Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 6
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Same general area with recognizable features at a slightly different view showing a live astronaut. I suppose he's a robot (I'll save you the trouble and beat you to the punch).




So far you are losing this non-discussion.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Why not?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


You right here. Waste of time.
Time will show I guess. Modern technology doesn't allow yet to return and see.
Maybe in the next 50-100 years some country will make a rocket to take enough of workload to make it possible .



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


they have a big bad rock at the smithsonian. This rock also more or less dispels any "unmanned rover" theory

big muley

she's a beauty


Three robotic Soviet Lunar probes returned a total of about 3/4 lb. (301 grams) from three lunar sites in the 1970's. However, the Apollo crews from 1969 to 1972 collected a total 840 lbs, (382 kgs.) of rock and other surface material. One rock alone weighed 25 lbs. (11.7 kgs.) In comparison to the Apollo total of 840 lbs. the Soviet total of 3/4 lbs. is miniscule. Probes simply could not have returned that much material, (especially a single rock weighing 25 lbs.) and if they could have, it would have been the Soviets that achieved it as they were always way ahead in the field of robotic probes.

Below: (Left) Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg (over 25 lbs.) Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits."

Below: (Right) A close-up view of 1 mm diameter zap pits shows tiny craters lined with black glass surrounded by a white halo of shocked rock. (Remember, this cannot be faked!)




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Will only take hi rez photos of landing sites, with steps around it,sorry. I don't think I'm asking for too much,do I?
Rock on earth is not equal man on the moon

Oh! There is a meteor about the same size and composition as the big muley? Ok....
I'll be waiting for my images))))
edit on 25-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Added line



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


Will only take hi rez photos of landing sites, with steps around it,sorry. I don't think I'm asking for too much,do I?

It was already given to you, you chose to brush it off. This shows you're not being intellectually honest, you're just trolling.
lroc.sese.asu.edu...



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thank you ngchunter, I saw that.
I need something where I can see and tell what it is, without arrows and explanations.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Thank you ngchunter, I saw that.
I need something where I can see and tell what it is, without arrows and explanations.

Like I said, moving the goalposts demonstrating your lack of intellectual honesty. Personally, I can tell what it is just fine without arrows and explanations, but then again I was familiar with the layout of the landing sites before LRO was even launched.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


There are so many holes in NASA story THIS photo is not gonna cover them.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:34 AM
link   
Questions:

1. Would someone here be able to tell how fast sand would fall at 1/6 of earth gravity?

2. Would it be hard to tell the difference between sand falling through the moon's atmosphere compared to earths atmosphere?

3. Why is there no dust cloud behind the rover that spins up buckets of loose sand?
At 1/6 of earth gravity there should be a dust cloud forming behind the rover spinning up sand. Unless the sand is wet that is!

Here is a YouTube of the rover on the moon: www.youtube.com...
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Acceleration of gravity on the moon is 1.6 m/s^2, and the acceleration of gravity on earth is 9.78 and 9.82 m/s^2 depending on latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s^2 (approx. 32.174 ft/s^2). Objects with low densities do not accelerate as rapidly due to buoyancy and air resistance. Since there is no air resistance (negligible) on the moon you will not see lingering dust clouds, everything will fall at the same rate. When dropping something about 1.3 m off of the surface it will not take a greatly more noticeable amount of time to land than what you see on earth. Now dropping something from 32 feet above the ground on earth would take a solid mass like a sledgehammer head a second to reach the ground, but about 6 seconds to reach the ground on the moon, so the gravitational acceleration is easier to see when you increase the distance, not so easy to see when you drop things from about 4 feet.

Tell me how they could do this on Earth.




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


So, you are saying that dust would fall at the same speed as sand if it is thrown up into the air by force!

You are saying that dust and sand would travel the same distance at the same speed.

I didn't know that was possible even with 1/6 of our gravity. I thought that was only possible in a absolute vacuum.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 06:57 AM
link   
What I find very interesting about the OP claim is this.....there are innumerable Military people ( many of VERY high standing/importance) who have come forth with confirmation of ETs and UFOs yet I have not seen nor heard of one that has done the same re the moon landings not happening.
Hmmmmmm.
Now, Im not at all an expert on the discussion topic here, and I need to add that I dont believe for one minute that no human has set foot on the moon. But, I could be wrong! There may be many NASA peeps who have said we never landed on the moon. If so, please enlighten me or send me to a place where I can read all about it?


Until then, its all BS.

IMO.
edit on 26-5-2011 by annella because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
Ok guys new here ......

Now Radiation above and beyond low earth orbit has to be fantastical. Here is a thought if NASA space suits could withstand this type of radiation why have they not deployed them to the workers at Fukushima ?

Some protection must be better than none.....

I believe we have never sent Man/Men through the Van allen Belt .....

But thats just me....

P.s Be gentle with me ....



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



There are so many holes in NASA story THIS photo is not gonna cover them.


Could you be more specific? Name one.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by seanblack2012
 



Now Radiation above and beyond low earth orbit has to be fantastical.


You can look up actual figures to support this statement. Until you do, I feel justified in responding: and the amount of shielding provided by 3mm of aluminum is fantastical.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
I can't even believe they had it on TV saying how Kennedy
was so proud of the MOON mission. BAH

WE didn’t go to the moon ..

Can someone back me up please lets list the reasons.. it wasn’t even feasible!!!

The year 1969 month was July the Solar activity was at a high..

Technology was a major issue

We have never discovered how to handle the radiation as of yet ..

We still haven’t figured out how to withstand debris out in space from completely destroying our spaceship.

The Iss was designed to help us figure out how we could make it to the moon ..

If in fact we made it there once then why such a fuss why haven’t we went back??

Why Why Why ?????? Do you insist we did ??

IMO I actually think it was all filmed at various locations .. It was a great hollywood staged story ..
edit on 26-5-2011 by NorthStargal52 because: spelling



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   




There have been 6 manned flights to the moon (excluding Apollo 13) and 12 men who have walked on it's surface.
So we did actually go there more than once.

It was possibly cheaper to send men to the moon back in the late 60's early 70's than it would be today.
Gasoline in 1969 - 35 cents per gallon
Gasoline in 2011 - $4 (avg) per gallon
Cost to send men to the moon in 1969 - $350 million (approx)
Cost of one shuttle launch in 2011 - $450 million (approx)
edit on 26-5-2011 by The Ghost Who Walks because: afterthought



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   




WE have had 6 STAGED man to moon missions .. this was just Rehearsals filmed .... We never went to the Moon . and NO ONE has been able to PROVE it ..



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
WE have had 6 STAGED man to moon missions .. this was just Rehearsals filmed .... We never went to the Moon . and NO ONE has been able to PROVE it ..

Apollo 12. Rockets and lightning don't mix. They never would have even been able to perform the TLI burn had it not been for the astronauts on board who manually activated backup systems in a desperate attempt to restore their vehicle's data link with the ground after the rocket was struck by lightning. An unmanned vehicle would have never made it, but theirs did and it was tracked by amateurs as well.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join