to boats to make them also have guns??? You do not just add a gun to a rocket and now you can get a man to the moon.

The ocean is the ocean. It is water here and water there. Space is a whole other deal because you are leaving Earth, entering many different types of environments and landing on a completely different body with completely different makeup and side effects. There are no parts of the ocean that blast you with huge levels of radiation. The risks involved with going to the moon compared to shooting a rocket into space are HUGE. What are the comparable risks with riding on a cruise ship or any other seafaring ship? The comparison is not even close.

Boats still do what boats always did. Rockets still do what they did too. Rockets are not what get people to the moon. They did not ride inside a rocket. A rocket did not give them life support.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp



Do you have any evidence of these wires?




I suppose they could have been filming it some sort of huge vacuum-studio. But again, where is the evidence that they did?


I am not offering proof, just another possibility.


So, in other words your argument has no merit.




For example, if my boss asked me to do something by Friday, and I get it done by Friday, should the fact that I got it done on time be cause for suspicion?


We are talking about entirely different task sizes here.


Yes, and we are talking about entirely different levels of commitment of wealth, resources and time. The principle is the same.




That's easy! The surface of the Moon is not flat (i.e. it's hilly and bumpy). Obviously the shadows will not all be parallel.


But in the pictures that we see non-parallel shadows there are no hills and bumps - the surface is flat.


No, it most certainly is not flat. I have spent literally hours looking at stereo views of the lunar surface taken by Apollo astronauts, and the surface is quite uneven. You are getting fooled by the fact that the surface material is basically all the same color. As I already showed you in this picture, a small change in slope can cause a significant change in shadow angle. More to the point, changes it shadow angle are clear indications that the surface is uneven. How would you explain the angles?




I didn't think the real Moon Hoax advocates even used that argument anymore.


Please explain how the astronaut's shadow is not parallel to the other shadows, since the surface is flat:





I see you ignored the other picture I posted, too:




[edit on 10-1-2010 by Saint Exupery]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by Saint Exupery]



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
How come there's No 'Blast' CRATER below the LM?



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by krystalice
 


Mythbusters already debunked this myth. Nice try though.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeker1984
reply to post by krystalice
 


Mythbusters already debunked this myth. Nice try though.


???



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DownUnderoid
How come there's No 'Blast' CRATER below the LM?


Because:
1.) the descent engine was fully throttleable, and it was throttled back to 1000 pounds of thrust close to landing, and

2.) The descent engine was actually turned completely off about 4 feet off of the ground. The LM's landing pads had 5-feet long "contact probes" sticking downward from the landing pads that told the astronauts when they were 5 feet off of the surface. They were instructed to turn off the engines when the "contact light" was turned on by one of these probes coming in contact with the surface.

If the surface was "hilly", it would have been possible for the engine thrust to come to close to the surface and be be blocked by that surface, which could have been dangerous.

These contact probes allowed the astronauts to turn off the descent engine before the thrust exhaust got too close to the surface.



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Thanks for that!...JUST always been 'Curious' as to how the LM landed on the Moon
...out of Curiosity!...4 Feet REALLY isn't that High off the Ground! Not to leave some sort of 'Dust' kicked UP...



posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DownUnderoid
Thanks for that!...JUST always been 'Curious' as to how the LM landed on the Moon
...out of Curiosity!...4 Feet REALLY isn't that High off the Ground! Not to leave some sort of 'Dust' kicked UP...

Well, that was an estimate on my part.

The contact light told them when they were 5 feet above the ground, and they were supposed to shut down the engines at that time. By the time the astronaut reacted, they could have been 3 feet from the ground, I suppose.

...and they did kick up dust (Armstrong is even heard saying "kicking up some dust" at one point right before landing). However, without a real atmosphere on the Moon, the dust would not "hang in the air" like it does here on Earth -- although it would take a little longer to fall back because of the low gravity. But, as Galileo and Newton showed, dust and a big rock (and a Lunar Module) would take the same amount of time to fall to the ground in the absence of air.

The loose dust covers a couple of inches of the Moon at the landing sites. Under the dust was hard ground.

[edit on 1/22/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 1/22/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]


jra

posted on Jan, 22 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DownUnderoid
 


Here are some landing video's that were filmed with the 16mm DAC.

Apollo 15 landing


Apollo 16 landing


You can see a lot of dust being blown outwards radially from under the LM as it gets closer to the surface.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:03 AM
link   
Jra, thanks for posting those videos, I greatly enjoyed those. Almost made it worth losing the 30 minutes of my life I lost reading the rest of this thread. Moonhoax threads always crack me up. There is no amount of "proof" that is going to convince a hoaxer, I'd just give it up man.

After all, this IS a conspiracy site!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I do not understand how any intelligent human being can overlook the cold war. The race to the moon was IT back in the day. Most kids my age and younger do not even understand. Where they have rap and MTV and other garbage, kids then had the moon landing.

Do you REALLY in your heart truly believe that the USSR who was racing with us to the moon would let the US get away with lying? Really? Do you really think that the two biggest enemies of history would just thrown down their differences just to fake it? That would make the whole cold war false. We landed on the moon and it pissed the russians off something fierce. No other facts means anything to me in regards to this. I understand the political stance back then and I know beyond all doubt that the USSR would not have let us get away with lying. They knew we did it and they hated us for beating them.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperSlovak
 

in the 70. neal armstrong was in holland an gave the dutch goverment a moon rock. a few years ago the dutch discoverd that the moonrock wasnt a rock. it was petrefied wood from earth



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by kenny73
 


That was one sample, an admitted mistake. The rest of the samples have been studied, and are indeed of lunar origin.



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kenny73
 


Wow, there was almost nothing in your post that was correct:


in the 70. neal armstrong was in holland...


Neil Armstrong and the other two Apollo 11 astronauts visited Holland in 1969.


...an gave the dutch goverment a moon rock.


No, he didn't. The US didn't give out moonrocks to governments as gifts until 1972. The rock in question was given by then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf to former Prime Minister Willem Drees on October 9, 1969 to commemorate the visit. It not a gift from government to government - It was a private gift to a friend who was a retired politician.

The rock was mounted above a plaque which read "With the compliments of the Ambassador of the United States of America ... to commemorate the visit to The Netherlands of the Apollo-11 astronauts."

No one claimed that it was, in fact, a rock from the Moon.


a few years ago the dutch discoverd that the moonrock wasnt a rock. it was petrefied wood from earth


Drees died in 1988, and items of memorabilia were donated by his family to the Rijksmuseum (Dutch National Museum). This included the rock and the attached plaque. In 2006, as part of an exhibition titled Fly Me to the Moon" it was put on display and incorrectly labled as a moon rock. Note that after 37 years, no scientist had examined the rock.

Shortly after it went on display, physicist Arno Wielders saw the stone at the exposition. "I thought: this can't be real. The size was a big surprise to me, and the colour wasn't right as well." He called the NASA office that handles storage and distribution of lunar material. He described the rock and the plaque and was immediately told that this could not be a moon rock. The museum had geologist Wim van Westrenen of the VU University, Amsterdam to examine the rock, and after just 2-minutes he knew it did not have any characteristics of a lunar sample. Further examination at the university with a microscope and spectrascope confirmed its terrrestrial origin.

So, in short:

- It was a private gift, without any official endorsment.
- The astronauts had no knowledge of it.
- It was not placed under scientific scrutiny for almost 40 years.
- NASA disavowed any possibility that it could have been one of theirs.
- When it was examined, its nature and origin became quickly obvious.


[edit on 28-1-2010 by Saint Exupery]



posted on Jan, 28 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
...So, in short:

- It was a private gift, without any official endorsment.
- The astronauts had no knowledge of it.
- It was not placed under scientific scrutiny for almost 40 years.
- NASA disavowed any possibility that it could have been one of theirs.
- When it was examined, its nature and origin became quickly obvious.

That is all true...
...and I would like to add:

This rock was nothing at all like the official rocks that the U.S. gave out to other countries as gifts. The Dutch rock (which NASA never claimed was a moon rock) was a little bigger than a golf ball -- about the size of a plum, and stuck on a plaque. The real rocks given out by the U.S. as gifts were much, much smaller and encased in plastic:

Apollo 11 gift rocks typically weigh just 0.05 grams, scarcely more than a grain of rice. The Apollo 17 gift rocks weigh about 1.1 grams. Both are encased in plastic globes to protect them and ease viewing.
Source Article

[edit on 1/28/2010 by Box of Rain]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Just like that




The NASA documents listed in the video at 0:01 and 2:58 are available through ntrs.nasa.gov
Download and read.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by masterp


That surface is not flat


We clearly see a flat surface in the image.

We clearly do not.

In this cross-eye stereogram you can see it slope down before coming back up near the LM's foot.


I cannot see the slope. Can you? can anyone else see it?



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join