Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

You must be High on the desert, to think your on the moon.

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
seriously, i don't think i'm alone in saying that NASA and the achievements of the US space program gave me encouragement to learn more about science as i was growing up. and to hear these people talk about the moon-landing hoax and try to denigrate the efforts of all those men and women who made it all possible just seems to be a failure of the american educational system. which is sad for a country that has fostered geniuses such as Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein to produce such utter morons as some who populate the boards on the internet these days.


You know what is really weird to me, believers are the first to cut people down for thinking different then themselves. The first to hurl insults as if they were personally attacked. Be it a religious zealot, or a believer in the landing on the moon. Those who should be most understanding to the "ignorant" are themselves so brimming with insecurity that they can't even leave a comment without showing just how fragile their world is and with what care they must be handled. Very delicately, like fine china, which one must not use as it is only for show behind glass as to impress guests.

Now let me ask you. Do you know who Albert Einstein is? Do you know exactly what his big contribution to the world was? The death of 200000+ Japanese and this man is a Genius to you, yet people who don't think like you are idiots. If being smart means the death of 200000+ of my countrymen I will fall on my own blade...it is honorable that I do it myself.

Good day and the V to you.




posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   
Shouldn't you be able to determine freefall speed of the bag that fell?

Send it to AE911?


jra

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
If you can prove to me the tapes were live, I will believe.


What about the simple fact that people on Earth were communicating with them on the Moon while they did there stuff? It's kind of hard to have a conversation with a pre-recorded video.


1/6th Gravity? I didn't say they faked it. I gave two examples, one on earth and one on the moon and asked for someone to tell me what was different between them, because they look like they are throwing the same tail to me, but hey all I have is my eyes.


The video you linked to of the LRV is sped up. Try watching this one.

www.youtube.com...

The dust in the dune buggy videos looks like it's being affected by the air to me, where as there is only gravity affecting the dust in the LRV video.


can you tell me where the surplus 400,000 people are coming from (that aren't Nazis)?


The 400,000 came from all sorts of industries and universities. Many Aerospace companies like Boeing, Grumman, North American Aviation and a number of others. As well as other companies like Westinghouse, IMB, Whirlpool, Black & Decker, ILC Dover and many many more.


Everyone in on it? Do you understand what rank is? Do you understand "Need to Know" basis.


Except that the Apollo program was an open, civilian program. It was not compartmentalized. There needed to be open communication between all the various contracted companies. For example, each stage of the Saturn V was built by a different aerospace company. There needed to be open communication between them so that it would all fit together in the end. It wouldn't work if everyone only worked on a small part, not knowing what everyone else was doing.


PSST...don't go to mars for rocks, they have them in Antarctica along with moon rocks, go ask Werner...


I find it hilarious when some one thinks Werner Von Braun went to Antarctica to find Moon rocks. It's true he went there, but not to find rocks. He's a rocket scientist and not a geologist!

Plus the rocks found in Antarctica would not pass as samples from the Moon. They show signs of having entered through the atmosphere as well as other kinds of weathering from having spent hundreds or thousands of years sitting on Earth.

There's also the fact that only a hand full of samples have been found in the Antarctic. Where as the Apollo missions brought back 380kg's worth.



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Now let me ask you. Do you know who Albert Einstein is? Do you know exactly what his big contribution to the world was? The death of 200000+ Japanese and this man is a Genius to you, yet people who don't think like you are idiots. If being smart means the death of 200000+ of my countrymen I will fall on my own blade...it is honorable that I do it myself.

Good day and the V to you.


yes, for his contributions to the world's body of knowledge in general; yes, he was a genius. i'm saddened to know about your countrymen who perished because of a munition that was developed based on the concepts proposed by einstein was dropped on them. but they shouldn't have died if your country did not heedlessly and aggressively attack other countries. my country lost up to a million civilians and 57,000+ military deaths during that war and all of them died because your country attacked mine without provocation.

and yet, here we are conversing over the internet like sane individuals. maybe the decision to drop the bomb was made in haste w/o really considering the consequences, but what would have happened if they hadn't done it? would we be as free to express ourselves in the same manner as we are doing today? would we have the technologies and conveniences that we currently enjoy? or would my country be paying tribute to yours?

[edit on 3.23.10 by toreishi]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand

Now, I don't believe we have ever been to the moon.


Why? All the scientific, historical data points to us having gone, as does simple logic. To say the moon landing was hoaxed is to say that thousands of scientists were in on it. That's saying everyone who designed the rockets, space suits, specialized cameras, astronaut food, capsules, modules, fuel, everyone who did calculations, etc was either a dirty liar or they DID design everything needed to go to the moon and the government didn't use it.

They obviously did build a massive Saturn V rocket and they launched it into space that much is true. So do you think the government wasted a decade of research and development money, likely billions upon billions if adjusted for inflation, and then just ended up filming in Nevada? Why waste all that money? Why not just fake the footage on a shoestring budget and then dupe the public?

And if it is fake where are all the scientists saying so. So far I haven't heard from a single legitimate scientist of any kind who believes the moon landing was hoaxed. What about the Russians, do you honestly think the suspicious USSR wouldn't have smelled a fake and immediately cried foul?

Millions if not billions of people have seen the iconic footage. Are you trying to say these images managed to convince every lunar expert in the world but that a few yahoos on the interwebs managed to outsmart the conspiracy


I'm sorry but simple logic disproves the Moon landing conspiracy, not to mention the fact that every science related claim made by conspiracy proponents has been laid to rest a myriad of times as complete hogwash.

[edit on 22-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]


I hear what you are saying, but does that mean Godzilla exists also just because billions have seen it?

How do I discount the scientists? Honestly how would any working on the project truly know that it came to full fruition. Why do people automatically assume that if a person has worked on a project, that he or she, knows every detail of what goes down. Do humans know how their body works to such detail, just because they are human?

I don't think it's logic that disproves a conspiracy or the earth would still be flat because simple logic tells you you walk on a flat surface. To conspire means to breath together. Get enough to breath the same breath, that is to say what your saying and majority rules, but that doesn't mean the majority is right, just that they agree together.

As I said, I do hope it's true, but common sense along with the unrealistic tech of the day says no.

Look at the LEM for god's sakes. It's made with sheet metal, rivets and tinfoil. You never wondered why the tinfoil is Gold? Because Gold tinfoil cancels blue sky. There are much simpler answers for things in the world, you just have to look.

Peace



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
If you can prove to me the tapes were live, I will believe.


What about the simple fact that people on Earth were communicating with them on the Moon while they did there stuff? It's kind of hard to have a conversation with a pre-recorded video.


1/6th Gravity? I didn't say they faked it. I gave two examples, one on earth and one on the moon and asked for someone to tell me what was different between them, because they look like they are throwing the same tail to me, but hey all I have is my eyes.


The video you linked to of the LRV is sped up. Try watching this one.

www.youtube.com...

The dust in the dune buggy videos looks like it's being affected by the air to me, where as there is only gravity affecting the dust in the LRV video.


can you tell me where the surplus 400,000 people are coming from (that aren't Nazis)?


The 400,000 came from all sorts of industries and universities. Many Aerospace companies like Boeing, Grumman, North American Aviation and a number of others. As well as other companies like Westinghouse, IMB, Whirlpool, Black & Decker, ILC Dover and many many more.


Everyone in on it? Do you understand what rank is? Do you understand "Need to Know" basis.


Except that the Apollo program was an open, civilian program. It was not compartmentalized. There needed to be open communication between all the various contracted companies. For example, each stage of the Saturn V was built by a different aerospace company. There needed to be open communication between them so that it would all fit together in the end. It wouldn't work if everyone only worked on a small part, not knowing what everyone else was doing.


PSST...don't go to mars for rocks, they have them in Antarctica along with moon rocks, go ask Werner...


I find it hilarious when some one thinks Werner Von Braun went to Antarctica to find Moon rocks. It's true he went there, but not to find rocks. He's a rocket scientist and not a geologist!

Plus the rocks found in Antarctica would not pass as samples from the Moon. They show signs of having entered through the atmosphere as well as other kinds of weathering from having spent hundreds or thousands of years sitting on Earth.

There's also the fact that only a hand full of samples have been found in the Antarctic. Where as the Apollo missions brought back 380kg's worth.


Have you ever been to the eye doctors? When you sit and get your eye exam and look at the sheet of letters posted on the wall behind you, how do you see the letters that are behind you? It is set to twenty feet, yet the mirror is only 10 ft in front of you. How are you seeing twenty feet? Reflection correct? Not only reflection, but reverse position. If you had no knowledge of what a mirror was, i could tell you that the letters are right in front of you at only 10 ft. Unless you tried to grab the sheet itself, you would be none the wiser and always think the letters are 10 ft in front of you. What is the logical reason I would be dishonest with you about their actual position as long as you got your eyes fixed, why would I need to be honest...you can see. That's really all that counts correct?

A handful of samples is all you would need to synthetically reproduce them and to the untrained eye, who would know the difference? You give the handful of real samples to real scientists and the rest go on display. Is that hard to accomplish for an agency such as Nasa? It's a lot cheaper to fake it, then to go and it makes you a lot richer. Especially on something that only a hand full of people can verify.

Now, what if the moon isn't as far away as you think it is, nor as big as you think it is? What if it was say, a sixth of the distance you are told. What if the sun and the moon are the same size? I'm not saying they are, but how will you verify it yourself, not through what someone tells you? But actually using your own faculties, how do you verify the truth not being dependent upon someone else? Can you do that?

Again, consider that the Apollo program ran almost the same exact time frame as Vietnam War. How did we fight Vietnam and afford to go to the moon at the same time? I guess we couldn't or we wouldn't be in the predicament we are now.

Want to help me whitewash this fence? It's so much fun to paint. Here take this brush and have some fun. I'll sit down and direct.

Like I said, hollywood has got 60 years on spaceflight. Honestly take that into consideration. "When you wish upon your dreams come true." "You can fly, you can fly, you can fly, you can fly." "Second star on the right and strait on till morning"

Peace



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 08:56 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


Yes lot's of people have seen Godzilla but my guess is no adult or dinosaur expert ever thought he was real so you're missing my point. If there was anything even remotely wrong with the tape real experts and scientists, particularly the Russian ones, would have come forth, but so far the only people who have come forth saying it was a hoax are conspiracy theorists and none of their claims have been shown to hold water. Most it not all of those claims, whether scientific in nature or not, have been debunked and shown to be false.

And yes I think the majority of people who worked on the project had a great deal of knowledge about what their mission was and what they were doing. We're talking about rocket scientists, engineers, people far smarter than any of us. And that's what I'm saying, why would the footage, why would the hoax, manage to convince every expert on the planet, but then some layman on the internet comes along and sees through it? I think not.




As I said, I do hope it's true, but common sense along with the unrealistic tech of the day says no.


What version of common sense says that if all the scientific evidence points to one conclusion we should assume the opposite. All the evidence points to us having been there. Billions of dollars of research money, unmanned probe missions, thousands working to design test and build rockets, equipment, etc and much of it ON FILM DOCUMENTED AS HAVING HAPPENED and yet you think common sense says we didn't go





There are much simpler answers for things in the world, you just have to look.


The simple answer is that we did go. Faking it would be more risky and complicated than actually making the attempt and would involve a massive cover-up not to mention wasting all that money to launch the Saturn V into space empty.


jra

posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
A handful of samples is all you would need to synthetically reproduce them and to the untrained eye, who would know the difference?


How does one synthetically reproduce rocks and soil samples? Please explain.


You give the handful of real samples to real scientists and the rest go on display.


And where do the real samples come from? Not Antarctica, as those would show obvious signs of having entered through the atmosphere. Unmanned probes are only able to collect small amount of soil, and no rocks. So where do the real samples come from then?


It's a lot cheaper to fake it, then to go and it makes you a lot richer.


It's impossible to estimate the cost of faking it, but in terms of difficulty. I think it would be a lot hard to fake the landings than to just actually go and do it. There are a few things that would be extremely difficult to fake on Earth, if not, impossible. That being the 1/6th gravity and lack of any notable atmosphere.

Also, who does it make richer? I don't follow that part.


Now, what if the moon isn't as far away as you think it is, nor as big as you think it is? What if it was say, a sixth of the distance you are told. What if the sun and the moon are the same size? I'm not saying they are, but how will you verify it yourself, not through what someone tells you? But actually using your own faculties, how do you verify the truth not being dependent upon someone else? Can you do that?


I personally cannot, as math is not one of my strong points. There are ways to calculate the size and distance of the Moon and the Sun. The ancient Greeks were able to do this, although some of there measurements were off, but they also didn't have access to telescopes either.

Here are some links to get you started though.
www.astro.washington.edu...
www.madsci.org...
www.newton.dep.anl.gov...
cse.ssl.berkeley.edu...

There are some ATS members who are quite knowledgeable in astronomy who could explain this much better than I. Hopefully they'll pop into this thread at some point.


Again, consider that the Apollo program ran almost the same exact time frame as Vietnam War. How did we fight Vietnam and afford to go to the moon at the same time? I guess we couldn't or we wouldn't be in the predicament we are now.


While both the Apollo program and the Vietnam war were expensive. But it was more than possible for both to happen at around the same time. The Apollo program's budget peaked at 5.5% of the Federal budget in 1966. By the time of Apollo 11 it was already down to 2.1%.

Why do you believe that both could not have happened at the same time?


Like I said, hollywood has got 60 years on spaceflight. Honestly take that into consideration.


I love science fiction, but I have yet to find any movie remotely realistic or convincing. The movie "2001" which had amazing special effects for the late 60's, still had some major flaws. Even movies today with all their CG effects don't make it any more believable.

I don't believe it would have been possible to fake the Moon landings with 1960's Hollywood. nor even with the technology that's available today.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by jra]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Have a listen to the president about the money being spent and if it was affordable. Mind you Vietnam was just starting and we weren't fully committed till Johnson.


WEBB: Number one, there are real unknowns as to whether man can live under the weightless condition and you'd ever make the lunar landing. This is one kind of political vulnerability I'd like to avoid such a flat commitment to -- but the scientists in the nuclear field have penetrated right into the most minute areas, the nucleus and the sub-particles of the nucleus. Now here, out in the universe, you've got the same general kind of a structure, but you can do it on a massive, universal scale...

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: Now the point... I agree that we're interested in this, but we can wait six months (unintelligible)

WEBB: But you have to use that information to do these things...

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: I see what you're saying, yeah, but only when that information directly applies to the program... Jim, I think we've got to have that…

WIESNER: May I say one word, Mr. President? We don't know a damn thing about the surface of the moon and we're making the wildest guesses about how we're going to land on the moon and we could get a terrible disaster from putting something down on the surface of the moon that's very different than we think it is and the scientific programs that find us that information have to have the highest priority. But they are associated with the lunar program. The scientific programs that aren't associated with the lunar program can then be any priority we please to give 'em.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: Yeah. The only thing is I would certainly not favor spending six or seven billion dollars to find out about space, no matter how... On the schedule we're doing... I'd spell it out over a five, ten year period. But we could spend it on... Why are we spending seven million dollars on getting fresh water from salt water when we're spending seven billion dollars finding out about space ? So obviously, you wouldn't put it on that priority because, except for the defense implications behind that and the second point is the, the, the fact that the Soviet Union has made this a test of the system. So that's why we're doing it. So I think we've got to take the view that this is the key program, the rest of it we can find out about but there's a lot of things we want to find out about...cancer and everything else…

(Civil project except to find out about the defense implications?)

WEBB: When you talk about this, it's very hard to draw a line with what, between what...

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: Everything that we do ought to really be tied in to getting onto the moon ahead of the Russians.

WEBB: Why can't it be tied to preeminence in space, which are your own words...

PRESIDENT KENNEDY: Because, by God, we've been telling everyone we're preeminent in space for five years and nobody believes it because they have the booster and the satellite. (edit pause) …But I do think we ought to get it, you know, really clear that the policy ought to be that this is the top priority program of the agency and one of the two, except for defense, the top priority of the United States government. I think that that's the position we ought to take. Now, this may not change anything about that schedule, but at least we ought to be clear, otherwise we shouldn't be spending this kind of money because I'm not that interested in space. I think it's good. I think we ought to know about it. We're ready to spend reasonable amounts of money, but we're talking about fantastic expenditures which wreck our budget and all these other domestic programs and the only justification for it, in my opinion, is to do it (unintelligible) is because we hope to beat them and demonstrate that starting behind as we did by a couple of years, by God, we passed 'em.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 

You really must get into the habit of providing your sources.
history.nasa.gov...

But, yes. Costs were always a concern. But Kennedy wasn't so much worried about the cost, he was worried about other programs ("science" programs) taking money away from the Moon landing program. He wanted money taken from those programs and applied to the Moon program. Many in NASA were worried that the Moon program would divert too much money from other programs. But what the President says, goes. And what he said is that the Moon mission was the top priority.

David Bell: That’s perfectly clear. But our problem is that we all work for the President and as far as he’s concerned, as he very clearly expressed this morning, whatever we say [out there], the manned lunar landing program is the number one-priority program.


And, yes. In 1962 we didn't know a lot about how to get to the Moon or manned space flight (at that point we had only put 5 men into space and two of them did not even orbit Earth).

So we did this before attempting a landing:
Manned Missions:
Mercury-Atlas 9: May 15-16, 1963
Gemini III: March 1965
Gemini IV: June 1965
Gemini V: August 1965
Gemini VII: December 1965
Gemini IX: June 1966
Gemini X: July 1966
Gemini XI: September 1966
Gemini XII: November 1966
Apollo 7: October 1968
Apollo 8: December 1968
Apollo 9: March 1969
Apollo 10: May 1969


Unmanned missions to the Moon:
Ranger 6: January 1964
Ranger 7: July 1964
Ranger 8: February 1965
Ranger 9: March 1965
Centaur 3: August 1965
Surveyor 1: May 1966
Explorer 33: July 1966
Lunar Orbiter 1: August 1966
Surveyor 2: September 1966
Centaur 5: October 1966
Lunar Orbiter 2: November 1966
Lunar Orbiter 3: February 1967
Surveyor 3: April 1967
Lunar Orbiter 4: May 1967
Surveyor 4: July 1967
Explorer 35: July 1967
Lunar Orbiter 5: August 1967
Surveyor 5: September 1967
Surveyor 6: November 1967
Surveyor 7: January 1968

This does not include the various missions which were carried out before 1962.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 23 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   
letthereaderunderstand
I have to say The evidence 'for' us having been there is pretty overwhelmingly one directional, the truth is not a stretch, we have sent things to the edge of the solar system, and landed machines on mars since then,
The whole 'Lander is tinfoil' myth is responsible for the idea that we were not tecknologically capable of it at the time, we were certainly proficient with atomic/nuclear tecknology 2 decades before ,and now 4 decades after, here we are.
Fortunately for you, the preceeding 100 years of history has been recorded and exist for you to access, be that online or elsewhere.
I suggest you google "human space tecknology" and do some reading then make an informed descision, rather than simply an opinion.


Titen-Sxull
(say what? :lol
, also makes some good points that are undeniable.


WIESNER: May I say one word, Mr. President? We don't know a damn thing about the surface of the moon and we're making the wildest guesses about how we're going to land on the moon and we could get a terrible disaster from putting something down on the surface of the moon that's very different than we think it is and the scientific programs that find us that information have to have the highest priority. But they are associated with the lunar program. The scientific programs that aren't associated with the lunar program can then be any priority we please to give 'em.


Sounds like plain old fear of the unknown to me. (and perhaps fear of political scandals) The guy was a politician.



This does not include the various missions which were carried out before 1962.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



Thanks Phage, Excellent Work! Clearly we were technologically capable, if only just, ofcourse there were risk,
but thats the spirit of America, find a few men stupid enough to go into space,
and they will go to moon when you tell them to, and be proud to do so.
So long as we get there first! Truth, Justice, and The American Way !

The lander was not as flimsy as many 'Anti-Mooners' beleive.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 01:40 AM
link   
flight testing an early simulator to prepare the astronauts for the moon landing
(thanks jra)



WW2 happened at the same time they were developing the A-Bomb but they were able to accomplish that feat (in total secrecy and unknown to their enemies, i might add). the US was a lot less mismanaged back then than it is now.

[edit on 3.24.10 by toreishi]


jra

posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


I don't see anything in the material that you quoted that would make me question the validity of the Apollo program and it's funding. And as Phage also pointed out, there were many missions prior to the Apollo missions that helped to answer many of the unknowns about going to and landing on the Moon.


Originally posted by toreishi
flight testing an early version of the lunar lander


Actually I wouldn't call it an early version of the Lunar Lander. It was simply a simulator to give the future LM pilots some practice.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Just thought I'd mention something in response to something the OP mentioned on page 1.

You ask how we can be sure that the 'live' video feed was infact live. Well there were plenty radio enthusiasts around the world who scoured the airwaves, found and listened in on the whole mission, Apollo 11 that is. I'm sure there were plenty listening in on the other missions too.

Anyways, here's two such enthusiasts:

Evesdropping



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
so . . . the people who were directing the fake moon-landing footage didn't realize that a bag should barely make any noise at all in a place at near zero atmo?

whenever i watch clips from "the moon landing footage" they are always full of psychics impossibilities.

it's amazing to me that anyone with half a brain believes this crap.


I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you trying to say you hear a sound made by the falling bag, or are you trying to say that the astronaut could not have known he dropped the bag unless he heard it?

If it's the former, then I need to disagree with you about that -- I did not hear a sound made by the falling bag. If it's the latter, then don't you think it is possible that the astronaut saw the bag fall? If you watch the video, you can see that the bag fell beside him, not behind him. The bag ends up next to the side of his foot.

I think it is entirely possible that he simply caught a glimpse of the bag falling at his side -- that's all. There are no "physics impossibilities" required.

[edit on 3/24/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


This thread is posted in the wrong Forum.

This sort of inane OP, despite all the evidence that has been repeatedly shown to the contrary, is not befitting a site like ATS.

Your assertions (note, there --- I wrote 'your', a pronoun. Compare to the usage in the thread title, please) show either a willing ignorance, and/or a willingful lack of interest in actually learning anything (to include proper grammar usage) and, instead, a propensity to repeat-post nonsense in what seems more and more to be a cry for attention.

Your antics are not amusing; I say "not amusing" because one can only reach the conclusion that the intent, here, is disruption, with what appears to be an agenda to "punk" people by having them take you seriously.

I do not take you seriously.

(How can I, when ignorance is either intentional, or feigned?)

It is very hard to imagine anyone could still believe in this "Moon Landing Hoax" nonsense by this stage, especially in view of the actual photographs, now, of the Apollo landing sites. And the great deal of information and knowledge that has been presented, to the OP, on numerous occasions, by very generous and patient ATS members who bring their expertise to the fore.

For all of those reasons, it seems your initiation of this thread has only one purpose, and it is not a tactic that is welcomed at ATS.


I suggest you consider your goals, and intent, very carefully.



posted on Mar, 24 2010 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Has any landing been soft except for the astronauts?
Most were survivable crash landings except for Venus which
might have used a parachute in the atmosphere yet still
had to survive impact.

A Russian mobile probe on the moon had a retro reflector.
Any number of missions may have left a reflector.



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Good info Phage...thank you.

Sorry about the source. JFK Presidential Library I'll try to be better about that and I thank you for looking out.

Peace



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
letthereaderunderstand
I have to say The evidence 'for' us having been there is pretty overwhelmingly one directional, the truth is not a stretch, we have sent things to the edge of the solar system, and landed machines on mars since then,
The whole 'Lander is tinfoil' myth is responsible for the idea that we were not tecknologically capable of it at the time, we were certainly proficient with atomic/nuclear tecknology 2 decades before ,and now 4 decades after, here we are.
Fortunately for you, the preceeding 100 years of history has been recorded and exist for you to access, be that online or elsewhere.
I suggest you google "human space tecknology" and do some reading then make an informed descision, rather than simply an opinion.


Titen-Sxull
(say what? :lol
, also makes some good points that are undeniable.


WIESNER: May I say one word, Mr. President? We don't know a damn thing about the surface of the moon and we're making the wildest guesses about how we're going to land on the moon and we could get a terrible disaster from putting something down on the surface of the moon that's very different than we think it is and the scientific programs that find us that information have to have the highest priority. But they are associated with the lunar program. The scientific programs that aren't associated with the lunar program can then be any priority we please to give 'em.


Sounds like plain old fear of the unknown to me. (and perhaps fear of political scandals) The guy was a politician.



This does not include the various missions which were carried out before 1962.

[edit on 3/23/2010 by Phage]



Thanks Phage, Excellent Work! Clearly we were technologically capable, if only just, ofcourse there were risk,
but thats the spirit of America, find a few men stupid enough to go into space,
and they will go to moon when you tell them to, and be proud to do so.
So long as we get there first! Truth, Justice, and The American Way !

The lander was not as flimsy as many 'Anti-Mooners' beleive.

[edit on 23-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]


Thanks for your post wayaboveitall.

Again, I just want to say to you and to everyone. As far as the official story goes, the USA has sent men to the moon. That is what the story will always be until none of us exist anymore. I can hear Yul Brynner even now saying "So let it be written, so let it be done." I know History will NEVER say differently and as a matter of fact I'm sure the story will eclipse any Legend we have today in future times.

Here's another fact. "WE" didn't do anything. "WE" didn't send a man to the moon. "WE" didn't set our foot upon it. "WE" didn't bring samples back. "WE" didn't retrieve the craft." "WE" didn't track the craft. "WE" don't laser range the reflectors.

I fashion it to telling the American public "WE" are going to go fight a war in which "YOUR" sons and daughters will die because "THEY" hate you for being free. If we were free, we wouldn't be fighting "THEIR" wars, because normal people just want to live and take care of their own and the last thing they want to do is fight unprovoked. When was the last time you were attacked in your home country to warrant the need for you to fight?

"WE" can't even, with the Hubble telescope, see the landing sights, nor could the Kayuga which orbited the moon as a satellite snapping HD video and pics, yet I can go into Google Earth and zoom down from space to my patio? Now, I know the Hubble probably isn't calibrated to take such "close range" photos and that the Kayuga probably wasn't either as if no one knows how to calibrate a camera to even see the stars ONE TIME. Or how about the Shuttle crew or the ISS? They orbit 90 minutes light and dark, yet they can only take pictures in the light? I want to believe, honestly, but I can't hear "calibration" even one more time as an excuse. I'd imagine a rocket scientist could figure it out and really should. It would probably end much speculation.

What "WE" in all of our pride and glory did was watch television and that is the point I'm trying to make. Everyone seems to take great pride in others accomplishments as if they played some role in it. Many become offended over something they have never personally endeavored into standing behind the claims as if their blood sweet and tears brought it about.

Many people don't need anything more then a Bible, Koran, or other religious book to proclaim the sovereignty of a God they can't produce. Those ad hearing to data sets are no different, in that they have no actual "experience" of the environment they promote only a book of characters and equations, which again, they didn't come up with rather they were trained to give the answers those books promote. Some have Rocket Ships, some have Temple mounts, but they both share the same thing...Rocks. Neither are credible to your and my experience other then the fact we can look at them, under strict conditions. I find it funny that in Hebrew NASA means "to lift up". Rather ironic I would say, they even have the 12. I wonder who the Judas is? Probably Edger although it's starting to look like Buzz. Neil is most definitely the Peter of the gang.

I commend those who take their time to learn the facts and study and know this subject inside and out. I expect critics anytime I play the devils advocate, but I also expect scientific minds to be able to prove, not to others, but to themselves what is real or not and not to become "religious" over what the data says having no actual experience to check the data against. Television offers no reality, it offers dreams. Imagine if some alien intelligence ever were to receive our television transmissions. I did love Galaxy Quest.

Thanks for your time

Peace



posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_Modulus
Just thought I'd mention something in response to something the OP mentioned on page 1.

You ask how we can be sure that the 'live' video feed was infact live. Well there were plenty radio enthusiasts around the world who scoured the airwaves, found and listened in on the whole mission, Apollo 11 that is. I'm sure there were plenty listening in on the other missions too.

Anyways, here's two such enthusiasts:

Evesdropping


Thank you for your post the modulus.

Very interesting about those two. I'm going to dig deeper on these fellows but I did spot this in a related article.



Earth-Moon-Earth, also known as moon bounce, is a radio communications technique which relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver.

The use of the Moon as a passive communications satellite was proposed by Mr. W.J. Bray of the British General Post Office in 1940. It was calculated that with the available microwave transmission powers and low noise receivers, it would be possible to beam microwave signals up from Earth and reflect off the Moon. It was thought that at least one voice channel would be possible.[1]

The "moon bounce" technique was developed by the United States Military in the years after World War II, with the first successful reception of echoes off the Moon being carried out at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey on January 10, 1946 by John H. DeWitt as part of Project Diana.[2] The Communication Moon Relay project that followed led to more practical uses, including a teletype link between the naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii and United States Navy headquarters in Washington, DC. In the days before communications satellites, a link free of the vagaries of ionospheric propagation was revolutionary.

Later, the technique was used by non-military commercial users, and the first amateur detection of signals from the Moon took place in 1953.


Link

This being the case, how am I to verify that NASA wasn't using Moon bounce and how does this make Laser Ranging credible when you can send radio signals and receive them back, which are crude compared to a laser beam, when the tech to do this was 23 years old at the time of the Apollo Missions?

Peace









 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join