Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 50
105
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


You (and everyone else who's interested) should take a read through this page: www.braeunig.us...


Despite overwhelming evidence that American astronauts landed on the Moon during the period 1969-1972, there are many conspiracy theorists that dispute this. One of their arguments point to the fact there is no evidence of a pronounced crater beneath the engine nozzle of the lunar module (LM). They insist a crater should have been formed by the erosive action of the engine's exhaust stream. The typical response to this is that the exhaust stream was not strong enough or concentrated enough to excavate a crater, but can this be proven scientifically? This is the purpose of this web page. We will show that the transfer of kinetic energy from the engine exhaust to the lunar soil was insufficient to produce an obvious crater.


It's a good read and very informative.


Yes, an interesting read but alas, totally flawed because his calculations are based on totally incorrect inputs!
He used Earths Gravity constant (9.81m/s), not the gravity on the Moon (1.64m/s).
We know the maximum and minimum thrusts produced by the LMs rocket motor but he decided to pluck some random totally irrelevent figure out the air.
And he based his calculations on the bottom of the bell nozzle being 7 feet above the Lunar surface which is completely wrong.
We know the LM has a total height of 17.9 feet (5.5 m) so if we minus the depth of the body, which is 13.3 feet (4.1 m) that gives us the total height of the LM's undercarriage as 4.6 feet (1.4m).
Once we know this one has only look at the LM pics to be able to make an educated guess of the real distance between the base of bell nozzle from the Lunar surface...My estimate is about 2 feet (61cm)...Certainly much closer than 7 feet!
He even overstated the diameter of the bell nozzle...He said it was 63" (1.6 m) but its actually 59" (1.5 m).
Also he hasn't taken into account what the 5 second burn after touchdown until shut down would have had.
edit on 31/1/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I'm afraid that you are showing your lack of understanding about exposure times and astrophotography.

Here's some pictures I took:

constellation of Orion, Cannon AE1, 50mm lens, 800 ISO at 15 seconds of exposure time:


constellation of Taurus, Cannon AE1, 50mm lens, 800 ISO at 15 seconds of exposure time. Half moon out, with street lamp lighting the trees (except they looked black to my eyes):


The moon with my digital camera zoomed in. Exposure time: 1/120 of a second....and it was over exposed as you can see:


What aperture did you use?


There are no pictures in most of the lunar landing pictures because of the fact that exposure times were much too fast to capture any stars. The ground on the moon was bright enough for taking pictures with a shutter speed like here on earth during the day. My shot of the moon above was at 120th's of a second, and it still came out over exposed.
My star shots take up to 15 seconds of exposure to see them decently. Snap a picture at only a fraction of a second and you will get nothing,

There is a photo floating around here on ATS that someone posted that is an over exposed photo from the moon's surface, and in it, you can clearly see the Orion constellation, while everything else is very washed out from over exposure. Can't remember who it was that had it so I'll have to go search. for it.


Its still not proof they went to the Moon because they exact same results could be obtained if they took the shots in a studio here on Earth in front of a black backdrop...Which would also explain the lighting anomalies seen.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I used F/1.8 on my 50mm lens.


No my pictures are not proof we went to the moon, or are the absence of stars in the Apollo pictures proof that we went to the moon.

I never said they were.

However you, as many other moon hoaxers, like to try and use it as proof that the moon landings were fake because of the lack of stars.

As you so nicely pointed out: they're not proof of anything, other than you can not capture star light with a shutter speed set at fractions of a second.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



No, it simply hearsay from someone who can't even be bothered to quote from a book which he owns and is collecting dust on his bookshelf for almost a year! Besides, The Astronauts were all drawn from a pool of highly experienced USAF fighter pilots and test pilots...Sure they were smart men, but they weren't rocket scientists! By implying that they were all highly smug geniuses that looked down on journalists like they were "as Moondust under their feet", he has lost any credibility in my book.

Now that I have my book physically available, lets have some fun, shall we ?



[...]
For most NASA fliers, however working with the media was simultaneously a glorious ego boost and excruciatingly oppressive, as enjoyable as having one's intimate thoughts and personal feelings examined as if they were insects under dissection. Astronauts would become famous to the press for their loathing of the press, a sentiment shared by the great majority of the agency's other employee's.
[...]
Many NASA workers were immersed in principles of celestial mechanics, in work so astronomically complicated that explaining it to a layman was more trouble than it was worth.
[...]
Rocket Men by Craig Nelson, page 23.

Since you kindly mentioned that astronauts were military test pilots, like if I was not aware of that...



[...] The agency's biggest celebrities, its combat-test-pilot astronauts, were notoriously laconic, ...(where the cardinal rule is to transmit absolutely crucial information)...
[...]
Rocket Men by Craig Nelson, page 23.




[...]
Mike Collins tried to explain this conflict: "Being a military test pilot was the best background from a technical point of view, but was probably the worst background from a public relations or emotional point of view. We were trained to transmit vital pieces of information..."
[...]
Rocket Men by Craig Nelson, page 24.


But wait, there is more...



Micheal Collins: "What [the press] really wanted to know was: beyond all that technical crap, what did the crew feel ? How did it feel to ride a rocket, what thoughts were racing through your mind as you plummeted toward the sea with the parachutes not yet open ?
How scared were you anyway ? [...]
As technical people, as test pilots whose bread and butter was the cold, dispassionate analysis of complicated facts...it didn't seem right for the press to have this morbid, unhealthy, persistent, prodding, probing preoccupation with the frills, when the silly bastards didn't understand how the machine operated..."
Rocket Men by Craig Nelson, page 25/26.


So there, like I previously said, I think that explains pretty clearly the real mindset that astronauts had.

Its a good read, you should try it.

Joking by the way, I know you will never read it.
edit on 31-1-2013 by SolidGoal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
"NASA claimed the accelerometers and gyros and the inertial system in general did as well as the tracking dishes."

Welcome back, I smell an old troll here. We went over this exact point already. The forum ate my previous response, so let me sum up my reply to the autograph nonsense with this; supply and demand. KSC Visitor Center is contracted out to a private company who run it to make a profit and in doing so NASA gets the benefit of not having to pay a dime for the visitor center (it used to be a money hole when I was a kid that NASA had to supply funds for to make ends meet). Yes, there are space enthusiasts out there with money, and some are willing to pay big bucks for astronaut autographs, particularly when it's not even possible to get one or more of them after the astronaut has passed. I got Fred Haise's signature for free, but I didn't get it at the visitor center. I got it when meeting him and Guenter Wendt (who's now passed) in person at a small event at a local mall near there. No, Haise wasn't a moon walker, but he was part of what was probably the second most famous Apollo mission, Apollo 13. He was also the first to land the prototype of the shuttle. Wendt got a mention in the Apollo 13 film and his involvement with NASA through its early years is extensive. I have both their signatures, and the only thing I paid for was Wendt's book (which was entirely optional). Once Fred Haise passes on I could resell both for big cash, but that wouldn't make his flight fake or make the white room a hoax.

Now onto the inertial system. The astronauts performed star sightings as well as sightings on the earth or moon to keep their inertial system properly aligned. Yes, it experienced drift, yes they corrected for it with those sightings. THAT is why they were able to navigate to the moon as accurately as state vector updates would allow anyway. You've been told all of this already, you ignored it, so it doesn't surprise me that you got into a fight at KSC. Wish I could have been there to help explain it to you myself, not that you would have listened. Here, go test it for yourself in this high fidelity simulator which uses the actual Apollo guidance computer software and ties it into an accurate simulation of all the spacecraft's systems including the inertial system (complete with drift):
nassp.sourceforge.net...
You can do the star and planet sightings yourself. They work.


I have been "told" what? Where do you get off rude person? Excuse me? Do I know you ? Telling me? If you care to write something informative please do. I am open to listening. On the other hand, you can take your "telling me" attitude and……

How rude…..

My son pointed out to the astronaut among other things that Alan Shepard himself stated in his debriefing that he was unsure as to whether the stars he sighted were "correct". Read it for yourself. Shepard was not sure. If you can't be sure , you can't go to the moon. Just take a look at the Apollo 14 Technical Crew Debriefing.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheDaytonaFlinstones
...Alan Shepard himself stated in his debriefing that he was unsure as to whether the stars he sighted were "correct". Read it for yourself. Shepard was not sure. If you can't be sure , you can't go to the moon...


Why not? Are you claiming they relied on stars for navigation?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.


1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.



YOUR correct about evidence and here it is



Now if you click on the above image when loaded you will see it full size and that image confirms lots of things first.

It's from Apollo 11 Armstrong took over control of the landing and the LEM had some lateral movement this can be seen here that drag mark left by the PROBE on the pad,

Second it also proves YOUR blast crater theory is BS like all the other stuff you have claimed why because the PROBE has been bent, solid rock beneath the lander and you can see the dust layer around the PROBE.

Third if you have click on the picture once it has loaded YOU should now see the picture at full resolution look at the area under the lander YOU will see radial marks caused by the thrust on descent.

Last but not least looking at YOUR replies regarding photographs WE call all see YOU are NOT or are the worst Professional photographer we have had the pleasure to debate with, if your employed by someone YOU better hope they never see YOUR posts because if you are a photographer YOU must have lied at the interview!!!
edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Except that the engine was running at minimum thrust when they landed. They were throttling down the entire time they were descending once they got close. The LEM had from 1,050 lbs of thrust, to 10,125 lbs of thrust. The LEM was at 5 ft/s at landing. As they got closer to the surface they had to throttle down, or they would have bounced back into the air, which didn't happen. They were at the highest thrust during the initial descent to slow them down, and at the lowest thrust at touch down. So there wouldn't have been any kind of crater, because there wasn't enough thrust to create one.


1,050 lbs of thrust at minimum throttle is hardly nothing! Thats about 478 kg of thrust (roughly 1900hp).
5 seconds burn at that thrust on the Lunar surface would have left evidence.



YOUR correct about evidence and here it is



Now if you click on the above image when loaded you will see it full size and that image confirms lots of things first.

It's from Apollo 11 Armstrong took over control of the landing and the LEM had some lateral movement this can be seen here that drag mark left by the PROBE on the pad,

Second it also proves YOUR blast crater theory is BS like all the other stuff you have claimed why because the PROBE has been bent, solid rock beneath the lander and you can see the dust layer around the PROBE.

Third if you have click on the picture once it has loaded YOU should now see the picture at full resolution look at the area under the lander YOU will see radial marks caused by the thrust on descent.

Last but not least looking at YOUR replies regarding photographs WE call all see YOU are NOT or are the worst Professional photographer we have had the pleasure to debate with, if your employed by someone YOU better hope they never see YOUR posts because if you are a photographer YOU must have lied at the interview!!!
edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-2-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)


And you obviously have less photo recognition skills than a dead Amoeba! It never occured to you that there isn't the slightest trace of Moondust on the landing pad or the undercarriage leg in the frame? Seriously, you never noticed that?...If the rocket plume really had "kicked up dust" then surely we would expect to see at least a trace of it the upturned cup of the landing pad!
In fact, I invite you to check out similar photos from the other Apollo missions...You still wont find a single trace of dust in or on the landing pads, or on the legs, in any shots showing the undercarriage of an LM "on the Moon"!
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 08:42 AM
link   
1) This is the moon. Neglible athmosphere. No pillowing.
2) There are photos of dust on the landing pads.
3) The engine wasn't blasting when they landed.

Try again?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

You still wont find a single trace of dust in or on the landing pads, or on the legs, in any shots showing the undercarriage of an LM "on the Moon"!
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


I hate to sound like a broken record by repeatedly calling you a liar, but I'll just leave this Apollo 14 picture here for everyone's enjoyment.

www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


And you obviously have less photo recognition skills than a dead Amoeba! It never occured to you that there isn't the slightest trace of Moondust on the landing pad or the undercarriage leg in the frame? Seriously, you never noticed that?...If the rocket plume really had "kicked up dust" then surely we would expect to see at least a trace of it the upturned cup of the landing pad!
In fact, I invite you to check out similar photos from the other Apollo missions...You still wont find a single trace of dust in or on the landing pads, or on the legs, in any shots showing the undercarriage of an LM "on the Moon"!
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


I suggest you look here Lunar Surface Sensing Probes

Just in case you don't bother and so others can see.


When touching down on the lunar surface, the Apollo lunar module could be damaged from the descent propulsion system engine exhaust gases, either because they would blow debris from the surface or simply from the blast bouncing off the surface and back at the LM. Thus, they needed to stop the engine when they were still several feet off of the lunar surface. There were concerns (which turned out to be well-founded) that dust blown up might obscure the astronauts' sight during the final moments before touchdown.


In bold and underlined above so it may have a chance to sink in!!!!

Oh and as requested dust in pad




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
1) This is the moon. Neglible athmosphere. No pillowing.


Try no atmosphere!


2) There are photos of dust on the landing pads.


Yes but not consistent with it being blasted there by a rocket plume.



3) The engine wasn't blasting when they landed.


The rocket continued to fire for about 5 seconds after touchdown until cut out.


Try again?
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


Try what again?
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

You still wont find a single trace of dust in or on the landing pads, or on the legs, in any shots showing the undercarriage of an LM "on the Moon"!
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


I hate to sound like a broken record by repeatedly calling you a liar, but I'll just leave this Apollo 14 picture here for everyone's enjoyment.

www.hq.nasa.gov...


Showing a tiny bit of dust that has spilled into the pad because the pad has sunk into the loose dust around it...What you didn't notice was that the dust around the pad shouldn't be there in the first place because it would have been blasted away by the rocket plume!



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Showing a tiny bit of dust that has spilled into the pad because the pad has sunk into the loose dust around it...What you didn't notice was that the dust around the pad shouldn't be there in the first place because it would have been blasted away by the rocket plume!


So first you're saying the absence of dust on the landing pads is proof of a hoax and then when you were shown wrong, you claim that the presence of dust on the landing pads is proof of a hoax because the rocket plume should have blasted it away. Please chose one theory and stick with it.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Try no atmosphere!

You're now making a claim that goes against what is considered established fact about the moon's atmosphere, please provide proof of your belief that the moon has no atmosphere.



The rocket continued to fire for about 5 seconds after touchdown until cut out.


You keep making this false claim and every time you're asked to prove it, you provide evidence that proves the engines were shut off BEFORE touchdown. Either prove what you say or stop repeating the same lie.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


And you obviously have less photo recognition skills than a dead Amoeba! It never occured to you that there isn't the slightest trace of Moondust on the landing pad or the undercarriage leg in the frame? Seriously, you never noticed that?...If the rocket plume really had "kicked up dust" then surely we would expect to see at least a trace of it the upturned cup of the landing pad!
In fact, I invite you to check out similar photos from the other Apollo missions...You still wont find a single trace of dust in or on the landing pads, or on the legs, in any shots showing the undercarriage of an LM "on the Moon"!
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


I suggest you look here Lunar Surface Sensing Probes

Just in case you don't bother and so others can see.


When touching down on the lunar surface, the Apollo lunar module could be damaged from the descent propulsion system engine exhaust gases, either because they would blow debris from the surface or simply from the blast bouncing off the surface and back at the LM. Thus, they needed to stop the engine when they were still several feet off of the lunar surface. There were concerns (which turned out to be well-founded) that dust blown up might obscure the astronauts' sight during the final moments before touchdown.


In bold and underlined above so it may have a chance to sink in!!!!


Hardly, the Apollo 14 LM continued firing its decent engine 5 seconds AFTER touchdown, which makes a complete nonsense of that quote. And besides, the soil is so loose they were "kicking up dust" as much as 50 feet from touchdown!


[Oh and as requested dust in pad





But not dust put there by the rocket plume!...It is there because the pad has sunk into the loose soil and the soil has simply spilled in...What you failed to realise is that that dust shouldn't be there in the first place as it would have blasted away by the rocket plume!...More evidence of a hoax.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


"Only 8% of the sun's light reaches the moon." ????

Where did you go to school at? I'd like to know so I can forbid any of my kids to go there........

100% of the sun's light reaches the moon, except when the sun is eclipsed by the Earth during a lunar eclipse.

Please take some time to get familiarize your self with Albedo.

Albedo is normally measured from 0.0 to 1.0. The moon's surface average (note that word please "average") albedo is 0.12:


The overall albedo of the Moon is around 0.12, but it is strongly directional and non-Lambertian, displaying also a strong opposition effect.[18] While such reflectance properties are different from those of any terrestrial terrains, they are typical of the regolith surfaces of airless solar system bodies.




You have obviously lost the plot!...When you have finished foaming at the mouth you can go back and read what I actually wrote, assuming you can read? quote: "that only 8% of the Sunlight that reaches the Lunar surface gets reflected".



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Try no atmosphere!

You're now making a claim that goes against what is considered established fact about the moon's atmosphere, please provide proof of your belief that the moon has no atmosphere.


Surely you are not suggesting that the Astronauts wouldn't have needed to wear a spacesuit on the Moon???



The rocket continued to fire for about 5 seconds after touchdown until cut out.



You keep making this false claim and every time you're asked to prove it, you provide evidence that proves the engines were shut off BEFORE touchdown. Either prove what you say or stop repeating the same lie.
:

It is not a false claim and I already gave you irrefutable evidence!...The official Apollo 15 landing footage:

www.youtube.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


But not dust put there by the rocket plume!...It is there because the pad has sunk into the loose soil and the soil has simply spilled in...What you failed to realise is that that dust shouldn't be there in the first place as it would have blasted away by the rocket plume!...More evidence of a hoax.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


YOU wanted dust in a pad I showed you a pad with dust in it, I didn't say how it got there YOU explained how dust might have got there so how does that help you hoax claim


You also don't understand what you see and here in the videos also when the probes make contact the engine is switched off CONTACT and TOUCHDOWN are 2 different words contact for the probe touching the surface then touchdown the pads making contact!!!



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Just because something has an atmosphere doesn't mean we could live there. Venus has an atmosphere, as does Mars but we couldn't live on either of them without suits. The moons atmosphere is so thin it's called an exosphere, but it's there.


On the moon, there's no air to breathe, no breezes to make the flags planted there by the Apollo missions flutter. However, there is a very, very thin layer of gases on the lunar surface that can almost be called an atmosphere. Technically, it's considered an exosphere.

In an exosphere, the gases are so spread out that they rarely collide with one another. They are rather like microscopic cannon balls flying unimpeded on curved, ballistic trajectories and bouncing across the lunar surface. In the moon's atmosphere, there are only 100 molecules per cubic centimeter. In comparison, Earth's atmosphere at sea level has about 100 billion billion molecules per cubic centimeter. The total mass of these gases is about 55,000 pounds (25,000 kilograms), about the same weight as a loaded dump truck.

www.space.com...

And you didn't even get the landing video right. You keep saying Apollo 15, and the first thing that comes up on the screen is Apollo 17.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
105
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join