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.

 

Moon buugy footage question

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 
hey man. check out www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/moon_fakers.htm and let us know what
you think. it is clear that all of these points are valid. i know about the moon reflector and moon rocks and all i can think is that these could be products of a later time. happy hunting.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Originally posted by Josephus23
reply to post by Blarneystoner



Yes, yes... we know... but exposure was minimal.



According to whom?

Let me guess.... According to NASA?
According to the same agency that I am saying falsified the moon landings?

This is circular reasoning.
You are essentially saying that NASA went to the moon because NASA said so.


You're actually saying that the astronauts were on the moon longer than publicly told? Well I for one have never heard this one before.
Besides you argue that the landing was faked, then you claim that the exposure was deadly cause astronauts were in the moon longer than told. What is that, not circular at least but WTH?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Blarneystoner
 


The moon has an atmosphere and it says in wiki that "for all practical purposes" it is considered a vacuum.

THAT IS NOT A VACUUM.

A vacuum is a DEVOID of any type of gaseous residue that could cause friction, no matter how slight.

The laser range finders are of no consequence because THE ENTIRE MOON IS REFLECTIVE.

The exact nature of the scientific method, and the anomalies on the moon do not add up.

Oh and about those "moon rocks"...

The astronauts from the Apollo missions gave the Dutch Museum of natural history a "moon rock" from the missions as an act of goodwill and the rock was actually a piece of petrified wood.

here is the link

The very slight atmosphere caused mostly by radioactive decay combined with the gravity of the moon being 1/6th that of the earth would have made the particles BEHIND the moon lander stay aloft much longer than they were seen to do so.

At Psykops...

You need to read my argument.
I am saying that we never went, not that the astronauts were on the moon longer than we were told.

I am saying that NASA faked the landings and you telling me that NASA went to the moon because NASA said so is circular reasoning.

Please pay attention.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


There is one vid where an object, some say a bag, falls from the backpack of an astronaut..
To me it appears to fall at about the same speed as here on earth..

Optical illusion.??
Who knows, but it didn't appear to fall slowly as I'd expect..

One excuse was force was exerted on it when it fell, by the atronaut..
But to me it appears to fall out without any force..Freefall...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



earth's gravity of 9.8m/S^2 / 6 = 1.6m/S^2 on the moon
So for the dust to fall from a height of 3m would take roughly 1.9 seconds with no air to carry off the finer stuff. Note how it all comes back to the surface within about 2 seconds max regardless of particle size (no I didn't get a chance to use a micrometer on it )


Note the 1.6m/s/s is acceleration, not velocity..
So you would expect an item on the moon would take 2 seconds to fall the first 1.6 meters...
Given it started with zero velocity...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


Gee....as if you haven't been smacked enough in the OTHER "Apollo Hoax" baloney threads?

You come in here, and continue to spout the same mistaken beliefs. Well, they will be addressed, and explained as to WHY they are mistaken, because you still need some education. (AND, it is for the good of the other readers, lest they fall for the BS ).


Originally posted by Josephus23
The laser range finders are of no consequence because THE ENTIRE MOON IS REFLECTIVE.


Again, this has been explained, to you, repeatedly. The retro-reflectors that were placed by Apollo astronauts provide PRECISE and localized reflectivity....the Moon's entire hemisphere, in aggregate, doesn't narrowly reflect, and thus provide scientifically exacting measurements capable with the retro-reflectors. Your lack of logic on this is apparent --- IF the Moon's surface was so "reflective", then measurements that the retro-reflectors are there to facilitate would be accurate already, and there would have been NO NEED to put them there!!!


The exact nature of the scientific method, and the anomalies on the moon do not add up.


Pure, unadulterated pablum. Just vague "hand-waving" with no substance.

But this old chestnut? Laughingly ridiculous, as you should also know...since it seems you've participated already in OTHER threads that have discussed this:


Oh and about those "moon rocks"...

The astronauts from the Apollo missions gave the Dutch Museum of natural history a "moon rock" from the missions as an act of goodwill and the rock was actually a piece of petrified wood.


LIE!! The true story is that a former Ambassador to the Netherlands gave it as a gift to the Prime Minister:


The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Dreesman in 1988.

Dreesman received it as a private gift in 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf who accompanied the Apollo 11 astronauts on a visit to The Netherlands after the first moon landing.

Mr Middendorf told how the rock came from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details.

'Apparently no one thought to doubt it, since it came from the prime minister's collection,' Ms Van Gelder said.

www.dailymail.co.uk...

SOMEBODY ELSE, apparently, when going through the dead Prime Minister's things thought it was a "moon rock". They made that conclusion, likely, based on WHO gave it to him, and because of the timing.

Here is an article with photo of the ACTUAL Lunar samples, in a museum in the Netherlands:

www.usatoday.com...

More research is available on the truth of any samples given as "gifts"...they were small, and encased in Lucite plastic. The media took that "petrified wood" story, and as usual, displayed the type of ignorance in reporting on it that we see all too often, here on ATS sometimes....



The very slight atmosphere caused mostly by radioactive decay combined with the gravity of the moon being 1/6th that of the earth would have made the particles BEHIND the moon lander stay aloft much longer than they were seen to do so.


Poppycock. You are talking, AT MOST, about very very fine particles that may exist...equivalent to DUST on Earth....and most of the Lunar regolith isn't that fine-grained. The tiny quantities of really small particles are not in enough quantity to be seen on the videos of the Apollo EVAs.


__________
For the OP: I saw that you wrote "tyres" in the opening post. Firslty, let's get clear, when we discuss the so-called "buggy"....it is the LRV. Or, "Lunar Rover", or just "Rover".

Secondly, they are not "tyres" (or "tires" for the Americans reading this). The wheels were a wire mesh, with titanium treads for traction.

AND, as (I think) has been pointed out, the gravitational field on the Moon is strong enough so that things will fall, in much the same way they appear to you on Earth....they accelerate slower, of course....but it is hard to detect merely by looking at it...you need accurate time measurements....

1/6th gravity. Think about it. It ISN'T "1/600th" gravity.....

edit on 21 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



earth's gravity of 9.8m/S^2 / 6 = 1.6m/S^2 on the moon
So for the dust to fall from a height of 3m would take roughly 1.9 seconds with no air to carry off the finer stuff. Note how it all comes back to the surface within about 2 seconds max regardless of particle size (no I didn't get a chance to use a micrometer on it )


Note the 1.6m/s/s is acceleration, not velocity..
So you would expect an item on the moon would take 2 seconds to fall the first 1.6 meters...
Given it started with zero velocity...




If that was true then the dust plume from the "missile" that hit the moon from the LRO would not have extended to the height and for the time it was visible.

You concept of how gravity would work in 1/6th that of the earth is slightly flawed.

The further away that a body moves away from the moon, the more mass comes into play.
edit on 12/21/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



AND, as (I think) has been pointed out, the gravitational field on the Moon is strong enough so that things will fall, in much the same way they appear to you on Earth....they accelerate slower, of course....but it is hard to detect merely by looking at it...you need accurate time measurements....

1/6th gravity. Think about it. It ISN'T "1/600th" gravity.....


No, you think about it...
1/6th gravity is not 60% it's 17%....
That's a HUGE difference and should be CLEARLY visible..
As are the astronauts that bounce around due to it.....

Something that takes 1 second to fall on earth should take 6 seconds on the moon...
If you think that is "in much the same way they appear on Earth" then I have a bridge you may be interested in buying.


Edit to add: Here's the hammer feather drop on the moon..
It is clearly much slower than on earth..
www.teachersdomain.org...
edit on 21-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


You really think this? Then, you don't understand the physics of acceleration due to gravity!!!:


Something that takes 1 second to fall on earth should take 6 seconds on the moon...



NO, it is incorrect to allege that statement above. Crack open a physics textbook, or research any number of physics tutorials online.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


That's the only bit you don't agree with??

Good, so you admit we should see a clear difference in the time it takes for things to fall on the moon???



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


smacked around....

hahahaha....

maybe outnumbered because it takes six of you to refute my arguments
I wouldn't call that getting smacked around.
I would call that you getting smacked around.
edit on 12/21/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by backinblack
 


You really think this? Then, you don't understand the physics of acceleration due to gravity!!!:


Something that takes 1 second to fall on earth should take 6 seconds on the moon...



NO, it is incorrect to allege that statement above. Crack open a physics textbook, or research any number of physics tutorials online.


Mine was just a quick estimate based on the 1/6th..
I know it isn't exact, but I thinks you are nit picking to avoid the REAL questions...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 



You concept of how gravity would work in 1/6th that of the earth is slightly flawed.

The further away that a body moves away from the moon, the more mass comes into play.


No, I was just pointing out to people that 1.6m/s/s does not mean an object will fall 1.6 meters in one second..
It's actually half that, 0.8meters...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Dust particles with EXTREMELY small mass in an atmosphere that is oh so slight, but we are talking about moon dust here, would not be effected the same way as what most people imagine, and I am talking about dust.

Especially if said dust has an initial upward thrusting vector.

If that were so, then the plume that was ejected by the rocket fired at the moon would have not been visible for the length of time that it was visible.

Because just like the the astronauts put force into the golf ball to make it accelerate the dust would also be initially effected by the upward acceleration of being thrown well....

UPWARD!!

You are assuming that the dust particles would be dropping from a place of no motion, but you forget to quantify your numbers with the upward initial vector!!!



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


I didn't forget anything..
I stated my points were from "zero velocity"...

edit: I haven't seen the film of that dust plume..
If you have it could you please post it?
edit on 21-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 


Sorry man...

My bad. I totally missed your argument. I thought that you were trying to say that the dust would have fallen at that rate. I will look for pics.

Cheers.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Try all you want to refute me, but the facts speak for themselves.

i have told you that my main argument against the moon landings surround one issue and one issue only and that is the amount of radiation, but as you have not paid attention to in my last statement when everyone tries to pull the old Galileo out of their rears when describing how the dust fell so quickly they always forget to account for the initial vector upward.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by fisheye
reply to post by Upyerheart
 


I am in agreement with you. The dust should disperse into the air in a slow moving cloud like dust partials hitting water. I think the video was slowed down to give the illusion of low gravity.

There is no air on the moon for the air to disperse into, it is a vacuum at the surface. Without air, there is no medium for the dust to disperse into. It just gets kicked up a bit by the tires, then falls back down without forming any clouds.

If you kicked up the same amount of dust on Earth you'd get big clouds trailing behind the buggies because it would, as you say, disperse in the medium of the atmosphere.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Originally posted by Upyerheart

Bare with me

~Takes my clothes off~... Well you said to bare with you.... Oh you meant bear with you? OK...

Just teasing... I apologize. I could not resist. Just in a silly mood today



Just watched some footage of the moon buggy driving along, and something jumped out at me. If there is low gravity on the moon, when the off-road type tyres dig into the rocky surface and they throw the rocks/stones into the air, wouldn't they float back down slowly rather than immediately like in our gravitation?

Or am I being completely stupid?

You know, honestly I do not know. I would have to look at the footage myself... But I would imagine they would drift down semi slow, kind of like the astronauts did when they jumped up and down....


edit on 21-12-2010 by gimme_some_truth because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by Pilgrum
 



earth's gravity of 9.8m/S^2 / 6 = 1.6m/S^2 on the moon
So for the dust to fall from a height of 3m would take roughly 1.9 seconds with no air to carry off the finer stuff. Note how it all comes back to the surface within about 2 seconds max regardless of particle size (no I didn't get a chance to use a micrometer on it )


Note the 1.6m/s/s is acceleration, not velocity..
So you would expect an item on the moon would take 2 seconds to fall the first 1.6 meters...
Given it started with zero velocity...


I use S=u.t +1/2.a.t^2 for this example and taking initial velocity as 0 it simplifies to S=1/2.a.t^2
transposed to find t: t = sqrt(2.S/a)
with a = 1.6 (moon) & S = 3m, t = 1.94 secs: final v = a.t = 3.1m/sec
with a = 9.8 (earth) & S = 3m, t = 0.78 secs: final v = a.t = 7.6m/sec

For the first 2 secs with a = 1.6 & u = 0: S=1/2.a.t^2 = 3.2m
On earth the same first 2 secs give an S of 19.6m

Is there a problem with the method?
(been using it for 40+ years)

It's the velocity that increases by A every sec eg 1.6m/sec per sec OR 1.6m/s^2 in usual terminology, not the distance




edit on 22/12/2010 by Pilgrum because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join