The Video that shows 100% Man DID NOT land on the Moon

reply to post by miniatus


Exactly, how would you get the whole planet to get in on the hoax and not have someone spill the beans.

reply to post by Tardacus

nope it sure didnt. look at photos of the landers on the moon. look under the landers the moon "soil" is smooth, and the same level as the surronding "soil".theres no large holes or streaks in the surface where the dust and rocks have been blown away by the landing thrusters. yet in this video we can see huge amounts of debris being blown everywhere.

At landing the descent engine is throttled to minimum power as the spacecraft velocity at this point is little
faster than one can walk

Extending from the footpads on the lander are long break-away probes - sort of lunar curb feelers

When one of these probes contacts the lunar surface will turn on light on the lunar module control panel

If listen to audio from the landings will hear stronaut call out "Contact Light"

The descent engine is shut fown and lander gently falls remaining distance to the surface

Refer to earlier post indicating that do to lack of atmosphere the exhaust plume spreads out exhaust nozzle

reply to post by cloaked4u


Many animals were sent into space. The first were fruit flies after which dogs ( Russia) were sent then monkeys and finally chimpanzees. Ham was the first chimp. Enos was the second. Enos suffered a malfunction of equipment in a learning experiment and was recieving shocks for any answers whether they were correct or incorrect. Enos died of dysentary about a year after his flight. After his flight they were late in retrieving the capsule and Enos had torn out his cathater while it was still inflated. This action caused the infection that eventually killed him. But space did not do them in. Every animal sent up came back alive.

From the three separate rocket stages built by Boeing, North American Aviation and McDonnell Douglas, to the command, service and lunar modules, built by the Grumman Corporation and North American Aviation again, around five-and-a-half million parts were manufactured for each mission; often by a host of sub-contractors working for these main Apollo companies.

The near impossible task of managing this vast pyramid of people across America fell to the Apollo programme manager George Müller and, in a stroke of genius, he called upon the astronauts themselves for help; each national hero would make personal visits to the factories making all these parts. It was a crucial reminder to the workers that a single technical glitch could kill a man they had personally met. And it compelled each of them to devote their lives to Apollo for the best part of a decade.

During each flight, the colossal workforce would be on call - connected through their line managers - to a series of system support rooms in Houston which in turn fed their advice to one of 20 men in the main mission operations control room known to everyone as MOCR. Right at the top of the pyramid, inside this nerve centre, was one man in charge of each mission and his code name was Flight. For Apollo 11's landing it was the turn of 36-year-old former fighter pilot, Gene Kranz.

As Kranz gave the "go" for Armstrong and Aldrin to fire their descent engine, no one needed to remind him that a decade of immense human effort and sacrifice hung on the next 12 minutes. Computer alarms and fuel warnings plagued the approach, but with just 20 seconds of propellant remaining the two pilots placed their spacecraft gently on to the moon.

An accomplishment of this immensity had transcended nationhood. Such global unity was something that no peacemaker, politician or prophet had ever quite achieved. But 400,000 engineers with a promise to keep to a president had done it and Nasa knew it. On the plaque fixed to the legs of their machine they had written the words: "We came in peace, for all mankind."

400,000 engineers wake up guys/girls/ think .

What is wrong with you moon hoaxers ???????.

I suggest you research camera exposure/gravity/atmoshphere difference/the inns and outs of
the parts needed for the entire apollo program.

Shun your ickes and sibrels do as buzz do and reclaim your lives from them.

Can we please have an international law that would give Buzz Aldrin the right to punch the likes in the face!

This one is for the disbelievers, may you have a happy life in a self contained 1" box.

the landers and buggy are still on thereWAKE UP

Actually when someone assaults you, you do have a right to defend yourself. Even if that means punching them in the face.

reply to post by mysteryskeptic
Buzz simply has (old man clout) he can slap any one he likes for any reason. I hope to have that old man clout one day. And When some young arse hole say's we landed on the moon, I'm gonna smack the shat right the hell out of him.

reply to post by Tardacus

The only 2 explainations for why that shadow does not change position on the window are:
1) the light source that is creating the shadow is attached to the craft or
2) the craft is not deviating even an inch in any direction from the light source throughout it`s entire descent and landing.

Or...just maybe...
3) It is not a shadow.

At certain times, like descent and landing for instance, the crash bar is placed across the window as shown above in this photo of LM5 from the Apollo 11 mission.

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by Komodo
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

there's ALOT of evidence that we didn't land on the moon .. but there's a ALOT of evidence that we did..but, I've failed to see the difference in all the videos and how to determine what was done in a studio & what was not..

and they want me to take it on blind faith..

the biggest one that gets me is, there's no dust on the LM...looks like someone just put it through the car wash; the blast from the engines should have made a massive dust cloud and covered the LM in dust, period. The dust cloud hould have lasted awhile due to the 1/6th gravity, since it's 'very fine dust' and you can see it from the boot print they left behind..

but what do I know.. I hold no degree and ..

I'm just a 5 yr old wielding a machette at ppl LOL...

You are wrong and you are right. Wrong there is a lot of evidence that we did not go to the moon. There is no evidence that we didnt go tothe moon. On the other hand there is a ton of evidence that we did.

Originally posted by mrshakabuku
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

It is unlikely that man has actually landed on the moon all things considered, but mostly because of the ultra thin metal walls of the craft could not have protected the astronauts travelling through the Van Allen Belt which was at it's most intense in 1969. But even if they found a way through it, the footage is most CERTAINLY fake. any Kodak film would have been instantly destroyed beyond recognition by the radiation, not only in the belt, but also from exposure to the radiation on the moon's suface. Just so we're clear... filming on the moon IS NOT POSSIBLE.

OH dear god

I am no psychologist, however I have seen and heard enough over the past years to recognize certain
reoccurring personality traits in those professing to be hoax believers. Although there are varying degrees of each, I have come to categorize the hoax believers into two generalized types: the Confused and the Hardcore.

The Confused are average people who have seen or heard the claims of the hoax advocates on TV, the Internet, or from friends and associates. They usually lack the scientific knowledge or experience necessary to dispute the claims, so they begin to doubt the authenticity of the moon landings. Despite their doubts, these people tend to be open-minded and willing to listen to varying points of view. When giving the opportunity to study both sides of the argument, they usually agree the moon landings were real.

The Hardcore, on the other hand, are a completely different type of personality. They almost always exhibit strong paranoid tendencies with an extreme distrust and hatred of the U.S. government. Rather than allowing the evidence to speak for itself, they will often begin by assuming a hoax and then search for evidence to support that preconception. When they see something that looks suspicious they immediately accept it as proof of their belief. When someone attempts to offer an alternate explanation they dismiss it as a NASA lie. Any evidence that contradicts their belief is described as an attempt by the government to deceive us. They will say that anyone who believes in the moon landings has been brainwashed or is in denial. They are usually argumentative and often hostile.

The Hardcore also tend to be completely close-minded, refusing to consider alternate possibilities. I have often debated with hardcore individuals over various hoax topics and, to date, I have always been able to completely discredit their claims with arguments that would more than satisfy any open-minded individual. However, they routinely refuse to acknowledge the possibility they could be in error. They will stubbornly cling to their belief in the hoax even when they have no creditable evidence to fall back on. The debate is clearly not just about evidence and physics; there are those who believe in the hoax merely because they want to believe it.

Why do some people choose to believe in the moon-landing hoax? I wish I could provide a definitive answer to that question, however I suspect it is a combination of paranoia and, perhaps more importantly, feelings of inadequacy. The hoax believers create a delusional fantasy in which they are the heroes. Their ability to decipher the subtle clues and uncover the hoax is seen as a demonstration of their intellectual superiority. To the hoax believers the more complex and convoluted the theory, the smarter they feel for having figured it all out. To the rest of us the theory just doesn't make any sense.

Research hasslebad cameras my friend take no notice of con - artists

Originally posted by lunarcartographer
reply to post by miniatus

 

Anyone that believes that man did not land on the moon is ignoring the fact that satellite imaging from other countries shows the sites (3rd party verification). Apparently some people see a conspiracy in everything regardless of 'factual information'.

Oh quit trying to cloud the issue with factual information. That takes all the fun out of it.

Originally posted by Tardacus

Originally posted by smurfy
They are continually manoeuvring, both turning and still moving laterally,

and yet the shadow on the window never changes position,it never moves up, down, left or right. The only plausable explaination for that is that the object and the light source that is creating the shadow are attached to the lander.
did they have lights on the landers?i don`t know.

edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-9-2012 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)

I see what you are getting at, but I'm not too bothered with that, everything else, the perimeter of the window, is in sharp focus even with our internet view, your shadow is blurry, like something nearer the camera, and out of focus, I could be wrong, but it makes sense. The Earth globe picture, (I incorrectly called it the whole Earth) picture is more important, it had to be taken well into or more likely out of the Van Allen belts for that view.

Originally posted by Hope4peace
reply to post by Wonderer2012

 

What reason would the government have to lie about a moon landing? Granted, I don't trust our government but I believe we did land on the moon.

I wonder if things just look different in space than they do here on earth....who knows, maybe the differences in gravity and atmosphere change the way some things might appear to us. We only know earth don't forget

Well even though I am not a "we did not land" conspirator I can answer that question as if I were. They did it to fool the Russians and to say we got their first.

reply to post by smurfy

I could be wrong, but it makes sense.

You're right.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by karen61057

They did it to fool the Russians and to say we got their first.

Which begs the question:
Why didn't the USSR fake a landing?

a simple experiment to do on earth would be to get one of those space suits that was on apollo 11 stick a modern day astronot ? put him in an oven to simulate the moon .the heating and cooling is the one that gets me any metal exposed to the heat of the sun will not cool like it does on earth turn your oven on in the kitchen full leave an hour x by 2 and that is what its like on the moon we are told ? before they head home buzz opens the hatch door no airlock and throws out the backpacks perspective is everything to a painter mr kubric

Originally posted by hanyak69
reply to post by 46ACE

 

If we had never been there how could the scientists be sure of 1/6 gravity? Or no atmosphere? However they got it right with a tinfoil landing module, from the first attempt? Out of all the landings on the moon, not one mistake? I have known some Nasa scientists, most are book smart but thinking off the cuff is not their strong point. Common sense is lacking. How ever, we have a better track record for mistake free missions with landing on the moon than with the space suttle program, in a time where our knowledge was limited? Now they know space is not a void like previously thought, and the discovery was made in the 90's. Seems to me they would have noted that back in the 60's. I want to move to the moon I would never have to sweep.

Because we know(can measure ) earths mass and gravity and we can measure the moons orbital velocity. hence the mass can be calculated. From "mass" we can get "gravity".

Never transposed a formula to find a missing value? Used in electronics all the time we understand the relationship between mass, gravity and velocity. Just like current,voltage; power and resistance(or impedance) given two of the values and I/we can solve for the third.

No"Atmosphere"? We can easily see from earth during an eclipse the sunlight coming across the moons surface is not refracted or colored in anyway. no atmosphere affects the light. no atmosphere shows up through spectroscopic analysis. Proven technology available well before the 60's...If there was an atmosphere the heat ripples would be visible on the sunny side.

Back to our friend "gravity": I don't know what the figure is but I'm sure there's a minimum gravity required to hold onto gases and keep them from dissipating into space.

"Not one mistake?" No at least two! that I remember:
Jim Lovell (apollo13 commander would disagree; his crew almost died). Apollo1 Astronauts Grissom,Chaffee, and White DID die testing on the launchpad in a capsule fire that caused a complete redesign of the command module.

The shuttle program suffered two major catastrophes also: The Challenger during ascent in Florida and the Columbia burning up over Texas upon reentry.

All you are spouting are under informed impressions and conjecture. Quite a few seem to lack a basic understanding of math and physics and the sciences.
But not the emotions to scream FRAUD!!! LIERS!!!!!!!TRICKSTERS!!!!

BESIDES ALL THAT: we sent unmanned probes to the moon before the Apollo missions to check it out!!!!!!!! The "Ranger"mapper and"Surveyor"lander programs:

www.lpi.usra.edu...
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

reply to post by geobro

turn your oven on in the kitchen full leave an hour x by 2 and that is what its like on the moon we are told

No. We are not told that. Your oven has air in it. Air gets hot. There is no air on the Moon.

before they head home buzz opens the hatch door no airlock and throws out the backpacks

The whole spacecraft was the "airlock".

perspective is everything to a painter

Are you a painter? You sure don't seem to know much about the Apollo missions.

Originally posted by geobro
a simple experiment to do on earth would be to get one of those space suits that was on apollo 11 stick a modern day astronot ? put him in an oven to simulate the moon perspective is everything to a painter mr kubric

LMFAO . Ok lets put this into perspective, What charlatan told you that? or did you just make that up - just asking?

Earth=atmosphere=air
moon=no atmosphere=no air

I am bookmarking that one it's the funniest hoax claim i have ever seen