Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

page: 10
11
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
why does nobody claim the failures along the way in the mercury and gemini programmes were hoaxes, just the spectacular successes in apollo ?

hmmmm


if there was only independent third party evidence that corroborated the apollo missions

oh snap, there is !!!

if all you can do is try to discredit the source, feel free to check the links in the provided footnotes. I would suggest going to kaminsky page and listening to the apollo transmissions







posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by knowneedtoknow
 


Sorry noneedtoknow, I cannot quite follow you. If the landscape and camera angle are fixed given the circumstances, shouldn't the angle remain fixed?

Here's something I just discovered about the fake Apollo project noneedtoknow. They claimed that by comparing real time doppler data with predicted data, they could make adjustments for any evolving landing error and so achieve a pinpoint landing. Is that true? No, and the fact they tried to convince us such was the case proves the Apollo program was itself fake.

Think about this noneedtoknow, when Apollo 11 landed on the moon the first time, why was it that they did not know where they landed? There were no absolute identifying landmarks and the methods for locating the LM all gave different results. Does any of that change with Apollos 12 through 17 given the reputed system changes? No!. Landmarks continue to be unreliable. Think about Apollo 14 when they could not find Cone Crater. More importantly, nothing has been done to change the method the guidance and navigation people would employ to seek and find confirmation of location above or on the moon by way of PNGS, AGS, AOT and earth tracking systems.

If the LM comes around the moon's edge and the earth tracking dishes pick up such and such doppler measurements and those measurements differ from desired figures to allow the LM to land in such and such a predetermined place on the moon, and if the LM computer program to land is now so modified based on updated data, and assuming the LM ostensibly descends "well" from there to land on the moon, how can they claim to know the landing was pinpoint and that the ship is exactly at the hoped for target? Apollo 12 and the convenience of a Surveyor 3 to ground them aside, they cannot presume to know based on landmarks. Remember Apollo 14 and cone crater. Another way to say it is he astronauts maps are not detailed enough for them to verify their location based on map data alone. And nothing has been changed from the case of Apollo 11 as far as the tracking capabilities and agreement capabilities of the PNGS, AGS , AOT once down, and earth based tracking system to lead anyone to believe once down the 4 tracking and locating systems will know where the craft is and agree on that location.

You can conclude the story about the pinpoint landing business is all made up. And if that story was made up, the whole thing was made up. Pretty potent evidence and it's NASA's own. It is their not credible story so it's not debunkable. They told the lie and there is no way to untell it. The whole thing is a load of untruth.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by DaylightSavingsTime
 



Here's something I just discovered about the fake Apollo project noneedtoknow. They claimed that by comparing real time doppler data with predicted data, they could make adjustments for any evolving landing error and so achieve a pinpoint landing. Is that true? No, and the fact they tried to convince us such was the case proves the Apollo program was itself fake.


Still banging on the "navigation was impossible" drum? What expertise do you have in inertial guidance platforms and radiotelemetry? None? Remember, as far as the goal of Apollo was concerned, landing safely anywhere on the lunar surface was a "pinpoint landing." Once the lander had descended along the projected flight path, the pilot was able to guide it using landmarks. Yes, the lunar terrain can be tricky to make sense of... that's why they spent so many long hours in simulators "landing" on meticulously recreated lunar maps.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


You do not have your facts straight. Let me restate first NASAs claims and then my conclusion. For those new to the world of Apollo fakery, you are about to read something entirely new here. No one has yet written about this, so enjoy and share with your friends if they are of a similar bent.

These are NASAs's claims dealing with the landing concerns under consideration;

1) NASA claimed it remedied the shortcomings of the LM landing targeting system by allowing for targeting correction by comparing doppler data from the LM in real time with doppler data anticipated for landing at any given site.

2) NASA claimed the LM PNGS computer program that auto-piloted the LM to the surface could be changed so that if the LM was off target, as recognized by the real time vs anticipated doppler discrepancy, the LM would still be able to find its original target. In the case of Apollo 11 the PNGS landing program was fixed and not alterable so if such a dopper real time vs anticipated discrepancy had been identified, nothing could have been done about it anyway.

3) If a meaningful change in real time vs anticipated doppler data was identified, then the method for correcting the PNGS program so that the auto pilot would now find the correct target primarily involved telling the computer that the target site had changed. (By way of example, if the real time doppler data indicated the LM would land one mile west of planned, the new scheme called for simply telling the auto pilot by way of PNGS the target site had moved one mile east. And so there would be compensation.)

4) NASA claimed when the LM landed at Tranquility base the ground crew in Houston assisted by geologists in Texas and in other parts of the country, not to mention the astronauts themselves, did not know where the Eagle had landed in part because their ability to locate by way of map study was inadequate.

5) Map study was not the only way to locate the astronauts and NASA personnel claimed that had there been consensus among their systems; PNGS, AGS, AOT, earth based tracking, they could have found the Eagle on the moon's surface before the time of lift off. However, PNGS, AGS, AOT and earth tracking systems did not agree on where the Apollo 11 LM was. In adequate map location ability and lack of agreement on the part of the PNGS, AGS, AOT and earth tracking systems in sum translated to not being able to find the Eagle on the surface of the moon in real time. Neal Armstrong said through his biographer that when the ship is not moving around much, it is hard to find. Its movement was what was supposed to help, at least some. When landed the lack of movement translated into lack of locatability per Armstrong.

6) NASA claimed that in the wake of the Apollo 11 mission they felt personal embarrassment given their inability to locate the Eagle. In consequence, Sam Phillips and other high level administrative types insisted that it be a priority that a focus of Apollo 12 be a pinpoint landing to prove to the world they could simply pull one off. NASA historians endorse the idea that this is how the Surveyor Site ultimately came to be chosen as Apollo 12's target. If they parked it there, who could quibble in any sense that they had pulled off a pinpoint landing?

These are NASA's claims, not mine. This is the story they tell.


My claim is about how these claims of NASA's constitute a lie. My claim is not about navigation and guidance of the Apollo LM in any direct sense, only incidentally. My focus is on the demonstration of a glaring problem with NASA's claim here. Simply put, it cannot be correct and as they are therefore lying the whole thing is a big lie. No other reason to lie about this point than to cover up the fact they were not there to begin with.

I never said above they couldn't find the moon with their space ships. I suspect NASA, as incompetent and dull witted a crew as they are, did hit the moon perhaps with Ranger unmanned craft and some others. No one is saying anything about the gross competence of their guidance and navigation systems. They can and did hit the moon probably with some projectiles.

My claim is their story about fixing their system so that they could do pinpoint landings like they claimed they did when they pretended to plop the Apollo 12 LM next to Surveyor 3 is illogical, it cannot be true.

Say you take Surveyor 3 away, say it is a prop and nothing more? How is Apollo 12 any different from the Apollo 11 mission with regard to being positive you are landing on target. The identity of Surveyor 3 aside, they have done nothing to improve their capabilities with respect to the use of maps in finding the LMs. PNGS, AGS, AOT, earth tracking still as likely to disagree.

Conclusion, the Surveyor 3 images in the Apollo 12 shots is a prop plain and simple.



posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DaylightSavingsTime
 



You do not have your facts straight. Let me restate first NASAs claims and then my conclusion. For those new to the world of Apollo fakery, you are about to read something entirely new here. No one has yet written about this, so enjoy and share with your friends if they are of a similar bent.


We've been all through this before, Patrick:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Goodbye.





new topics

top topics
 
11
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution