Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

Originally posted by AlexIR
reply to post by zatara

 

... Not to mention that its 390 000 KM AWAY!!!!!!

It means they traveled at 1000 km/h for 390 hours... Or 2000km/h for 195 hours... Just how long were they gone... how much gas does a trip like that take? times two cause they had to come back also... 390 000 km.
So if they could go 2000km/h round trip is 390 hours.

The speed of sound is 1,236km/h so they could go twice as fast and it would take 390 hours round trip...
is that it. If so, is there some thing that i do not understand, can some one explain...

Originally posted by mkkkay

Originally posted by AlexIR
reply to post by zatara

 

... Not to mention that its 390 000 KM AWAY!!!!!!

It means they traveled at 1000 km/h for 390 hours... Or 2000km/h for 195 hours... Just how long were they gone... how much gas does a trip like that take? times two cause they had to come back also... 390 000 km.
So if they could go 2000km/h round trip is 390 hours.

The speed of sound is 1,236km/h so they could go twice as fast and it would take 390 hours round trip...
is that it. If so, is there some thing that i do not understand, can some one explain...

No air resistance maybe?

Originally posted by cushycrux
Please take your time and look at the pix i have posted above. This is no a stage, this is the 3d moon as you can see from this two perspectives. And please don't ignore the fact that jaxa/selenes hight data as you also can see is exactly the same. How can they film this on earth, but the landscape is 100% exact like on the moon, no way.

Well... I'm gonna say that "moon landscape" could easily be produced on a sound stage. Easily. (And for a lot less than firing people to the moon...) I am on the fence about the moon landings. I think some of it was real, and a lot of it is fake. But I am unsure, overall.

reply to post by filosophia


Well said....!

Look at mobile phone technology, for example. How rapidly does that change. In leaps and bounds.
We supposedly land on the moon in the 60's and yet that technology seems to have ground to a halt by comparison.

Originally posted by mkkkay
It means they traveled at 1000 km/h for 390 hours... Or 2000km/h for 195 hours... Just how long were they gone... how much gas does a trip like that take? times two cause they had to come back also... 390 000 km.
So if they could go 2000km/h round trip is 390 hours.

I just want to point out that the return trip requires very little fuel... All they need is enough to pull out of the moon's (substantially less than Earth's) gravity well and into Earth's. Then gravity takes over.

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by cushycrux
Please take your time and look at the pix i have posted above. This is no a stage, this is the 3d moon as you can see from this two perspectives. And please don't ignore the fact that jaxa/selenes hight data as you also can see is exactly the same. How can they film this on earth, but the landscape is 100% exact like on the moon, no way.

Well... I'm gonna say that "moon landscape" could easily be produced on a sound stage. Easily. (And for a lot less than firing people to the moon...) I am on the fence about the moon landings. I think some of it was real, and a lot of it is fake. But I am unsure, overall.

Can you tell me how this should work. You were never on the moon, so you fake it with a stage and fake mountains. Okey so long. 30 Years later a Japanese satellite records the elevation model of the moon, and it fits 100% to your 30 year old fake moon stage. That's impossible, right?

Apollo 11 in Picture

My Last post on this Thread.

reply to post by zatara

Did we not have color-tv at that time...? The most advanced technology at work but impossible to have at least some b/w definiton when receiving the tv-transmission? You should almost think that the terrible quality of the signal is on purpose....The audio seems to be fine..Can somebody not give an educated opinion about why NASA did not use color camera's and why the tv-reception is so terrible?

I know this may be impossible for you to believe, but in 1969 most people did not own color TV sets:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01b7a092b62d.jpg[/atsimg]
TV History

Even harder to believe, NASA nearly didn't send a TV camera at all. You will find all of your questions about Apollo television answered in great detail here.

reply to post by cushycrux


Not if they had data on the area...I am unsure how much they collected with the flights that just circled the moon. Do you know how much data they had? I'm not saying this is what was done. I'm just saying it's plausible.

reply to post by Amaterasu


Look at it this way... You've stated in front of the world you will be on the moon by the end of the decade. A few weeks before, your test flight landing vessel is flying like a kite in a strong wind, and you've recently fried some astronauts in a ground based simulator. You need to lead the way and beat the Russians! There is no going back.

Then you realise its impossible to achieve given the technology at your disposal, so what do you do. If you risk it, given the rather useless tests to date, you risk blowing all your credibility and killing more astronauts in full view of the world. Failure to land would obviously be an enormously embarassing failure for the future of the USA.

Solution... Keep all parties involved isolated from each other, so they can't know more than their set involvement. Develop a studio setting and limiting knowledge to a small select few. Run a simulation on the day that Huston itself thinks is for real. Let the public watch and believe.

Net result... No one dies. The USA land on the moon... and everything is glorious!

reply to post by ckitch

Look at mobile phone technology, for example. How rapidly does that change. In leaps and bounds.
We supposedly land on the moon in the 60's and yet that technology seems to have ground to a halt by comparison.

Which technology are you referring to? The space shuttle was a much more sophisticated spacecraft than Apollo. Spacecraft are sent to distant planets and are operated by remote control for years past their planned mission duration, The Earth is surrounded by a cloud of artificial satellites that monitor the environment and allow your little cell-phone to communicate with others on the far side of the Earth (and know within a meter where on Earth it is.) Just because you don't keep up with the technology does not mean it hasn't been advancing.

reply to post by ckitch

Look at it this way... You've stated in front of the world you will be on the moon by the end of the decade. A few weeks before, your test flight landing vessel is flying like a kite in a strong wind, and you've recently fried some astronauts in a ground based simulator. You need to lead the way and beat the Russians! There is no going back.

None of which happened, of course. Early in their space program, the Russians lost one of their best cosmonauts in a pure oxygen atmosphere flash fire while training on Earth. They kept this death secret for decades, but adapted their craft to carry an oxygen nitrogen atmosphere instead. In 1967, three American astronauts died in a similar flash fire in a test run in an actual spacecraft on the launch pad. Their deaths were publicly announced as soon as the widows had been privately informed. There was an extremely well publicized series of investigations and hearings. Amid well documented controversy, changes were made to the spacecraft. You can read the details here.

The entire point to the United States' civilian space program was to conduct it in the full light of public scrutiny, failures and all, in order to demonstrate the difference between America's democratic openness and the Soviet Union's totalitarian secretiveness.

I just have not the energy for another debate with obviously uninformed people. Geta go. CA

reply to post by DJW001


I hear what you say, and yes of course certain aspects of space travel and the technology applied has advanced, but as far as I am aware, the technology to land man on a planet, to get out and walk around hasn't been possible.
since the supposed landing on December 12th 1972.

The point I am making is that the levels of technological advancement in things like mobiles is massive, whereas in space its not seemingly that way.

As the earlier poster mentioned - Moon bases and moon holidays would surely be common place if the technology had advanced at the same rate since 1969.

Aren't we supposed to have as much technology in our phones today, as they did in their computers back in 1969, yet they still only manage a flyby with the shuttle?

reply to post by ckitch

I hear what you say, and yes of course certain aspects of space travel and the technology applied has advanced, but as far as I am aware, the technology to land man on a planet, to get out and walk around hasn't been possible.
since the supposed landing on December 12th 1972.

Just because something is no longer done does not mean it is impossible. It used to be possible to travel to nearly every town in the United States by passenger train. This is no longer the case; not because railroads are technologically impossible, but because improvements in roads and automobiles have rendered such coverage economically un-viable.

The point I am making is that the levels of technological advancement in things like mobiles is massive, whereas in space its not seemingly that way.

Airfoil wings remain the principal method of applying lift to airplanes. Most of the advances in aviation have to do with electronics, engines and materials, The airfoil remains the same. Rockets are the only means of providing the thrust necessary to overcome Earth's gravity. There have been some advances in design, but most of the progress in space faring technology has been in electronics. Just as the airplane wing solved the fundamental physical parameters necessary for flight, the systems developed for propulsion and life support solved the physical parameters for space flight.

As the earlier poster mentioned - Moon bases and moon holidays would surely be common place if the technology had advanced at the same rate since 1969.

And Popular Mechanics predicted there would be a personal airplane in every garage by 1960. These are socio-economic issues, not technological ones.

Aren't we supposed to have as much technology in our phones today, as they did in their computers back in 1969, yet they still only manage a flyby with the shuttle?

And the average racing yacht has more technology packed into it than Christopher Columbus' entire regatta. It merely makes their accomplishment that much more impressive.

Can someone plz explain me these anomaly of light

reply to post by knowneedtoknow


Yes, I can explain - It's because its a studio light that's illuminating the area, not the sun!

There are lots of images on youtube, that show shadows and/or light in impossible angles/places.

reply to post by ckitch

Yes, I can explain - It's because its a studio light that's illuminating the area, not the sun!

There are lots of images on youtube, that show shadows and/or light in impossible angles/places.

All posted by people who do not understand how shadows are formed.

The guy in the first video doesn't even sound anything like Armstrong. Completely different voice. It's an amusing joke, that's all.

Originally posted by zatara
Did we not have color-tv at that time...? The most advanced technology at work but impossible to have at least some b/w definiton when receiving the tv-transmission? You should almost think that the terrible quality of the signal is on purpose....The audio seems to be fine..Can somebody not give an educated opinion about why NASA did not use color camera's and why the tv-reception is so terrible?

They had color TV but there were bandwidth issues in beaming the TV image down to Earth from the moon, which is why all of that video looks so crappy (and why the film they shot on the moon with their film cameras looks really good).

reply to post by DJW001


They may have been posted by people who don't fully understand how a shadow or light is cast, but that doesn't mean the image posted is wrong... In most cases the images speak for themselves, and I am happy that of the anomalies I've seen, most appear to court question!

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ckitch

 

Yes, I can explain - It's because its a studio light that's illuminating the area, not the sun!

There are lots of images on youtube, that show shadows and/or light in impossible angles/places.

All posted by people who do not understand how shadows are formed.

Instead of debate with the others I give you stars for post like that. Why is the debunkers job allways to deliver correct knowledge? Like the parallel shadow BS: