Faked images from our trip to the moon?

page: 6
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I found a site that explains the evolution of the space suit. This excerpt lists the various materials used to line the original suits used in the first Moon landing.

The suits are basically made by sewing and cementing various materials together, and then attaching metal parts that let you join the different components together. Suit materials include: ortho-fabric, aluminized mylar, neoprene-coated nylon, dacron, urethane-coated nylon, tricot, nylon/spandex, stainless steel, and high strength composite materials


Space Suit Evolution




posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


You going to provide any photos you see any of these things in or is this post just a hit and run?



Explain how they traveled 500,000 miles with a little bit more fuel than the shuttle????


You know an object in motion in space continues in motion without further propulsion don't you? How far things go is meaningless. BTW the Shuttle empty weight is 165,000 pounds. The Apollo 11 Command, Service, and Lunar Modules combined - 102, 907 lb.


Liftoff weight Apollo 11, 6,699,000 pounds, 7,648,000 lbf. 1,000,000lbf. second stage, 225,000 lbf. third stage.
Typical Shuttle launch gross weight, 4,500,000 lb. , thrust 6,780,000 lbf.

Now we can get into burn times and other specifics but I'm sure NASA calculated everything out to have plenty of fuel with a little reserve for unexpected things. You are really throwing out a lot of question that require extensive answers that would require multiple thread pages long but its all out there if you care to do your own research!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   
I guess I want to know HOW they did it.

Our son was born Aug 21 1969 so I remember that era very well......

We had no microwaves
No cell phones
No computers
No VCR or video tech
No GPS

Geesh power breaks were a new feature in cars AND Pamper type diapers were Brand New and Really Really Expensive...

Soo - HOW did "we" have the technology to even start to do this?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jools
Oh Lordy my friends...here we go again
Lets just take a step back and consider another perspective...Lets suppose we went to the moon, it was tough and hard...collected rocks etc...put the reflectors there and did everything that was documented. BUT...what would happen if the collective images, photography etc failed.
The hasselblad, the images yes they were bad...would it be so terrible if Nasa suddenly said yeah we did it...but we failed in our technology to give you all what you expected?...and yes if that were the case they should admit it...but then what proof?..and we would all be on their backs....
What is my spin?...damned if they do...damned if they don't...I don't frikkin know if they went or not now...which is sad because I was there at the time...As time goes on...everyone is so into the detail...the evidence of this, the evidence of that.....only the astronauts know...
My only wish is that i hope in my heart of hearts it happened...and if it is proven the images had to be ramped up......I hope they are able to show both sides of the coin....
I hope we went to the moon...pure and simple...and I hope we go back someday.


Why...do...you have...to put...three periods...after every...sentence?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


That picture dont really prove anything...they planted the flag...hours could of went by and they turned the flag around but i dont believe we landed on the moon.
edit on 4-4-2011 by Evanzsayz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Ali3nAlly
 


Maybe ran out of comma's?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by mappam
 


It's called technology research...I'm sure they test everything they make years on end until they think the public is ready for it. They probably already have insane tech you guys couldnt wrap your head around and tech that they will never tell any of us about.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 

The flag is pointed the way it should be, if you were standing where that rock is ( "above" the flag ) in the first pic you would be standing where the 2nd pic is taken from...think about it, the flag is pointed toward the craft in both pics.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


This post is a total epic fail.
I'm facepalming as we speak.

Are you serious. Your proof of a faked landing is that the flag is pointing a different way?

I'm looking at the flag. And it's pointing in the same direction both before and after takeoff.
I think that's obvious to anyone looking.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by mappam
 


Our neighbors had a microwave oven during the Apollo 11 moon landing. I first thought it was a TV for their kitchen, LOL! The first personal microwave was introduced in 1967 by the Amana Corporation.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by TKDRL
 


This post is a total epic fail.
I'm facepalming as we speak.

Are you serious. Your proof of a faked landing is that the flag is pointing a different way?

I'm looking at the flag. And it's pointing in the same direction both before and after takeoff.
I think that's obvious to anyone looking.

I have to agree with you.
I hate people that personally attack posters but I feel like most people get too butthurt by people with differing opinions. There are several posters in this thread who are raging over "en hominid" attacks on them and just disregard the mounting evidence against the faked landing. I feel like we have a lot of teenagers who pretend like they have PhD's in Physics and Chemistry. What do you know about space that makes you so sure we couldn't possibly ever have gone to the moon? This bull%&#* about radiation ruining photos and the astronauts not being able to survive the moon's surface because of radiation is just silly.


Originally posted by grizzle2
Wow, one whole reference to "neutron resistant foil". That's what I thought.

Neutron Resistant Foil

Because, whether it was lead, gold, osmium, no foil would actually be resistant to neutrons.

Maybe you should search for "neutron shield" instead. "Neutron resistant foil" turns up no results because it's made up.


Originally posted by grizzle2
Yeah yeah yeah, I know all about it. Some of the hard cosmic rays are iron nuclei travelling with the force of a tennis ball going 76 mph. But it's an iron nuclei, so if it happens to pass through you, RIP. But you don't need such a relatively rare event to spoil your two weeks or so in space. There's plenty of lesser radiation which would practically cook you if you tried to transit the belts in a thin-walled aluminum ship in a linen suit with aluminum foil sewn in.

The "cosmic rays are made of iron nuclei" theory is ludicrous.
www.insidescience.org...
they're made of protons
Besides, how can you be so sure that an "iron nuclei travelling with the force of a tennis ball going 76 mph" would instantly kill a person or even travel through clothing?

None of the evidence against the lunar landings holds up.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Arkahn
 




None of the evidence against the lunar landings holds up.


It doesn't have to in bizzaro world. Shame on you for pointing out the basic facts, you must be a disinfo agent. Really this whole moon hoax thing is tiring at this point. The same old lame debunked claims continually repackaged, it's getting quite old.

The funniest part of all is how the evidence to the contrary isn't debated, it's ignored, and then the discussion becomes about etiquette.

Yes, a person with the truth and facts on their side always attacks the other person on a personal level, that's just how good debating works.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
Yahoo


MONTREAL - Did all the manned U.S. lunar landings between July 1969 and December 1972 actually take place or were they hoaxes?

A Canadian book publisher has taken a closer look at images acquired by the Apollo 14 astronauts just before they left the moon 40 years ago.

What Robert Godwin uncovered will probably provide more ammunition for those who doubt a U.S. astronaut ever set foot on Earth's celestial neighbour.

Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are credited with being the first humans to set foot on the moon, on July 20, 1969.

One frequently used argument is that video of the Stars and Stripes planted on lunar soil appears to show the flags blowing in the wind — even though there's no atmosphere on the moon.

Godwin says two frames of film taken from the Apollo 14 lunar lander in February 1971 may lead some people to believe that's true.
In one frame, the American flag is pointed to the right, while in another frame, it's pointing in another direction — to the left.

Godwin, 53, says he was drawn to Apollo 14 after viewing high-resolution images of that landing site which were taken recently by a lunar reconnaissance satellite.

"I've watched every scrap of film, every scrap of video and looked at every single photograph I got from NASA," he told The Canadian Press in an interview from Toronto. That amounts to about 40,000 still pictures and "many, many hours of film footage" — and all TV footage from Apollo 11 through Apollo 17. (The Apollo 13 mission had to be aborted before the spacecraft reached the moon).

He tried to stitch together a composite picture to show the entire view out the window of "Antares", the Apollo 14 lunar lander, using some photos.

Godwin said one still image was missing — but, fortunately, the astronauts had filmed it with a movie camera from almost exactly the same location.

"So I went to grab the final part of the missing panorama from the 16-millimetre movie and in the process of doing that I realized there was this interesting disparity between frames on the 16-millimetre film," he told The Canadian Press. "My first reaction was: 'What's going on here? How is it possible that the flag can turn around 120 degrees?'."



In the takeoff picture, the flag is pointing away from the rover I think it is called?


Here the flag is pointing at the rover.
edit on Sun, 03 Apr 2011 20:34:09 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


Is it me, or does the two pictures seem to be...not messed up? Isn't that how it is supposed to look? The first picture the flag is facing away from the rover at the bottom, you can tell by the position of the stars, and then in the second photo is just taken with the astronaut standing at the front, so the flag is facing the right way, no?
Can someone tell me what is supposed to be wrong with the photos?



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by grizzle2
 


Thats bullcrap, everyone knows astronauts only drink Tang



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by XxRagingxPandaxX
reply to post by Caji316
 
Ya I agree.But NASA said the C rock was a hair on the picture during the picture development if it's true or not I don't know.



I *seriously* doubt that NASA would have said "Damn...you got us..a film hand forgot to remove the prop letters...you're right, the whole thing was a cold war con job...we're very sorry for lying to you all for all these years, but we lied for so long...it just became a habit...apologies once again".

It would be nice...but it won't happen.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
im sure something is wrong with the moon landing..but to be honest...turning the flag to make a good picture..is also possible on the moon



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
This is a poor example. In both pictures, the flag is pointing perpendicular to an imaginary line running between the flag pole and the lander. In both, the flag is pointing in the counterclockwise direction.

Regardless, do you know for a fact that there is nothing that could cause the flag to shift direction between these two events? Were you there and are able to verify that it was never inadvertently moved (maybe out of the way for any various reason).

You're really fishing on this one!



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Hold on so all this is because the flag has moved?

How many photo ops go you get on the moon?
They turned the flag so the composition of the picture would look better.



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2

Originally posted by weedwhackerdefinitely NO "C" ROCK!!


Took me about 2 secondds to find a pic:

C Rock

edit: You may note the letter "C"n the ground next to it also, in the same typefont.
edit on 3-4-2011 by grizzle2 because: (no reason given)


Made by one of those typewriters that the government secretly built to type on rocks and dirt no doubt.

*sigh*



posted on Apr, 4 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
This thread is a failure....

I mean that in a sincere way, also seeing It IS my 667th post





new topics
top topics
 
37
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join