A close look at the Apollo 14 Lunar module on the Moon

abe froman
I was a moon hoax believer until I decided being an alien moon base believer was more fun.

Those bases have since been moved into the hollow moon for reasons of privacy. I'd tell you more, but NASA won't declassify the information.

kookoos
Contrary to popular belief, there is gravity in space. That is why it is called micro-gravity, and the lunar surface has a gravity of 1.622 m/s²

en.wikipedia.org...

That's what 'wildspace' said:

Flying in space is basically using thrusters to accelerate / decelerate the craft in a certain direction. It's basic Newtonian physics. With no atmospheric drag, the craft will continue moving in the direction it was thrust in, with only gravity modifying its trajectory. The LM was able to do that as well as any other spacecraft.

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
Contrary to popular belief, there is gravity in space. That is why it is called micro-gravity, and the lunar surface has a gravity of 1.622 m/s²

en.wikipedia.org...

That's what 'wildspace' said:

Flying in space is basically using thrusters to accelerate / decelerate the craft in a certain direction. It's basic Newtonian physics. With no atmospheric drag, the craft will continue moving in the direction it was thrust in, with only gravity modifying its trajectory. The LM was able to do that as well as any other spacecraft.

Yes and I was just expanding on the information with some more sources and factual information on details of such.

reply to post by kookoos


The cameras were modified with paddles to make them easy to operate with gloves on. There is nothing "impossibly good" about the lunar photography. There are plenty of dud photographs too.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

ngchunter
reply to post by kookoos

 

The cameras were modified with paddles to make them easy to operate with gloves on. There is nothing "impossibly good" about the lunar photography. There are plenty of dud photographs too.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sure there is dud photographs, but there is also VERY VERY good one's that I cannot even do at times.

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Don't forget, the T-38 actually DID kill astronauts. So KooKoos, by your own standards of evidence, what did they change to make it flyable without killing astronauts?

ngchunter

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Don't forget, the T-38 actually DID kill astronauts. So KooKoos, by your own standards of evidence, what did they change to make it flyable without killing astronauts?

They replaced the pilot. (Technically known as the Biological Entitty Control Unit).

kookoos

ngchunter
reply to post by kookoos

 

The cameras were modified with paddles to make them easy to operate with gloves on. There is nothing "impossibly good" about the lunar photography. There are plenty of dud photographs too.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sure there is dud photographs, but there is also VERY VERY good one's that I cannot even do at times.

I see nothing impossibly good about their photography. If you get a real camera and learn how to operate it you'd figure that out.

ngchunter

kookoos

ngchunter
reply to post by kookoos

 

The cameras were modified with paddles to make them easy to operate with gloves on. There is nothing "impossibly good" about the lunar photography. There are plenty of dud photographs too.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sure there is dud photographs, but there is also VERY VERY good one's that I cannot even do at times.

I see nothing impossibly good about their photography. If you get a real camera and learn how to operate it you'd figure that out.

The pictures of the LM on the moon in the OP looks quite sharp and in focus really amazing given the harsh environment.

wildespace

At the risk of seeming somewhat skeptical and overly sarcastic does OP actually expect intelligent people to believe his awkward anaslysis of the alleged LM and the supposed evidence of the disturbance of the moons surface beneath the fake module?

Frame from Al's 4 o'clock pan. Right side and aft section of the LM, looking south. An excellent picture of the LM with many structural details are visible. The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust. Also visible in the crater next to the rear (-Z) footpad is the track made by the probe as it scraped across the surface. The right (+Y) footpad has dug into the soft rim of a crater, causing the LM to slide slightly.

I remember hearing from Moon hoax believers that there's no evidence of the LM disturbing the lunar soil, well, here it is.

What evidence are you referring to?

"The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust.

Ohhhh that! Ha ha ha

At first I thought the OP was "pullin our chain" but soon realized that he's serious and that the OP's comments were false claims!!!

Then the OP say's something about "the small crater just in front of the LM." Please don't tell me he thinks that hole was caused by the fake LM?

Is this the OP's way of applying for a spot on Comedy Central?

CLOSE UP OF - "The area under, and slightly behind the engine bell shows evidence of disturbed soil resulting from the Descent Engine exhaust" Does OP mean the photoshopped GREYED OUT are under the fake LM?

BTW The foto is so perfect because it was made under studio conditions !!!

abe froman
I was a moon hoax believer until I decided being an alien moon base believer was more fun.

The great alien moon base hoax will disappoint you as well!

Thanks!

kookoos

ngchunter

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Don't forget, the T-38 actually DID kill astronauts. So KooKoos, by your own standards of evidence, what did they change to make it flyable without killing astronauts?

They replaced the pilot. (Technically known as the Biological Entitty Control Unit).

edit on 11-4-2014 by kookoos because: (no reason given)

Wow. I knew moon hoax believers could be insensitive, but that's beyond the pale. While the '66 crash was pilot error, it was the only astronaut T-38 crash that could be blamed on pilot error. Would you like to apologize to the dead astronauts Theodore Freeman and Clifton Williams?

valdonzontaz

wildespace

At the risk of seeming somewhat skeptical and overly sarcastic does OP actually expect intelligent people to believe his awkward anaslysis of the alleged LM and the supposed evidence of the disturbance of the moons surface beneath the fake module?

Oh worse than that, you have your cart before your horse.

ngchunter

kookoos

ngchunter

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Don't forget, the T-38 actually DID kill astronauts. So KooKoos, by your own standards of evidence, what did they change to make it flyable without killing astronauts?

They replaced the pilot. (Technically known as the Biological Entitty Control Unit).

edit on 11-4-2014 by kookoos because: (no reason given)

Wow. I knew moon hoax believers could be insensitive, but that's beyond the pale. While the '66 crash was pilot error, it was the only astronaut T-38 crash that could be blamed on pilot error. Would you like to apologize to the dead astronauts Theodore Freeman and Clifton Williams?

I was asked a direct question, so I give a direct answer. Not my fault you don't like it. *shrugs*

reply to post by valdonzontaz


Why would there be a huge crater/hole caused by the LM descent engine?

The descent engines were able to be throttled back in order to produce low thrust, and were even shut down 4 otr 5 feet off of the lunar surface (the engines were not thrusting at all for the file 4 or 5 feet).

As I mentioned above, my car can go over 100 mph, but when I park it in my garage, I slow down to only a couple mph by adjusting my throttle. Prior to the LM landing, the descent engine thrust was throttled back to a low setting. If it wasn't, they would be "flying up", not landing.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Its just funny after all this evidence that has been provided by Number of ppl in many threads,that someone comes pops up a pic and here it is the moon landings were Real...sorry i dont buy it.And i understand what you saying still it should have made some disturbance on the soil i cant see nothing

kookoos

ngchunter

kookoos

ngchunter
reply to post by kookoos

 

The cameras were modified with paddles to make them easy to operate with gloves on. There is nothing "impossibly good" about the lunar photography. There are plenty of dud photographs too.
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Sure there is dud photographs, but there is also VERY VERY good one's that I cannot even do at times.

I see nothing impossibly good about their photography. If you get a real camera and learn how to operate it you'd figure that out.

The pictures of the LM on the moon in the OP looks quite sharp and in focus really amazing given the harsh environment.

'
The pictures of the shuttle in space look quite sharp and in focus, really amazing given the harsh environment.
www.astronautcentral.com...
And hey, you can even buy a flown Hasselblad camera to try out yourself...
www.ebay.com...

kookoos

ngchunter

kookoos

ngchunter

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos

Soylent Green Is People

kookoos
So, what was changed to make it flyable without killing the astronauts?

That was not an LM. That was an training vehicle -- a totally different vehicle that was only for training purposes (just like the shuttle astronauts used a T-38 jet fight in order to train how to land a space shuttle

The LM itself could only fly in space, so the LM itself could never be tested on Earth nor trained in on earth.

So is it normal practice to train pilots in vehicles that have no similarities at all to the vehicle they are actually going to fly?

Th LM training vehicle had similarities to the LM. They both had a single main thruster underneath to provide main thrust, plus arrays of small thrusters to provide reaction control (control of pitch, roll, and yaw).

This is a picture of the aircraft used to train space shuttle pilots how to land. It does not look like a shuttle -- so does that mean the shuttle was a hoax?:

edit on 4/11/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Don't forget, the T-38 actually DID kill astronauts. So KooKoos, by your own standards of evidence, what did they change to make it flyable without killing astronauts?

They replaced the pilot. (Technically known as the Biological Entitty Control Unit).

edit on 11-4-2014 by kookoos because: (no reason given)

Wow. I knew moon hoax believers could be insensitive, but that's beyond the pale. While the '66 crash was pilot error, it was the only astronaut T-38 crash that could be blamed on pilot error. Would you like to apologize to the dead astronauts Theodore Freeman and Clifton Williams?

I was asked a direct question, so I give a direct answer. Not my fault you don't like it. *shrugs*

Your answer was needlessly insensitive, insulting, and inaccurate. So when are you going to apologize to the dead astronauts Theodore Freeman and Clifton Williams?

If it were so easy then, then why haven't we been back and build bases all over the moon? Instead, we build billion dollar space stations.

reply to post by Fylgje


Same reason we dont build at the north and south poles of our earth it's an extremely harsh environment to maintain any long term habitat. Then there is the lack of atmosphere, pressure and temperature concerns to address. Im sure we will go back one day!