Proof of moon landing hoax/Neil Armstrong One Small Step

page: 9
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


The picture I was referring to was the 1st picture on page 3 of that link, (7th row per your browser). It states no antenna.

Anyway... I'm more interested in your last paragraph -

'On that same link are EVA photos from Apollo 11 that clearly show the antenna. Others, due to poor resolution, can't see them. Not surprising, since they were pieces of metal less than one-sixteenth inch thick, about 1/2 inch wide, and twelve inches long....approximately (IIRC).'

In view of their narrow diameter and short length, then the flashes seen on many of the youtube clips, is even less likely to be antenna, as the flashes occur at varying heights... So, thank you for your additional information and for the confirmation that some antenna were visible, some weren't, even though someone has stated no antenna (as per the picture I am referring to).

Lets just say the antenna is a closed subject. The faked moon landing remains open for debate....




posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
erm I am people who have proof moon landings were a complete lie ..
www.1minpages.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Watch this one, especially after the 'film' clip at 1.10 and 1.30 Those flashes are much higher than an antenna!

www.youtube.com...



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Yet again....more ignorance:


Note the lack of dust on the landing feet. This thing would have kicked up a storm with its engines.


Firstly....in that photo, HOW do you expect to be able to see any Lunar regolith particles that had collected in the landing gear pads??? Wouldn't you have to get up real close?

Secondly......the amount of loose soil that could actually be displaced depended on the force of the effort.....an Astronaut's boot kicking it up is a DIRECT IMPACT form a solid object (his FOOT!!!)

Compared to the much, much lesser forces of the diffuse descent engine (ONE engine, not "engines") exhaust gasses.

The engine nozzle diameter was 54 inches! AND, the engine was NOT at full throttle, at the point of the landing. IN fact, it is throttled well down, about 10 - 15 % of maximum thrust. Also, the landing procedure was that the engine would be stopped as soon as the "Contact" light illuminated.....this was from one of three 6-foot long probes mounted on the bottom of three landing legs....they would detected surface contact, and the spacecraft could then settle down, from that height, even as the engine was being shut down. (Shut-down was NOT immediate, in any event).

THIRDLY.....you keep saying "dust". SAND would be a better description...fine sand grains. (ALTHOUGH, don't make the mistake of taking "sand" literally. Lunar regolith is very different. I am talking about particle size).

It wasn't like flour. or talcum powder.

AND, the word "dust" also makes people think of they way "dust" behaves on Earth, that they're familiar with....where we have AIR! In a vacuum, the debris behaves differently. It cannot "billow" and be carried aloft on air, as on Earth...NO AIR! So, when disturbed by engine exhaust, it tended to take the only logical path....OUTWARDS radially. Not "UP", and thus, not much would be able to get high enough to get into the cupped landing pads.


See the filmed landings, from the 16 mm DAC mounted in the LMP _ The regolith disturbance is evident, and obvious in its behavior:



@ about 50 feet above the surface (1:50 in that video time reference) you can see the ground is being affected. IN FACT....a whole lot of the LOOSEST soil is being moved away from the landing sight, at this point!!!! Beneath it, the harder, heavier particles are less disturbed. AND, the majority of the Lunar surface is "hard-packed". It's not like an ocean beach, here on Earth. (Unless you are talking about a beach with only a few centimeters of loose soil, above a hard-packed surface).



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 



Those flashes are much higher than an antenna!


That is an old, old video on UTube! I saw it back in 2007! The author, "danielsnews" is an idiot, sorry. (His user name is usually a giveaway....as is the case with many of the most virulent "hoax" believers, they have a religious belief that drives them. See "Bart Sibrel", for example. Weird, weird bible-thumpers, these people. some of them....).


LENS FLARE! I thought this was explained already, in this thread? Especially those early-era video cameras, they were quite prone to that...(but, can happen with common film cameras, too).




YouTube as ALTERED their link codes! "Conspiracy"!!! LOL....









edit on 7 April 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by heineken
just my modest opinion...

instead of tick tacking if we Humans went to the moon or not we better concentrate on the fact why the hack we went ONLY to the moon

Computers used to be large as rooms..figure it out now..
Mobile Phones used to be also good to make weight lifting with them...see them now
Television sets were like pregnant elephants seen from the side...measure their width now
Women's dresses used to be long till their toes..now thank god nope


arent we supposed to have colonized at least our Solar System??

WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


That is the same thing i said a few times before... Even in my movie which i made. I Think its not whether they went to the moon, but what they found on the moon...



posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Watch this one, especially after the 'film' clip at 1.10 and 1.30 Those flashes are much higher than an antenna!

www.youtube.com...




Apollo 16

www.youtube.com...



Apollo 17

www.youtube.com...
edit on 5-6-2011 by Ove38 because: new links



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Wow. Seriously, good work mate. Who ever would have thought that one person would be able to disprove the moon landings with a crappy quality youtube video eh?



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
This is what Neil Armstrong really said when they landed on the moon.

During the Apollo landing, Neil Armstrong says, “They’re here.They are right over there and looking at the size of those ships., it is obvious they dont like us being here”.

There was a landing but the one shown to the public was not it.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
I can see the no one has posted here is a while but I just wanted to add one more thing to this post on the side of the hoax believers. I was not able to go through every single post here so this maybe was posted already. Here is a link to an essay entitled "Wagging the Moondoggie". Its a funny and informative read. Also I did not see where any of the hoax opposers addressed the temperature issue on the moon. The magic suits they wore would have had to cool them down from the blistering heat of @250 degrees in the sun and heat things up to offset the frigid temperature of @-350 below zero in the dark while simultaneously supplying fresh oxygen to breath.


davesweb.cnchost.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ckitch
reply to post by Griffo
 


Your link to Hoax Claims is interesting, but can be disputed in many ways. For example, just because 400,000 people were involved doesn't mean they had to lie.

If I employed you and 9 others to build parts for a secret weapon I was making, and you were instructed to produce one element of that weapon, not knowing what the other 9 were doing, could you confirm a secret weapon was built, or simply that you built one part of it?!

The more people that were involved made it easier to hide the next and previous stages. No one saw the complete task from build to launch, to land!

As for other 'proofs' it happended, most of these can be disputed.

I say, even if Van Allens Belt wasn't a threat, the technology wasn't advanced enough, and the risk was too great to kill a bunch of astronauts live on TV.
edit on 4-4-2011 by ckitch because: typo (say to saw)


They can? How do you dispute radio tracking of a craft going to the moon?



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   
Anyone with any common sense must realize the USA had to fake the footage of the moon landings the risk of something going wrong (which is very high) on live TV would make the USA look stupid to the world & history. They may have gone to the moon using some secret Army/ Navy space program, but we probably will never know. Everything the believers state as proof USA went to the moon could be faked especially if they had 2 Moon programs running side by side one for the public being NASA & a secret Army/Navy program with real objectives & reasons to go there, rather than going all the way to the moon just to be the first man there. Which seems pointless when a robot could be sent to find similar results.



posted on Mar, 10 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   
You may all find this video instructive.

edit on 10-3-2013 by Ismail because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ckitch
 


Oh Yeah, and a Saturn V that was incapable of enough thrust to get it there...



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mplsfitter539
 


I suggest you research the mechanics of heat transfer in a vacuum as you seem very confused by the process. It take a rather long time for things to heat up and cool down in a vacuum since radiant heat is the only method by which heat can be transferred. Cold wasn't an issue because it's rather sunny on the daytime side of the moon and they wouldn't need to spend much time in the shade. Thermal radiation from the sun is quite easy to deal with as well. All you need to do is reflect it and as you can see, almost all lunar equipment was rather bright/shiny meaning it was reflecting a lot of the sun's rays. It's like if you go outside on a sunny day in a black shirt you'll get much hotter than if you are wearing a white shirt. The majority of the cooling was based on removing the astronauts body heat and not heat from the sun.



posted on Mar, 22 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Although this is obviously and patently fake, I admittedly shift between beleif and not believing. There are so many faked landing documentaries with so much information that at the very least shows up with oddities, if not outright fakery, that for me personally it is really hard to decide. From everything from a-z missing, fake moon rocks, differences between footage, and photos supposedly depicting the exact same situation/time, fakery making the astronaut appear farther then they were, and the debatable/unconfirmed [as far as I know] supposed lunar ranging experiments performed before Nasa ever went to the moon + the sudden emergence of Luna rover [mobile robotic lunar ranger of the Soviets] that just suddenly appeared when someone managed to lunar range in a non retro reflective area [WOW what are the odds of that seriously?] etc. etc. etc.

Regarding the whole Soviet issue i.e how come Russia didn't say anything well that could just go hand in hand with the whole NWO theory idk. anyways I still don't know.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by R3nw0x1ng
From everything from a-z missing, fake moon rocks, differences between footage, and photos supposedly depicting the exact same situation/time, fakery making the astronaut appear farther then they were, and the debatable/unconfirmed [as far as I know] supposed lunar ranging experiments performed before Nasa ever went to the moon


I'm a little confused by your statements would you care to elaborate on:
1)What exactly do you mean by everything from a-z missing? The apollo program is probably the most well documented event in history

2) Every moon rock brought back by apollo and examined by 3rd parties has never been questioned as being anything but lunar in origin

3) Could you cite an example of the photos and film not matching, I've heard this mentioned before, but I've never seen an example

4) The "astronaut appearing farther away than they really are" is just your brain playing tricks on you. On the moon, there's no haze/atmosphere to distort the view as it does on Earth, which is what our brain uses to judge distance, so, on the moon, it's very difficult to tell if something is 10 feet away and 5 feet wide or 10 miles away and 2 miles wide. It's not a trick on NASA's part, it's a trick by your own brain because it's using your experiences on Earth to analyse what's happening on the moon, which is why there are many things that look "wrong".

5) The lunar ranging experiments were done before the retroreflectors were installed, but were very inaccurate because of massive signal loss and weren't very useful, but as soon as the retroreflectors were installed and lasers were fired at their locations, the quality of the results were several hundred percent more accurate.



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 02:13 AM
link   
No problem man I will try to elaborate to the best of my ability.

1. the most well documented story ever with the least actual documentation to back it up with everything from the blueprints, originol footage, to pretty much everything else being either "lost" or "Stolen". I mean... . .that just ain't # you just lose no matter what anyone says! The most historic event in history with the worlds most innovative tech to reach the moon.. . .and now we can't go back because we lost everything. Just a little to convenient imo


2. I am talking about all the moon rocks that have just suddenly disappeared or were lost which from what I have heard is most of them, and Nasa certified moon rocks turning out to be ancient amber with a 1 million $ policy on it, and the government confiscations of private individuals with moon rocks I have seen crop up every now and then. Add this to the theory about the moon rocks having come from Antarctica[the legit ones] and i just don't know.


3. I am so sorry man but , I really can't remember what documentary I saw this on umm it was a pretty old one with like engineers, some scientists, photo technicians and people of that nature questioning it and raising these points . www.youtube.com... it may be this one [forgive me I hope you have an addblocker, these guys are money grubbing dickheads]

4. umm www.youtube.com... this one shows some of the fake earth images, but I can't find the real compelling one where it was the actual earth and the astronaut moved some kind of brace from the window which showed clearly they were in NEO [can anyone confirm?]

5. Like I said I myself am no xpert and my info is all second hand, but from what I read it had something to doith the sea of tranquility being the perfect spot for the lunar ranging pre retroreflectors due to .... something lol. and there was something about how the atmosphere bends the laser as well as their being like kilometers of difference unaccounted for in the area where the laser hits idk... . .sorry just google retro reflectors debunked and search around.

Like I said I am quite the waffler on this and I jump around in my opinion all the time



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by R3nw0x1ng
 


Allow me to jump right into it and answer your points, although they werent directly addressed to me.

1. could you maybe name an example of what is missing? I havent heard that before.

2. could you name your Source? We have to fact Check Info from the Web you know?

3. there are many weird videos on Youtube, that alone proves nothing. We could however discuss specific points from the clip if you like. We should talk about specific points, like the van allen Belt for example.

4. do you really think this is convincing? Do you See that as proof?

5. so you pretty much admit that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is a good thing. So you should have to agree that you cannot form an informed oppinion. You are too lazy to understand and research on your own, instead you paraphrase youtube videos...

The van allen Belt issue was a perfect example. Insufficient knowledge combined with the hearsay from the Web lead to these false "facts"



posted on Mar, 23 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by R3nw0x1ng
 


I'm not sure where you're getting your information but most of it isn't close to true.

1) There are literally warehouses of documentation on Apollo. It's only the Apollo 11 original video that was lost (taped over actually) apollo 12-17 is all still available. And just so you know, it's not as if all the data on those tapes are lost too, the reason they were erased is because all of the data on them had been transcribed into written documents, so they didn't really need the tapes any more. Sure the live video is neat for historical purposes but from a scientific purpose (which is what NASA is concerned about) it's rather useless so it was taped over. I will agree though, that some blueprints have been lost, with companies going out of business or just poor bookkeeping, it's unfortunate, but it happens.

2) They haven't recently disappeared they've just been recently audited. Unfortunately there are some tests that can't be done without physically destroying the sample which accounts for some of the missing rocks. Also their incredibly valuable and very small so it's understandable that they'd be stolen. Whomever told you that moon rocks have turned out to be ancient amber was lying to you, it's just not in any way true and there's no record of it having ever happened. The confiscation of moon rocks in the possession of private individuals goes back to your first point, you say that moon rocks being stolen is suspicious, but people being arrested for being in possession of these stolen moon rocks is also suspicious? This is just NASA recovering its property. It's also physically impossible for lunar meteorites to be passed off as lunar rocks since the extreme heat and pressure of atmospheric re-entry causes physical changes that any geologist can notice rather easily. People like to make this hypothesis, but nobody has ever been able to present a method to make meteorites into moon rocks

3) David Percy is a man who claims to be a professional photographer but he makes it very clear he has no idea of how shadows or light works, also, I don't have the time to watch the entire documentary but in random clicking I found one wonderful red herring, at about 52:02 into it they interview Una Roland who's story is so hilariously false it will make your head spin (she claims to have stayed up late to watch something that happened in the late morning and that she saw something that nobody else watching the most viewed televised event in human history saw). A thorough debunking of it can be found here www.clavius.org...

4) That's also another hoax pusher lie (they love to lie) Like by saying it was It's quite simple to debunk because if you're in low earth orbit you're moving at around 30,000kph which would mean the earth outside the window would be spinning at a noticeable rate, which it is not. Also, people have been able to match cloud patterns from the pictures with meteorological data at the time.

5) Yes, by the time the laser reaches the retro-reflector it does end up being rather wide, but the return signal is greater than would be physically possible without the retro reflectors. But the Russian's were able to put their own retro-reflector on the moon with a robotic mission so the hoax crowd uses that to say you don't need a manned mission to do it. They can't provide any proof that an unmanned american mission took place to put them there, but they're not ones to let facts and evidence get in the way of their faith in the moon hoax.






top topics



 
11
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join