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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 38
377
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Contact light and touch down isn't the same thing...

When they brushed the surface, the display panel lunar contact light would come on. This was the signal that the descent engine could be turned off.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by max2m
what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



Any vehicle going over a surface such as that would have left a dust cloud behind it.

How did they manage this:


Google Video Link


edit: Just click the link, I can't get the video to run.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


that's it ? that's your explanation ?
no dust cloud? .....
in fact , there should be a dust cloud, the dust should not fall back, it should stay in the atmosphere !!
we're talking dust particles 6 times lighter than on earth , in fact the rover at that speed and with those wheels behaves exactly as it would on earth
also the dust that leaves behind is very well camouflaged by the background that has the same color, a vehicle that drives in the desert at the same speed would generate exactly the same amount
ok, i've heard the explanation that the dust is vulcanic and it's very heavy , but i find that explanation hilarious , in fact there are scenes where the astro-nuts actually jump higher than the dust cloud !!!!
okkkk , the dust is heavier than the suit and the astro-nut
and i'm not going to get into the way they jump , because that's just way beyond hilarious ,
c'mon people reality check !!!! i need serious scientifical explanation on sand analysis, why is the sand so heavy !!!
this thread reminds me of billy meier pictures that were so obvious made up and people would just not want to admit that !!
when you start to belive in something some people find it very hard to let go !



It has nothing to do with weight, unless you've discovered a new theory of gravity. In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]


what ?? ??
you 're joking right ?
do you actually know what gravity means ???
or did you skip the physics class when you were in school ?
so let me get this straight , if i'm on the moon , and if i drop 10 tons and a gram of salt at the same time , they should fall at the same rate and hit the moon at the same time ?
"In a vacuum all objects are expected to fall at the same rate. So your observations about which weighs more are irrelevant."
that must be the dumbest thing i've heard this month


So we know you never took basic physics.

Yes, all things fall at the same rate in a vacuum. Remember Galileo?
Free Falling Objects


The acceleration of the object equals the gravitational acceleration. The mass, size, and shape of the object are not a factor in describing the motion of the object. So all objects, regardless of size or shape or weight, free fall with the same acceleration. In a vacuum, a beach ball falls at the same rate as an airliner. Knowing the acceleration, we can determine the velocity and location of any free falling object at any time.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



And regarding the whole HAM and Satellite issue,
no im not taking it back, why?
What's is it so hard to fake?


On the way out and back, there is a moving spot in space you have to aim at. You know where becasue NASA published the trajectory information ahead of the launch. In addition, as has been shown, some amateur astronomers have pictures of separations, burns, water dumps, etc. exactly where NASA said the spacecraft should be.



Show me!

Considering:



The USB system used with 85-foor antennas will provide the ONLY means of tracking and communications at lunar distances.


So tell me, no show me, link it, quote it, which HAM operators tracked Apollo near or on the moon? And how did they do it? And what did they claim they heard or saw?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
reply to post by FoosM
 


Contact light and touch down isn't the same thing...

When they brushed the surface, the display panel lunar contact light would come on. This was the signal that the descent engine could be turned off.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]


Let's make sure and be specific here (the utter cluelessness of max as far as 5th grade science makes me realize everything must be spelled out as simply as possible). What was making contact was was one of the 3 probes extending over a meter from below the landing pads. These were meant to give the astronauts an idea when they were close to the surface. When one of the probe made contact with the surface a light would come on at the LM pilot's station. He would then call out "contact light" letting the commander know he could shut off the engines. Exactly when the engines were shut off after the call is different from mission to mission.

Hope this helps.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by hateeternal
reply to post by FoosM
 


Contact light and touch down isn't the same thing...

When they brushed the surface, the display panel lunar contact light would come on. This was the signal that the descent engine could be turned off.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]




Ummm no kidding, why are you stating the obvious?
Cernan claimed that they turned off their engines "some three meters" from the ground. Now explain that please.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ



Astronots have claimed they shut engines down before landing... in order to not fall into a crater created by the engine!


2. Please CITE this claim.

It is good for the soul to admit your errors, you know.

Go on, be brave, try it!


No problem, ready to do so yourself?

go ahead and skip to 6:50 and tell all of us what Cernan says




posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM



And regarding the whole HAM and Satellite issue,
no im not taking it back, why?
What's is it so hard to fake?


On the way out and back, there is a moving spot in space you have to aim at. You know where becasue NASA published the trajectory information ahead of the launch. In addition, as has been shown, some amateur astronomers have pictures of separations, burns, water dumps, etc. exactly where NASA said the spacecraft should be.



Show me!

Considering:



The USB system used with 85-foor antennas will provide the ONLY means of tracking and communications at lunar distances.


So tell me, no show me, link it, quote it, which HAM operators tracked Apollo near or on the moon? And how did they do it? And what did they claim they heard or saw?




Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Lunar Missions

Tracking Apollo 17 From Florida

Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.

Paul Wilson and Richard T. Knadle Jr. received voice transmissions from the Command Service Module in lunar orbit on the morning of August 1, 1971. In an article for QST magazine they provide a detailed description of their work, with photographs.

Bochum Sternwarte in Germany tracked the astronauts and intercepted the TV downlink from Apollo 16. The extrapolated TV signal was converted to black and white PAL and was recorded onto 2" videotape via their sole quad machine. The transmissions are only of the astronauts and do not contain any voice from Houston (as the signal received came from the Moon only).



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


All that proves is that they claim they allegedly tracked something and heard transmissions from something - not that it was a manned mission to the moon which landed on it.

Or do you think the nation who sent men to the moon couldn't send an unmanned probe to relay transmissions back to earth? and that simulation data could not be used to deceive the majority of the public?

Frank Byrne wouldn't lie to himself, he knew that such a thing could be done.




Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Exuberant1]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


All that proves is that they claim they allegedly tracked something and heard transmissions from something - not that it was a manned mission to the moon which landed on it.

Or do you think the nation who sent men to the moon couldn't send an unmanned probe to relay transmissions back to earth? and that simulation data could not be used to deceive the majority of the public?

Frank Byrne wouldn't lie to himself, he knew that such a thing could be done.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Exuberant1]




couldnt have said it better myself



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Someone came along and gave you a star for that, after all the inanity that came before?


There is no way in hell you aren't able to see clearly what everyone is showing you (just how WRONG you are, constantly). There is no way you can continue this charade, UNLESS you are doing it on purpose.

I know, in some situations (school, etc) there can be an excersice called "debate" were two sides try to argue opposite points, and one team (or individual) selects a topic they vehemently disagree with, and know to be in error, but for practice' sake they 'argue for' it....but, that is there.

On the INTERNET, such tactics as displayed by you have a different term --- not 'debate' --- word that starts with a 'T', and ends with a 'G'.


But, since that wasn't about the meat of your post, this will be: The probes on the three landing legs were about two mwtres long. They were NOT THE ONLY source of height information available to the Astronauts!!!

Gee, if you'd bother to do the research (as I and MANY have asked) then you'd know this already...or, maybe you do (?) I, for one, hate being 'punked'.......

The LM was built to withstand a certain "drop" from a certain height, as long as lateral motion was minimal.

THAT WAS THE POINT of all those test videos, from NASA, that you linked earlier!!!

See, yet? (I bet you do, but for others who are being infected by your drivel...)...

The engineers design the landing gear. They try to over-design, up to a point, to give it some sort of safety buffer. Remember, in that day they did EVERYTHING, the calculations, with math...no computer simulations for desturction testing, they HAD to destruct-test to know how their designs would perform.

NASA gave the contractor (Grumman) what they wanted, in terms of vertical and horizontal load bearing ability.

Grumman designed, built, and tested...many, many times, in the best way to re-create the forces involved. Sometimes, the gear failed prematurely....back to the drawing boards, then.

Remember, also, that they were contricted by a huge WEIGHT restriction, as well...

Go, get out of your parent's basement, and READ a book, for Diety's Sake!



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Exuberant1
 


Really, can't understand why YOU, of all people, post this garbage....I can see why a certian other poster comes along, immediately, and claps you on the back for it, because (perhaps) he/she really, really is too dense to see the problem with:


All that proves is that they claim they allegedly tracked something and heard transmissions from something - not that it was a manned mission to the moon which landed on it.


"allegedly"..."tracked something"?
Really, what a load!

Because, NEXT what do you say?


Or do you think the nation who sent men to the moon couldn't send an unmanned probe to relay transmissions back to earth?



You really, really are failing here...and, as I noted in my proxima post...YOU know better!

So, I conclude your efforts here to be rampant 'trolling'....you're a long-time member, with a spotty track record of waffling, in this regard. It is all there, for anyone to go back and review.


But, getting off of you....read, again, your (and this is charitable) "hypothesis" up above...

No, it doesn't even rise to that status.....it's gibberish.

If you (or anyone else) can't figure out WHY yet, here's the hint:

Light. Speed. Delay.


Finally....LRO. Photos. Of. The. Apollo. Equipment. Left. Behind.

Now, go back to reality, and stop the silly mind games....it is embarrassing.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


All that proves is that they claim they allegedly tracked something and heard transmissions from something - not that it was a manned mission to the moon which landed on it.

Or do you think the nation who sent men to the moon couldn't send an unmanned probe to relay transmissions back to earth? and that simulation data could not be used to deceive the majority of the public?

Frank Byrne wouldn't lie to himself, he knew that such a thing could be done.




Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


How do you "prerecord" conversations between mission control and the astronauts?

Let's see. You would have had to build a spacecraft to take those prerecorded messages from earth to the moon. You would also have needed a command module for the CM pilot's converstations and a lander to hold the other conversations. Once on the ground, how did they handle the requests from the scientists in the back room. They were always asking for them to perform certian tasks. How do you fake that?



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Exuberant1


Frank Byrne wouldn't lie to himself, he knew that such a thing could be done.




Frank Byrne, former Head of the Radio Frequency and Telemetry Receiving Center at the Kennedy Space center says that the telemetry and TV data could have could have been simulated using prerecorded tapes (Moonfaker Exhibit D). Most of the people involved would never know they had been deceived.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by Exuberant1]


Could you please give me a link to this quote? I can't find any information on it other that this graphic which shows up everywhere.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:05 PM
link   


Or do you think the nation who sent men to the moon couldn't send an unmanned probe to relay transmissions back to earth? and that simulation data could not be used to deceive the majority of the public?


They would have to send one probe with the austronauts transmittions alone.

and I say that because of what I just posted earlier regarding the recording of the Apollo 11 lunar landing and first steps on the moon made by the Bochum Observatory.

They only captured the voices of the astronauts on the moon. Not any from Houston. How is that possible???

oh yeah they're covering it up for NASA also.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by FoosM
 


Someone came along and gave you a star for that, after all the inanity that came before?


There is no way in hell you aren't able to see clearly what everyone is showing you (just how WRONG you are, constantly). There is no way you can continue this charade, UNLESS you are doing it on purpose.

I know, in some situations (school, etc) there can be an excersice called "debate" were two sides try to argue opposite points, and one team (or individual) selects a topic they vehemently disagree with, and know to be in error, but for practice' sake they 'argue for' it....but, that is there.

On the INTERNET, such tactics as displayed by you have a different term --- not 'debate' --- word that starts with a 'T', and ends with a 'G'.


But, since that wasn't about the meat of your post, this will be: The probes on the three landing legs were about two mwtres long. They were NOT THE ONLY source of height information available to the Astronauts!!!

Gee, if you'd bother to do the research (as I and MANY have asked) then you'd know this already...or, maybe you do (?) I, for one, hate being 'punked'.......

The LM was built to withstand a certain "drop" from a certain height, as long as lateral motion was minimal.

THAT WAS THE POINT of all those test videos, from NASA, that you linked earlier!!!

See, yet? (I bet you do, but for others who are being infected by your drivel...)...

The engineers design the landing gear. They try to over-design, up to a point, to give it some sort of safety buffer. Remember, in that day they did EVERYTHING, the calculations, with math...no computer simulations for desturction testing, they HAD to destruct-test to know how their designs would perform.

NASA gave the contractor (Grumman) what they wanted, in terms of vertical and horizontal load bearing ability.

Grumman designed, built, and tested...many, many times, in the best way to re-create the forces involved. Sometimes, the gear failed prematurely....back to the drawing boards, then.

Remember, also, that they were contricted by a huge WEIGHT restriction, as well...

Go, get out of your parent's basement, and READ a book, for Diety's Sake!



Astonishing... you're having a mental breakdown.
But I can understand why, the amount of contradictions and facts Im throwing out there is making your head spin to the point your brain is starting to liquefy and goo out your nose and ears.

For example:
Im well aware of the length of the probes.
Its actually stated in my post that I replied to.
And I kept it there to make our fellow readers see the glaring contradiction between
the Apollo Astronots and NASA:

Cernan claims to have stopped the engines at a height that Aldrin (or Amstrong) states would damage the landing gear (3 meters is aprox. 10 feet- to close for comfort)

Cernan claims to stop the engine in one interview 3 meters above the surface, but in another interview states the engines stopped after landing.

Cernan claims to stop the engine 3 meters above the surface (that would be before the probes touched the ground) so not to create a crater big enough to swallow the LM.

Well you tell me how to solve this enigma..



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
More interesting note is how come the Russians never landed on the moon? But they kept on trying even had two fatalities of two cosmonauts. Just check this thread out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=8756134#pid8756134

But America had 0 fatalities and Russians basically owned us in the space race until the supposed moon mission. Wouldn't those fatalities scare the hell out of us from sending our own troops? Just fake it as I continue to say.

Also a good source is why NASA back in 2008 sends two probes to the radiation belts? I thought they already sent probes to study them before they sent off their astronauts to the moon? Hmmmm....

saturn.astrobio.net...



[edit on 8-5-2010 by dragnet53]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 

Have you ever heard of Apollo 1?
I guess you haven't studied much of anything but youtube videos.


[edit on 5/8/2010 by Phage]



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I know what three metres is! Don't be so condescending...

Gene Cernan is recounting a tale, and embillishing it, forty years on.

As I keep saying GO OUT and READ his biography, for starters..."Last Man On The Moon"....the guy has an ego as big as Mars. Somewhere, in his memory, he probably recalls the ABSOLUTE HIGHEST SAFE height that the LM was designed to withstand...that's going to be, if you research, the 10 feet.

He was being over dramatic, for the camera...hamming it up.

Look up a series published by Apogee Books...."The NASA Mission Reports". Information, and interviews with the Astronauts in there. "Behind-the-scenes" type of stuff.....

YES, the engine was shut down lower than he recalls, in that ONE video interview, years later. Mission records confirm this...GO READ THEM TOO!!!


NOW, back to Bill Kaysing, and the boob who calls himself "Jarrah White"---

The Descent engine was throttled!!! How many times do we have to explain this simple fact!!!


Descent Propulsion System
(Aerozine 50/N2O4): 9,982 pounds-force (44,400 N) at full throttle; throttle range of 1,050 pounds-force (4,700 N) to 6,800 pounds-force (30,000 N)


en.wikipedia.org...

READ the specifications, and the facts, and stay out of the YT garbage...

LOOK again, at the lower figure. Calculate, from NASA specs, the area of the nozzle exhaust opening. Get you school science/maths teacher to help you.

Bill Kaysing, being interviewed in the voice-over, is a moron.

JW, showing the clip from Apollo 11, is equally dense, with his "5 seconds" BS.

When the comment "Engine Off" is mentioned, at the five-second mark...THEY WERE RUNNING THE CHECKLIST!

The engine HAD already been shut-down, just after 'contact'.

That was the checklist procedure to follow, after touchdown. There was a heckuva lot more, too...they were ready, if certain things didn't happen just right, and certain systems in the Descent Module didn't shut-down correctly, to immediately begin to prep for launch of the Ascent Module, to get the heck outta there.

Only after all the procedures were followed ,and everything safetied, did they get the 'go' to remain, and later, EVA.

Again..."JW" just pops out these videos with NO actual research, nor understanding of the conplexities involved.

Anyone who worships on his altar of inanity gets what they deserve....pure, utter ignorance. They also deserve to be laughed at --- gently at first, as you would a child who believed the Earth was flat.

More harshly, however, when the child, after being repeatedly shown, and proven, the true nature of the Earth, refused to understand the lessons...



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
More interesting note is how come the Russians never landed on the moon?


Becuase the N1 rocket they were going to use to send cosmonauts to the moon kept blowing up on the launch pad.



But they kept on trying even had two fatalities of two cosmonauts. Just check this thread out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...&addstar=1&on=8756134#pid8756134


That thread say absolutely NOTHING about losing 2 men trying to get to the moon. The only 2 cosmonauts that they might be talking about are the 2 they were rumored to have lost before Gagarin. That was a long time before the moon race.


But America had 0 fatalities


Except for Grissom, Chafee, and White. (do you get out much?)


and Russians basically owned us in the space race until the supposed moon mission.


We were well past them by Gemini. You're just repeating the same garbage Sibrel wrote.


Wouldn't those fatalities scare the hell out of us from sending our own troops? Just fake it as I continue to say.


Why? Do you realize how many test pilots are lost in a given year (esp. the 50s and 60s)???

By your "logic", we shouldn't have any high-performance jets.


Also a good source is why NASA back in 2008 sends two probes to the radiation belts? I thought they already sent probes to study them before they sent off their astronauts to the moon? Hmmmm....

saturn.astrobio.net...


No, you don't get out much. We've sent literally DOZENS of probes to the VA belts.



posted on May, 8 2010 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


NOPE. Not at all...


...and Russians basically owned us in the space race...


Go read a darn book, please!

Alan Shephard would have been first in orbit, but there WERE inconsistencies in the Atlas rocket....they wanted to keep testing, because of previous failures (explosions). Shephard was ready, and wanted to go, but to be safe, they launched ONE MORE unmanned Atlas first...worked perfectly.

Gagarin's launch was shortly after.

Other USSR "firsts"?? Well, the 'spacewalk' was a stunt, just to "be first"...Cosmonaut nearly died, and they kept that REAL quiet. (His suit expanded so much, after exiting the capsule, that he almost couldn't get back in...had to partially deflate his suit).

The first "waman" in space?? Wasn't even a Cosmonaut. Just some poor, hapless janitor they found somewhere, and forced her to go, after minimal instruction. Really, she didn't have ANYTHING to do, it was all controlled from the ground. She was for propaganda, only. She did have ONE tas, and that was to read a prepared propaganda statement piece on the radio.

She was scared poopless the entire time.

Soviets were WELL behind...they even planned to be the first to send man out and back to circumnavigate the Moon, but had too many equipment failures, so Apollo 8 beat them to the punch.

Soviets also were WELL behind in learning how to rendezvois on orbit...a critical skill.

Their N-1 heavy launch rocket never worked properly, and one of their (unknown, to the USA, back then) huge explosions killed over 80 scientists, in just that one tragedy.

WAY, way behind, they were.

GO READ A BOOK!



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join