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.

 

The Apollo 11 Moon Landing Site --Now Seen in Unprecedented Detail

page: 21
14
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by openfire
 


YES!!! YES!!! and....YES!!!!!

Perfect.

Star for yoy!!!




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by openfire
OK, the moon hoax believers seem to all agree that the astronauts never left low earth orbit.

Doesn't this apollo-history-and-hoax.com... and this www.braeunig.us... prove otherwise?
edit on 19-3-2012 by openfire because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by openfire because: (no reason given)


Please let these theories die here. This is it. There is nothing to question here. We have real conspiracies to investigate. Every minute we dedicate to this is absolutely wasted.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Luna 2 crashed into the moon. It wasn't a rover, it didn't place anything on the moon except its crash crater.



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


The hoax requires more complexities than the actual event, by far.
edit on 19-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 





Sadly, the "hoax" believers could be taken to the Moon, and have their noses rubbed into the facts and evidence, and they will still not understand.....


So if really went to the moon why arent we going back to the moon then? surely it sounds easy i mean we could have gone back to the moon with the space shuttle so why haven't we?

It seems even Nasa and the American government lost interest on the moon.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by underduck
 





We have real conspiracies to investigate.


Well if we believe that we really went to the moon, then i guess i dont believe the bilderberg exits, i mean if it did exist the meetings would be all over the news wouldn't they? and we would have a press conference confirming them, just like the CFR does in a way.

And if believe in NASA that we really went to the Moon then i guess i could say that this mars Image isn't real but hoax and a illusion of our mind by playing a trick on us.


The cydonia City


Remember everyone your trusting NASA the same NASA that claimed this.

NASA

What the picture actually shows is the Martian equivalent of a butte or mesa -- landforms common around the American West. "It reminds me most of Middle Butte in the Snake River Plain of Idaho," says Garvin. "That's a lava dome that takes the form of an isolated mesa about the same height as the Face on Mars."


When China, Or Russia, Japan independent space Agency take photos of the same Moon Landing Site and show it in better Quality maybe then i will believe NASA so far for now No.
edit on 21-3-2012 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Would somebody be so kind and post the photo of this new closer look at Apollo 11 landing site.
Even a link will do. I sure like to shut up the "fake moon landing" people on another web site.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 


What would be the point? I understand that China is planning to put a man on the moon sometime next year, will you call that fake too?



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter
 



So if really went to the moon why arent we going back to the moon then? surely it sounds easy i mean we could have gone back to the moon with the space shuttle so why haven't we?


Do a little bit of research before you embarrass yourself further. The Space Shuttle was not designed for that sort of mission.


It seems even Nasa and the American government lost interest on the moon.


Then why is the GRAIL constellation operating at this very moment? Why LROC? LCROSS? Clementine? It seems some people project their own lack of interest onto others. :shk:
edit on 21-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by DJW001 because: Edit to correct formatting.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:19 AM
link   
Even NASA's own simulations to not replicate the slow motion effect.

When the Soviets replicates 1/6th gravity using Zero G flights this slow motion effect does not exist

www.youtube.com...

This video is remarkable evidence, 0.12 seconds in look at the running technique, even counterbalanced the gait has to be shifted forward. In the Apollo landings footage this effect does not exist.

See NASA's own simulations here

www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Even NASA's own simulations to not replicate the slow motion effect.


What slow motion effect? Things fall more slowly on the Moon because of the Moon's lesser gravity. All the horizontal motions are comparable to those on Earth. You cannot compare someone leaning forward and running on a surface with good traction to someone who is exerting minimal energy on a surface with poor traction.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Everyone who is contributing here, please take a look at this lecture "The Moon Landings Fact or Fiction"

Stick with it through parts 1-12

www.youtube.com...

Some very interesting analysis and the questions at the end of the presentation are dealt with very thoroughly.

Now this is an interesting point from Dr Brian Cox "I don't even accept the need to prove it?"

www.youtube.com...

Because the Lunar landings are such an emotive issue, all scientific impartiality is disregarded. Why does this subject exist in a realm where normal rules of critical analysis are abandoned? No subject should be closed to discussion.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Because the Lunar landings are such an emotive issue, all scientific impartiality is disregarded. Why does this subject exist in a realm where normal rules of critical analysis are abandoned? No subject should be closed to discussion.


Because the people who wish to believe that the Moon landings were a hoax were never capable of critical analysis to begin with, and certainly lack an understanding of basic scientific fact and methodology. Whenever they are asked to provide evidence for their claims, they change the subject. I agree that everything should be open to discussion, but it reaches a point where believers do not wish to hear anything that contradicts their position, and they fall back on broad, unsupported accusations. There is no point in discussing a topic if one party is unwilling or unable to learn.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Even NASA's own simulations to not replicate the slow motion effect.


What slow motion effect? Things fall more slowly on the Moon because of the Moon's lesser gravity. All the horizontal motions are comparable to those on Earth. You cannot compare someone leaning forward and running on a surface with good traction to someone who is exerting minimal energy on a surface with poor traction.


That makes no sense, you are over complicating something very simple. Yes objects fall slower, but we are talking about movement not free-falling objects. The astronauts are using force to move around, this is unimpeded by air resistance and gravity, so their movements should be swift like is shown in all Zero G flights.


See 5.50 mins in here

www.youtube.com...


Here is my evidence I ask everyone to time the fall rate of the object in both the feather rock experiment and the accidental drop by Jack Schmidt.

Objects on NASA's moon do not fall slower www.youtube.com...

See 0.56

Now compare the time it took the rock and feather to fall?

See 0.36 in

www.youtube.com...

Do you see the problem ? The effect is not present when Jack Schmidt drops his sample bag. The fall time for whatever Jack Schmidt drops does not correlate to the experiment, this is very strong evidence.









edit on 21-3-2012 by magmaiura because: more info

edit on 21-3-2012 by magmaiura because: link missing



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



That makes no sense, you are over complicating something very simple. Yes objects fall slower, but we are talking about movement not free-falling objects. The astronauts are using force to move around, this is unimpeded by air resistance and gravity, so their movements should be swift like is shown in all Zero G flights.


You are the one who is complicating things; air resistance has virtually no effect on ordinary movements. They would not be "swift," they would be determined by the resistance of the pressurized suit to the astronauts' muscular exertions.



Here is my evidence I ask everyone to time the fall rate of the object in both the feather rock experiment and the accidental drop by Jack Schmidt.


Schmidt seems to have imparted some additional impetus to the bag as he fumbled with it. It is as though he "batted" the bag to the ground.


Objects on NASA's moon do not fall slower www.youtube.com...

See 0.56


You seem to be seeing what you want to see.


Now compare the time it took the rock and feather to fall?

See 0.36 in

www.youtube.com...

Do you see the problem ? The effect is not present when Jack Schmidt drops his sample bag. The fall time for whatever Jack Schmidt drops does not correlate to the experiment, this is very strong evidence.


No, it is you failing to account for all the forces in play. As I have pointed it, the bag was not dropped from rest, it was already in motion and subjected to an irregular acceleration.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   


Schmidt seems to have imparted some additional impetus to the bag as he fumbled with it. It is as though he "batted" the bag to the ground.



'Are you seeing what you want to see here' ? You are doing exactly what the hoax supporters are criticized for, making something up that has no evidence. You cannot see that Schmidt applied any extra force to this object, but it is a valid point than one example is not good enough, so do you concede that if we gather every accidental drop and time that against the feather rock experiment fall rate and if they do not correlate then we have we have a piece of strong evidence that the Apollo landing footage was faked on Earth? and that anyone out there reading this can prove or disprove this with little more than a computer and some patience?

So get to it people, can we all find any accidental drops in Apollo footage, please post the links and perhaps we can solve this once and for all.

Please no silly replies "we went to the moon and that's it"



Here we go Schmidt at 0.23

www.youtube.com...

No hand forcing it down.. Now all we have to do is compare the fall speed with the feather rock experiment.





edit on 21-3-2012 by magmaiura because: extra request

edit on 21-3-2012 by magmaiura because: added link



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



it is a valid point than one example is not good enough, so do you concede that if we gather every accidental drop and time that against the feather rock experiment fall rate and if they do not correlate then we have we have a piece of strong evidence that the Apollo landing footage was faked on Earth?


Yes, get started. Don't expect anyone else to do your work for you. Please view every second of the hundreds of hours of film and video taken on the Moon and time how long it takes for everything to fall. Compare these timings with computer models that predict the timings based on height and initial momentum. If you find any significant deviations, report back and people might begin to pay attention to your evidence. Good luck.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by magmaiura
 



it is a valid point than one example is not good enough, so do you concede that if we gather every accidental drop and time that against the feather rock experiment fall rate and if they do not correlate then we have we have a piece of strong evidence that the Apollo landing footage was faked on Earth?


Yes, get started. Don't expect anyone else to do your work for you. Please view every second of the hundreds of hours of film and video taken on the Moon and time how long it takes for everything to fall. Compare these timings with computer models that predict the timings based on height and initial momentum. If you find any significant deviations, report back and people might begin to pay attention to your evidence. Good luck.



Not necessary all we have to do is do a screen capture and run the footage of the feather rock experiment against any accidental drops.

of course I expect people to help with the work, that is the whole reason the whole moon hoax has been exposed, due to collaboration.


edit on 21-3-2012 by magmaiura because: added info



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



Not necessary all we have to do is do a screen capture and run the footage of the feather rock experiment against any accidental drops.


You betray your lack of understanding here. Although the force of lunar gravity remains a constant, the timing of a fall will depend upon the height the object is falling from and any initial velocity it has when it begins its fall.


of course I expect people to help with the work, that is the whole reason the whole moon hoax has been exposed, due to collaboration.


Don't rationalize your laziness: if you believe this line of research will pan out, commit to it. I find it odd that you seem to think that the "moon hoax" has been "exposed." The people who have been claiming that the lunar landings were a hoax have not been collaborating, they have been plagiarizing each other! Nearly every bit of "evidence" can be traced back to Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel, all of whom have been proven to have lied and manipulated their "evidence." I suggest you visit this long buried thread to gain some perspective on how sleazy the Hoax Propagandists are:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
...Nearly every bit of "evidence" can be traced back to Ralph Rene, Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel, all of whom have been proven to have lied and manipulated their "evidence." I suggest you visit this long buried thread to gain some perspective on how sleazy the Hoax Propagandists are:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Bart Sibrel -- like many of the people involved in selling literature, videos, and websites that tout that the Moon landings are a hoax -- is definitely a manipulator of facts and a purveyor of disinformation.

In his film A Funny Thing happen on the Way to the Moon and Astronaut Monkey Business, why does he only show the parts of that Apollo footage that appears to support his claims, but fails to show the parts of that footage that 100% disproves his claims?

ATS member 'openfire' posted links on the previous page (quote below) that exposes Sibrel as a liar (most likely lying to sell more videos)


Originally posted by openfire
OK, the moon hoax believers seem to all agree that the astronauts never left low earth orbit.

Doesn't this apollo-history-and-hoax.com... and this www.braeunig.us... prove otherwise?




edit on 3/21/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join