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.

 

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 13
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



You never know if a question was good or bad until the answer comes out. So the Newton's question of "why did the apply just fall?" was a good question. Why did Armstrong did not write a book on his personal experience of the Moon Landing? And why does he look always guilty of something in public as if he is hiding something big? It could be a stupid question, but the answer could be alarming and shocking. The simple answer: Because he never went to the moon.

Did you watch all the videos on the subject of moon landing hoax in the youtube? Do you really have an open mind and willing to learn everything on this planet? Just watch a handful of them and come back to rant. You will be very welcome. If you don't want to watch them, then it is your luck. You will be missing half of the fun living on earth.


But there is more than one possible explanation for the one single question you have posed than the one you have jumped to, therefore you have proven nothing. In fact, human behavior is quite complex so the only intellectually honest answer to the question is: "I don't know," although the simplest answer would, in fact be: "He doesn't feel like it."

Have you read every single technical report published by NASA? Have you done the delta V calculations and plotted the necessary trajectory? Have you reviewed the specs on the Saturn V booster? Do you actually think watching YouTube videos has any informational value whatsoever? You don't actually have to read the manuals or study celestial mechanics or learn anything about rocketry, but you will never know whether the folks on YouTube are lying to you if you don't study the science that will allow you to inform your decision. If you really think that watching YouTube videos is half the fun of living on Earth, I pity you. Try going skinny dipping in a tarn in the Sierras with a beautiful blonde and then talk to me about fun.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I'd rather be at the bottom of the pool with the sirens of titan



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


It didn't come back, as well as most of the scientific equipment taken to the moon surface and the landing platform, to save weight everything including the cameras, disposable tanks, and everything of weight besides the added weight of the moon samples excavated as dirt and rocks, and the film cases, were left there so calculated to allow the lander to get it back to and transfer the men and samples to the command module to attain lunar escape velocity to come home.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by consigliere
 


It didn't come back, as well as most of the scientific equipment taken to the moon surface and the landing platform, to save weight everything including the cameras, disposable tanks, and everything of weight besides the added weight of the moon samples excavated as dirt and rocks, and the film cases, were left there so calculated to allow the lander to get it back to and transfer the men and samples to the command module to attain lunar escape velocity to come home.



Ok if they used the Lunar Module to land on the Moon,,,how did they get back to the Command Module if they left the Lunar Modules behind?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


That Apollo 17 liftoff looks fake.And it still doesnt look to have 1/6 the thrust of Saturn. And I thought they were left behind,,,as a matter of fact,,,there was NO THRUST AT ALL,,,just a M1000



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


They went through the door, closed it, and detached it, and left it behind.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


Seriously. It didn't have 5,000+ times the weight from earth.....nevermind, you simply can't be serious.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


You CAN'T be serious??



That Apollo 17 liftoff looks fake.And it still doesnt look to have 1/6 the thrust of Saturn.



You don't understand, this? Or, is it trolling?

Be prepared to defend yourself....I don't want to say it's trolling, but it is coming very close....unless, there is truly a complete lack of knowledge happening here??



edit on Thu 26 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by consigliere
 


Seriously. It didn't have 5,000+ times the weight from earth.....nevermind, you simply can't be serious.


Really? I think my question is quite sensible. If the Moon has 1/6 (courtesy of WeedWacker) the gravity of Earth,,,how come the Lunar Module, not only appears to have nowhere near 1/6 the thrust capability of Saturn,,,,BUT NO THRUST AT ALL



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by consigliere
 


You CAN'T be serious??



That Apollo 17 liftoff looks fake.And it still doesnt look to have 1/6 the thrust of Saturn.



You don't understand, this? Or, is it trolling?

Be prepared to defend yourself....I don't want to say it's trolling, but it is coming very close....unless, there is truly a complete lack of knowledge happening here??



edit on Thu 26 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



No offense taken,,,debates are healthy,,,I have no scientific background what so ever,,,just questions, which from my uneducated perspective seem quite logical. I have no problem being wrong,,,however I have not been convinced



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


OK....then taking that question at face value, as an honest and heart-felt "I do not know" (regarding thrust forces needed for the full-blown Saturn V stack, versus the infintely SMALLER little LM).....

DO you need me to find the data for you? Or, where those subtle hints, in first sentence, enough of a clue?




edit on Thu 26 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
What those things have in common .

Stanley Kubricks camera for 2001.
Harry Kissinger
and Red Bull?

I know this debate will never cease but
my humble opinion is, the audio is real not the video.
peace.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by consigliere
 


OK....then taking that question (regarding thrust forces needed for the full-blown Saturn V stack, versus the infintiely SMALLER little LM......

DO you need me to find the data for you? Or, where those subtle hints, in first sentence, enough of a clue?


Ok Ok I get it. I acquiesce,,,i didnt take into account the weight of the LM.I will look at as much footage as possible then U2 u IF,,,im convinced,,,,,,who took the video of that Apollo 17 liftoff



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by eagleeye2
 


Nope.....I already know where you're going with that, and it's yet one more in a long, long line of ridiculous claims.

In fact, the so-called "Kubrick connection" is actually founded on a joke. A prank.

Oh, and the "grandfather of the Moon hoax", too. HE started it both on a dare, as in "What's the most outrageous lie I can make up?"....and, out of sheer hatred. Of NASA. His name was Bill Kaysing. He was rabidly obsessed with NASA, over some imagined slight, with a vendetta in mind.....it happened also to give him a (small) amount of attention, and 15-minutes of "fame"....but, to most people who are intelligent and more knowledgeable, also tarnished his reputation forever.



edit on Thu 26 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Karbofos

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by Karbofos
Why is everybody wrong??))))

Why are you trying to contradict me?

In an authorized biography, the author typically holds interviews with the subject of the book, the subject's family members and friends, co-workers, etc. The author is privy to information only attainable from the subject of the book.

blog.writersdigest.com...
Armstrong gave 50 hours worth of interviews and access to primary source material for his authorized biography, it wasn't as simple as just "giving permission."


Because you were wrong.and you didn't even question yourself. You came up with you own definition.

That's a bad touch. Makes you liar by default.

Excuse me? I just sourced my definition, I didn't make it up. You saw that, you lied about me.


No I didn't. Go read back. Think a lot. You will understand or not.50/50 chances. And check those videos. Get a peace of mind.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 


I kind of wish people would pay closer attention to my posts....


.....who took the video of that Apollo 17 liftoff


A guy sitting at a control console in Houston took that video. By remotely controlling the camera, mounted on the LRV (as I mentioned, already)....
Hang on, I'll Google his name...

Ed Fendell.

www.russelland.com...


.... I had worked with Ed Fendell for the Apollo 17 liftoff to get it exactly right for a long tracking shot. At liftoff, the action was perfect, but soon the image of the ascending capsule drifted out at the top of the frame. Ed was furious that, after all the calculations, we missed the mark. It was discovered later that the crew had parked the Rover buggy closer to the Lunar Module than was prescribed by mission plan, and the vertical tilting of the camera was too slow.




edit on Thu 26 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by consigliere

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by consigliere
 


OK....then taking that question (regarding thrust forces needed for the full-blown Saturn V stack, versus the infintiely SMALLER little LM......

DO you need me to find the data for you? Or, where those subtle hints, in first sentence, enough of a clue?


Ok Ok I get it. I acquiesce,,,i didnt take into account the weight of the LM.I will look at as much footage as possible then U2 u IF,,,im convinced,,,,,,who took the video of that Apollo 17 liftoff

He managed to do it with 4 min delay in signal. How? God knows.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by consigliere
 


I kind of wish people would pay closer attention to my posts....


.....who took the video of that Apollo 17 liftoff


A guy sitting at a control console in Houston took that video. Bu remotely controlling the camera, mounted on the LRV (as I mentioned, already.
Hang on, I'll Google his name...


So the LM could have been remote controlled as well,,,and as far as wishing someone would pay more attention to your post,,,,,please,,,your not that important,,,so keep your condescension to yourself



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos

Originally posted by consigliere

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by consigliere
 


OK....then taking that question (regarding thrust forces needed for the full-blown Saturn V stack, versus the infintiely SMALLER little LM......

DO you need me to find the data for you? Or, where those subtle hints, in first sentence, enough of a clue?


Ok Ok I get it. I acquiesce,,,i didnt take into account the weight of the LM.I will look at as much footage as possible then U2 u IF,,,im convinced,,,,,,who took the video of that Apollo 17 liftoff

He managed to do it with 4 min delay in signal. How? God knows.


Gave you a star for that



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Why is that so difficult? They practiced it, on Earth using a similar set up. The exact time of lift-off was known....you anticipate, and react ahead of time.

Watch a clock second-hand tick....do something 3 to 4 seconds before a certain point.

What's so difficult about understanding this????

DO all "Hoax Believers" disengage their brains, out of their need to "believe" in utter nonsense?



new topics




 
19
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join