Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

page: 7
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by schitzoandro
reply to post by Frira
 


just so you know, i truly believe that man has walked on the moon, and although i know the debunkers will destroy this, i just hope phage will come along and either back this image up, or discredit it altogether!



www.bbc.co.uk...







hot off the presses!
edit on 6-9-2011 by schitzoandro because: add image


ok, notice how the supposed foot path is thicker and more noticeable than the supposed moon buggy path...that makes sense right? since moon buggy is heavier and has two tracks? there's no reason to believe that foot prints should be more visible than tire tracks =sarcasm




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

The body of the cameras provided shielding from radiation. In addition the film magazines themselves had additional shielding.


No they didnt.

How did they shield the film cartridges when they took them off the camera?
tranquillitybase.files.wordpress.com...

How were the lenses shielded?
What was the handle made from?
ecx.images-amazon.com...

I sure see a lot of black on that camera.


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



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Lono1
 


Tank you, at least someone around here has a sense of humour.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Frira
 


I am with you 100% on that. I remember the moon landings being on TV. I also remember IBM 360 computers and tray of punch cards. Unfortunately youngsters have absolutely no concept of what things were like then.

The IBM I worked on took up a complete floor of the building it was in, and yes it was programmed with punch cards. Try cracking that code when you have dropped the tray!! Graphics? - nope!

reply to post by patternfinder
 


Tell me. Were you even alive then?
edit on 5/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



Oh Man, do I ever remember those d4^^n IBM 360's. Getting those dreaded ILF syntax errors, still haunt me.
SnF



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Good post, and good points. In my opinion, the only "conspiracy" going on involving space flight in general is the fact that the government would not make their entire space program public, and I believe there to be a military based space program that sends men into space, and possibly the moon and beyond. It would make more sense after the space race with the Russians to keep things under wraps. So I agree that we have been to the moon, probably many more times than anyone could guess, with higher technologies that don't involve liquid or gas fossil fuels.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by Phage

The body of the cameras provided shielding from radiation. In addition the film magazines themselves had additional shielding.


No they didnt.

How did they shield the film cartridges when they took them off the camera?
tranquillitybase.files.wordpress.com...

How were the lenses shielded?
What was the handle made from?
ecx.images-amazon.com...

I sure see a lot of black on that camera.


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


I tried to point that out already, seems no one cares. Is phage so must be right.
edit on 6-9-2011 by Saltarello because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Yes, they did.

The magazines were changed inside the LM.

Why would the lenses be shielded? There's this thing called a shutter.

The photograph is not of a lunar camera. It is of one of the training cameras which the astronauts used on Earth.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


I have many links at home about all of the cameras, all of the contractors, and all of the TV satellite receivers and converters. You know sunglasses shield your eyes from solar radiation, but inside the lander the film was stored in metal boxes for the duration of their flight outside of the cameras, I believe they were of a thick lead alloy. If you want, I can post the links, on one there are about 50 links to PDF files from NASA, the contractors, and imaging companies, will tell you everything you could want to know.

You could probibly go straight to Hasselblad in space and Westinghouse Apollo color camera for starters, and here's a link to many PDFs on the TV cameras.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorsebeacon
 



Come on man. That was uncalled for. Im a believer of the moon landing as well but tossing around rhetoric like that will get you no where.
edit on 6-9-2011 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Frira
 


Regardless of who believes what... that was a good story, nice memories and a great photograph.
Thanks for sharing



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by schitzoandro
 

More here:
asunews.asu.edu...





PHOTOSHOP....


...is a cool program. These are awesome pics. Thanks for sharing, Phage. Saw the news article earlier today but didn't include a link.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by JiggyPotamus
 

I like to see when someone actually does have a brain like you. When the atomic bomb was discovered and improved upon by America we know that spies and scientists went to work for the Russians and gave them the same technology we had supposedly because they didn't want America to dominate the world. So after our government went through this huge problem of having real life spies steal information about the atomic bomb they decided it was probably a good idea to figure out ways to hide the full truth and scope of what they were doing. Fool me once and that's okay, fool me twice and I'm the idiot. I think after lesson learned with atomic bombs our military and government began to operate much more covertly. Don't you? Common sense is what needs to prevail here but this day and age people are lacking in that area hugely. Those people end up becoming like that freak in Norway who killed a bunch of kids thinking he was doing the world a favor because they come from people who run a party that spend 85% of Norway federal dollars on private industry instead of the conservative party who spends 15% of federal funds on private industry and the rest goes to staving off long term debt. He played WOW and I found some of his postings to people he made after he had been working on his bomb because he stopped playing for a while. When he came back his nickname was Conservatism. What I thought was strange was that he never really talked about what he believed. He just played the game. I'm willing to bet that the people who don't believe in the moon landing play World Of Warcraft. So you tell me. Do you? Be honest now. In World of Warcraft you get to sort of make your own world and character and I think that helps people develop an alter ego where the entire world around them is a giant conspiracy.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorsebeacon
reply to post by patternfinder
 

Wow. You sure are a smart one. Do you seriously think we are incapable of landing on the moon? I don't even see how this can be an issue with some people. I wasn't alive then and I believe it because of all the evidence pointing towards the fact that we did land on the moon. I think you just have something against John F. Kennedy. That's really what this is all about. You are probably some fat kid who heard a story or two about the moon landing being a hoax and went with it. We currently have jet engines that travel about 200,000 miles an hour and we have satellites that can see in to the distant past the many millions of galaxies in our ever expanding universe. Technology is making obvious leaps and bounds even here on earth and you have a hard time believing we were on the moon 50 years ago. Why are you wasting our time with your retarded ideas? Go learn about civil rights or something instead of thinking you can tell a guy who was actually there that his dad was a liar and Kennedy was a fraud. It was one small step for man and one giant leap for mankind. But for someone like you. It wasn't. So why don't you go walk off the edge of our flat planet. Because I bet you still believe the earth is flat and you are the center of the universe.



wow, that was an interesting read
, i don't know where you got that i didn't like john f kennedy....plus, with all of our technology today, we still can't reach the moon...all i needed to see to believe that the pics were faked was that there was no dust on the foot pads and no crater beneath the ship.....everything else is just details to get mixed up in......no one has ever given me an explanation for what i just mentioned...they just fog it up with too many details that can't be proven



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Never mind the news sites showing the brand spanking new pics of the moon landings taken from a NASA spacecraft, go right to the source - the NASA site showing the pics with video and interactive tools that show the clarity of these new photos: NASA site: www.nasa.gov...

Or keep it in ATS and visit this new thread (mine): www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

If NASA really did go to the moon in the 60's, there's no chance they will ever go again because the politicians are not smart. NASA's most recent accomplishment was crashing a satellite into the moon, great job


Back then, there was a REASON to go there...to beat the Russians at it. It was more than national pride at stake, it was a way of proving our tech over theirs. So that we could say, "We can do this, and you can't, so don't even think about starting a war with us...)...

We haven't been back, as we simply haven't had a good enough REASON to do so. With the information age, space became more about trying to be a money-maker than an expense (i.e. launching all those satellites), so while exploration continues, it's with much cheaper (and more expendable) means...i.e. probes.

I'm betting there will be a private company putting a station on the moon far before any NASA station....probably for space tourism.



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



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
If NASA really did go to the moon in the 60's, there's no chance they will ever go again because the politicians are not smart. NASA's most recent accomplishment was crashing a satellite into the moon, great job


You might want to read up on the Mars rovers mission before laughing at what buffoons NASA is made up of:

marsrover.nasa.gov...

Opportunity has been roaming the surface for over 7 years now. Spirit was active for 6 years before getting stuck. The intended mission length for both rovers was 90 days long. Truly amazing, even more astonishing is the mission price tag of under a billion dollars.

The moon is roughly 220,000 miles away and people question whether we could have visited there, yet those same people seem to have no trouble accepting that we have remote controlled vehicles roaming a planet that is over 35 MILLION miles away. Ironic.



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jason88
Never mind the news sites showing the brand spanking new pics of the moon landings taken from a NASA spacecraft, go right to the source - the NASA site showing the pics with video and interactive tools that show the clarity of these new photos: NASA site: www.nasa.gov...

Or keep it in ATS and visit this new thread (mine): www.abovetopsecret.com...


i just watched the video and i just see white specs that look like many other white spec all over the pics....i see a spot that is blackened out...the clarity isn't any better at discerning objects than the bigfoot or ufo pictures that are constantly being released...."there, see that white dot? that's the box we left" what??????
if i can't tell that it's a box because there's no actual square shape to it and it looks like 3 dozen other white spots, why would i call that proof?????

they use the familiar tactics of insinuation where they show you a pic that isn't quite discernible, then they show you a clear pic of the items from the old pics....this isn't proof, it's just making an inference
edit on 6-9-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
wow, that was an interesting read
, i don't know where you got that i didn't like john f kennedy....plus, with all of our technology today, we still can't reach the moon...all i needed to see to believe that the pics were faked was that there was no dust on the foot pads and no crater beneath the ship.....everything else is just details to get mixed up in......no one has ever given me an explanation for what i just mentioned...they just fog it up with too many details that can't be proven


Then why not do a little searching for the answer? Here, I'll get you started, regarding dust:


The next argument presented on the show deals with the lunar dust. As the lander descended, we clearly see dust getting blown away by the rocket. The exhaust should have blown all the dust away, yet we can clearly see the astronauts' footprints in the dust mere meters from the lander. Obviously, when NASA faked this they messed it up.

Once again, the weird alien environment of the Moon comes to play. Imagine taking a bag of flour and dumping it onto your kitchen floor (kids: ask your folks first!). Now bend over the pile, take a deep breath, and blow into it as hard as you can. Poof! Flour goes everywhere. Why? Because the momentum of your breath goes into the flour, which makes it move. But note that the flour goes up, and sideways, and aloft into the air. If you blow hard enough, you might see little curlicues of air lifting the flour farther than your breath alone could have, and doing so to dust well outside of where your breath actually blew.

That's the heart of this problem. We are used to air helping us blow things around. The air itself is displaced by your breath, which pushed on more air, and so on. On the Earth, your breath might blow flour that was dozens of centimeters away, even though your actual breath didn't reach that far. On the Moon, there is no air. The only dust that gets blown around by the exhaust of the rocket (which, remember, isn't nearly as strong as the HBs claim) is the dust physically touched by the exhaust, or dust hit by other bits of flying dust. In the end, only the dust directly under or a bit around the rocket was blown out by the exhaust. The rest was left where it was. Ironically, the dust around the landing site was probably a bit thicker than before, since the dust blown out would have piled up there.


And regarding the crater:


In the pictures taken of the lunar lander by the astronauts, the TV show continues, there is no blast crater. A rocket capable of landing on the Moon should have burned out a huge crater on the surface, yet there is nothing there.

When someone driving a car pulls into a parking spot, do they do it at 100 kilometers per hour? Of course not. They slow down first, easing off the accelerator. The astronauts did the same thing. Sure, the rocket on the lander was capable of 10,000 pounds of thrust, but they had a throttle. They fired the rocket hard to deorbit and slow enough to land on the Moon, but they didn't need to thrust that hard as they approached the lunar surface; they throttled down to about 3000 pounds of thrust.

Now here comes a little bit of math: the engine nozzle was about 54 inches across (from the Encyclopaedia Astronautica), which means it had an area of 2300 square inches. That in turn means that the thrust generated a pressure of only about 1.5 pounds per square inch! That's not a lot of pressure. Moreover, in a vacuum, the exhaust from a rocket spreads out very rapidly. On Earth, the air in our atmosphere constrains the thrust of a rocket into a narrow column, which is why you get long flames and columns of smoke from the back of a rocket. In a vacuum, no air means the exhaust spreads out even more, lowering the pressure. That's why there's no blast crater! Three thousand pounds of thrust sounds like a lot, but it was so spread out it was actually rather gentle.


Source



posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by patternfinder
they use the familiar tactics of insinuation where they show you a pic that isn't quite discernible, then they show you a clear pic of the items from the old pics..



But in the old pics, the items are in exactly the same orientation and location as the objects in the new pics.
You dont have to trust me. Check it for yourself.
Take any of the Apollo missions, make a map of the objects on the ground according to the 1960's photos, then see for yourself that it matches the same as todays LROC pictures.





new topics
top topics
 
109
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join