Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

page: 9
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


So there is always few inches left under and around?? Ha!
U know how I call it? WS. W is for whale, the biggest mammal on the planet.

That is why I'm not on the rush consider 40 years of lies. Couple of images is enough for me.
edit on 26-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Line added




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Karbofos
Somebody please, explain me how dust got under landed module?

Actually the dust scoured the regolith beneath it as it blew away, leaving radial tracks in its wake.
next.nasa.gov...
It's not going to make a crater though, thrust levels at the terminal stage of the flight are quite low as much of the mass has already been expelled slowing the LM down at high altitude much earlier in the landing. The thurst at the terminal stage only needs to just counter-act most of the low lunar gravity. The thrust is also distributed over the surface area of a wide engine bell.
edit on 26-5-2011 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Since your posts are generally incomprehensible, little surprise that you are unable to understand the science, the logic, the technical details.

You have a LOT to learn, about reality. Stay in school......



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


Leaving inches of soft dust under and around?))))
You know what a jet engine is, right?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
edit on 26-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Double post



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Ok, going back to school. Need to learn how to accept lies AND support them at the same time.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Most of the entertainers hate what they are doing at least in their own private time especially when they are looking at themselves in the mirror. Basically because it is a job of a clown where you have to fake yourself to look like someone else. Armstrong, being a scientist, never liked to be a clown. So, his behavior can be explained. You can not compare Armstrong with any other popular entertainers. That was your crucial mistake, then what else could you do?



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



You just admitted yourself that Armstrong was an entertainer not a man of science. He hated the fact that he has become an entertainer for the fun of it ( in the fake moon landing movie). All the people you just compared with Armstrong are entertainers, aren't they?


No, I pointed out that he had become a celebrity. He would much rather be up in his airplane flying quietly with his own thoughts than explain to a crowd of strangers for the hundredth time how he had to override the navigation computer. I don't blame him. If your best "proof" that the whole thing is a hoax is that you would not behave the same way as the astronauts, you have no case at all.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Yes....as I said, try to get better educated. This post is evidence of your dire need:


Leaving inches of soft dust under and around?))))
You know what a jet engine is, right?


The Apollo LM descent engine is NOTHING like a jet engine. AND, it is operating in a vacuum.

Can you understand the difference between a jet engine (which MUST have air, and which uses a LOT of air, for its thrust) and the hybergolic propellants, and thrust qualities, of the Apollo LM engine??

Apparently, not.........



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   


No, I pointed out that he had become a celebrity. He would much rather be up in his airplane flying quietly with his own thoughts than explain to a crowd of strangers for the hundredth time how he had to override the navigation computer. I don't blame him. If your best "proof" that the whole thing is a hoax is that you would not behave the same way as the astronauts, you have no case at all.
reply to post by DJW001
 


I would be full of excitement if I landed on the moon first time in the history of mankind and was asked to explain how it felt and how it was like and so on and so forth, at least once in the hundreds of interviews. Not one with Armstrong. Why is that? Why he is not at all excited about his own achievement?

These are simple human questions that can explain millions of little things associated with it. It was a fake. And he was forced to become a clown. This simple answer solves thousands of unanswered questions.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I see. I don't know how LM engine works, that's why there is hunch of dust everywhere ? Finally you convinced me, all what you got is a blind faith.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


I would be full of excitement if I landed on the moon first time in the history of mankind and was asked to explain how it felt and how it was like and so on and so forth, at least once in the hundreds of interviews. Not one with Armstrong. Why is that? Why he is not at all excited about his own achievement?


Okay, let's try an experiment. Imagine being locked in an outhouse with two hairy men. The outhouse is knocked sideways by dynamite and falls over the edge of a cliff, not landing for over ten days. When it does land, in crashes into water and you can't get out until someone opens the door from the outside. You are then rushed off and locked in a room for another two weeks. Now imagine that the entire world is watching as you are asked to describe what it was like.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 



This simple answer solves thousands of unanswered questions.


Please post one of these thousands of questions.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 


NO, you have no flipping clue, obviously. About anything involving Apollo, and the science of the space craft, their design and operation...none of it, do you understand.

ALL you have is some incredibly ignorant and wrong-headed "beliefs" that are not related in any way to reality.


This is a bit like trying to describe and explain a Boeing 747 to a person living in the 15th century.....a person from that era, woefully ignorant of technological possibility, would not be able to comprehend an airplane, jet engine, flight, etc.....

Unless, you also think that jet airliners are a "hoax" too??





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



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Karbofos
 


Yes....as I said, try to get better educated. This post is evidence of your dire need:


Leaving inches of soft dust under and around?))))
You know what a jet engine is, right?


The Apollo LM descent engine is NOTHING like a jet engine. AND, it is operating in a vacuum.

Can you understand the difference between a jet engine (which MUST have air, and which uses a LOT of air, for its thrust) and the hybergolic propellants, and thrust qualities, of the Apollo LM engine??


Apparently, not.........



en.m.wikipedia.org...

Here is some read for you. Find out about amazing Newton's third law)))
edit on 26-5-2011 by Karbofos because: Mess



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Karbofos
 



You presume to educate me about Newton's Three Laws??




posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Whatever happened to the OP? Didn't he say something about PROOF we didn't go to the Moon? It's been 8 pages and all people have done is assert their OPINION we didn't go to the Moon.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Yes, apparently there is a need for that))



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   


Okay, let's try an experiment. Imagine being locked in an outhouse with two hairy men. The outhouse is knocked sideways by dynamite and falls over the edge of a cliff, not landing for over ten days. When it does land, in crashes into water and you can't get out until someone opens the door from the outside. You are then rushed off and locked in a room for another two weeks. Now imagine that the entire world is watching as you are asked to describe what it was like.
reply to post by DJW001
 


You are talking about the landing in the sea water after the near earth orbit. I don't know how you can compare that with the moon landing. You can have much much more drama than you can think of in that long journey.

Do you know that people never get tired of releasing the story of their drama in their life by talking about it over and over agian?

You will notice many times that "there he/she goes again". The reason is simply because it really happened to that person as he/she described and it was so dramatic. Why Armstrong doesn't like to talk about his moon landing?

Simple. Because the moon landing didn't happen and Armstrong was not there.



posted on May, 26 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by notsoperfect
 


Same advice for you.

Don't drop out of school....stay in, and learn. You have a long way to go, to research the reality of the Space Program, there is a lot to learn.

Get a library card, go borrow some books, and take time to read. There is a wealth of information to be found that way, much more than just on the Internetz.......





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join