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.

 

Could Kevlar thread (invented 1965) have been used to fake the lunar landings?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by chr0naut
 


Also from the Wiki link.


However, Kwolek persuaded the technician, Charles Smullen, who ran the "spinneret", to test her solution, and was amazed to find that the fiber did not break, unlike nylon. Her supervisor and her laboratory director understood the significance of her discovery and a new field of polymer chemistry quickly arose. By 1971, modern Kevlar was introduced. However, Kwolek was not very involved in developing the applications of Kevlar.


People have to understand the difference of when a product is discovered and when it actually goes into use. Like Xerography of the early 30's, the process was being developed near 1930, though any commercial working copy machine using the technology took well over a decade to become available.




posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
where are the actors
where was the studio
where are the sets

how did they fake the rover mission ? that sound stage would have to be a mile wide

LOL



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


LOL are you so insecure you feel you need to warn that your remark was funny? Should the comment not be obvious in evoking a response of laughter? If you need to put LOL then it was not LOL funny.

We are in a very serious mess and perhaps we need to move on to more important things, but the hoaxed lunar landings are part of a much larger problem. Throughout history many of the most outrageous conspiracies have turned out to be true, it is stupid to rule out that the lunar landings could be one of these. Do some research look and look how uncertain and fluid history is.. There are no facts and do not accept truth just because a higher authority tells you it is so. All that matters is belief and perception right now all of you that believe we landed on the moon are like the visitors to the dutch museum that displayed the piece petrified wood as moon rock.

To people in engineering and science and those with doubts, think again and bring this to a head sooner than those who committed this fraud had planned. There is no justification for this lie, we didn't need to beat communism through lies, truth will out and here it comes.

Nothing is certain facts are fluid, evidence is controlled by those who have the budget to bribe and fabricate it.
edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: grammar



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 


LOL are you so insecure you feel you need to warn that your remark was funny? Should the comment not be obvious in evoking a response of laughter? If you need to put LOL then it was not LOL funny.

We are in a very serious mess and perhaps we need to move on to more important things, but the hoaxed lunar landings are part of a much larger problem. Throughout history many of the most outrageous conspiracies have turned out to be true, it is stupid to rule out that the lunar landings could be one of these. Do some research look and look how uncertain and fluid history is.. There are no facts and do not accept truth just because a higher authority tells you it is so. All that matters is belief and perception right now all of you that believe we landed on the moon are like the visitors to the dutch museum that displayed the piece petrified wood as moon rock.

To people in engineering and science and those with doubts, think again and bring this to a head sooner than those who committed this fraud had planned. There is no justification for this lie, we didn't need to beat communism through lies, truth will out and here it comes.

Nothing is certain facts are fluid, evidence is controlled by those who have the budget to bribe and fabricate it.
edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-3-2012 by magmaiura because: grammar


You REALLY need to calm down.

LOL is a standard way to express laughter in an online environment. LOL simply means that the poster is Laughing Out Loud.

Here's some other terms to help educate yourself:

ROFL (Rolling On Floor Laughing)
ROFLMAO (as above, but add My A$$ Off)

They are all expressions to say that one is laughing. Just like this emote:



Jumping on someone for typing "LOL" tells me you need to calm down, else you're not going to last very long on here.

On Topic:

You obviously believe very strongly what you believe in. Keep in mind that there are many of us that are people of science, engineers, the list goes on, on here that believe what we do.

I've found over the decades that people who insist that the moon landings were all faked, believe so strongly in this, that nothing the rest of us can say will ever change their minds, or even make them consider they might be wrong.

One could say that the opposite is true for us that do believe that we've been on the moon. The difference is that I'll listen to what someone has to say, and then break down what they have said, and the evidence that they provide. In every case, I've either seen, or have helped, shoot their theories so full of holes that a basket strainer will hold more water than their theories.

So we end up at a impasse, spinning wheels. I'll never change your mind, and you'll never change mine.

Keep in mind that a lot of people on here at ATS believe we went to the moon. Not only went, but that we have secret bases (human and alien) up there.

LOL, where's Zorgon when you need him? He'll tell you all about the US Navy's secret space fleet we have up there (and I'll admit, I can't prove him wrong on that one.....and I was IN the navy!...
).

In any case, calm down, chill out, relax. Arguing and debating is what we do here. Don't jump on someone for using LOL.


jra

posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
Are you guys serious? I thought everyone was over the fact we didn't land on the moon.


People who believe the Moon landings to be fake are in the minority.


The second space race we be used in the same way as the last one, China racing ahead.. The US trailing behind.


China is playing catch-up. They are making good progress, but they still have a long way to go before one can claim that they are ahead.

As for wires on astronauts. I have yet to see any evidence for such a claim. Wire rigs that are used on movies tend to restrict ones movements. How did they do this on the Apollo missions where the astronauts were walking/hopping all over the place? Wires also don't explain the dust, kicked up by the astronauts feet, reacting as if it were in a vacuum environment in 1/6th gravity. How did they fake that?



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Great theory and all except..

Well, we landed on the moon. No kevlar strings needed.

Next!



Do you realise that Nixon was president at the time of the aleged moonlandings...



posted on Mar, 19 2012 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zatara

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Great theory and all except..

Well, we landed on the moon. No kevlar strings needed.
Next!

Do you realise that Nixon was president at the time of the aleged moonlandings...



Well, you've convinced me.

If they can fake an entire President, they can fake some moon stuff.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura

On another thread, someone said 'yeah but how did they hide the wires with 1970's technology'

Then I remembered in a gadget shop seeing the Kevlar thread flying saucer trick..

www.youtube.com...

The manufacturer of Kevlar, DuPont had a close relationship with NASA which extends to present day.

"Space Age developments, 1950 to 1970
After the war, DuPont continued its emphasis on new materials, developing Mylar, Dacron, Orlon and Lycra in the 1950s, and Tyvek, Nomex, Qiana, Corfam and Corian in the 1960s. DuPont materials were critical to the success of the Apollo Project of the United States space program."

en.wikipedia.org...

So is the mystery of the invisible wires finally solved?




Talk about hanging by a thread HOW desperate are YOU.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



May be its YOU he finds funny or laughable



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 05:02 AM
link   
Okay, what evidence would you accept that the moon landings were hoaxed? The admission of it from NASA? We have solved the invisable wires problem. The mirror placed on the moon is also solved (unmanned probe) the lunar meteorites are the moon rock which were sandblasted/cleaned up. The moon rocks gave clues of this by the fact they show traces the moon once had a pole, this is of course because as the lunar meteorite was super-heated and reformed in NASA's laboratory it left the tell tale evidence, which has puzzled scientists for years. The other evidence is the astronaut's testimony, who were banned from press conferences after Apollo 13 because of repeated poor performances (see Apollo 11 press conference) then we have the photographs.. Any photographers out there? You youngsters will not remember just how difficult it was to take a picture in pre-digital days, the astronauts had the added challenge of doing it wearing gloves, if you have an old SLR I challenge you all to try and get one clear picture whilst wearing a pair of ski gloves. Now let's deal with the lack of high resolution video footage, which nasa lost - not much really needs to be said about that draw your own conclusions. The most propaganda thirsty country in the world loses a valuable piece of evidence that cost billions to attain? Is this probable? Next why have we not been back? And why has NASA failed to design a new lunar lander, having to offer a £1 million price to private companies to design one? Didn't the original one perform with such incredible success? Why not just update the old design? If NASA did it 40 years ago, surely they are the experts. Lol they must have lost the plans lol

Clumsy these experts aren't they? You the public should be asking where your money went if they don't have a viable lunar lander.

The Apollo moon missions were faked, to Obama's credit when he found out he cancelled the mission to finally get to the moon, it is sadly still beyond our capabilities, until we can get a bigger payload into space sending astronaut's to the moon would not be return journey.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


The problem is you haven't addressed the questions posed on this thread, you are cherry picking points that you simply don't understand, and use a high-school persona to appeal to ignorance, a typical conspiracist tactic.

Where was the 'stage' that produced the wide angle shots? Clearly many miles are in view from every lunar mission.

How did they fake the dust leaving the rover wheels and even astronauts feet to slow perfect ballistic trajectories?

How in a stage on earth in atmosphere did the lunar dust settle so fast and not linger in air? Special 'heavy dust'?

Why has no movie made before or since simulate the movements of the astronauts on the moon and for that matter the rover as well?

Why would they fake Apollo 13?

Explain how the feather and hammer experiment was pulled off?

You know kevlar was not in use in 1969, saying it over and over isn't going to change history.

Is this man 'in on the lie' too? Tracking Apollo 17 from Florida.
The Bochum Observatory director (Professor Heinz Kaminski) was able to provide confirmation of events and data independent of both the Russian and U.S. space agencies.
At Jodrell Bank Observatory in the UK, the telescope was used to observe the mission, as it was used years previously for Sputnik. At the same time, Jodrell Bank scientists were tracking the unmanned Soviet spacecraft Luna 15, which was trying to land on the Moon. In July 2009, Jodrell released some recordings they made.
Larry Baysinger, a technician for WHAS radio in Louisville, Kentucky, independently detected and recorded transmissions between Apollo 11 astronauts on the lunar surface and in the command module.
Oh hell, here's a more complete list of independent telescopic tracking of Apollos.
Then we have the question of why Russia didn't blow the lid and why their manned space aspirations lost wind after Apollo.

The camera argument has no guts.

The camera was designed for ease of use by the astronaut in his bulky pressure suit. The camera was rested on the soil and the astronaut would simply press down on a trigger on a long handle to expose the frames.
As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras.

Photography of Apollo.
Hasselbald of Apollo 11.
Hasselbald.
Cameras of Apollo.
Westinghouse cameras of Apollo. (PDF).

The arguments for why they didn't go back and about equipment seriously are high school mentality arguments and deserve to be shunned, once again appeal to ignorance logic.

Kevlar strings I'll grant you is a new argument but has serious flaws, and only addresses one simple aspect but where are the cranes holding the other ends in all of the long panoramic footage?

There is nothing new here that hasn't already been addressed. Nobody knew how the motions on the moon would look before Apollo and it is simply too expensive to make films to simulate that kind of motion for any length of time for a movie budget and the dust issue is impossible in an atmosphere.

The core of your arguments aren't about space exploration, they are about something else.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 



They didn't use SLR cameras while up there.


Ah! Illustronic beat me to it.

And this "youngster" has spent quite a bit of time using SLR cameras to do my astrophotography, before migrating to digital media. The problem you presented (which is a non-problem since they were not using the type of camera you mentioned) would have been very simple to solve: remote shutter cable. I used one all the time so as to not disturb my camera while taking a shot of the stars. Quite easy to use, even with bulky space suit gloves.

You did not "solve" the thread problem. As stated, kevlar was invented, but not available, and even if it had been, it would have reflected light quite well, even at very small diameters. Kevlar's color is bright yellow to yellow orange.

RE: Prize for a vertical lunar lander: you're incorrect on this one. NASA is not the one offering a prize for this. Here, educate yourself please:

Lunar Lander Challenge

The challenge and prize is being done by the XPrize Foundation

If you're going to pursue this, you need to post more than a paragraph of theories. Provide links to sources, pictures, etc.
edit on 20-3-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Any threads trying to discredit the moon landings should be banned.
It's down right offensive to those who payed the ultimate price.
You're basically mocking death.



I would love to see majority of ATS debate people from a real scientific background. With 12 + years of schooling.


Only idiots support such blind propaganda.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
Any photographers out there? You youngsters will not remember just how difficult it was to take a picture in pre-digital days, the astronauts had the added challenge of doing it wearing gloves, if you have an old SLR I challenge you all to try and get one clear picture whilst wearing a pair of ski gloves. Now let's deal with the lack of high resolution video footage, which nasa lost - not much really needs to be said about that draw your own conclusions.



Well lets have a look since you ask for photographers YOUR obviously not one, since you show a lack of understanding of photography YOUR obviously not one, since you mentioned SLR's not used on the moon surface again you show a lack of understanding


On the previous thread I said look up the following depth of field how to control focus and the sunny 16 rule.

Any photographer can use depth of field to turn a super high spec camera into a point and shoot and can make objects a few feet to infinity be in focus
how do you think cheap little give away cameras work the kind you don't have to focus


The sunny 16 rule is to do with exposure and again alows a photograph without a light meter to get a decent exposure for certain lighting conditions,cloudy,hazy or bright sunshine for example,now how do you think little cheap throw away cameras work


After all the light source on the moons the same as the Earth's


As the astronauts had set things to do what would stop them from in the lander making the adjustments for the first task before going out, the only thing after that was a couple of changes with the oversized controls that was no problem!!!

Now the main banker all hoax believers could fall back on was up until the LRO you could not get a picture with any detail of a landing site that has now gone so you go back over everything that's been debunked many times before.

NASA and the USA could not risk trying to fake the landings because at the time they did not know if any other country could launch a mission send a probe or build a telescope to show what they had done, it wouldn't matter if it was the next week month year or decade they could not take the chance.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Duce3000
Any threads trying to discredit the moon landings should be banned.
It's down right offensive to those who payed the ultimate price.
You're basically mocking death.



I would love to see majority of ATS debate people from a real scientific background. With 12 + years of schooling.


Only idiots support such blind propaganda.


Only and idiot would go on a conspiracy forum and request to ban discussion on one of the most important conspiracies in human history!



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Let's keep it friendly, folks.

And focused.

Could Kevlar thread (invented 1965) have been used to fake the lunar landings?

There is already an abundance of 'moon landing hoax' threads hanging around.

Let's not turn this into another broad rehash.

TIA


*do not respond to this post in thread*



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Mar, 20 2012 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Thanks for the input, much appreciated. Maybe I was wrong..

Just one more thing.. (in Colombo voice)

Thanks for sending this link to me. This is a remarkable lecture, it puts all the pieces together in a coherent scientific way. If you want to maintain the belief we have been to the moon and carry on nurturing some foolish patriotism then do not watch this lecture.

Time to wake up !

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Follow the links on Youtube for the other parts.
 
Mod Note: Video links/embeds: - Please Review Rule 15k.) ... of the T & C

1j.) You will not embed or Post a link to a video without a reasonable description of its content and why it interests you...


edit on Wed Mar 21 2012 by Jbird because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura

Time to wake up !

www.youtube.com...



Could not have said it better TIME FOR YOU TO WAKE UP


In the video link above the IDIOT presenting does not have a clue about photography or where to get the correct images or maybe he deliberately used the wrong images.

He also made a comment about a shadow on the side hidden from the sun reflected light from the surface would cause that I would assume even you have seen pictures of photographers using fill in light from a reflector.

He also mentioned that as no one had taken pictures on the moon before they would have no idea of settings WRONG same light source as on earth the sun!!!

Here is a link to a picture used in his BS presentation.



That is an enhanced image above here is a link to the actual image before enhancement



Now thats just a quick couple of points I dread to think how much else is wrong when I watch the rest!!

The other pictures can be seen here before an after enhancement and links to were you can download the images.

apollo.mem-tek.com...


edit on 21-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: missing word



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


I guess I should have gone with

SOD - smirk of derision

or maybe

SASH - snickers and shakes head


but more to the point, where is that sound stage they used for the rover mission ?



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join