Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


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

That is quite an illogical question.

You are emphatic that we didn't go yet question why, if we did go once, why we didn't go back.


 
Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link
edit on Thu May 26 2011 by Jbird because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 



I can't even believe they had it on TV saying how Kennedy
was so proud of the MOON mission. BAH


I can't even believe anyone even watches TV.


WE didn’t go to the moon ..


Human beings have been to the Moon. Are you claiming that you are not a human being?


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


Is this your opinion as an aerospace engineer? An accountant? A space medicine specialist?


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


True, there were risks involved. There were probably many working on the project who would have appreciated a more leisurely timetable.


Technology was a major issue


Correct; developing the technology was the whole point. In the early 1960's, it was believed that space was the next vital frontier both strategically and commercially. It was central to America's interests to develop the most powerful rockets and spacecraft capable of sustaining a presence in space.


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


The nature of the space radiation environment and its effects on human beings was relatively well understood as early as 1964. (Note that this is a translation of a Russian paper. Both sides kept a close eye on each others' work.) It was long understood that the ill effects are due to exposure, which includes both the energy and type of radiation, and the length of time the subject is exposed to it. Experiments determined that a trip to the Moon and back would not expose the astronauts to the space radiation long enough to be dangerous. A trip to Mars would take much longer, which is why there is renewed interest in more effective shielding.


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


Really? Then why are all these satellites still working, allowing you to post to ATS from one continent and myself to reply to you from another?



(I include this video simply because hoax proponents seem to prefer videos as their medium of communication.)


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


That's a strange theory. The ISS was nominally built to provide a laboratory for perfecting space based construction, space medicine, environmental studies and other skills and sciences useful for the long term exploration and colonization of space. It was arguably built to show that the technologically advanced nations can actually sign a treaty and keep to its terms.



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


Cut me a check for $100 billion and I'll get the ball rolling. We can use off the shelf Russian stuff for most of the systems, but we'll have to build the lander from scratch.


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


Why Why Why ?????? do you insist we didn't?


IMO I actually think it was all filmed at various locations .. It was a great hollywood staged story ..


You are entitled to your opinion, although you have provided absolutely no evidence to support it. IMHO, you are simply wrong.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
The year 1969 month was July the Solar activity was at a high..

Yet no major solar flares ever happened during any apollo mission. Solar activity was a concern and was something they kept their eyes on.


Technology was a major issue

So that made it impossible? Since you're not being specific, I'll be specific for you. You can recreate the technology for yourself in your own basement, it works.
klabs.org...


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

Yes, we have, at least for short flights as in the Apollo program. It's simply a matter of flying through the thinnest part of the van allen belts possible and not using high atomic weight materials in the design of the craft (as that would increase the dose received due to bremsstrahlung). The 7-8 g/cm^2 areal density of the aluminum spacecraft kept the dose far below dangerous levels.
i319.photobucket.com...


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

So how has ISS managed to survive for well over a decade continuously orbiting in low earth orbit where debris is the densest then? By your logic, ISS must be a hoax too...


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

No, the ISS was designed to help us figure out how to survive in space for months at a time instead of just days. The Russians have had experience with this, but it's an area we lagged behind as Skylab was relatively short lived. It also helped us learn how to build a spacecraft in orbit much larger than what you could launch directly from the ground in one go.


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

Apollo was extremely expensive. Even though the shuttle required more maintenance than expected with subsequently higher operating costs than expected, it's still far cheaper per mission than an Apollo flight in today's dollars. NASA does not constitute nearly the fraction of the federal budget that it did during Apollo.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
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.


During landing of Russian unmanned modules, dust was blown away by engine. Hundred yards in diameter of clean rock was under each landed module.
How is Buzz jumping in thick dust and start leaving tracks???????? How could they land there without blowing dust away???
edit on 26-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Typo



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
About the moon landing, I wonder why did u guys only put flag there? why not somesort of communicating devices such as the one on the satelites? ...it's not cheap going there just to put a flag? Noooooooooooo (yelled the tax payers)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
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


Why insist? Two reasons.
1. USA government will never admit they lied.
2. This hoax gives some people rights to say. Oh, we better then you, we landed on the moon. Let us bomb democracy in you.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
I believe the photos and footage from these "Moon Landings" are faked.
I about 80% believe we did not go.
I 20% think maybe we went, but what we saw there, was so mindblowing, the actual information had to be covered up.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   


If we had not been there, the Russians would have been the first to point it out before the world. It was very expensive to go there and with all our technology, we could do it better today
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I always wondered about this "Russians would have been the first to point it out..." argument. Why would Russians want to point it out? All the people on earth were joyful about the monumental "achievement". How terrible whining losers they would look like if they (Russians) did even try?

Russians at least had the grace to go along with the lies no matter how ridiculous the whole scenario was.

Stanley Kubrick made a nice (semi realistic) moon landing film and the whole world went along with it.

You have to wonder why they didn't go to the moon after the Apollo. Why can't they go there with the space shuttle?

And why they didn't even try?

Why Armstrong was always shy about his "historic" "achievement"? Let’s not even discuss Aldrin's odd psychotic behavior.

Lies sound like truth after telling it repeatedly for a long time.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Karbofos
 







Wow... look at the highly photogenic footprints, so perfect. And look at the tyre tracks from the Moon Rover... oh wait... it has no tracks... what could have happened?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by tengkorak
 



About the moon landing, I wonder why did u guys only put flag there? why not somesort of communicating devices such as the one on the satelites? ...it's not cheap going there just to put a flag? Noooooooooooo (yelled the tax payers)


Here's a partial list of the scientific equipment the astronauts left behind to monitor the Moon "like a satellite":


Passive Lunar Seismic Experiment: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Frank Press; Columbia University, George Sutton.

Lunar Tri-axis Magnetometer: NASA Ames Research Center, C. P. Sonett; Marshall Space Flight Center, Jerry Modisette.

Medium-Energy Solar Wind: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, C. W. Snyder and M. M. Neugebauer.

Suprathermal Ion Detection: Rice University, J. W. Freeman, Jr.; Marshall Space Flight Center, Curt Michel.

Lunar Heat Flow Management: Columbia University, M. Langseth; Yale University, S. Clark.

Low-Energy Solar Wind: Rice University, B. J. O'Brien.

Active Lunar Seismic Experiment: Stanford University, R. L. Kovach; United States Geological Survey, J. S. Watkins.

The ALSEP was built and tested by Bendix Aerospace in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The instruments were designed to run autonomously after the astronauts left and to make long term studies of the lunar environment. They were arrayed around a Central Station which supplied power generated by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) to run the instruments and communications so data collected by the experiments could be relayed to Earth. Thermal control was achieved by passive elements (insulation, reflectors, thermal coatings) as well as power dissipation resistors and heaters. Data collected from the instruments were converted into a telemetry format and transmitted to Earth.

Wikipedia

I suppose NASA had to "fake" all the data these instruments collected in order to fool the experimenters. The less you know about the Apollo program, the easier it is to believe it was a hoax.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



Why insist? Two reasons.
1. USA government will never admit they lied.
2. This hoax gives some people rights to say. Oh, we better then you, we landed on the moon. Let us bomb democracy in you.


Actually, the main reason people insist that men landed on the Moon is because men did indeed land on the Moon. You are in a position to answer the question: "Why do people refuse to believe that man landed on the Moon?"



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tom502
 



I believe the photos and footage from these "Moon Landings" are faked.


This is a statement of belief. Do you have any evidence to support it, or is it a religious thing?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Those instruments can be dropped by unmanned mission. Simple and easy..



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


How did similar equipment get to mars ?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



I always wondered about this "Russians would have been the first to point it out..." argument. Why would Russians want to point it out? All the people on earth were joyful about the monumental "achievement". How terrible whining losers they would look like if they (Russians) did even try?


It would reveal the US to be a pack of miserable liars, and the Soviets the champions of truth. They would be fools not to expose the truth if it were a hoax. Even now there are grumblers in Russia who delight in spreading malicious slanders... but they can never offer any evidence.


Russians at least had the grace to go along with the lies no matter how ridiculous the whole scenario was.


The Russians dogged the project every step of the way... you can see their "trawlers" coasting off Cape Canaveral in the archive footage of the launches. They knew it was the real deal.


Stanley Kubrick made a nice (semi realistic) moon landing film and the whole world went along with it.


So you think that the gigantic rockets blasted into space in front of witnesses, the spacecraft tracked in orbit, the continuous radio and television transmissions were all a semi-realistic film? What portion of this "film," experienced live and in real time all over the planet, did you find "semi-un-realistic?"


You have to wonder why they didn't go to the moon after the Apollo. Why can't they go there with the space shuttle?


No, you have to wonder why they didn't go to the Moon after Apollo because you are too young or not paying enough attention. There was a great deal of resistance to the project by many American taxpayers who felt the entire space program was a waste of money. Once the national honor was satisfied by achieving the Moon landings, NASA's budget was radically slashed.


And why they didn't even try?


They never tried to go to the Moon in the space shuttle because it was not capable of achieving the necessary thrust. Read up a bit on how spacecraft work.


Why Armstrong was always shy about his "historic" "achievement"? Let’s not even discuss Aldrin's odd psychotic behavior.


It's called the "Second Act Syndrome." People who have achieved something extraordinary, especially at a young age, find it challenging to find something to "top" their greatest accomplishment. Einstein was frustrated that he could never work out the Grand Unified Theory. Bobby Fisher just went insane. People deal with the syndrome in different ways.


Lies sound like truth after telling it repeatedly for a long time.


I wouldn't know about that. Lies are usually pretty easy to spot.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



Those instruments can be dropped by unmanned mission. Simple and easy..


Not exactly simple or easy. My point was that if you think all they did was plant a flag and take some pictures, you are woefully under-informed.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



How did similar equipment get to mars ?


Years of hard work and $820 million. If you're really interested:
NASA



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by notsoperfect
You have to wonder why they didn't go to the moon after the Apollo. Why can't they go there with the space shuttle?

If you have to ask this question then it's clear that you're not nearly informed enough about the basics of spaceflight to seriously evaluate the legitimacy of Apollo, or even the shuttle itself for that matter. Please, educate yourself on the subject and do not remain ignorant.
www.amazon.com/Space-Primer-AU-18-Comprehensive-ebook/dp/B004W9M8BE/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306425350&sr=1-9
www.amazon.com/How-Apollo-Flew-Moon-ebook/dp/B0019JGZ3W/ref=pd_sim_kinc_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
The short answer to your question is that there are many, many reasons why the shuttle cannot fly to the moon. It doesn't have nearly enough fuel (even if you put a centaur stage into the payload bay, something they would never do post-challenger, it still wouldn't have nearly enough), it sure as heck can't land on the moon, and it couldn't even survive re-entry from translunar velocities. Its heat shield is only designed to handle re-entry at speeds around 7 km/sec, vs the 11 km/sec re-entry velocities Apollo had to deal with. Apollo's heat shield was a 1 time use ablative design, whereas most of the shuttle's heat shield is reusable from mission to mission (it also takes up far less mass per unit of surface area). Structural limits would likely also be exceeded during a high-g re-entry from a translunar trajectory. The shuttle was only designed to fly in low earth orbit. That you didn't know any of this is quite telling. Please, educate yourself on the subject.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Karbofos
 



How did similar equipment get to mars ?


Years of hard work and $820 million. If you're really interested:
NASA


I get that, thank you.
I mean, is there a chance what equipment was delivered to moon same way as to mars?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   


Not exactly simple or easy. My point was that if you think all they did was plant a flag and take some pictures, you are woefully under-informed.


The exact point was that the planting of the instruments on the moon can not be the proof of the human moon landing as the other poster just said those intruments are on the mars also. You just twisted the main point to the "flag" argument which has no serious meaning in regard to the human moon landing.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join