It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Moon Landings= Real or Faked

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Hi Folks.

There has been much debate if indeed the moon landings actually took place.
Personally I think they did take place.
Yesterday, out of the blue I had an idea to really verify scientifically.
I remember seeing a film shot on the moon, on one of the missions, dont know which one..
The film shows one of the astronaults testing galeleos theory of falling bodies, and he drops
a feather and a steel ball and sure enough, they reach the surface at the same instant.
Now if this film is played on a large screen and the precise frame spped of recording is known.
then 2 points can be chosen on the screen and the speed of fall of the objects calculated ie Dist/Time.
Or measure the accel between release and the surface of the moon.
Then compare this free fall velocity and see if it tallies with the gravitational accel on the moon.
If I.m not mistaken the free fall velocity on earth is 11 ft/sec.

Wonder if any1 has already done this with the film.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Angelic Resurrection because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


If we made it to the moon with the computing equivalence of a calculator (without memory), I'd say those boys weren't honored or rewarded anywhere near enough.

Just don't publish your belief on a Russian site, though.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Okay, so I'm editing this to say, apparently this film that I linked is a "mokumentary" I don't know too much about moon hoax theories, but I remember watching parts of this a while ago, I didn't watch all the way to the end which is where they say it's a "mokumentary" so I didn't know...anyway, I'm leaving my post, just the same in case anyone want to watch or see the link (mostly they just look at the images, lighting, perspective, things like that)
---------------
I'm sure this has already been debated ad nauseum. But I'll bring it up because, I remember watching a movie that proposed an interesting theory I had never heard before. I forget what the documentary was, because I think there's a couple on the moon landing...but I'll explain the premise and perhaps someone who is familiar with it can also confirm this.

Anyway the theory says that apparently we did go to the moon, however because they were planning the live broadcast, there were some technical difficulties that made them believe that a live broadcast, or any broadcast would not be possible from the moon. The documentary states that Nixon supposedly went to the director, Stanley Kubrick, who still had the set from "Space Odyssey" and asked to film a faked "moon landing". In the documentary, there are interviews with Kubricks wife which seems to confirm this. There is also a picture of the "moon landing set" (i.e. inside the studio) with a photograph of Kubrick laying on the ground. There's additional evidence presenting in the documentary, and the theory that they lay out is quite interesting and plausible...Anyways, NASA and Nixon both knew that, due to technical reasons, that the broadcast from the moon was not going to work...and so they instead ask Kubrick to prepare a "staged moon landing", that they could then broadcast to the world during.

There's some more information on the theory here if you want to read about it...again I'm not claiming that this is, in fact what happened, but the documentary shows some convincing evidence.
www.realitysandwich.com...

There's also a link here and a google video, I think the documentary that I saw was called "Dark Side of the Moon". I'd have to rewatch the video just to confirm, but I'm pretty sure this is the one:


Google Video Link

edit on 29-4-2011 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
If I.m not mistaken the free fall velocity on earth is 11 ft/sec.

Wonder if any1 has already done this with the film.
You're mistaken, which is not understandable why you'd be wrong about something so easy to Google. Gravitational acceleration on Earth is about 32.2 feet per second per second.
en.wikipedia.org...
I don't see any point in doing this exercise, because the moon hoax theorists claim everything was filmed on earth, and then the footage was slowed down to make it appear to have been filmed on the moon. This could apply to everything from the slow-motion walking of the astronauts to slowing down the falling sequence.

You can tell Armstrong falls to the moon surface much too quickly in this video, I guess this was before they slowed it down


Just kidding, I know for a fact the moon landings happened. That was filmed on Earth and it shows the 32 ft/s^2

Anyway, compare that to the video you referred to here:

Moon gravity is 5.3 ft/s^2 and that looks about right, it takes maybe a little over a second to fall maybe 4 feet though I didn't try to measure the time or distance precisely. It's close enough. But knock yourself out if you want to slow it down and put a stopwatch to it.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
The documentary states that Nixon supposedly went to the director, Stanley Kubrick, who still had the set from "Space Odyssey" and asked to film a faked "moon landing". In the documentary, there are interviews with Kubricks wife which seems to confirm this. There is also a picture of the "moon landing set" (i.e. inside the studio) with a photograph of Kubrick laying on the ground.


I just wanted to point out that since there are moon surface scenes in 2001: A Space Odyssey, it would be perfectly normal to see a photo of Kubrick lying on a moon set -- I'd be surprised if that photo didn't exist!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by meeneecat
There's some more information on the theory here if you want to read about it...again I'm not claiming that this is, in fact what happened, but the documentary shows some very convincing evidence.
www.realitysandwich.com...

There's also a link here and a google video, I think the documentary that I saw was called "Dark Side of the Moon". I'd have to rewatch the video just to confirm, but I'm pretty sure this is the one:
Hi meeneecat, sorry to me a meanycat myself but you really fell for that one. Didn't you get suspicious when the guy said he was going to let his children play with the guys dead body? That's what gave it away for me, that they couldn't possibly be serious.

For about the hundredth time on ATS, that was a mockumentary, making fun of gullible people who think the moon landing was faked, not a documentary. It's amazing how many people can't tell when Kubrick is intentionally laying the BS on so thick intentionally.

Dark Side of the Moon (mockumentary)
edit on 29-4-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I actually watched this on an internet channel and didn't watch it all the way to the end so I didn't see the party where they say it was a mokumentary. I actually don't know too much about moon hoax theories, it was a random video that just happened to be on an internet channel a while ago, and I watched some of it without giving it too much consideration either way...I just assumed it was another theory that someone made a film about. I guess that will teach me to post on topics that I don't know much about. Actually, I don't remember the part about children...so maybe I saw all this in another video and am referring to the wrong one. What I remember from the video that I saw was them talking about things like perspective & lighting in the images. But I never claimed that I thought it was "true" just that from what I saw in the film, just that some of the ideas were plausible and what is shown was pretty convincing...again, if it's a fake movie and they just totally pulled the stuff out of their bum, then I guess thats another thing entirely...anything can be faked to be convincing. Again, the link mostly talks about the images, perspective and lighting sources. I'm not saying that I believe this theory is correct, I was just posting it because I remember seeing it a few years ago and thought it was interesting, at least the idea that they might have made a "back up" film, in case they couldn't get a live image from the moon...again, at the time, it seemed reasonable to me...but again, if they just pulled everything out of their bum, then yeah, I guess anything can be made to look "real" & "convincing".

I personally don't know too much about the moon landing or moon hoaxes to make any sort of informed decision, other than that we most likely went to the moon...or at least I'll believe it until I see some evidence otherwise. Although I do wonder why a lot of the astronauts have all become "weird" afterwards; a hermit, alcoholic, finding religion, etc. It makes me wonder what they saw when they were up there that they can't talk about.
edit on 29-4-2011 by meeneecat because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   


I don't know if there were any fake moon landings or not,
but I'm pretty sure the one shown in the clip above
is real. Doesn't get any better than a pendulum.


David Grouchy



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   


But,
If one just wants a laugh,
check out this hilarious video.

Warning: not safe for work, constant profanity.


David Grouchy



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


It was dealt with in this thread based on that hammer & feather demonstration video.

Oh how we do miss JL



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
If I.m not mistaken the free fall velocity on earth is 11 ft/sec.

Wonder if any1 has already done this with the film.
You're mistaken, which is not understandable why you'd be wrong about something so easy to Google. Gravitational acceleration on Earth is about 32.2 feet per second per second.

There you go again. Dont you know there is a difference between velocity and Accel. I know you are expert on the wiki.
Anyway theprecise recording frame speed has to be procured from nasa.
Yes The measurement is worth performing but on a large screen like a movie hall screen



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
There you go again. Dont you know there is a difference between velocity and Accel.
Yes I do. But I'm not sure if you do. Earth has a gravitational acceleration. What makes you think objects falling in earth's gravity have a fixed velocity?

Some objects can have a terminal velocity, but that varies widely with the shape and density of the object. That variation explains why the feather and hammer experiment performed on Earth yields different results where the hammer falls at a faster terminal velocity.

So it doesn't make any sense to talk about a universal velocity for falling objects on Earth, and where did you get 11 feet per second anyway?



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Moon landings = faked.

I say the moon landings are faked because NASA was able to build a small rocket with a mirror attached to it's nose cone and they were able to launch this rocket with the mirror attached without the mirror getting destroyed in the process of being transported to the moon by this rocket and the rocket was able to precisely place the mirror on the surface of the mirror at the exact coordinates they planed all at a time in history where it took a computer the size of a storage room to be able to do basic calculations.
edit on 29-4-2011 by Hastobemoretolife because: Of Course the Moon Landings were Real!!!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Folks who lack the basic science and historical understanding to dismiss the multiple moon landings are thee reason why real conspiracies can exist in plain sight. Deny ignorance people.

Yes...we went to the moon. Yes....even with the computing power at the time. The inability for those to understand that (because it takes a brain) and throw their hands in the air then subscribe to this moon hoax theory is sad.

I challenge anyone to REALLY look into this (that thinks its fake) and tell me otherwise.



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Some objects can have a terminal velocity, but that varies widely with the shape and density of the object. That variation explains why the feather and hammer experiment performed on Earth yields different results where the hammer falls at a faster terminal velocity.

So it doesn't make any sense to talk about a universal velocity for falling objects on Earth, and where did you get 11 feet per second anyway?


Lol. Would make more sense if wiki is replaced by education I would imagine.
Why would the terminal velocity be any different for feather and steel ball if expt performed on earth in vacuum?
edit on 29-4-2011 by Angelic Resurrection because: Typos



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by Angelic Resurrection
 


It was dealt with in this thread based on that hammer & feather demonstration video.

Oh how we do miss JL



So wts the verdict in the thread you quote. Was it verified if the landings were real or faked.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Oh back when it first all happened I was just a kid in grade school and man I was all for it!!!!! bragging us up for years about us going to the moon.. Yup ..but then as I started asking myself questions about the technology and the slip ups that NASA made it all became so obvious to me and I changed my mind to NO I don’t believe we made it to the moon. Here again there was just another program on PBS called , Is there life on Mars? this is not the only documentary on space travel ..
My point is there is so much proof that we could not of had the proper equipment to even get us threw the radiation not to mention the dangerous flying objects we would of encountered on our way to the moon now im a pretty open person but when you know and listen to even NASA admit these obstacles then how did we manage to avoid it??? there is just too much facts that I have put on the scale like the pro's an cons of was it really possible ,,, I now say No I doubt it very much.
What I actually do believe would probably irritate many,, I believe that in 1948 over in NM they did find a real UFO, and from there on it became our mission to gather as much as we could on these ETs and UFO's I actually think they were out to get rid of them and they knew that there were UFO's on the moon so what they the Gov most likely are after ways to solve these UFO technologies,, how to travel in space .. the real reason for having NASA not just to give everyone the only reason for our NASA program back then was to go to the moon it was to get funding to solve the mysteries of UFO's and how to get this most wanted technology that we still don’t have.. Please understand these are my own thoughts crazy as they may seem



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
Why would the terminal velocity be any different for feather and steel ball if expt performed on earth in vacuum?
Your'e still not making any sense.

I'll add "terminal velocity" to the list of things you don't understand.

Terminal Velocity


In fluid dynamics an object is moving at its terminal velocity if its speed is constant due to the restraining force exerted by the fluid through which it is moving.

The "terminal velocity" in Earth's atmosphere is an atmospheric effect. There is no terminal velocity as such in a vacuum.
That's why we need to talk about acceleration.


Originally posted by Angelic Resurrection
So wts the verdict in the thread you quote. Was it verified if the landings were real or faked.
That thread mentioned the same estimates I did. Estimated height about 4 feet high, and time a little over a second (the other thread says 1.2 seconds) which is about right for the moon.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

I'll add "terminal velocity" to the list of things you don't understand.

He's invented anti-gravity and large-scale cloaking devices, I'll have you know!



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[ quote]Your'e still not making any sense.
I'll add "terminal velocity" to the list of things you don't understand.
That's why we need to talk about acceleration


Lol. Its Ok, its not your fault



That thread mentioned the same estimates I did. Estimated height about 4 feet high, and time a little over a second (the other thread says 1.2 seconds) which is about right for the moon.


How do you know that the playback spped is yhe same as recording speed of the film?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join