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: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Or how about

A P

Apologizes profusely

I can give all of you a challenge that will decide one way or the other.

Examine the rock feather test done by the astronauts. If they are on the moon then any items they dropped by accident should fall at the same rate as the rock and feather..

0.35 in Rock and feather

www.youtube.com...

Now compare

0.23 in

www.youtube.com...

or

0.56 in

www.youtube.com...

Compare the times and see if you can find more examples to help prove us wrong.

On NASA's moon objects do not fall at the same rate, because they are not on the moon.




posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Landing men on the moon and returning them safely back to earth is not THE most important feat of mankind, far from it. Quit making your hoax theory carry so much weight, it is proven quite well here it didn't happen like that. Your thread is one sided, kevlar thread used or not doesn't prove or disprove anything. It is only a thought you have that you seem to attach too much emphasis on without doing the historic record on the development of kevlar.

Address the rebuttals already offered and disprove their validity.

Is a near 1/16th of an inch thick thread really invisible to cameras or the naked eye? (even though such thread didn't exist in 1969).

Actually the Discovery Channel did an extensive search for the top 100 discoveries/inventions of mankind and they arrived at a consensus #1 on Gutenberg's printing press, around 1440.
edit on 21-3-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:08 PM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Its hammer and feather BTW.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Its hammer and feather BTW.



So you are telling me they used an actual hammer..? Why not use moon rock and feather?

The saved weight from not taking a hammer could have allowed them to take back the sealed canister of high resolution footage which could have proved the moon landings. They missed a trick here, furthermore we might actually be able to see if it was a rock or a hammer had they not had this oversight. Can you make out anything from the video footage ? They should have used the 1965 camera, the one that allows clear HD footage of the first American spacewalk (which did happen)

This is the resolution that every Apollo lunar mission should be able to be viewed at.

www.youtube.com...





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



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Are you trying to prove you never watched that video you are referencing? How substantiating is that?



The saved weight from not taking a hammer could have allowed them to take back the sealed canister of high resolution footage which could have proved the moon landings. They missed a trick here.


FYI, they left a lot of stuff on the moon to save weight for liftoff, likely that one pound hammer, but assuredly all of the Hasselblad cameras, spent containers, the rover, scientific equipment, human waste receptacles, spent gas containers, etc., etc..

With every post you make you are revealing how little you have studied the Apollo program.



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



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Again , let's try to keep the discussion focused on the particular Thread Topic.

Broad moon hoax issues are best discussed in one of the myriad of threads that already exist.

thanks



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Are you trying to prove you never watched that video you are referencing? How substantiating is that?


My apologies good sir/madam.

Humbly accept my apology for the mistake in not labeling it hammer/feather, the point still stands we are just getting bogged down in Semantics.



posted on Mar, 21 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Jbird
 


OK fine, like I've been trying to say (sans editing), it didn't exist in 1969!

This is the development of kevlar from DUPONT DOT COM.


1965 Stephanie Kwolek, a DuPont research scientist, develops Kevlar® by spinning fiber from liquid crystalline solutions.

1970 DuPont research scientist Herb Blades develops the revolutionary air gap spinning process, which enables large-scale production of Kevlar® brand fiber.

1971 DuPont begins producing Kevlar® in large quantities in Richmond, VA.

1975 First field trial of body armor made with DuPont™ Kevlar® conducted with police officers and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice.

1975 First officer inducted into the IACP/DuPont™ Kevlar Survivors' Club®

1978 DuPont™ Kevlar® adopted by the U.S. Army for use in flak jackets and PASGT helmets .


The list goes on...


jra

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura
The saved weight from not taking a hammer could have allowed them to take back the sealed canister of high resolution footage which could have proved the moon landings.


But they needed the hammer for things like chipping off bits of rock from larger ones and for a number of other things.

Also, all of the Apollo missions had a 16mm film camera called a Data Acquisition Camera or DAC for short. You can make HD quality footage from that. As a matter of fact you can buy every single bit of 16mm footage from the Apollo missions in uncompressed HD quality from Spacecraft films. It's rather pricey since it's shipped to you on a hard drive, but it's nearly 1TB in size.

But the majority of the Apollo missions were recorded on video, since there is no way they could have brought enough film to record the entire missions.


Can you make out anything from the video footage ?


Most of the Apollo video that's freely available online is heavily compressed and does not represent the original quality. But this one is a little better:




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by magmaiura

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by magmaiura
 


Its hammer and feather BTW.



So you are telling me they used an actual hammer..? Why not use moon rock and feather?

The saved weight from not taking a hammer could have allowed them to take back the sealed canister of high resolution footage which could have proved the moon landings. They missed a trick here, furthermore we might actually be able to see if it was a rock or a hammer had they not had this oversight. Can you make out anything from the video footage ? They should have used the 1965 camera, the one that allows clear HD footage of the first American spacewalk (which did happen)

This is the resolution that every Apollo lunar mission should be able to be viewed at.

www.youtube.com...


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


Now if you wanted to take a sample from say a large rock .. were is the hammer oh I left it to bring some film


They didn't bring the hammer just to drop with the feather


See that what happens when you have to overthink your hoax theory LOGIC goes out the window.

Also this is on your HD link above please read.


Pilot Jim McDivitt filmed the outing on a16mm camera which has now been restored to glorious High Definition

edit on 22-3-2012 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird
Again , let's try to keep the discussion focused on the particular Thread Topic.

Broad moon hoax issues are best discussed in one of the myriad of threads that already exist.

thanks


I think this thread about thread has woven into old material.....

I made a funny!


*ahem*, sorry, couldn't resist.


Back on topic:

I'm afraid your kevlar thread idea has been debunked.

If we ignore all the other things that have been pointed out about the impossibilities of astronauts being strung up (IE wide angle and distance shots), can you think of or provide a possible alternate material instead of kevlar?

Keep in mind, it would have to have a very strong test pull, as the suits weighed close to 300 pounds here on Earth, but would have to be very thin, and either very dark or low reflective properties.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lionhearte
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


If a guy gets shot in an alley away from all witnesses, and the victim is found with bullet casings on the floor, investigators will use every piece of evidence they can find. They will take the bullet casings, find the nearest gun shops, find what kind of gun uses those bullets, and that can lead to so many different possibilities - the gun shop owners do tend to remember who they sell guns to, as they spend a great deal of time talking with them.


I agree, now show me the strings? Your argument had actual evidence, so show me the strings and we can get on with it. Otherwise you need to change your argument. Your argument now has to be a guy walked down an alley, someone decides he didn't actually walk down and it was faked. They come up with an elavorate plot of someone tying strings to a corpse and walking him like a marionette.

They then decide since a gun can be used to kill someone, that the man was killed by a gun, and they start hunting for the murder weapon.

You believe that, I'll believe the man just walked down the alley.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Seems magmaiura has went very quiet on his own thread I wonder why



posted on Mar, 26 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


It was a stupid idea that has been shown to be false? The amount of kevlar needed to hold up a person would be visible, as was stated multiple times in the thread.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join