Please Debunk The Moon Landing Hoax For Me...

page: 30
15
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valar God
www.youtube.com...


I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?

I have never heard that one.


And an answer to a thing that poked my eyes even when I was 10 years old.
How were "the first steps" filmed from outside the spacecraft ?
The answer to this one must be a hilarious one.

Thanks, lol.


There have been missions in the last 50 years.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency September 14, 2007 though of course it wasn't manned. My Real name is on a disc on that one along with all the other Planetary society members names. Go on tell me I've been hoaxed.

And the last manned trip to the moon was Apollo 17 which landed on the moon December 11, 1972. That's 39 years ago well within your 50 years.


The camera was attached to an equipment pallet called the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly) that folds down when an astronaut pulls a ring near the LM exit ( Armstrong pulled it). The MESA sticks out far enough, when deployed, to give the camera a good line of sight to the descent ladder. This is what filmed the live TV pictures of Armstrong stepping off the footpad and onto the surface.

Also. They haven't been back with a manned trip because there has not been any reason worth going back. That would not be the fault of NASA or any space agency in the world but rather the funds have to be approved by a congress or a senate and which government in the world has any interest in space exploration for the sake of space exploration? The Moon landings were the result of trying to beat a militaristic, ideological and expansionist foe to the Moon.

If, lets say, China decided it was going to put a base on the moon or on Mars the race would be on again.


edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griffo
reply to post by Valar God
 



I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?


Because the country that all others looked up to in the aspect of space exploration, decided it would rather spend it's money killing people to 'protect its freedom'.

And, we are now waiting for other countries and space agencies to catch up and take on that role.
edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



Hang on. I am a believer that NASA put a man on the Moon and I do not ever down play the achievement of the U.S in what it did. But do you realise that a great chunk of the engineers, scientists and technology that got them their actually came from outside of the U.S?
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 



I am a believer that NASA put a man on the Moon and I do not ever down play the achievement of the U.S in what it did


Yes, me too. I just get rather annoyed that America could have achieved so much more in space exploration in this century had they not took their eye off the ball.


But do you realise that a great chunk of the engineers, scientists and technology that got them their actually came from outside of the U.S?


You mean the German scientists after WWII?

edit on 9/9/2011 by Griffo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
"Lack of specific information" means just what it says. If you give me the specific impulse of a given rocket motor, the mass of the rocket, and the coefficient of drag for that rocket, I can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and tell you how fast it will travel through whatever medium is associated with that given value of drag. If all you give me is "Assume they're the same" (which, you might note, I did assume in my post), all I can tell you is that (essentially) the denser the medium, the slower the rocket...thus, it will be fast in air, and slower in water. I suppose you could regard vacuum (space) and a brick wall as the two extreme ends of that curve, with space allowing the highest speed, and a solid wall generating a probable zero speed. Joking aside, if you want a numerical answer, I need numerical input.


Being so smart, as you claim,
you should know what RELATIVE means.

Following your logic, an ice should be less voluminous than water
because things shrink at lower temperatures.

You claim a lot but there is still no proof for anything.





Okay...at this point, I'm throwing the big, red "BULLEXCREMENT!" flag and sounding the troll alarm unless you can show me some fairly conclusive proof for this assertion.


Sure, as soon as you provide a proof for ANYTHING you said so far.

Not to mention ANY proof of Moon landing.





No coincidence that the planetary disk formed at the solar equator...you might consider grabbing an astronomy textbook, or looking online for theories of planetary formation. Given that the pre-planetary nebula is a spinning object, it's going to assume a disk shape at right angles to the axis of spin. Since the planets coalesce out of this spinning nebular cloud, they're all in the same plane, and should all be orbiting in the same direction, unless (and here comes Newton's First Law again) something acted on them to change their orbit. Most of the data you need to study this can be found on wikipedia...the rest can be found on astronomy websites, and little to none of it is graduate level stuff.


Wow, that is such a strong argument ....

Supported with proof, of course.




To be honest, I don't care whether you come to believe we ever made it to the Moon. I don't make any money off your belief, or lack of, and I don't lose sleep over it...but I would prefer that you base your belief on solid science and engineering


Truth : 1 - Hoax : 0

Thank you, come again.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by steveknows

Originally posted by Valar God
www.youtube.com...


I would love to hear an explanation from Moon landing BELIEVERS
why there were no Moon missions in the last 50 years ?

I have never heard that one.


And an answer to a thing that poked my eyes even when I was 10 years old.
How were "the first steps" filmed from outside the spacecraft ?
The answer to this one must be a hilarious one.

Thanks, lol.


There have been missions in the last 50 years.

The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency September 14, 2007 though of course it wasn't manned. My Real name is on a disc on that one along with all the other Planetary society members names. Go on tell me I've been hoaxed.

And the last manned trip to the moon was Apollo 17 which landed on the moon December 11, 1972. That's 39 years ago well within your 50 years.


The camera was attached to an equipment pallet called the MESA (Modular Equipment Stowage Assembly) that folds down when an astronaut pulls a ring near the LM exit ( Armstrong pulled it). The MESA sticks out far enough, when deployed, to give the camera a good line of sight to the descent ladder. This is what filmed the live TV pictures of Armstrong stepping off the footpad and onto the surface.

Also. They haven't been back with a manned trip because there has not been any reason worth going back. That would not be the fault of NASA or any space agency in the world but rather the funds have to be approved by a congress or a senate and which government in the world has any interest in space exploration for the sake of space exploration? The Moon landings were the result of trying to beat a militaristic, ideological and expansionist foe to the Moon.

If, lets say, China decided it was going to put a base on the moon or on Mars the race would be on again.


edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



I am sorry, but it is not my bed time yet,
so I am not interested in bed time stories at this moment.

Perhaps some other time.

Thanks anyway, you try really hard.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 


"Beginning with the first flight with a primitive capsule, and then getting to the moon, it was a great achievement for humanity," Russian astronaut Sergei Krikalev said.

"Of course, we would have liked to see the first man on the moon be Soviet, Russian, but that's life ... Our own achievements were very many," he told Associated Press Television News. "I think this is fine. It's like sports – at one stage one person wins, at another it's somebody else," said Krikalev.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bhornbuckle75
 


What complexity do you mean? Do you think docking the shuttle and Souyz spacecraft with the ISS is trivial? Or is that a hoax as well?


I am afraid that that looks very much like being a hoax as well. You will like this Phage,
as you are clearly very adept at spotting obvious Fakery (except in 9/11 footage, I fear).

Endeavour and the spaced out NASA efforts



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 

Both used the same source video. Sibrel chose to edit certain parts out. Parts he didn't want you to see. In particular the parts that show that the "arm" is actually the window frame.


A cutout on the _..right.

I wonder why the youtube poster had to call it "Banned in America". I wonder why he didn't provide the source of the nonsense.
edit on 9/8/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


The title of the docu was actually A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To the Moon. I see little evidence of it being from the same source as the one you posted either, same camera, but not the same sequence. I also notice that the video you posted as proof was also edited, had no title screen as Bart's film showed. I guess the title may have been a personal choice the poster made but then, maybe you would be better off asking the poster of said video and not me.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


I only was proposing a possibility. Not even that I personally believed it myself...just that is was possible .



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I saw a video once that showed a studio with a moon surface model and a camera set up to fly over it for filming moon approaches and they said that was what they did for the Apollo missions. I can't find it now, but I believe it, the moon approach videos look totally fake to me and that studio prop looks about the same as what's on the film.

Has anyone else seen the video I saw?
edit on 10-9-2011 by CB328 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by CB328
I saw a video once that showed a studio with a moon surface model and a camera set up to fly over it for filming moon approaches



One of two things you might have seen.
1. The LOLA setup, which is a huge globe and a track mounted system, described half way down this page here
and a youtube video of what it looked like.

2. The "Landing and Ascent" simulator, for more closeup work, described here and on page 27 and 28 of this PDF document.
A ceiling mounted model of the surface.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

Here's some pretty good imagery. It's brand new, September 6th 2011. From the LROC(Lunar Recon Orbital Camera).

Apollo 17

Foot trails! Not bad.

Apollo 14


Apollo 12


Video Walkthru



The LROC site with the article containing all this can be found here.

Another article containing a collection of information intended to address your OP Title appeal can be found here. The top section deals with the recent LROC images because that is the latest, but there is a lot of other info down the page.
 

I know you want really HQ images like we can access through Google Earth, but those are all aircraft generated. The GE images that are actually satellite imagery are nice and clear, but smaller objects like vehicles are not discernible at the sat image level. The landing sites for the Apollos contain small artifacts like ground probes, antennae, etc...the largest artifact will be the launch pad left by the LM, and that's only about 12 feet across, and would not be a discernible object in Google Earth sat images if it were sitting on the Nazca plateau(which looks a lot like the lunar surface, minus the craters). So we are left with the fact that the footprint trails around the sites actually represent the "largest" visible traces of the Apollo missions. Kinda funny.

I want high res images too. I'm annoyed by Google Moon's lack of ability to allow me to scrutinize lunar features, in the same way that I'm annoyed that my telescopes can't do it either. Both are restricted from doing what I want by certain economic and physical laws. However, every year there are advances, and better images, and so, like you, I'm waiting--not for proof of manned lunar missions, because I have satisfied myself to that question already--for the spark that will begin the next Diaspora, the next human colonization drive. I'm waiting for the space equivalent of the Gold Rush of the American West.

Anyway, hope this helps ya a bit!



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Valar God
 


Originally posted by BrotherStormhammer
Lack of specific information" means just what it says. If you give me the specific impulse of a given rocket motor, the mass of the rocket, and the coefficient of drag for that rocket, I can do a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation and tell you how fast it will travel through whatever medium is associated with that given value of drag. If all you give me is "Assume they're the same" (which, you might note, I did assume in my post), all I can tell you is that (essentially) the denser the medium, the slower the rocket...thus, it will be fast in air, and slower in water. I suppose you could regard vacuum (space) and a brick wall as the two extreme ends of that curve, with space allowing the highest speed, and a solid wall generating a probable zero speed. Joking aside, if you want a numerical answer, I need numerical input.

Following your logic, an ice should be less voluminous than water
because things shrink at lower temperatures.

Things do "shrink" at lower temperatures. Good thing for us h2o is an exception to that rule, in part...otherwise ice forming on surfaces of bodies of water would sink to the bottom, resulting in....no life on earth ever getting started.

I'm not quite clear on how you "followed the logic" indicated by the text you quoted, and ended up with water's anomalous behavior of its solid state having less density than its liquid state. Please clarify? It looks like you are trying to make him appear "wrong" by some kind of sneaky method of putting words in his mouth. I hope this is not the case, and thus ask for clarification.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

Some material to ponder.
I have searched for some sites that provide technical details regarding the Apollo flights:
The rather complete historical development of the Apollo program: www.hq.nasa.gov...
A trajectory description for laymen, including how they limited exposure to the Van Allen belts: www.braeunig.us...
PDF of NASA's flight plan for Apollo 11: www.hq.nasa.gov...
A very detailed of the development program, including how the contractor companies participated: history.nasa.gov...
A detailed look at the program's history including decision milestones: www.munseys.com...
A way to obtain most all of the Apollo program's documentation: www.thehistoricalarchive.com...
A post-flight trajectory review: ntrs.nasa.gov...
An analysis of the post-flight trajectory review: www.ehartwell.com...
Essay regarding the launch window and its impact of trajectory: history.nasa.gov...
One of my best friends while I worked in Huntsville was the sister of one of the mathematicians on Von Braun's staff. I have asked him for links or references to detailed flight planning, including weight/thrust computations. I do not know if he will help me find that material
The best way to determine if you think that was all a hoax is to study what I have provided, and then find the flaw that would have prevented the flight and the landing. There is plenty of material "out there" that describes the mission of previous flight missions, and what they learned at each stage to continue to the next. Some early flights were fact-finding missions for rendezvous and docking, attitude control, lunar orbit injection burns, and so on. There is also plenty of material "out there" regarding flying prototypes of the Lander and actual practice doing the landings. There were sophisticated simulators where everything was practiced and refined.
If you can spot the flaw that would prevent those missions from succeeding, please point them out to the rest of us. There were hundreds of companies with thousands of people working on the pieces, and who were superb engineers. I can assure you, a hoax would have been detected and spotted quite easily; and, all of those people were civilian contractors. NASA did not build the Apollo stack. The government could not have silenced a hoax any more than they could prevent worldwide rain.



posted on Sep, 19 2011 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by CB328
 

Has anyone else seen the video I saw?
No, but I sat in and operated the actual simulator. The pictures used in that simulator were not high quality; and, that was simply because we hadn't yet gone to the moon in order to take good ones. The surface had rocks scattered about it in order to simulate junk in the landing area. The objective of that simulator was to train astronauts to fly the Lander, not to provide them minute details of the landing site. We didn't have details about the landing site ... just those made my terrestrial telescopes, Ranger missions, and so on.
If the pilots could handle the vehicle dynamics, skirt the rocks that were rearranged often, and land with enough simulated fuel for safety, the practice was a success.
The simulator controlled roll/pitch/yaw of the cockpit and the camera pod. Thrust/mass behaviors regulated decent rate of the camera pod and the "fuel timeout". The astronauts were superb pilots and usually managed very well. I always crashed the simulation. (I had no purpose being there. We played with the stuff from time to time. I was there following the Apollo missions but before they dismantled the trainers.)



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeIsPeculiar
 

Awesome list of sources and info. Thanks!


I wish I could have been around to see that stuff in action like you're talking about. I go look at the Saturn V engines in Houston every now and then, they are mind blowing. Sure wish I could have watched one lift off.


It occurred to me that it may be possible to get conclusive evidence that undeniably places the astronauts from any given Apollo mission, if not actually on the surface of the moon, at the very least in Lunar orbit.
The subject of directional radio transmissions has come up before in discussions of the possibility of a "moon landing hoax." It is verifiable from many sources that during the actual missions, radio operators(including licensed HAM operators) had to aim their receiving antennae at the moon in order to pick up the ongoing dialogue between the astronauts and Ground Control.
However, this is not accepted as "conclusive" because NASA could have placed a relay into Lunar Orbit and ran all the astronaut's dialogue to the relay on a tight beam which no one would have been able to detect or intercept, and the relay would then fire it right back to GC , thus carrying the "illusion" that the astronauts were actually broadcasting from the moon.
However, there is a discernible time-lag of about one second in a one-way transmission to or from the moon, meaning there is a two second lag for a round trip. It should be possible to cobble together a quick and simple software tool that can run an analysis of all radio traffic during the periods when transmissions from the astronauts were "apparently" coming from the moon and provide a statistical chart of lag-times. Using a relay system to "simulate" the astronauts presence at Luna would double the lag time again, because the signals would be making two round trips per vocal exchange at that point.
So if at any point in any of the conversations the astronauts consistently respond in less than four seconds, they must be at the moon. Not necessarily on it, but at it....orbiting it. And if they're actually orbiting it, it would follow that they probably landed too.

Check my logic here....does that sound correct to you?

EDIT: On second thought, I can check my own logic. It wouldn't be accepted because some would just claim that the audio data had been tampered with in order to shorten lag times. It would only work if done during a live mission, which is obviously out of the question. So nevermind.
edit on 9/20/2011 by Tsurugi because: Fail.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

A thought occured to me earlier today; the infamous shot of an American astronaut hitting a golf ball on the moon. What was the temperature on the moon that day. If the temperature was really cold like -100 C or colder wouldn't the golf ball have been so brittle that it shattered into hundreds of pieces??
If the sun were shining on it, it would be hot rather than cold. The moon is hot in the sun and cools only toward the shadow areas. The space suits had trouble getting rid of heat, not keeping the astronaut warm. Same for the golf ball or anything else touched by the sun.



posted on Sep, 20 2011 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GrassyKnoll
 

The Apollo lander obviously would make an imprint if it were to have ever touched the moon's surface.
The decent engine was shut down well above touch-down just to avoid dust and debris from being deposited on and in various equipment, including the ascent engines. Any adjustments needed for the decent was done with the thrusters at each corner of the LEM.
I have posted very detailed flight information in the form of "Chariots for Apollo". If you read that material you will understand how very technically feasible the moon landing was. You would not be able to choose a "failure point" if you'd just read that material.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Answer this one question.

Why are there never any stars in the pictures or videos of the moon? All I see is black space. That is nonsense. Anyone with any trace of common sense would know there should be stars visible in every part of blackness in photos or video.

That "video" of the thing blasting off from the moon was ridiculous. Still no stars.

Where are they?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
It's been said about a million times already. They were in the moon at daytime. You go out and see star at daytime? You go out and take pictures of star with daytime exposure?





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join