Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Hard Evidence against moon landing

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 30 2008 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I just have a hard time believing that we landed on the moon over 30 years ago using computers with as much memory as a simple calculator and also doing so on our 1st try. Nasa scientists say part of the reason
we can't go to Mars right now is because of radiation, yet the moon
should have more of it due to it's closer proximity to the sun..Anyone
that believes that we went to the moon for a fact must also believe
that technology in general has not advanced one bit since the early 70's..
We supposedly went there 6 or 7 times in a row without failure
back then and now we are not able to? LOL. If we truely did go there
I guarentee all of you that we would have build some type of outpost
there, just like we've build space stations..




posted on Aug, 4 2008 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Illmatic67
 


uh, genius, the reason the flap 'flaps' is precisely because there is NO atmosphere on the moon (duh) when the astronaut worked the flag into the surface of the MOON he used a twisting motion - which rocked the flag back and forth (now pay attention) since there was no air the rocking (flapping) of the flag continued long after the astronaut stepped away - the flag is only moving because of the kinetic energy used when planting it, not because of any 'wind.' dopes...



posted on Aug, 14 2008 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by William
 
Hello, even though some of the more silly hoax notions have been debunked, there are still a lot that can't be explained. One case in point is the flag waving when an astronaut passes by, the waving is not from the astronaut moving the pole to place it better. The pole/flag has long stabilized and is still untill an Astronaut passes by. Also there are many anomalies in the images that cannot be explained. Just because it sounds good and is from a so called unimpeachable source doesnt make it so.
Anyone that uses a little critical thinking and some serious research into the whole program, including the images, videos, details, etc, will doubt.
Oh one more thing, the russians also left laser reflectors on the moon, but we know they never landed a man, right.
Thanks for your time and good luck researching.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


excuse me no need to be so rude!



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
One case in point is the flag waving when an astronaut passes by, the waving is not from the astronaut moving the pole to place it better. The pole/flag has long stabilized and is still untill an Astronaut passes by.


You are going to have to actually show the video, because in my extensive research I've not seen any video that fits that description. The classic example of "flag waving" video is taken when the flag pole is being twisted deeper into the regolith.

I strongly recommend reading www.clavius.org... for explanations of this and many other flawed claims about the Apollo program.


jra

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I just have a hard time believing that we landed on the moon over 30 years ago using computers with as much memory as a simple calculator and also doing so on our 1st try.


How much computing power do you think is needed to land on the Moon?


Nasa scientists say part of the reason we can't go to Mars right now is because of radiation, yet the moon should have more of it due to it's closer proximity to the sun


The distance from the Sun makes little difference. It's the time one stays out in space is the issue. It takes a lot longer to get to Mars then it does to the Moon. Radiation is also a problem for the upcoming Lunar missions, since they plan to stay for much longer periods then Apollo.


Anyone that believes that we went to the moon for a fact must also believethat technology in general has not advanced one bit since the early 70's


Huh? That doesn't make sense...


We supposedly went there 6 or 7 times in a row without failure
back then and now we are not able to?


Look up "Apollo 13". Plus all the other missions had there glitches and problems. And the reason we can't go back right now is because of a lack of money.


If we truely did go there I guarentee all of you that we would have build some type of outpost there, just like we've build space stations


Well that is the plan for the new Lunar missions.



posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.

The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.
Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just
as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?


jra

posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.


What kind of computer power do you think is required exactly? Surely you must have some solid numbers if you don't think the Apollo Guidance Computer was enough.


The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.


But they do posses the techonology. It's the money that's required to put it all together that's lacking. Until recently anyway.


Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?


It doesn't work like that, sorry. Maybe if NASA continued to use the Saturn V constantly for the past 40 years, you'd see launch costs going down, but since everything is being built from the ground up the costs are still going to be high.



posted on Oct, 21 2008 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Reality time...

I used to believe the moon landings were hoaxed...however after growing up and reading about diffrent conspiracies and actually understanding how they did it and what they did i can tell you they did land on the moon.

Computer power doesn't really come into the equation as they calculations had in the main been pre done it was just a case of flicking a switch.

NASA had it's budget significantly reduced by the impending research to the shuttle program and the cost of running each shuttle was astronomical the whole idea behind the shuttle was over a peiod of time costs would reduce as it was a reusable craft. the saturn V was tempremental and little more then a giant firework...NASA invested in the correct space program as they were able to build space stations and conduct valuable experiments that will in turn help us to remain in space.

NASA are not faultless and no doubt they do hide things. NASA's budget has took some huge hits in the past 30 years as they have had no real direction from the state and no real goals.... obviously we have goals we could set but WE don't really make the desicions.

NASA have invested heavily in a the new space program with the ARES and will no doubt return man to the moon and if we are lucky we may even see mars landings....but in our live we will only see sample and return missions and robotic exploration. Our great great great grandchildren will see the big advances in space technology and exploration.

We have probably as a civilisation got one more big war to work through then the clean up then the rebuilding of the society and possibly then countries will work on the greates exploration of stars.. globalisation will happen and only then will a united effort to travel the cosmos take place.

The best and most we can do is put the pressure on in the right places to maintain the exsistant space program and to make the right descions so that our future generations will get off this god foresaken rock.

No matter how much we dream and no matter how much we (we being the awakened few like us here on ats) want this to happen so many things in our world remain on the whole a melting pot. There is so much to do down here on terra ferma before governments will really invest heavily in space exploration.

SO here is to the next moon landing and I raise my glass to the future and hopefully for my future generations will benefit from the descions i make so they may one day enjoy what we are so longing for.

regards and best wishes to you all



posted on Sep, 8 2009 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Hard evidence perhaps not.
The softest of reasoning seems better.

The expectation to drift to the Moon and back is a darn nail bitter.
I don't see anyone surviving that drama.

Going orbit to orbit or de orbit can't compare with getting the
right path for capture on the Moon let alone the Moon de orbit
to landing and then launch from the Moon surface to orbit and
then blasting back to a drift to Earth orbit and then reentry
to splashdown.

All for the first time for everything.
Look to the beginning of the air age and the rocket age and the
satellite launch age.
Littered with numerable complete failures.
The human propensity to failure just makes the Moon scenario impossible.

And we don't hear much from the Moon walkers.
Mums the word.
With possible unforeseen consequences for not going according to plan.

What do we hear after all these years.
There are alien UFOs, we saw them, you betcha.



posted on Sep, 9 2009 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Lakini
 





- USA flag seen flapping in 'apparent' wind


There is no telling how violently a flag on the Moon should react.
The motion would be from momentum.
Not the wind.
Even on Earth.

On the Moon with less gravity and no atmosphere what should be
the reaction.
It might be exactly what we saw.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.

The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.
Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just
as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?



Please tell me your kidding, right? Your just playing rain man here. I'm waiting for the "Judge Wopner".

The US and every other country has the technology to land a human on the moon. The moon is the easy part. Try landing on a moving astaroid. Oh, and yes, we've done that to. Read here.

There have been several landings of non-man landers from Venus to the moon of Titan.

I also saw you or someone else made a comment about the radition exposure a person would be subjected to on Mars, that had an atmosphere. First, Mars atmosphere is 1/3 that of Earths. Second, it's not much of an issue for people pn the moon because of the amount of exposure. Any person traveling to Mars would be exposed to gamma radiation for a minimum of 12 months versus days on the moon.



posted on Sep, 17 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
reply to post by Lakini
 





- USA flag seen flapping in 'apparent' wind


There is no telling how violently a flag on the Moon should react.
The motion would be from momentum.
Not the wind.
Even on Earth.

On the Moon with less gravity and no atmosphere what should be
the reaction.
It might be exactly what we saw.



Not only gravity, but there is nothing to stop the motion i.e friction. No air or gasses of any sort to prevent the motion.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by William
These concepts have been debunked before. There's even a "bad science" website easily refuting all these points. (Can anyone remember the URL?)

One thing to remember about Apollo 11 (first landing)... they installed a laser reflection experiment (forget the actual name of the project) that involved the installation of a special mirror on the moon's surface. The experiment wasn't accomplished previously with automated landers because it required on-the-spot human intervention with final adjustments of the reflector.

Universities around the world are still using the reflector today.


That's not even possible, all Apollo missions landed on the dark side of the moon.


IMO, the biggest arguments to disprove the moon landings:

- Array of photographic and video evidence, showing shadow vectors going in different directions indicating a close light source
- Cropped & merged photos
- Flag waving (seriously, come on)
- It's not possible to go from the Earth to the moon and back in one go, with the normal rocket/fuel technology used - as said famously by von Braun.
- Van Allen radiation belts, also the fact that the Apollo craft had no lead to protect them from radiation.
- Apollo craft didn't even have any kind of a climate control system
- Faked shot of the Earth as though it's taken from moon's orbit, as seen in this video: www.youtube.com...

There's probably other stuff I'm forgetting, but that's the most obvious. I recommend the doco, "What happened on the way to the moon".

[edit on 18-9-2009 by Manincloak]


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Manincloak
That's not even possible, all Apollo missions landed on the dark side of the moon.


There is no "dark side" to the Moon. Only a near and far side. And all Apollo missions landed on the near side. Otherwise there would have been no radio contact.


- Array of photographic and video evidence, showing shadow vectors going in different directions indicating a close light source


Take some time and look at photos taken on Earth. You'll notice shadows appearing to veer off at different angles. Here are some examples:

photo1
photo2
photo3
photo4
photo5

For more examples, google: "long shadows". That should get you a lot of results.


- Cropped & merged photos


Like the panoramic photos you mean? Or photos that have been published in magazines? I fail to see how that's evidence of anything. The originals are freely available.


- Flag waving (seriously, come on)


Now you can't be seriously arguing this. This has been debunked so many times for so many years, it's ridiculous. Here's a video I recommend you watch. Moon Flaggin'


- It's not possible to go from the Earth to the moon and back in one go, with the normal rocket/fuel technology used - as said famously by von Braun.


Those calculations were for a direct trip from the surface of the Earth to the Moon in a single stage rocket. The Saturn V was a multi stage rocket and it did not go directly to the Moon. They went into Earth orbit first. Once in Earth orbit, getting to the Moon is relatively easy.


- Van Allen radiation belts, also the fact that the Apollo craft had no lead to protect them from radiation.


With the kind of radiation that's in the Van Allen belts. Lead would have made it worse. When high energy beta particles hit large, heavy atoms like those found in Lead. It creates X-rays. This effect is know as "Bremsstrahlung".

And to quote Dr. Van Allen himself...

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense."

It's getting late, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

[edit on 18-9-2009 by jra]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The earth is orbiting the sun at about 400,000 mph. on the way back from the moon, they would have to perfectly align their re-entry into earths orbit. I would believe that would take more computations then a computer with that low of memory could provide.


The lion's share of the computing was done on earth.


Originally posted by Anonymous ATS The comment about technology makes perfect sense. Read it again.
As of right now the US does not posses the techonogly to go to the moon.
Had it costed 50 billion back then it would now cost 5 billion or less. Just
as VCR'S costed $1000+ when they first came out and now they cost $30. get it?



vcr's cost less because they were (are) massed produced



posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
i really didn't read any reply, just the OP... but can you people STOP talking about this moon landing hoax... there are billion threads about that.... have one thread and talk there.... it's enough isn't it??

and about that "hard" evidence...
i really don't think you have much experience with no atmosphere, moon dust and 1/6 gravity... how can you say than the dust wouldn't stand like that???

furthermore... i suppose you were born after 1969.... cause if you weren't you would know at what stage the computers were at that time... it is as simple as that: it was easier to actually LAND on the moon, than to FAKE it... because computer power was totally insufficent to correct all those pictures, to simulate 1/6 gravity(!!!)....

just think about it... write in that one frea*ing thread!

cheers



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lakini
- USA flag seen flapping in 'apparent' wind


In the TV pictures and the 8mm film camera movies you can see that it is still, not flapping. It has bulges and "dents" in it because it is fabric that is supported by the flag pole itself and a horizontal pole on the top of the flag. Interpreting that to "flapping" is a typical example of applying Earth-based knowledge and experience where it does you no good.



- in a non realesed, unedited photo shows two spot lights which are supposed to be the sun.

Link? Source? Who told you it was non-released and unedited? Did that person have $$$ to make or other personal interest such as selling books or DVDs with this kind of proof? Is this source more reliable than NASA?



- foot prints on the moon are to deep and structured as the moon contains to little amount of water to hold such a shape.


Again applying Earth-based experience wrongly. How soft is the lunar soil compared with Earth? How deep should the footprints be?

Is water or moisture the only way a footprint can hold its shape? On Earth, maybe, because grains of sand are smooth on the surface from blowing with the wind and water and crashing into each other, effectively polishing against each other. On the moon, the "sand" just lies still over millennia, but is bombarded by tiny particles from space, making their edges serrated and jagged. This means they can cling to each other even though there is no moisture.



- vast reports of tv production company in england mgm i think giving us goverment use of studio where astronauts were seen acting out moon landing days before 'launch'


NASA still does this. Before Space Station assembly missions, they practice ("act out") all spacewalks in a huge pool of water (neutral buoyancy (sp?) lab) designed to imitate the conditions of the spacewalk as closely as can be done on Earth. Same thing was done before Apollo missions. They actually rehearsed drilling into the surface, climbing up and down the lander's ladder, planting flags, collecting sampes to know what to do and how to do it on the real Moon.



im sure there are many more if you wish to add you evidence or feel free to contradict.


Done.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Savonarola
NASA is insisting that a manned mission to Mars may be futile due to the intense solar radiation the astronauts would be exposed to. I can't imagine that Mars, having an atmosphere and being farther away from the Sun, can be any less dangerous (due to radiation) than going to the moon.


The problem is not that Mars is a more harsh environment than the Moon. The problem is total exposure due to the longer duration of a Mars mission. An Apollo mission lasted a week. A Mars mission might last for more than a year. That is the problem.

Have you ever had X-rays of your teeth at the dentist? You sit there and get exposed to the rays while the dentist and assistants leave the room and close a lead-plated door. Same thing. You can take it because it's only a short exposure. Dentists and assistants don't want this type of exposure several times a day, each day, year after year. Total amount of exposure.




William, if you have a video of the moon landings try speeding them up. You might notice that the astronauts and the space jeep seem a lot less bouncy - and a whole lot more earthy.


Watch this:


Speed it up, slow it down, do whatever you like. Can you get up like that in 1G, even without a bulky suit? That would require some MAJOR push-ups skills!


Besides, have you seen the way those 'moon jeeps' move? Without gasoline? Considering the sucky nature of present-day battery-powered vehicles, I highly doubt they were electric...


According to Wikipedia the rover on Apollo 17 was the one that travelled farthest. It went 22.30 miles (35.89 km). Max speed was about 8 mph (13 km/h).

If this had been a battery-powered car of today, it would indeed be classed as "sucky". But for excursions on the moon it was enough.



Man has not been to the moon.


Yes, 12 men have walked on the lunar surface.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by rfoshaug]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illmatic67
The moon has no atomsphere. No atomsphere means no wind. No wind means no flag flapping. Now flag flapping means fake landing.


I found this on YouTube:


The narrator does sound a bit patronizing, but the video is a very good demonstration of why the flags on the moon behaved as they did.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join