Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 4
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 04:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 





Comparing the effects of microwaves to the effects of high energy particles is meaningless.


2d that. It seems certain members here needs to recall their basic physics lessons.




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


My friend you should not despair. For those with a decent education and parents who lived through the Nasa glory years of the Apollo program it is ludicruous to even speak of a Lunar landing hoax. It seems though in todays US ignorance thrives and is equalled to bliss.

Let me add two nice articles supporting your view and faith in a program and thousands of proud engineers, that now seem to be stained by conspirational troglodytes, suspecting a conspiracy in their own underwear.

Apollo landing sites

Basic LROC (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera) information (Antidote for poisoned lunar hoax junkies).

Enjoy.
edit on 6-9-2011 by johncarter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_CT2
 


Hi,
There are high definition images of the landing areas, resolution is like 60cm or something close to that they are at:
www.lroc.asu.edu...
The problem is the images are between 5 and 36gb to download. I've downloaded a few of the big onces but am completly unable to open them even with the correct software, guess my computer isnt good enough!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 05:31 AM
link   
As far as I know, every question the non-believers have come up with regarding the moon landings, have had an explanation. The issue is the ability to believe in anything other than a complete government conspiracy led by the men in black and reptilian involvement to turn us all into their soylant green lizard food paste just isn't there. We went to the moon. We brought back rock samples. We took huge giant rockets that could be seen for miles. I also believe HAM operators were able to monitor the first flights completely. People have been convicted of murder in a court room on less evidence!

Op, it was a pleasure to hear the story of your fathers involvement. Thanks for sharing and know that the majority of us respect him immeasurably for what he did, even if we don't know who he was.

Edit to add:


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder
 



As a technician, maybe you should ask an electrical engineer about it.



This made me laugh so hard I almost peed my pants!


Originally posted by Saltarello

Originally posted by Phage

First post here. I seem to recall a hasselblad guy explaining how the cameras had no special shielding-insulation, thermal or any other. I have read a bit from you around here, normally spot on, this must be the first time you miss a shot, or are you going to tell us that the poor old man was lying?

Edot to add: I also have fond memories of christmas and santa claus, just FYI.


Phage doesn't "miss a shot". I have yet to read anything this person has ever posted and not been able to verify its reality. I see you are fairly new here. Your respect for Phage will take root as it has in most all of us here at ATS.

edit on 6-9-2011 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
Excellent thread. S&F

I love to read about actual accounts of the Apollo missions from those who were there.

To those who think the moon landings were faked, you should really try and get some "first hand" accounts from people who actually lived through the 60's. The scale of people involved in both the USA and Australia is far to large to be able to fake such events. Surely someone would have come forward in the last 40 years with solid evidence if it had actually been a hoax. Instead we only have crackpot theories with no basis beyond wild speculation coming from people seek to capitalise on gullibility.
edit on 5/9/2011 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)

I tend to agree about the scale of the conspiracy. However, unlike say the 9/11 conspiracy the moon one depends on a very very small number of people. The whole "truth" depends on a feed from 3 astronauts. So that's a fake feed from 3 astronauts plus however many people need to fake the feed. Not only that but all that is needed is a delayed feed from all the genuine instrumentation measuring genuine "actors" coupled with fake video!! Everyone else, the thousands downstrem are entirely dependant on the data coming from the Apollo craft. OK two feeds one from the command module and one from the lem.

So it is just possible but still requires a lot of faith from technicians at the time not double checking the data feeds.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by malcr
 


yeah all that is needed is also an actual spacecraft that travelled to the moon, as the craft itself was tracked not only by HAM operators but also the Russians. So to pull off a hoax, they had to actually go to the moon. Not only that, they had to co-ordinate perfectly fake transmissions from the craft itself to Earth at exactly the correct times. This is incredibly difficult to do with the technology available (you either have hours and hours of recorded audio on the craft, and pray that nothing breaks, or you have a perfectly co-ordinated re-transmission based on from Earth using equipment that was not being used for tracking itself). If they went to all that trouble, how much harder was it to stick 3 people in Apollo also?

Thats something that the hoax believers consistently overlook; its actually as difficult (if not more difficult) to hoax as it is to actually land.

The Apollo astronauts received a letter of congratulations from Russia's cosmonauts for their achievement with Apollo 11. The hoax not only needed to fool the general public, but also the Russian space program which was more than capable of tracking Apollo and working out that they were being hoaxed (and even had collaborative elements; both sides shared data such as radiation and even shared samples from the moon).

To the OP, its obvious from your post the pride you feel about your old man's involvement with Apollo, and rightly so! I have a feeling that most hoax believers have never seen any actual Apollo hardware, visited Kennedy Space Center or spoken to anyone involved in the program.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I don't have a firm position on the moon landing, but is it possible that manned rockets were launched, but simply floated somewhere out in the atmosphere "out of sight" while the moon landing was staged, just to discourage the Russians?



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Videot
I was in high school at the time, and I must say it would have had to be an unbelievably vast operation for it to be a hoax. Simply unimaginable. I've really only run into one thing that truly disturbs me about it, and I haven't heard any of the "hoaxers" mention it (though some may have).

I read that all the still shots they took while walking around on the moon were taken with a standard, off-the-shelf, high quality German made chemical film camera.

I just don't see how any photographic chemicals could have withstood the temperatures, several hundred degrees in the sunlight, minus several hundred in the shade. And then there's the question of all the radiation flying around in the absence of an atmosphere that the exposures would have been subjected to.

Can anyone explain this?

Yes:
And here's aperfect example where:
"Yes! it matters you were not alive during those times".
Simple misconceptions like "chemical film camera".
The Hasselblads used120/220(6cm) "film".(silver halide coated cellulloid) the "film" had to be developed and printed in a darkroom witha "wet process" of chemical baths. The film was carried back and developed here on earth in room temperature nasa "darkrooms".I 've processed thousands of rolls B&W; hundreds of process "c-41"(color negative)and "E-6"(color transparency)in my lifetime. My fingers still smell a bit like "fixer".

There were no liquids in the camera.There was no "photoshop " then either. Radiation added fogging to the overall exposure so high iso (highly sensitive) films could not be used.

Originally posted by Videot


It would certainly ease my mind! I keep thinking about how hot the competition was between the US and the USSR back then, and it leaves me with a strange feeling that maybe things indeed weren't what they seemed. But I REALLY want to believe...
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:46 AM
link   
For those who would doubt the Moon landings, the answer is simple, go there yourselves and pick up all the stuff that was left there...including the cameras. I'm sure if you talk nice to Mr Branson, he'll stick you in one of his craft. And also spare a thought for Apollo 1, or was that a hoax too!



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by smurfy
For those who would doubt the Moon landings, the answer is simple, go there yourselves and pick up all the stuff that was left there...including the cameras. I'm sure if you talk nice to Mr Branson, he'll stick you in one of his craft. And also spare a thought for Apollo 1, or was that a hoax too!


There is no need to actually go there...

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
I don't have a firm position on the moon landing, but is it possible that manned rockets were launched, but simply floated somewhere out in the atmosphere "out of sight" while the moon landing was staged, just to discourage the Russians?


And it's also "possible" my cat attended a city planning meeting when I let her out last night!
She left; she came home; new buildings are going up around town...

Well... what do I hear; here (all the time)
"Anything is possible!".
Its just not likely.
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
I have a theory that everything leading up to launch was real , so there was no need to hide anything from the multitudes of people who were involved with the Apollo 11 program .
Post launch is where the lie begins and could be carried out by only a handful of individuals .
Who is to say that the crew of apollo 11 didn't just sit in orbit and then return to earth ?

I'm not saying we didn't go to the moon at some point . I just don't think it was achieved by Apollo 11 .



edit on 29/05/2011 by tpg65 because: (no reason given)


+5 more 
posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:16 AM
link   
It is immediately apparent which contributors to this thread were alive in the 1960's and which were not. During the "Golden Age" of the "Space Age," kids were highly motivated to develop the skills that would allow them, too, to contribute to humanity's most exciting endeavor. They built model rockets, which taught them about concepts like thrust and specific impulse. They built their own radios, which taught them the basics of electronics. They studied astronomy, that taught them about celestial mechanics. Naturally, they took and developed their own photographs, which allowed them to understand concepts like exposure and trick photography.They were not a passive audience, they were informed witnesses.

Moon Hoax believers, on the other hand, have short attention spans and like getting their information in video format. They confuse passively receiving "information" with life experience. They apply critical thinking only when they do not like what they are told. I fear for civilization.
edit on 6-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   
How did they feed the computers rubbish? I believe a while prior they sent an unmanned probe up. It could have recorded the data from that flight and fed it to those ancient computers as real time



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by patternfinder


i have no idea, you were the one who brought up electromagnetism......

Oh my. No idea at all.

Electromagnetic radiation has nothing to do with electromagnetism. Electromagnetic radiation is light. Electromagnetic radiation is x-rays. Electromagnetic radiation is radio. Electromagnetic radiation is microwaves.

Electromagnetic radiation occurs at different frequencies. At very high frequencies (ultraviolet and upwards) it carries enough energy to remove electrons from atoms. That's when it becomes ionizing radiation. Microwaves cannot do that but they can make water molecules wiggle.

High energy particles are not the same as electromagnetic radiation. High energy particles have no particular "frequency". They're just zipping through space really really fast. It is high energy particles which is the source of radiation in the Van Allen belts.

edit on 9/5/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


hmm, so the electrons are just wiggling in wire when there is a short between positive and negative? this isn't causing electron flow eg...ripping electrons from atoms down a row? what proof do we have of this phenomenon?
edit on 5-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)


D.c (direct current) : electrons "flow" from one end of the wire to the the other. When you get into semiconductor theory you find out about "electron-flow vs. "hole-flow" ideas.Two sides of the same coin. in "hole flow" the movement of an electron out of an atoms orbit leaves a "hole" to be filled by any electron free enough to fill in.
So the "holes" are envisioned moving.
A.c.(alternating current) can be visualized as a tube full of round marbles and you add a marble in one end, it pushes one out the other. but it gets stuffed right back in and yours falls out again so the power (the push) is transferred but there is less resistive heating along the way.

Ionizing Radiation"( the product of radioactive "decay"() is not"vibration"but actual particles "flying" off. Which is why radioactive materials "decay" through various isotopes( change into other elements) as they throw off particles. Alpha radiation (named after and denoted by the first letter in the Greek alphabet, α) consist of two protons and two neutrons bound together into a particle identical to a helium nucleus, which is classically produced in the process of alpha decay, but may be produced also in other ways and given the same name.

Beta radiation is electrons.
However I believe Gamma is a high energy electromagnetic wave..
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
We went to the moon.

If you don't believe me then go talk to Buzz if you got the balls.



The real lie is what they witnessed while there and what they actually told the world.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by patternfinder
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder
 

You don't know anything at all about radiation of any sort, do you?
The radiation in the Van Allen belts consists of high energy particles, not electromagnetic radiation. It doesn't have a frequency. (now you're going to tell me everything has "frequencies").



did you know that an electromagnet uses alternating current to generate a field around a coil? do you think that alternating current isn't a frequency? does 60 hz sound familiar?


Doesn't an electromagnet usually use a DC ?

Otherwise wouldn't the poles switch with every half oscillation?

Yes:
And thats a particularly useful characteristic.
Add a second coil("secondary winding") and you have created a "transformer".Thechanging primary field induces avoltage and current in the secondary side.

Useful because we manipulate the output of the secondary by changing the ratio of number of windings and"coupling"(distance)and flux concentration(different"cores"): 100windings in the primary side coupled to 1000 winding (secondary side gives a voltage step-up ratio of 100:1000 or a10 times step up 120 vac steps up to 1200 volts but your output current drops by a factor of 10. there is no "free lunch," simple "power" (watts= voltage x current) if you increase one you naturally decrease the other for the same wattage.(A.c.power is actually much more involved, factoring in "phase relationships"and "reactances").
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-9-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin

Originally posted by smurfy
For those who would doubt the Moon landings, the answer is simple, go there yourselves and pick up all the stuff that was left there...including the cameras. I'm sure if you talk nice to Mr Branson, he'll stick you in one of his craft. And also spare a thought for Apollo 1, or was that a hoax too!


There is no need to actually go there...

en.wikipedia.org...


I know, Anyway it's only for the brave,



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Those model rockets, those telescopes and the devouring of magazines all filled with science that NONE of them could actually reproduce....but sure could FEEL huh.

You are right it is immediately apparent that people that lived through that era feel that only LATELY things are off, and that they were not just as,, if not MORE lied to and hypnotized into the roles that they have played.

I guess you just cannot grasp that things are just NOT all as you think they are ??

It really is incredible to fathom that you believe the government and all of its various entities were not playing you hard, REAL HARD most of the time....

The reality is, you have only your faith in them as your guide,, without that faith you would question like us...

Man is it easy to shell-shock and coddle people into believing anything, i have noticed that OFFICIAL BELIEVERS are just that, Religious Nuts who have no ability to think outside of the box....because they would die if they did.....later when the "scientists" change the stories they may entertain it but i doubt that too.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by patternfinder
 

You're correct. That's why I asked for the frequency of a 10MeV electron. Its wavelength can be calculated but it doesn't really mean much unless the particle is being considered as a wave.

In any case the point I was attempting to make was that there is a great deal of difference between particle radiation (ionizing) and electromagnetic radiation (ionizing and otherwise) and their effects. Comparing the effects of microwaves to the effects of high energy particles is meaningless.
edit on 9/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


ok, I have had a look around and I'm seeing alot of different ideas on the van allen belts.....first, i would have to believe that we went to the moon in order to believe that man has traveled through the belts....i'm not convinced at all that we got to the moon.......if the van allen belt is so powerful that it strips electrons from atoms, then i'm not seeing how anything made of atoms can resist having their electrons stripped from them......where are these electrons going to? what is the culprit that is stripping these atoms of their electrons? all of this still doesn't match the laws of balance either.....

everything in existence is constantly trying to balance out....electrons will only be stripped from another atom by an atom that doesn't have the same amount of electrons...the outer valence will be closer to the protons of the atom that is lacking electrons, therefore creating a strong enough pull to attract the outer electrons from it's prior host.......this is the same whether in our atmosphere or in outer space...radiation is still signal propagation no matter which way you want to look at it or what you want to call it and still follows the same rules that all other signals follow....are the effects of the belts the same as any other signal if it is pushed with enough power? cancer, mutated cells, electronic interference, dizziness, queaziness?





new topics
top topics
 
109
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join