Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More Moon fakery

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:57 AM
link   

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.




posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.


It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

daryllyn
Alright.. I'm new to this moon landing fakery business. I see that everyone is pretty divided. I have never really given it much thought.

If you (the we didn't go to the moon people) could have me watch one documentary to convince me, which one would it be?

Edit: This isn't a loaded question, just truly curious.
edit on 03pmTue, 03 Dec 2013 17:45:37 -060013TuesdayTuesday1312 by daryllyn because: (no reason given)


I think the best way to start is reading about Stanley Kubrick. His history of film making, the man himself and then watch the analysis of The Shining. There are some people outthere who havr some interesting things to say about what Kubrick was trying to tell us through his movies. Not only about the Moon landings.

Not to forget there is also the connection NASA and Kubrick. His movie Barry Lyndon needed a special lens which only NASA could provide.

Then there is of course the question about the many many pictures taken on the moon. IMHO too many questions about the pictures and the rocket-hardware to say.... it can all be explained away with reason....and there are people who say ...yes it can. Without a doubt these people also have an answer for the many people involved who died during the Apollo project.

An other thing to take in consideration is Nixon. He was corrupt and paranoia as a president of the USA can be.

I have the gut feel that a lot of money already was invested and many contracts closed. There was no way for the US government to say to the world..or the companies involved....sorry we are closing shop, we do not have the technology at this moment to go to the Moon. Nixon and his pals decided to fake it instead of losing face and credibillity to the world. Maybe there was some money to be made for the insiders too...Anyways, that is where Kubrick comes in..



edit on 18/2/2014 by zatara because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

zatara


Not to forget there is also the connection NASA and Kubrick. His movie Barry Lyndon needed a special lens which only NASA could provide.


Not true. Kubrick bought the lens from Zeiss, the same as NASA did. NASA used that lens to take photographs of the moon, which is how Kubrick got to hear about it.



Then there is of course the question about the many many pictures taken on the moon. IMHO too many questions about the pictures and the rocket-hardware to say.... it can all be explained away with reason....and there are people who say ...yes it can.


All fo the hoax allegations can be explained away with reason and an understanding of science and engineering. None of the hoax claims stand up to rational scrutiny. None. Not one.



An other thing to take in consideration is Nixon. He was corrupt and paranoia as a president of the USA can be.


Yep, but he was not in charge when the moon landing was conceived. He was not in charge of Mercury or Gemini, the two programmes that led to Apollo. He was not in charge at the start of Apollo. Apollo 8 had already been around the moon when he was elected, but he was not yet inaugurated. All he did was get the glory. His inept and corrupt nature does not invalidate science and engineering.




I have the gut feel that a lot of money already was invested and many contracts closed. There was no way for the US government to say to the world..or the companies involved....sorry but, we do not have the technology at this moment to go to the Moon. Nixon and his pals decided to fake it instead of losing face and credibillity to the world. Maybe there was some money to be made for the insiders too...Anyways, that is where Kubrick comes in..


A lot of money was invested. The invested it in equipment to get to the moon.

I find it amazing that people will still happily flap around in this swamp of denial but will completely ignore solid stone cold evidence that we went. See my previous post with the pretty pictures in.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   

webstra

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.


It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.


Much of the guidance on the Apollo craft was electro-mechanical -- not computer-controlled. Electro-mechanical gyroscopes (inertial navigation systems) had been around for a while before Apollo. Planes in the 1950s had been automatically piloted by the gyroscopes that were available at the time. Plus, there were even some computer-controlled avionics systems in place in the early 1960s, such as that on the SR-77 Blackbird -- a plane that would not be able to be flown if computers didn't make tiny automatic corrections automatically -- and that was even before Apollo.

The Apollo spacecraft relied on "simple" (I'm using the term relatively) gyroscopic MECHANICAL devices. The gyroscope gave them a frame of reference; when the spacecraft deviated from that frame of reference, the gyro moves and it simply tells one of the small RCS (reaction control system) thrusters to thrust briefly until the gyroscope is back to "level".

One job of the computer (among other jobs) was to keep track of all of the motions corrected by the gyroscope so the computer could keep a running tab on their position...i.e., If it knew where it was when it started, and then keep track of your motions and any slight deviations, it would know where is currently was. This is called "dead-reckoning", which does not take a lot of computing. Neither did the other jobs the computer did -- which was mostly back-up work and systems management. The guidance system itself was backed up by a sextant; the astronauts could get their position and bearing without the computer by use of a sextant and stars to find their position (although the automatic guidance system was always right every time the astronauts checked it with the sextant).

Sure -- it wasn't all electromechanical; there were some things the computers did. However, they were certainly powerful enough to do the tasks they needed to do. This wasn't the dark ages.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:15 AM
link   

zatara
Not to forget there is also the connection NASA and Kubrick. His movie Barry Lyndon needed a special lens which only NASA could provide.



onebigmonkey
Not true. Kubrick bought the lens from Zeiss, the same as NASA did. NASA used that lens to take photographs of the moon, which is how Kubrick got to hear about it.


'onebigmonkey' is correct.

NASA did not provide the f/0.7 lenses to Kubrick for Barry Lyndon. Carl Zeiss made the lenses, and Kubrick bought the lenses from Zeiss that were used in shooting the famous candlelit scenes in that movie.

Granted, the f/0.7 lenses were designed and manufactured by Zeiss for NASA, but NASA did not buy all of the special f/0.7 lenses that Zeiss made. Ten lenses in all were made: Six went to NASA, Zeiss kept one, and three were purchased by Kubrick.

Source: Carl Zeiss f/0.7 Lenses


edit on 2/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:31 AM
link   

atomsmasher
reply to post by Komodo
 

Imagine trying to shoot up some module from earth and dock it with an airplane.... it would be pretty hard nowadays.

You mean like how they do mid-air refueling? Everyday?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:38 AM
link   
i believe we probably did go to the moon. but everytime i look at one of those photos actually taken on the surface of the moon there's one thing that always jumps out at me. its the background. it looks as if someone took every photo and took out everything above the horizon and just inserted pure black. now, i know that people will see due to lighting etc you aren't going to see stars, whatever, that's fine, some pictures even do have a star here or there. but everything above that horizon line is suspect in my opinion. leading me to believe that there are plenty of things on the moon, whether they be existing buildings, bases, crafts or whatever that are being scrubbed out from public view. our moon would be the perfect place for more intelligent forms of life to have a base for monitoring etc.

i also like the idea that the reason we never went back is because the astronauts played golf on the moon, thus offending the already existing inhabitants. lol. #ing americans and their golf....



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   

atomsmasher
Imagine trying to shoot up some module from earth and dock it with an airplane.... it would be pretty hard nowadays.


eNumbra
You mean like how they do mid-air refueling? Everyday?

True.

But the actual docking procedure in space would be made even easier because there is no wind resistance or turbulence to rattle the craft. Precise movement in space is much easier to control that precise movement in the atmosphere.

Sure, the spacecraft are moving at 17,000+ mph relative to a fixed point on Earth. However, speed in space is only relative between two objects in space, because there are virtually no other forces at work besides the motions of the two craft, so the speeds are only relative TO EACH OTHER...

...For example, even if one craft somewhere out in space is moving 17,000 mph relative to Earth, and another is moving at 16,999 mph relative to Earth, relative to the two the spacecraft, it would seem that the slower one was sitting still, while that faster one approached it at only 1 mph. It does not matter that the craft are moving at 17,000 +/- mph relative to Earth; what matters is how fast they are moving relative to each other.

So considering that, to the people on those two spacecraft, it would seem that one craft was only moving 1 mph while the other was sitting still, it is not hard to imagine that two spaceships would indeed be able to dock.

Granted, getting them into space in the first place is a chore, and space is a dangerous place to make a mistake, but theoretically, docking two craft in space is an easier procedure than docking two craft in the atmosphere.

edit on 2/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

webstra
Great to see that more and more people finaly see that it all was a big lie.

The apollogists look like a bunch of crackpots nowaday's. ;-)

Their thinking isn't logical at all.


Feel free to show the logic instead of just bashing people?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

PsykoOps

webstra
Great to see that more and more people finaly see that it all was a big lie.

The apollogists look like a bunch of crackpots nowaday's. ;-)

Their thinking isn't logical at all.


Feel free to show the logic instead of just bashing people?


Apollogists used the same methods as i do know, only the reason is different, they where bashing people when they came to close to the truth.

I'm calling apollogists crackpots because they are standing about 200.000 miles away from the truth.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   

webstra
I'm calling apollogists crackpots because they are standing about 200.000 miles away from the truth.

Amen brother.
I mean think about it! How could we land on the moon, if it's made of cheese!? Think about it APOLLOgists! If that's even your real name.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:32 AM
link   

webstra
Apollogists used the same methods as i do know, only the reason is different, they where bashing people when they came to close to the truth.

I'm calling apollogists crackpots because they are standing about 200.000 miles away from the truth.


Why you no deliver? It was simple enough request.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:48 AM
link   

webstra

PsykoOps

webstra
Great to see that more and more people finaly see that it all was a big lie.

The apollogists look like a bunch of crackpots nowaday's. ;-)

Their thinking isn't logical at all.


Feel free to show the logic instead of just bashing people?


Apollogists used the same methods as i do know, only the reason is different, they where bashing people when they came to close to the truth.

I'm calling apollogists crackpots because they are standing about 200.000 miles away from the truth.

I try not to bash people themselves. I WILL be critical of poor logic and be ready to correct scientific misunderstandings -- but I will not bash a person who is [politely] stating their beliefs, even if I don't agree with those beliefs.

As for "bashing people [or being critical of poor logic/correcting misunderstandings] when they came to close to the truth", well, it seems to me that statement presupposes what constitutes "The Truth"...

...It is true that I am likely to disagree with someone who thinks that Apollo was a hoax, but just because I MORE vociferously disagree with a person who MORE vociferously makes a claim of "Apollo Hoax", that does not somehow add credence to the hoax claim.

I'm not sure I understand your logic on that one. I suppose you are using the idea that [to paraphrase Shakespeare] "some 'Apollogists' doth protest too much", and are claiming that the fact that we list the faults in the Apollo Hoax theory is somehow evidence that the hoaxers are on to something -- as if we are "afraid" that hoax believers are actually on to something.

That is backward flawed logic. The Hoaxers made their claims first, and the debunkers of the hoax theory are simply pointing out the mistakes in that theory.

edit on 2/18/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by webstra
 


Neither do those fake pictures. And how is it that we can take pics of the farthest reaches of the universe and we can't get a decent image of the "landing sites"? Why not put a rover on the moon with a good camera and roll up on the sights to shut everyone up? I know taxpayers and priorities. We know thats the govt's main concern don't we.

I think they made it all the way up to near earth orbit and faked the rest. Van Allen belt proved more a barrier than the Tandy 64 computers they were using.

Belief is a powerful thing, and when you have Jules and Walter telling you it's real AND some "kind-of" realistic looking images, heck, it must be. Plus that big old Saturn Rocket must have gone somewhere!

We didn't go to the moon, not with people.



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


Like I said, I wasn't sure is he landed it successfully, but what I did see was a miserable failure. One more thing, where's the blast crater, or any sort of pattern in the moon dust below the lander? That stuff is pretty fine, you'd think it might budge just a little bit from those guidance rockets. Heck, even if it glided and coasted to a stop, there would be some kind of indication of movement on that silty surface. What up with that?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Stackpot
And how is it that we can take pics of the farthest reaches of the universe and we can't get a decent image of the "landing sites"?

Google "angular resolution". It's the same reason you can see a mountain from many miles away, but can't see an ant from just a few meters away.

Besides, I think the LRO photos of the landing sites are quite decent. You can even see the astronauts' foot tracks and the equipment they left on the Moon.

If they landed a rover nearby that took pictures of the lunar modules, would you believe those images, or would you declare them fake?



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by webstra
 

Why not put a rover on the moon with a good camera and roll up on the sights to shut everyone up?

Because we'd spend all that money and those whom it was meant to shut up would still claim fake.

You will never convince people it wasn't fake or that any image of it isn't fake. They would simply claim that they went to the set they shot it on in Area 51 and took some new pictures.

Ironic, considering images of ghosts/aliens/bigfoot are totally real and never fake, images from the moon/mars 100% fake.
edit on 2/18/2014 by eNumbra because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Stackpot
reply to post by onebigmonkey
 


One more thing, where's the blast crater, or any sort of pattern in the moon dust below the lander? That stuff is pretty fine, you'd think it might budge just a little bit from those guidance rockets. Heck, even if it glided and coasted to a stop, there would be some kind of indication of movement on that silty surface.


It did, and one of the astronauts tasks was to photograph the blown area. Here are a couple of the pictures they took:

AS11-40-5918
AS11-40-5921

If you expected more, keep in mind three things:

1.) The Descent Engine was throttled-down to only 3,000 lbs of thrust at landing.
B.) Rocket exhaust spreads-out more in vacuum, so that the pressure of the exhaust from the 52-inch rocket nozzle was less than 1 psi when it impinged on the surface.
III.) The rocket motor was shut-off several feet above the surface.

This is a classic example of the central flaw of the Apollo Hoax Believers: They do not offer any evidence that a hoax was commited (an incriminating memo, a death-bed confession, etc). They simply point out something they don't understand, and instead of - oh, I dunno - trying to understand it, they just point and yell, "SEE??!!"

(Not to say that Stackpot is an HB; I interpreted his question as an attempt to understand. I note, however, that he did not ask for evidence of blast marks, he asked why the blast marks were not there. If you want to follow a line of inquiry, first check to make sure your assumptions (and expectations) are not false.)



posted on Feb, 18 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

webstra

DJW001

cascade
Back in the 1970's a friend of mine said we didn't really go to the moon. I thought he was a bit off by thinking that we didn't go there. Now years later looking at it, I am not sure.
I remember those years. No hand held LCD calculators, cell phones, etc etc. Too much animation was used as well.

Myth Busters did a show about it and they proved ( to satisfy the government ? ) that we indeed did land on the moon.

I'm going to sit this one out on the fence. I really don't know.


I know! It's like those idiots who think that Christopher Columbus could cross the Atlantic without GPS or diesel engines! Morons.


It's looks like Apollogists getting desparate given examples like these.


YOU have not contributed one thing to this thread but asinine (look it up) comments not one piece of information or a useful link !!!!





new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join