Apollo 15, Jim Irwin's historical narrative in review

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Everything seems to be on topic with you except what other people say.

Originally posted by choos
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

sorry, im failing to see how any of that proves they didnt land on the moon?? are you even trying to prove that or are you just trying to prove irwin had loose CIA links?

That's your problem. I don't need to prove Apollo 15 didn't land on the moon. All I need to do is to impeach the evidence. And the evidence looks like Jim Irwin was a CIA agent with financial connections to Howard Hughes.

Your image of Jim Irwin seems to be a space hero explorer that's because you have been deluded. Jim Irwin is a preacher, a god fearing anti-communist, loyal to his country, probably brainwashed during hypnosis, worked as a CIA test pilot, has connections to a retired Florida film director with the initials H.H. who also happens to be a stamp collector.

That's the New Narrative. I'd say to you: Deal with it.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Everything seems to be on topic with you except what other people say.

The Kabbalah is not on topic.

You are an experienced contributor to ATS. Please be an example for our newer members and make every post matter.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


so loose CIA connections automatically implicate everything as a hoax?? so because there is a loose CIA connection to Irwin, suddenly man cannot reach the moon?

and im deluded??

reply to post by choos


These are not loose connections choos.. these are Corvettes.. do you think they paid for those Corvettes out of a 1971 military officer salary? Are you that naive?

The Corvettes were a "perk" of the capitalist system. If the Soviet's did this it would be called corruption, but, in the United States, a free Corvette in every space astronaut's parking lot is true the meaning of victory over the godless states of Communism.

It feels good came to know about story of this man.Such a incredible video .Thanks for sharing it.
www.dietbestplans.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


i dont see why not.. base price of a 1971 corvette was about $5500.. these guys have been MO/test pilots for a while..

but i dont see how suddenly if the CIA is involved in any way, man automatically loses the ability to reach the moon.. is the CIA that incapable? for an organisation to have technology 20years ahead of public tech. they still lose the ability to reach the moon?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

These are not loose connections choos.. these are Corvettes.. do you think they paid for those Corvettes out of a 1971 military officer salary? Are you that naive?

They were given those Corvettes by General Motors. Astronauts driving your sports car is good publicity. The astronauts could legally accept the gift because they did not award NASA contracts. GM was a contractor on the Rover. If your goal were simply to make NASA look bad, there are dozens of things like this you could emphasize. It does not mean that they were working for the CIA, and it certainly doesn't prove they didn't land on the Moon.

The Corvettes were a "perk" of the capitalist system. If the Soviet's did this it would be called corruption, but, in the United States, a free Corvette in every space astronaut's parking lot is true the meaning of victory over the godless states of Communism.

No, in the Soviet Union it would be an example of the dictum: "From each according to his abilities; to each, according to his needs." Cosmonauts got excellent perks, back in the day.

Can someone provide a little assistance ?? How do I load a video so that the link works and its viewable in this window??? Thanks -

Apollo 15 Landing on Moon Near Hadley Rille | NASA Lunar Module Site Program
www.youtube.com...

This looks to me like another simulation! Why is there no real visual evidence of a touchdown?? The ending of the vdeo is very suspicious in te same manner as all of the other videos I have seen of so-called rendevous, docking or landings. .

What's with the window being so out of kilter to the scene - and notice that there are NO letters o numbers intruding on the field of view as is the case in the docking video here ---> www.abovetopsecret.com...

Video was uploaded -> Published on Jun 25, 2012 by CoconutScienceLab

reply to post by Vitruvian


what you mean theres no visible evidence of a touchdown??

see this is what i mean by your lack of understanding gravity and aerodynamics or lack thereof on the moon.. are you expecting a crystal clear view of the LM touching the surface? are you expecting dust to hover around obscuring the view for a while like on earth? just before touchdown the engine are blowing dust away at a high rate which obscures the view of the lunar surface just prior to touchdown.. it becomes clear again very quickly once the engine is switched off or powered down, not possible on earth..

this is what landing on loose surface would look like on earth, although given its on a much larger scale.. but the dust lingers.
www.youtube.com...

also.. that is the LM landing, the video was taken inside the LM at one angle only.. the apollo 17 was inside the CM and had to change camera angle to try to keep the LM in view, i dont think the numbers were projected on the window, the numbers are all backwards so it looks more like a reflection given that the camera was moved to a shallow angle of incidence relative to the window.

p.s. correction its not a reflection.. its just upside down..

reply to post by Vitruvian

It appears you have figured out how to upload a YouTube video.

As to your questions: Visual evidence of a "real . . . touchdown" - at 2:14 in the video you can hear Scott say, "Okay. I've got some dust." At 2:15 notice the blur that forms outside the widow. That is the dust blowing radially out from under the LM. Notice is does not "billow" because there is no atmosphere to interact with the dust. As they get closer, the dust becomes so thick, Scott has to begin flying by instruments. Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal at 104:41:39

104:41:39 Scott: Okay. I've got some dust.
[Scott, from the 1971 Technical Debrief - "I could see dust - just a slight bit of dust. At about 50 to 60 feet, the total view outside was obscured by dust. It was completely IFR (Instrument Flight Rules). I came into the cockpit (that is, switched his attention from the view out the window to the instrument readings that Jim was giving him) and flew with the instruments from there on down."]

"What's with the window" - standing inside the LM and looking out the window, the astronaut had to lean over the console to see the ground even though the window was tilted at a downward angle. WIKI picture source

The kilter you see is actually the way the window is shaped and positioned. It is triangular and is slanted down from perpendicular and to the side from forward. This gave the best overall view for landing. Docking was another story and another window.

"notice that there are NO letters" - choos has explained this. The LM did not use the gradient indicator (reticle) in the landing windows because distance was almost impossible to gauge due to the lack of recognizable references of known sizes on the surface.

I hope this helps in understanding why images/videos taken in space and on the Moon look so different and yet the same.

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

That's your problem. I don't need to prove Apollo 15 didn't land on the moon

Ohh yes you do pops,you have the problem of man not going to the moon, no one else on my side does..

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

These are not loose connections choos.. these are Corvettes.. do you think they paid for those Corvettes out of a 1971 military officer salary? Are you that naive?

The Corvettes were a "perk" of the capitalist system. If the Soviet's did this it would be called corruption, but, in the United States, a free Corvette in every space astronaut's parking lot is true the meaning of victory over the godless states of Communism.

Jealousy will get you knowhere pal.
Hey he got a corvette , so what.

Personally, they should of got more for acheiving what they did.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You are an experienced member who shows corvettes as proof of man not going to the moon.
Come one man make your posts count .

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

It appears you have figured out how to upload a YouTube video. :up:

Gibborium...............Yes I understand how to upload the vid - but I wondered why doesn't the actual video (not just a blank greyed out link) appear in MY post window hence playable from that window - rather than having to link over to youtube??? - In most other forums "what you see is what you get."
I especially would like GIFS to appear as the actual GIF and NOT as a LINK you GifSoup...........

reply to post by Vitruvian


Vitruvian, I sent you an U2U about the YouTube link.

Now on topic. I too am a pragmatist. Sometimes it gets in the way because the brain uses like situations/incidents to understand something that does not look correct. This is why we can see animals, faces, or what ever in clouds and burnt toast, LOL. Trying to take a 2D image and formulate that into a 3D image can be difficult. This is where science and other disciplines are needed. This is what I like about SayonaraJupiter's threads for the most part. He makes me think. Yeah, he sometimes repeats himself, but he makes me work. Kind of like this thread, some of the stuff has been hashed out in dozens of threads, but I still learn something new.

I believe SayonaraJupiter is incorrect in a lot of his attempts to prove the Moon landings are a hoax, but he still comes up with some good finds here and there.

Blastoff Apollo 15 ?

Looks to me like another NAZA video SIMULATION - Apollo 15 liftoff from inside LM

GIF---> 00:20 - 00:35 - has to 'slow' load first in the browser - then it plays normally - Of course it would be better if we could load it directly into the post

GIFSoup

See photo below..........Is that white triangular shaped object on the surface of the moon supposed to b the platform and/or staging area from which the LM was jettisoned? hmmmmmmm - doesn't look very convincing to me...........If that's the case then where's the rest of the equipment? Where is all the physical evidence that they supposedly left behind that would have indicated that they were actually there?

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

Vitruvian, I sent you an U2U about the YouTube link.

Yes - but the links pertaining to the subject send us to the home page. I PM'd U2U to please fix them.
But its a moot point anyway because I don't think you understood what I was asking for........I ALREADY KNOW HOW TO UPLOAD A VIDEO......I was askin about something else...............

Now you may go back to the topic !!!
ALL DEAD -

ALL ABOUT EMBEDDING
Hyperlink to another Webpage
Embedding an Image
Embedding an External Image Link
Left Justifying an Image with Wrapping Text
Right Justifying an Image with Wrapping Text
An Alternative to [ img ] for Embedding an Image
Resizing an Image
Framing and Centering an Image
Quoting External Material
Quoting Material from another Post
Quoting Material from a News Source
Embedding a Code Text Box
Embedding an Email Link

Embedding a Youtube Video

Embedding a Google Video
Embedding an ATS Video

reply to post by Vitruvian

See photo below..........Is that white triangular shaped object on the surface of the moon supposed to b the platform and/or staging area from which the LM was jettisoned? hmmmmmmm - doesn't look very convincing to me...........If that's the case then where's the rest of the equipment? Where is all the physical evidence that they supposedly left behind that would have indicated that they were actually there?

The landing site was thousands of kilometers away.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Vitruvian

 

See photo below..........Is that white triangular shaped object on the surface of the moon supposed to b the platform and/or staging area from which the LM was jettisoned? hmmmmmmm - doesn't look very convincing to me...........If that's the case then where's the rest of the equipment? Where is all the physical evidence that they supposedly left behind that would have indicated that they were actually there?

The landing site was thousands of kilometers away.

You mean to say that the Lunar Module traveled "thousands of kilometers" in 7 seconds or so ??? Puuuuuuleeeese!!!!!!

And what is all of that explosive debris that we see flying all about ???..........seems odd in the extreme that there woulld have been such a great amount of (dangerous) material projected from the craft in that manner............I don't believe any of it.............As far as I'm concerned ...........its all fake!!