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.

 

Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 26
15
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Not sure if you have seen this site, it has some decent pictures of the different moon artifacts left by us. Sorry, I didn't read all 25 pages, but here is this if you want to check out the pics:
www.squidoo.com...




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
A stride is about 3ft on earth. The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth so the strides should be a lot bigger.

Do your legs get longer as gravity decreases?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by David Treibs
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


Not sure if you have seen this site, it has some decent pictures of the different moon artifacts left by us. Sorry, I didn't read all 25 pages, but here is this if you want to check out the pics:
www.squidoo.com...


Thanks for the link I bookmarked it. I'm not going to comment on the pictures anymore they have been commented to death for the first 25 pages of the thread.

There is a youtube video on that site I'd like post; The Apollo 17 lunar take-off:




How did both astronauts, their suits, the bulky lunar rover, space toilets etc. fit into that tiny little flimsy lunar module?

It looks like a Star Trek episode, the original series not TNG.

Also why is it that the moon seems so tiny from all the pics and videos I've seen?

Why isn't there a great big horizon?

My belief is that the scenes we see are the training grounds in "the us high desert" where the Apollo astronauts trained for their moon missions.
edit on 7-9-2011 by GrassyKnoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
A stride is about 3ft on earth. The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth so the strides should be a lot bigger.

Do your legs get longer as gravity decreases?


How silly.

For the astronauts to take 3 ft strides on the moon they would have to have exerted 1/6th their normal leg thrust which I'm sure NASA will claim they did.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
The footpaths are darker than the rover tracks...it would take days and weeks of walking along those paths to produce the dark lines in the satellite photo.

I have yet to hear one good footpath explanation. I have posted it several times on this thread and one other...no moon landing believer can provide me with a logical explanation.
The footprints are concentrated force distributed over a very small surface area per step. The tires of the rover are mesh, and much wider than a footprint, thus distributing the weight of the vehicle over more surface area. (not to mention, the weight of the vehicle being spread evenly over all four tires) So the footprints are deeper than the tire prints, ergo, catch more shadows.
edit on 2011.9.7 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
For the astronauts to take 3 ft strides on the moon they would have to have exerted 1/6th their normal leg thrust which I'm sure NASA will claim they did.
Take into consideration the fact that their space suits weighed 200 lbs...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
The footpaths are darker than the rover tracks...it would take days and weeks of walking along those paths to produce the dark lines in the satellite photo.

I have yet to hear one good footpath explanation. I have posted it several times on this thread and one other...no moon landing believer can provide me with a logical explanation.
The footprints are concentrated force distributed over a very small surface area per step. The tires of the rover are mesh, and much wider than a footprint, thus distributing the weight of the vehicle over more surface area. (not to mention, the weight of the vehicle being spread evenly over all four tires) So the footprints are deeper than the tire prints, ergo, catch more shadows.
edit on 2011.9.7 by JoshNorton because: (no reason given)


Next time you are at a beach walk over a patch of sand with your normal stride. A stride is a bout 3 ft so there should be 2ft of space between your strides. How could footprints at least 2ft apart appear as a solid line to a satellite orbiting above?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The dashed line is one footprint(-)

This is a rover tire print(=)

============================================================================

Boy those astronauts must have hopped and skipped back and forth along the same path several times to make the dark footpath visible in the newest satellite photos.

In the videos the astronauts stride look like normal earth strides.
edit on 7-9-2011 by GrassyKnoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Yeah cause all of use go to the beach wearing moon boots, in 1/6th of gravity while wearing tons of gear. That's a valid comparison



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


The latest from Luna Cognita:

Apollo - Hands

If everything was on the up and up, why tell so many lies about so many things?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Have you ever flew by a plane ?

Did you have a 20kg or something of weight limit ?

Did you measure your bag or even every peace of clothes separately
in order to not exceed that limit but to carry as much as you could ?

Well, the same thing is with the space flights.

Do you know how much fuel does it take to get 1 kg to the orbit ?

Can you imagine how much would take to get it to the Moon ?

How much would it take to get a golf club, those vehicles with their heavy batteries,
and all the other crap they allegedly took to the Moon ?

How much would it take to get tons of rocks from the Moon ?

How much fuel would it take to carry that fuel needed for carrying that crap ?

Yes, they were carrying loads of # there and back, no problem with that.



All of this, if there was a propulsion system that could get anything outside Earth's orbit.


Yes, THERE IS NO PROPULSION SYSTEM KNOWN TO MEN THAT CAN GET HIM
ANYWHERE OUTSIDE EARTH'S ORBIT !


Even if the rocket system works, one would have to refuel numerous times till Moon.

Yes, all the Mars missions are fake.

There are no satellites orbiting anything except Earth's orbit.

There is no Milky Way.

You would have to go outside the Milky Way in order to see it.
You can't determine that you are in something by looking from inside of it.

Any picture of something in space is either photographed from the Earth or it is a fake.

And most of them are fake.

In order to look at something far far far away you would need incredibly incredibly incredibly
precise mechanism for moving the telescope to compensate the Earth's rotation.

Yes, that exists but it is not that precise to allow you to fix on something that is too far away.


As for the people "believing" in Moon landing,
I just can't believe that someone SO stupid exists,
so I incline to think that they are shills,
instead of idiots,
but if they are persistent, they might prove me wrong.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by grizzle2
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


The latest from Luna Cognita:

Apollo - Hands

If everything was on the up and up, why tell so many lies about so many things?



That is a fantastic video, thanks for the heads up, yes they are the photographs taken on the vomit comet, well before the mission, still shot camera, yet colour movie camera was available, but of course the illusion of anti gravity would have been lost very quickly. The surface training shots were taken many months prior to that, followed by the " action " footage and dialog, the colour studio shots were taken in the absence of the " real " Astronauts presence. I am in no doubt that they did go into Earth orbit for a few days, then splashdown in most cases, apart from twice. There was a great deal of pre flight simulations which took place and was all recorded and automated, flight sims with the large model Moons and all of the other stages as well. When these were played back to the main ground control rooms as the real thing, they had no way of knowing that they were being fooled.

Epic scale simulations which were passed off to all as the real thing, no real problems or tension, because every part of the exercise had already taken place. Unlucky 13 well that was just asking for a story of danger and heroism, with the Astronauts showing that all of the skills they had learned on Blue Peter about how to mend an Apollo spaceship with plastic washing up bottles and some sticky back plastic, were not a waste of time, it sure got a little more public interest.

I just wish they had not got the lighting all wrong in many places on 13, where the lighting had to be coming from a few feet outside of the craft, but not sunlight, and camera angles where the camera man had to be outside of the craft, but not shooting through glass, I'm supprised they could breath with no side to the spacecraft, although they were in a studio, so I am not really supprised, apart from the dog barks and marching bands going past, I suppose they can't get it right all of the time.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Qwenn because: spelling



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 



How did both astronauts, their suits, the bulky lunar rover, space toilets etc. fit into that tiny little flimsy lunar module?








www.nasm.si.edu...
www.sln.org...

"URINE MGT SYSTEM" = "space toilet." The scientific equipment was stowed in bays in the Descent Stage. The Lunar Rover was folded up and essentially strapped to the side of the LM. Here is a sped up video of how they did it:




It looks like a Star Trek episode, the original series not TNG.


What aspect of it makes it look like "Star Trek?" All those stars zipping by?


Also why is it that the moon seems so tiny from all the pics and videos I've seen?


Tiny? Maybe you should try zooming in or something.


Why isn't there a great big horizon?


Because the Moon, though not exactly "tiny," is much, much smaller than the Earth. The apparent horizon is therefore much, much, closer. This is one of the things that makes comprehending a lunar scene visually challenging.


My belief is that the scenes we see are the training grounds in "the us high desert" where the Apollo astronauts trained for their moon missions.


In that case, why are the horizons so close and the desert so tiny? More importantly, why do you keep asking questions that you could easily have answered for yourself?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
The only thing i cant quite add up, is if we did in fact land on the Moon...Travelling in a Shuttle, that has a wonderful Launch sequence, numerous parts that disattach mid flight, extra fuel reserves to speed up the rockets trajectory, aswell as the initial ignition fuel (Basically, Alot of Surplus/Expendable Equipment)...
What resources are left over?
How did they return back the first time?
Who sets up "Lift Off" from the Moon?
How did they test the Materials used for the suits and shuttle if space was at this point, the unknown?
Was it all guess work...That just happened to come to fruition?

This Pushes Me To...
Was We Helped?
Was We Lied To?

If we made it there, My belief is we were helped back.
Actually, apollo capsules upon returning to the Sea, With Parachutes
Look alot like Vimanas IMO.

Either Way, The Moon Is Always Going To Be a Great Topic to Debate!



Apollo Capsule



Vimana
edit on 02/09/2011 by TheSandMansExecutioner because: Adding Photo Links



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:17 AM
link   
Here's my opinion and one which helps/feeds both sides of this controversial debate.

They went to the Moon.
They also made a mock (backup) film of the landing, just in case.

It's my belief the astronauts encountered things/beings they didn't expect (or weren't brief on)


I believe a lot of the 'actual footage' contained too many controversial items (possible UFOs, unnatural monoliths, perhaps beings?..... etc) and some of the 'mock footage' (with the possible help of both Walt Disney and Stanley Kubrick) was aired and passed off as 'actual footage' instead.

Whether my theory is accurate or not, one thing I am almost positive about is, Buzz Aldrin underwent some kind of mental, emotional or physiological trauma.

Anyway OP.......what kind of proof would help you? You know, any kinda proof they'd offer up would be shred apart by debunkers anyway. They'd claim Photoshop the whole way.

Unfortunately we live in a time where we've grown suspicious and cynical about everything. Therefore we'll NEVER EVER all agree on one thing anymore and any sort of proof will never be good enough.


Ya just have to rely on your beliefs and inner self.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Valar God
 


Can you prove any of that against the mountain of data that says otherwise? Even a little?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by GrassyKnoll
A stride is about 3ft on earth. The moon has 1/6th the gravity of the earth so the strides should be a lot bigger.

Do your legs get longer as gravity decreases?


How silly.

For the astronauts to take 3 ft strides on the moon they would have to have exerted 1/6th their normal leg thrust which I'm sure NASA will claim they did.


Okay, I'll bite. Say you're on the moon. How big is your stride?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valar God
There is no Milky Way.
You would have to go outside the Milky Way in order to see it.
You can't determine that you are in something by looking from inside of it.



Yes, I have always had my suspicions on the spiral Galaxy theory.
Not to say it is Not a Spiral Galaxy...But to know that, would as you say, have to be determined from outside.
Its pretty much like "Flat Earth" Theory.

On the other hand if it is Definately a spiral Galaxy, Without a shadow of a doubt, 110%..The only possible way we would know this because either we have been visited and informed of this....Or, we are not originally from here.


Another Theory on the moon, is that it is a satellite. Literally.
We Send Things to Orbit Planets....Possibility we stole the idea from the Moon. "The Moon", like "Phobos", is just a name, not a description after all.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSandMansExecutioner
What resources are left over?
How did they return back the first time?
Who sets up "Lift Off" from the Moon?[/url]Due to gravitational and atmospheric differences, far less fuel is required to lift off from the surface of the moon than from the surface of Earth.

[url]How did they test the Materials used for the suits and shuttle if space was at this point, the unknown?
Was it all guess work...That just happened to come to fruition?
Testing in vacuum chambers; unmanned flights with test equipment on board. Also keep in mind that 8 years passed between the first man in space and the moon landing, so there was time for development, improvement, and safeguards to be developed.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheSandMansExecutioner
Yes, I have always had my suspicions on the spiral Galaxy theory.
Not to say it is Not a Spiral Galaxy...But to know that, would as you say, have to be determined from outside.
Its pretty much like "Flat Earth" Theory.

On the other hand if it is Definately a spiral Galaxy, Without a shadow of a doubt, 110%..The only possible way we would know this because either we have been visited and informed of this....Or, we are not originally from here.
Well, we've observed other spiral galaxies than our own, so we've got a basis for conjecture to begin with. Likewise, through observation and calculation we can determine motion of our own galaxy and see that it fits the model of others outside our own.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton
Testing in vacuum chambers; unmanned flights with test equipment on board. Also keep in mind that 8 years passed between the first man in space and the moon landing, so there was time for development, improvement, and safeguards to be developed.


Without sounding arguementative,How would they have known to test for a vacuum?
This is why i mention the probability of nasa being helped by other intelligences.


I fully agree with the idea of improvements being made during regular orbits, and the landing on the moon.
Practise Makes Perfect.

But unlike normal events, this had to be perfect without practise!!!

As i said, The Moon will always be No.1 Debate Material.

Personally, i think weve been there and back on hundreds of occasions. Maybe even other planets.
Just not with conventional rockets and fuel.

There are probably a few things missing from the complete periodic table, to the ones we are shown.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join