Did nasa really send astronauts to the moon?

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

ATS used to be a place where you could learn some valuable information

ATS.... it's all about the stars and flags now. Did you provide us with any valuable information? No, you did not. You were rewarded 8 stars for the childish rants.

Sayonara that's rich coming from you always posting silly pics with remarks
When you are proven wrong.


I find it funny how you applaud someone who thinks the world is flat and everything
is an illusion etc ohh and the sun being not there lmfao. maybe you
Should do some research , best you start from scratch or are you going senile in
your old age grandad?.

I said it may,meaning its possible that the sun,earth and moon might look like the image in the link above and everything we are told about the earth being round,might be nothing but blatant lies and everything we are shown about the earth being round,might be nothing but photo and film psych-ops,sinister grand deceptions meant to keep us severely dumbed down and as far away as possible from knowing about our true reality...

To which you applaud the man in your pic you posted below for thinking the world is flat
Sorry but your so wrong pops.








If getting through to blocular was bad, getting through to you sir and the moon
hoaxers is like....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Care to defend your side against the evidence :

Apollo 11 footage shows the astronauts' shadows increasing and decreasing in length as they move about. This is because they are in close proximity to a large artificial light source that causes their shadows to change as they move toward or away from the light.

This claim comes from David Percy, who displays this image
on his Web site. A brief examination reveals that Percy's explanation cannot possibly account for the shadows. If the shadows were produced as described, then the closer an astronaut is to the light source, the shorter his shadow will be, which is just the opposite of what we see. Percy claims ground slope cannot explain the shadows because the terrain is essentially flat. On a large scale the Apollo 11 site was essentially flat, however there were local undulations in the ground surface. Since we are looking at a two-dimensional image we cannot see the slope of the ground, but we can infer it from the shadows. It appears the ground is sloping upward and away from left astronaut either to the top-left, the bottom-right, or a combination of both. Remember, shadows cast on a downward slope are lengthened, while those cast on an upward slope are shortened. It seems that a change in ground slope is the only feasible explanation for the shadows we see.

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source. There are many reasons for this, but it is mostly due to countless tiny glass spheres found in the lunar soil, and formed by meteorite impacts. When you see a photo taken "down sun", away from the Sun, you see what looks like a spotlight around the shadow's head. This is because the light is strongly reflected back toward the Sun, so the soil around the head of the shadow looks very bright. This phenomenon also explains why the surface fades so drastically toward the horizon. It is brightest near the foreground due to sunlight being preferentially reflected back toward the camera. Farther away, the sunlight is preferentially reflected away from the camera, making the ground look dark. This phenomenon can also be observed in wet grass on Earth, as spherical water droplets act like the glass spheres. The technical term for this phenomenon is Heiligenschein, and is the result of light refraction, reflection, and diffraction on the surface of and inside the glass spheres and/or water droplets. This Apollo 11 photo is very good example
of Heiligenschein.

Some Apollo photographs show mysterious lights in the shadowy background that appear to be studio spotlights.

The hoax advocates usually reference this photograph
because the lights bare a vague resemblance to studio spotlights, however there are many photographs, such as this one
, where the same lights seem to contradict this hoax claim. There is no mystery as to the origin of these lights; they are lens flares. A lens flare is an image of the Sun reflecting back and forth between the lens elements of the camera. If you examine the photographs in which lens flares are found you will notice they all have a couple things in common. First, they are all taken with the camera pointing in the general direction of the Sun and, secondly, if you were to draw a line from the center of the photograph through the flares (they usually occur in pairs), the line will point in the direction of the Sun, which lies just outside the frame.

Only two men walked on the Moon during each Apollo mission, yet there are photos in which the astronaut reflected in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?

The Apollo astronauts carried cameras that were attached to the front of their spacesuits. In this Apollo 12 photograph of astronaut Alan Bean
, taken by Pete Conrad, one can clearly see Bean's camera mounted to his chest. The astronauts aimed and operated the cameras while they remained in this mounting. If you look closely at Conrad's reflection in Bean's visor, you can see Conrad's camera, which he is operating with his right hand.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


More for you to get your noodle round old man

In an Apollo 11 photograph of Buzz Aldrin the horizon is located at eye level; however, if the camera was mounted to Neil Armstrong's chest, the horizon should be at chest level.

The referenced photograph is the most reproduced image in the entire Apollo archive
. The claim of the hoax advocates assumes that Aldrin and Armstrong were standing on level ground; however, if Armstrong were standing on higher ground, the apparent elevation of the horizon would rise accordingly. If we look at Armstrong's reflection in the visor, we see the horizon is located at his chest [see enlargement]. This shows Armstrong was indeed standing on higher ground with his chest located in approximately the same horizontal plane as Aldrin's eyes. Given this camera position, we see the horizon across Aldrin's eyes as expected.

The hoax advocates also point out that the top of Aldrin's backpack should not be visible if the camera was attached to Armstrong's chest. Again, the hoax advocates fail to recognize that Armstrong is standing on higher ground. In addition, Aldrin is leaning forward, thus exposing the top of his backpack to the camera. Due to the weight of the astronauts' backpacks, a slight forward lean was required to maintain balance.

There is one photograph of an astronaut standing on the surface of the Moon in direct sunlight, yet he casts no shadow, which is impossible.

The photo to which the hoax advocates refer is one of astronaut John Young saluting the Stars and Stripes
. They often reference this photo as evidence of fraud, however they are very wrong. Young's shadow is clearly visible on the ground below him and to the right (his left). How can his shadow not be attached to his body? The answer is simple; Young was leaping off the ground and was elevated about two feet when the photo was taken. There is also some very good corroborating video of the event. This is one of the most famous of the Apollo photos and it is surprising that the hoax advocates would be unfamiliar with the story behind the photograph.

Other comments I've heard about this particular photo include (1) the flag appears to be fluttering and (2) the flag's camera facing side should be shaded from the sun. The fluttering issue I will deal with later. As for the lighting issue, it seems obvious to me that the flag is angled to the right and toward the camera. With the sun to the left, the flag's camera facing side would be sunlit at a shallow angle, which agrees with the shadows on the flag itself.

Not one still photograph matches the video footage, yet NASA claims both were shot at the same time.

This statement, made by David Percy, is entirely untrue. For evidence I submit the above-mentioned photograph of astronaut John Young
. There is some excellent corroborating video of the event captured in this still photo. In the video, the TV camera is positioned behind Young and to his right. The video shows a leaping John Young, the flag (which is not fluttering) and Charlie Duke, who took the photograph. There are other examples as well.

Mr. Percy claims that the triangular shaped piece of fabric located on the top of John Young's backpack, and seen in the still photo, does not appear in the video. This is not true - the tip of the fabric can be seen when one closely examines the video. Percy's claim fails to take into consideration the relative camera angles, the fact that Young in leaning forward, and the fact the fabric is attached at the front edge of the backpack.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


This should keep you busy

If Neil Armstrong was the first man on the Moon, then who shot the video of him descending the ladder and taking his initial steps on the lunar surface?

The TV camera was stowed in an instrument pallet in the LM descent stage. When Armstrong was at the top of the ladder, he pulled a lanyard to swing open the pallet, which was hinged at the bottom. The TV camera, which was attached to it, also swung down. Buzz Aldrin then switched on the camera from the LM cabin. The camera was pointing at the ladder of the LM so that TV pictures of Armstrong's initial steps on the Moon could be relayed to the world. The camera was later removed from its mounting and placed on a tripod some 30 feet from the LM, where it was left unattended to cover the remainder of the moonwalk.

Two photographs show an identical mountain background, yet in one the Lunar Module is present while in the other the LM is absent. The mountain scene must be an artificial backdrop.

The above example, which was presented in the FOX TV program, is just one of many hoax claims about "identical backgrounds" and "artificial backdrops"
. If someone is going to claim the backgrounds are identical, they had better be IDENTICAL. In this case, as in all such claims, the backgrounds are clearly not identical. If you examine the photos with scrutiny, differences can be easily identified. For example, look closely at the hill on the right of each photo and you will notice that the angles of view are significantly different. It is obvious the photos were taken from different camera positions, thus we see different foreground terrain. In the right photo it appears the LM is off-camera to the left.

Another factor to consider is, due to the lack of an atmosphere, distant objects on the Moon appear clearer than they do on Earth, thus the background mountains may be more distant than they appear to be. As such, a change in camera position may, at first observation, have a nearly unperceivable affect on the appearance of the background. However, close examination will reveal otherwise.

Two video clips, claimed by NASA to have been taken at different locations many kilometers apart, show an identical hill.

There's an easy explanation for this: human error. The video clips to which the hoax advocates refer are from a documentary (not made by NASA) that accidentally used a wrong clip. This was a simple mistake, but not one made by NASA. According to NASA, the photos were actually taken about three minutes apart on the same hill.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Perhaps you with your age old experience, can defend your sides claims and debunk this.
Or maybe sayonara you can try dropping a hammer and a feather at the same time sir
My money is on the hammer falling first don't you agree ?



But on the moon things are a little different sir

reply to post by denver22


Dont go around talking science and common sense. That'll ruin the day of the hoaxers Also you should reference the pendulum video also with the hammer / feather.

reply to post by BennyTheBlade


This video i post in reference to the famous hammer and feather drop from the apollo
15 mission demonstrated by commander david scott:


Dear benny at the end of the last Apollo 15 moon walk, Commander David Scott performed a live demonstration for the television cameras. He held out a geologic hammer and a feather and dropped them at the same time. Because they were essentially in a vacuum, there was no air resistance and the feather fell at the same rate as the hammer, as Galileo had concluded hundreds of years before - all objects released together fall at the same rate regardless of mass. Mission Controller Joe Allen described the demonstration in the "Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report":

During the final minutes of the third extravehicular activity, a short demonstration experiment was conducted. A heavy object (a 1.32-kg aluminum geological hammer) and a light object (a 0.03-kg falcon feather) were released simultaneously from approximately the same height (approximately 1.6 m) and were allowed to fall to the surface. Within the accuracy of the simultaneous release, the objects were observed to undergo the same acceleration and strike the lunar surface simultaneously, which was a result predicted by well-established theory, but a result nonetheless reassuring considering both the number of viewers that witnessed the experiment and the fact that the homeward journey was based critically on the validity of the particular theory being tested and it just demonstrates the the fact that the earth and moon are very different my moon
hoaxer freinds..

Please feel free to try and experiment dropping a hammer and the feather benny buddy
at your own leisure, ill bet the hammer hits the ground before the feather.enjoy



Benny notice how if you look at the other side of the coin things fall into place...
You now understand how radiation works in space etc and how different things are on the moon.

Take a look at this also bennet many have posted this before but if you have not seen it
then watch this too.

Originally posted by denver22

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source.

Just a side note that a lot of the alleged 'hot spots' were also due to photo editing. Magazines altering levels etc push the contrast between previously near valued pixels totally out of whack. So what was previously some soil with highlights becomes a spot light.

A lot of the more iconic images that are famous have been edited to look more 'crunchy'.

Originally posted by BennyTheBlade
reply to post by PsykoOps

 

But in my old age it seems my memory has a hard time keeping up.

(Don't worry benny we all have to get old) - 'here i have something for you to read over
and over again"


All objects with mass exert a gravitational pull on one another my freind. This pull is measured in terms of acceleration since two objects will accelerate toward one another. The larger the mass and the proximity of the objects determines the rate of this acceleration. Extremely large masses, such as the Earth, exert a noticeable pull on objects. This is what keeps everything stuck to the Earth, including the atmosphere of our planet.



Definition

Benny, Gravity is the pull that two bodies of mass exert on one another. It is expressed in terms of acceleration, such as meters per second per second (m/s/s or m/s[2]). The Earth's gravitational pull results in an acceleration of 9.81 m/s[2].
Pendulum Setup

There are several simple experiments benny that will allow you to calculate the acceleration due to gravity of a falling object. A simple pendulum can determine this acceleration. The only variables in this experiment are the length of the pendulum (L) and the period of one full swing of the pendulum (T).
Pendulum Calculation

The period of a pendulum swinging is expressed with the mathematical formula:

T = 2[pi](sqrt(L/g))

This equation can be rearranged to solve for the acceleration due to gravity (g):

g = 4[pi][2](L/T[2])
Calculating Gravity

Let the pendulum swing at least ten times and record how long this takes. Divide that total time by the number of full swings the pendulum had. That will give you the average period (T). Plug this number and the length of the pendulum into the equation to calculate acceleration due to gravity. For example, if the pendulum arm is 1 m and the period of one full pendulum swing is 2 s, the calculation is:

4[pi][2](1/2[2]) = 39.44(1/4) = 9.86

The result of 9.86 m/s[2] is significantly close to the actual acceleration due to gravity of 9.81 m/s[2].

Now here is a video of the pedulum swing on the moon apollo 14:



Taking into 1/6 of earths gravity tell me what you think? "will you shun those charalatans now"
Still not convinced or do you need further proof?.

Also read what it says on the video as your watching it..

reply to post by miniatus


Except that some of the astronauts came down with cancer. So while it wasnt insta dead it was dangerous. The moonlanding sites have been corroborated by sattelite images. Unless you want to make the case that Nasa sent an unmanned mission to plant false evidence the case is pretty much closed.

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by denver22

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source.

Just a side note that a lot of the alleged 'hot spots' were also due to photo editing. Magazines altering levels etc push the contrast between previously near valued pixels totally out of whack. So what was previously some soil with highlights becomes a spot light.

A lot of the more iconic images that are famous have been edited to look more 'crunchy'.

This is also true pinke, yes - as a side issue. Thanks for adding that to the evidence.
Might i say also, the wackjob witchdoctors fiddling around with the images too for financial gain.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

The general public, the 99% of the human race ... doesn't have a clue, doesn't want a clue ... and has absolutely zero ability to have any grain of critical thinking.

I and others have shown you the way, 'now it is up to you to do some critical thinking ...

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

This should keep you busy

Nope, not interested in defending any of these youtube videos. Not interested in defending David Percy's claims, either.

What I'd really like to know is what happened to Sample Bag 196 on Wednesday night?

reply to post by Hefficide

The moon was primarily a cold war political objective

Believing in this type of rhetoric is so infantile that it defeats any rational challenge by the inability of the originator to grasp how idiotic asinine it would be to invest the effort and the money is such endeavor. In fact that type of rational is what makes the hole process so unbelievable as to support anything beyond the simplest stages of the space race that the Soviets fully engaged and mastered.

I grant you that it was one of primary interests around the race into space, that and the development of nuclear weapons deliver systems. But to extend it to a maned landing on the moon, that is by a large margin something well beyond the requirements of a national effort is what to me stated the seed of doubt that it happened as history records it, taking in the context of the time (US at war and losing it, JFK dead), the technology available (said to have made it possible) and the costs involved, I would soon see a benefit in faking it than simply accept what has been told (especially with some of the holes and shenanigans that are known).

What seal the deal to me is that, as many others have stated in the thread, it hasn't been done again, nor has at least publicly been done any other move to potentiate the feat, taking in consideration the technology advances it would be expected that we human today would have a fully automated base there using robots and remote presence to do proper science and to establish a foothold for a long term human presence, from energy gathering to asteroid mining, to telecommunications and astrophysics advances the possibilities are endless. Even for a trip to Mars it would have made sense, even if no water had been found recently...

Also the known fact that the ISS is a lemon does not help...

Did NASA really send astronauts to the moon?

No, NASA did not really send astronauts to the moon. Richard Nixon would never risk a TV disaster with 600 million people watching live on TV. There was always a Plan B.

And B stands for Bellcomm.

Originally posted by Panic2k11
What seal the deal to me is that, as many others have stated in the thread, it hasn't been done again, nor has at least publicly been done any other move to potentiate the feat, taking in consideration the technology advances it would be expected that we human today would have a fully automated base there using robots and remote presence to do proper science and to establish a foothold for a long term human presence, from energy gathering to asteroid mining, to telecommunications and astrophysics advances the possibilities are endless. Even for a trip to Mars it would have made sense, even if no water had been found recently...

NASA's budget took a huge cut after the Apollo program and hasn't been close to those funding levels since. Plus most politicians who control how much money NASA gets, don't really seem to have much interest in funding larger more expensive/ambitious space projects. And it seems that the general population is under the impression that funding space exploration is already a huge waste of money as it is now.

Also the known fact that the ISS is a lemon does not help...

What fact is that? The ISS has been rather expensive to build and continually maintain, but it's anything but defective.

reply to post by jra


The main problem of the ISS is that it is a money pit without much benefits (not null but the resources spent on other type of missions would be more productive and even more technological challenging), one thing that I find extremely hard to explain in terms of costs is the need for human habitation if not to explore the effects of living in space since that data has already been sufficiently gathered extensively, for some time now human presence is not required and I can't see a good reason to spending so much on that field.

Again it is not useful to have an human habitat ready for tests but they probably never were a priority (since no investment has been given to human space fairing), technology especially nano-technology, genetics, propulsion and material will rapidly outrun any concerns and problems that were already well understood from what was learned on the Skylab project and Mir.

Another concern is how we spend so much in moving material out of the gravity well to at the end trow it in for a burn, in place of developing technologies and designs that would be an extreme benefit for recycling much of what we send up.

The ISS was ultimately a geopolitical tool part, even part of the starwars "deception". I'm not calling it a lemon because the technology is defective what is defective is the global plan and the policies behind it, that have almost nothing to do with space exploration.

In any case I applaud the efforts of the US leadership in the human space exploration, we probably would be forever stuck in the satellite age, reduced to programs like France/ ESA/Japan are normally engaged, but I regret and find illogical at times considering the claims and the announced past achievements that smarter and faster steps are not made

I truly hope that China manages to go beyond the already tried path and establishes a permanent base on the moon as a stepping stone to much higher goals. We have all been dreaming with Mars since William Marconi intercepted the wireless messages from Mars and we've been looking for the moon long before Jules Vern put it on paper, it is taking too long, too strangely long especially considering the benefits and the cost reduction it would all permit in the long run...

I find it all extremely unreasonable that mankind puts so much effort into space to have so few returns and by knowing that it could so obviously be done better and faster, one needs only to look and admire the Soviet program to see how much they managed to accomplish with so few resources and technological support.

reply to post by Panic2k11


In other words, you think manned spaceflight is a waste of money, but you can't understand why no-one has returned to the Moon. That's why you think the Apollo missions were faked. I see.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What I'd really like to know is what happened to Sample Bag 196 on Wednesday night?

I lose all respect for you when you keep repeating something that has been explained before. It makes you look like you're trying to convince people of something you yourself know is false.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

news.google.com...

Originally posted by Pinke

Originally posted by denver22

Many Apollo photographs show lighting "hot spots", as well as a darkening of the surface toward the horizon. Sunlight should not produce hot spots, nor should the surface fade in an airless environment.

The "hot spots" are the result of the lunar soil's tendency to reflect light back toward its source.

Just a side note that a lot of the alleged 'hot spots' were also due to photo editing. Magazines altering levels etc push the contrast between previously near valued pixels totally out of whack. So what was previously some soil with highlights becomes a spot light.

A lot of the more iconic images that are famous have been edited to look more 'crunchy'.

The other problem is that hoax sites and youtube videos use the edited versions of pictures say the astronauts took them and that they are to perfect with focus exposue and composition.

I have posted this link before which shows the some of the images they took and an edited version.

apollo.mem-tek.com...

Scroll down on the site and have a look at Photo 5882

Hoaxers seem to have to lie to prove there point