Faked images from our trip to the moon?

Originally posted by mappam
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?

OMG. Pampers???????????????

Please review THIS WEBSITE prior to making any more absurd claims. Honeysuckle Creek was one of the telemetry sites during Apollo located in Ausralia. Cool site!

RE VIDEO:

The converted commercial standard television was recorded on an Ampex VR1100 four head video recorder using a 2-inch (5 cm) tape,

RE COMPUTERS:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9dcbee085b9e.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/875a7786ae53.jpg[/atsimg]

RE MICROWAVES:

Unless you mean somrthing that cooks a Hot Pocket, that is what signal was being transmitted / received via those VERY LARGE, ROUND SATELLITE DISH thingies. :shk: I'm sorry but your ignorance of facts disparages all those early pioneers who achieved remarkable and astonishing feats of human ingenuity. Not to mention the bravery of the astronauts. Big

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by grizzle2

 

Did they launch from the north or south pole?

Umm no, but they didn't go straight up to the moon either..
They orbited a bit first to get a sling shot effect...

I would love to see the math on this, how far away is the moon? And then you have to catch it and NOT fly past it, how do you slow down the lander when approaching the moon, in the VACUUM of space, void of any substance or matter to thrust OFF OF. You can nopt use any type of "fueled" engine or thruster. It would need to be a gyroscope of some sort, and it would need to be quite large. To slow the lander so it does not crash into the moon as the Soviet unmanned lander did, you would need an engine with a bit of range to it to thrust OFF the surface of the moon to slow the lander and such. THESE are the things people overlook, like Weedeater or whatever his name is. We did not go there, can't go there and never will go there in "conventional" machines. Sad but true.

Originally posted by backinblackI thought the VHB did not fully surround the earth..
Didn't the missions avoid the belt??

Nope. Look at the trajectories.

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

That was a quote from a poster with an opposing view. Regale us with this magical neutron shield. Post refs.

Originally posted by kinda kurious....on one hand you present an argument that WE DIDN'T GO due to radiation, photographic evidence and inferior technology THEN state you accept we DID GO with a purportedly alternate program which is somehow exempt from your prior scrutiny.

That is what the facts point to. I didn't say we didn't go, only that we didn't go the way we're told. I d-i-d-n'-t s-a-y w-e d-i-d-n'-t g-o, o-n-l-y t-h-a-t w-e d-i-d-n'-t g-o t-h-e w-a-y w-e-'r-e t-o-l-d.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Will you wear an Apollo space suit and volunteer to help at Fukushima?

The flag in both pictures is in the same position. The perspective is different in each picture which gives the illusion of a different position. It's really very easy to explain but not easy to understand if you refuse to accept the simple explanation.

reply to post by grizzle2


Thanks - A - Million. The hypens cinched it for me.

So in your view WE DID GO! YAY!

reply to post by dashdespatch


Yes there are.....

Photos of Apollo Moon Landers


As well as the Lunar Laser Ranging reflectors....

Wiki

Originally posted by loves a conspiricyHow did the film survive the radiation and take perfect pictures?? Look at pics from Chernobyl....all grainy because the radiation messed with the film....yet on the surface of the moon where radiation is many times more extreme the film stayed perfect.

A very good point. Especially on the bright side of the moon, where there are no Van Allen Belts to protect the surface.

Originally posted by kinda kuriousSo in your view WE DID GO! YAY!

Not in the manner we are told. There are various problems with the stories other than the radiation. My belief that we did go is based upon things like taped frames and anomalies that have been crudely edited out, and things in the pics and on some of the audio that they didn't think anyone would ever notice. That's thin, but why cover anything up if we didn't go.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Do you know where the magical neutron shield / neutron resistant foil went to? I shall despair if I wait much longer for evidence of this.

Originally posted by daddioAnd then you have to catch it and NOT fly past it, how do you slow down the lander when approaching the moon, in the VACUUM of space, void of any substance or matter to thrust OFF OF. You can nopt use any type of "fueled" engine or thruster. It would need to be a gyroscope of some sort, and it would need to be quite large. To slow the lander so it does not crash into the moon as the Soviet unmanned lander did, you would need an engine with a bit of range to it to thrust OFF the surface of the moon to slow the lander and such.

That is weird, isn't it. It's like seeing a 70s movie with a band that fades out evenly at the end of the song, and thinking "how did they do that?". Heh heh.
How exactly did they manage that, especially landing in the predetermined area? It seems easy to visualize because we've seen it in movies so often, but it seems like an extremely difficult maneuver when you think about actually doing it.

Originally posted by mappam
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?

Because the math used to calculate escape velocity is quite simple and the movement of bodies in space is also not overly complicated. They did this math with slide rulers! I'm sure many of the ATS readers have never even seen one of those.
So just a little perspective. NASA has always operated on the right edge of safety (if the left was don't do it and right was, OK, maybe, but you might not make it). The chances of the first successful shuttle mission had a 20% chance of failure (don't quote me but it was very high in today's standards).
I work with one of the federal agencies (the one where sometimes people fall asleep when they are not supposed to), specifically, I have worked on evaluating future aviation programs and have been on safety panels that evaluate various degrees of risk to the public, flight crews, etc., related to using new systems. I can tell you this, the moon missions would never have left the ground using today's stringent safety guidelines used by the government.
NASA was under the gun to succeed. The Russians had many "Firsts" in the space program and the US need the Golden Apple, namely, getting a man to the moon. I think NASA would have settled for landing and returning without setting foot, if they had too. NASA could have very easily killed the crew (they did loose Apollo 1. RIP). It was a miracle Apollo 13 even returned. I try to be skeptical. I still don't believe 9/11 was an inside job although I'm really starting see that our government knew it was coming.
My point is, to deny this monumental achievement of mankind denies the potential of the human spirit. Also, how could all the people involved in the work still be holding on this "secret"? Look around the planet. You can seem marvelous achievements and accomplished by humans that many see as impossible but they are there.
This 'conspiracy' proves one thing that politicians have known for years. Tell a lie enough times, and it becomes true...

reply to post by Blarneystoner


this clinches for me cheers

Originally posted by wrkn4livnthe movement of bodies in space is also not overly complicated.

The moon landing is one thing that gets me. On earth, a parachute will orientate you properly, but in space, everything tends to rotate in all three axes. It seems whether the lander was controlled by humans or the crude computers at the time, a crash would be extremely likely. But it worked first shot out of the box, and every time after that. How about that?

Originally posted by daddio
... how do you slow down the lander when approaching the moon, in the VACUUM of space, void of any substance or matter to thrust OFF OF...

You need to go back to school to learn how rocket works.

Newton's Law of Motion that states "Every Action has an Equal and Opposite Reaction". Rockets do NOT need something to "thrust off of" to work. They work just fine in a vacuum. Do you also doubt that the space shuttle, space station, and satellites can also produce thrust in the near-vacuum of space? Are you saying ALL rockets in space are just a sham?

If the nozzle of a rocket engine is closed, then all of the forces inside the rocket are in equilibrium -- i.e., all the forces are pushing the same on all of the walls inside the ro0cket engine. However, if the nozzle is open/the engine is "lit", then the force pushing out the back of the rocket will need another equal force pushing in the front of the rocket (the opposite direction). It is this "equal and opposite force" pushing on the inside of the front of the rocket that makes the rocket move forward, and NOT the back of the rocket "pushing off of" something.

Originally posted by TKDRL

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.

Pssssh doesn't anyone watch Mythbusters?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleYou need to go back to school to learn how rocket works

The real problem is how did they get oriented properly over the target landing area (basically stock still) and then slowly descend.

reply to post by StopFearMongering


yes the mythbusters programme was pretty convincing if a little annoying