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: 23
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


What the heck does this mean?:


...why then on NASA’s site do they show one of the astronauts carrying the samples back in a special concealed box ?


"concealed"? If it is "concealed", then how did you see it in the photos?? Do you mean, AFTER the samples were returned? The containers they were in.....you think, because those were closed, that something (their contents) were "concealed"??

DO you understand the process of isolation? Do you understand that, in order to properly study those samples (since the scientists could not study them in situ) they had to be ISOLATED from any exposure to Earth's environment? They would have become tainted, if exposed to Earth's air. Some of the stuff WAS exposed to the Astronauts themselves, after they finished EVAs and re-pressurized the space craft....they brought stuff in with them....like, tracking dirt into your own home.

All of that, as far as an examination of Lunar samples, would then be worthless. A *fun* memento, but of no scientific value.....
edit on Tue 31 May 2011 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 

The best physical evidence I have seen is in the videos of the rover. The dust being thrown out the back tires of the rover was arcing in a perfect ballistic path, seemingly unaffected by air resistance -- something that can only happen in a vacuum.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
All of that, as far as an examination of Lunar samples, would then be worthless. A *fun* memento, but of no scientific value.....

Exactly, which is precisely why it was so terrible when some interns at NASA stole a sealed box of samples and tried to sell them off; even though the samples were recovered and the perps arrested, they had already exposed and contaminated the samples, ruining them.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   


Amateurs tracked the spacecraft on the way to and from the moon, they would have seen the fact that it never left orbit, had it not left orbit. In fact, TLI was witnessed and photographed.
reply to post by ngchunter
 


This was on page 3 of this thread ,,are there any photos of this amateurs tracking or is their any refrence to back up this statement?? .. who are "THEY" lol or are you just blurting out some hot air


by ngchunter......"They would have seen the fact it never left orbit, had it not left orbit."



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

I would think that in that case, even if the people who stole the rocks reported that the box remained sealed, that because of the chain-of-custody the assertion that they remained sealed and uncontaminated would still be suspect.

I would think they would be rendered useless for many experiments due to even the slightest hint that they could have been contaminated.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by consigliere
 





If I'm not mistaken this implies we have never been beyond low Earth orbit! Which to me speaks volumes regarding our "moon missions". I personally don't believe we have.


I like how after 40 years pass by and now all of a sudden ..they now realize that old contraption piece of junk they had that never went to the moon and really just barely made it around the outter earths orbit and maybe went around the moon but don't buy into that either ,, just the fact that they think people dont notice how much they have botched this whole moon thing up really stinks to high heaven!!!

Yeah So I hardly believe that we went to the moon , I believe it was all lower earth orbit ...with all of the Apollo missions and So now they know what they are doing after 40 years of experimenting. Sure they need to make it a success to actually travel in outer orbit they would look like a fool to build a rocket like they used to begin with .. call it advanced technology and oh yes .. things change well of course they do .. but isn’t that how they managed to baffle everyone in the first place by changing everything around ..LOL

edit on 31-5-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: spelling and left out a word



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

This was on page 3 of this thread ,,are there any photos of this amateurs tracking or is their any refrence to back up this statement?? .. who are "THEY" lol or are you just blurting out some hot air



Apollo 11's Eagle was tracked at the famous Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics in Manchester UK.

It's NOT "hot air" .

Here is their graph:
www.jb.man.ac.uk...
edit on 31-5-2011 by Logical one because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Logical one
 

The best physical evidence I have seen is in the videos of the rover. The dust being thrown out the back tires of the rover was arcing in a perfect ballistic path, seemingly unaffected by air resistance -- something that can only happen in a vacuum.


Prove it.

Can you please present some evidence besides the rover video, that can prove why the sand has a perfect falling slope as if it was in a vacuum?

Can you present your evidence from when the sand is spun up by the tier and til the sand hits the ground. Present your perfect slope with acceleration, distance and time. And explain why it must be in a vacuum.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52

I like how after 40 years pass by and now all of a sudden ..they now realize that old contraption piece of junk they had that never went to the moon and really just barely made it around the outter earths orbit and maybe went around the moon but don't buy into that either...


The level of allowable risk is much MUCH more strict today than it was during Apollo. The systems they used then would not pass the safety protocols (e.g., system redundancies) NASA uses today. An example would be the single ascent engine in the LM. If that one engine didn't work, there would be no way to get back, because there was no redundancy in the system like NASA demands today.

The risks assumed by the Apollo astronauts were much greater than what is assumed by astronauts today, but at the same time most of those early astronauts were people whose job before becoming astronaut was equally as dangerous -- being a test pilot. Back in the early 1960s when many of the astronauts were working as test pilots, the death rate was staggering -- there was a stretch from the late 1950s to early 1960s that there was one test pilot death per week on average.

The Apollo astronauts accepted the EXTREMELY high risk of the Apollo missions because extreme risk was part of their prior jobs. Astronauts today are largely scientists and engineers, not test pilots. The people of the U.S. today probably would not find it acceptable to fund a program that was so dangerous.

Six manned Apollo missions made it to the Moon. One tried and failed, with a nearly disastrous outcome. Of the 12 manned Apollo missions, one DID have disastrous outcome -- a fire that killed all three astronauts. I think if they hadn't pulled the plug on Apollo when they did (after Apollo 17, scrubbing three planned missions), the risk was high enough that there may have been more fatalities.

Space travel is much more expensive today because the acceptable risk is not as great as it was during Apollo (or even the early days of the shuttle program, for that matter) -- which means much safer space systems, but also much more expensive systems. However, something so much more expensive is less likely to get funded by congress.


edit on 5/31/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: grammar



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Prove it.

Can you please present some evidence besides the rover video, that can prove why the sand has a perfect falling slope as if it was in a vacuum?

Can you present your evidence from when the sand is spun up by the tier and til the sand hits the ground. Present your perfect slope with acceleration, distance and time. And explain why it must be in a vacuum.

It's a strictly empirical observation, and a quite simple one (simple is often best)...

i.e., fine falling dust becomes suspended by atmosphere. I don't see any see any suspended dust in the rover videos.

Therefore, no suspended dust = no atmosphere.


People instinctively know how things (such as dust) look when they fall on Earth. So when things fall "funny" (like the dust in the moon videos), it becomes very noticeable via simple observation that something is different -- and by "different", I don't mean just the way things fall more slowly due to the lower value of 'acceleration due to gravity'.


edit on 5/31/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



So this is all any one can say; because it looks real it must be real?

Why dont you prove its real?


edit on Tue May 31 2011 by Jbird because: removed quote of preceding post



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The hammer and feather drop proves its real, no atmosphere, gravity effects everything the same no matter how small, wind resistant, or large and heavy. This is 7th grade science stuff.

If you're asking for trajectory data curves a very simple observation can be made, a perfect parabolic curve, regardless of unknown inertia and speed. On Earth in atmospheric drag, the angle of decent would be sharper than the angle of accent due to friction slowing the projected speed, gravity would curve the angle of decent.

Here's a nice graph to illustrate without all of the math.





Trajectories of projectiles launched at different elevation angles but the same speed of 10 m/s in a vacuum and uniform downward gravity field of 10 m/s2. Points are at 0.05 s intervals and length of their tails is linearly proportional to their speed. t = time from launch, T = time of flight, R = range and H = highest point of trajectory (indicated with arrows).


If you want to look at all of the math you can start here.






edit on 31-5-2011 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I'm sorry if the pure ballistic path of the dust (and the lack of a dust cloud suspended in "the air") isn't evidence to you. As I said before, personally it's meaningful to me.

I don't have the measuring ability or math skills (or, unfortunately, the time at the moment) to give the detailed answer you're looking for, but I personally am satisfied that -- strictly by observation -- the dust seemed to act as if there was no atmosphere encumbering its motion.

I (like most people) know what dust looks like when it is hanging around when suspended in the air. The lack of that dusty suspension (i.e., no dust clouds) makes me believe there was no air. I personally don't need math to prove to myself by that dust will float in the air, but won't float without air.


edit on 5/31/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
BTW, its not like sand on the moon, its more like talcum powder, which on earth would really linger for quite a while after being thrown into the AIR.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter actually snapped images where you can see the landers and the trails the astronauts left in the moon dust.

www.nasa.gov...




posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 

That's cool. You can see that they walked to the ALSEP experiment package on several occasions -- at least it appears that footpath is more heavily traveled.

Thanks for the image. I believe there are similar images of all of the Apollo landing sites, all photographed from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).


edit on 5/31/2011 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Logical one
 


gee, I wonder why your post is being ignored ?

very inconvenient for the HB's I imagine. It shoots everything to pieces. the radiation argument, the unmanned missions argument, all of it goes up in smoke with this

it pretty much seals the deal and ends the debate in my mind



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter actually snapped images where you can see the landers and the trails the astronauts left in the moon dust.

www.nasa.gov...



And the source of these blurry images? NASA!! Surprise surprise.

It's a shame that the only evidence you use to back up NASA's claims are NASA's claims. Can you not see how that logic will fail when talking to people who don't believe NASA's lies?



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 





The risks assumed by the Apollo astronauts were much greater than what is assumed by astronauts today


Really? How come 14 shuttle astronauts died?
How many Apollo astronauts died after a succesful lift off? I'll tell you... none. Zero.

So can you explain why you think the risks were higher in Apollo than by astronauts today? To me the numbers say otherwise. Those pesky numbers.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by manmental
 


The LRO offers the world the highest resolution photos of the moon since Apollo, no other space program has an orbiting satellite with a tenth of the resolution of LROC. The image above is slightly more than a meter per pixel resolution of the projected half meter per pixel camera capability. More images should follow at a lower orbital altitude to approach full resolution but its just one of the equipped seven instruments including the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC), Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter (LOLA), Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector (LEND), Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment (DLRE), Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project (LAMP), Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER), and Mini-RF. The orbiter will have a one year primary mission in a 50km polar orbit. The measurements from LRO will uncover much-needed information about potential landing sites.

The Japanese KAGUYA (SELENE) lunar mapping data had a 10 meter per pixel resolution before its mission ended on impacting the moon June 10, 2009.




top topics



 
19
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join