An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by liv074_v.2

would be complicated.
...could be done of course, would have to be prepared in detail.
(but, is not as complicated as it may initially appear, as the bulk of images only have a cut/straight line at the horizon, and the foreground and backgrounds have no relation at all, if any.



......and, as stated, where's the lander?

The lander is somewhere else, you do realize that the astronauts journeyed around the landing site, right? All one would have to do is a walk a distance parallel to the mountains till the lander was behind them, turn towards the mountains again and take the second picture.

wrong. the second series of photos is also a 360 degree view, and the lander is not visible.

either (remarkably) the lander is a great distance away below another horizen, or it is a 'fault'.

If there was deception involved, especially such as the primitive techniques available back then, you ought to see something like obvious alpha channeling in the images, regardless of how straight the "cut" was. In fact, in the picture with the LEM, the cut isn't "straight" at all, there's a LEM in the way! That would have to be masked, and the techniques to do masking back then were very primitive and resulted in nasty fringes around the object - alpha channeling. There is no alpha channeling here, thus, no deception.

a very good point.
the high res images i found seem to indicate that the quality of 'cut' around the lander would either be rather difficult if not impossible back then.

And contrary to your assertion, the mountains are very related to the local surroundings. The color and more importantly, lighting, have to match so well that it fools expert geologists. Impossible without CG.
[edit on 30-1-2008 by ngchunter]

not true. i think you will find that if you research the images more carefully you will realise that 90% of the forground bares no relation at all, (other than being grey.)

...and it's not impossible.
(not if you already have the background images available to model your lighting/site on.)

*******************

thanks for your help and opinions all
all research appreciated

[SNIP]

I know I shouldn't encourage you by responding, but I need to ask you one question. What good would it do to come back to earth? They would still need to fire retro-rockets when they get back to earth to a) enter an orbital trajectory "earth orbit insertion (EOI)", and b) again to decrease orbital velocity to re-enter the atmsophere. According to you these retro- rocket firings are unwise since they generate uncontrollable instability.


Mod Edit - removed quote that had prev been deleted.

[edit on 1-2-2008 by elevatedone]

reply to post by politeman


politeman, look up in your tool bar, you have a u2u waiting for you. That's a private message, click on it.

reply to post by politeman

The cone shape of the spacecraft is what prevents the exposed aluminum parts from reaching 2760° C. The only portion that is subjected to that high temperature is the blunt end that is pointed toward the atmosphere, which was protected with a heat shield. The other parts (with the exposed aluminum) were not subjected to temperatures nearly as high.

The heatshield material itself could not even survive the re-entry temperatures to which it was subjected. The materials used for the apollo heat shields were made of a plastic/fiberglass material. This material is meant to burn/char/boil away during re-entry. This heatshield was designed to be thick enough that some would be left over even though most of it burned away. In fact the actual burning process helped protect the spacecraft since the gases produced when the sheild boiled away helped create a thin protective gaseous layer. This type of heatshiled that is designed to burn away is called "ablative".

The new Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle will use a very similar ablative heat shield, although I think the plastic material is different.

by the way, the Space Shuttle only has a heat shield on its "belly" and leading edges, while the rest of the vehicle is exposed aluminum -- are you saying the shuttle is fake too, since its aluminum should also melt upon re-entry?

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
by the way, the Space Shuttle only has a heat shield on its "belly" and leading edges, while the rest of the vehicle is exposed aluminum -- are you saying the shuttle is fake too, since its aluminum should also melt upon re-entry?

The Shuttle actually has different types of thermal insulation covering all its surfaces, so there is no exposed aluminum.

en.wikipedia.org...

But of course this doesn't invalidate what you said about the heat shield of Apollo .

reply to post by z-bar


You're right -- my mistake. I knew the tiles cover the underside, and the wings and tail leading edges are carbon-carcon, and there is insulating blankets covering the nose and above the wings...but I was under the impression that the rest was uncovered. I see now that they are covered with nomex felt insulation.

However, these surfaces cover by the nomex felt do not reach the melting point of aluminum (meaning a "hole" in that nomex insulation would not cause a catostrophic loss of the spacecraft), however they do reach teperatures high enough to cause damage to the skin of the shuttle if exposed.

I would say intrepid made someone upset.

of course, such childish behavior serves as a wonderful example of why this person likely became cross with Intrepid.

Dude...grow up, or go back to play with the children.

Originally posted by liv074_v.2


wrong. the second series of photos is also a 360 degree view, and the lander is not visible.

Well the second panoramic posted was taken in a completely different location. You said the one without the lander was only 100 meters from the previous, but why would they take two panos so close together? It's too far to get any stereo information on objects close by, and too close to expect to see significant stereo info on very distant mountains (yet we do). The fact is that according to the surface journal they were 100 meters from Hadley Rille, not the lander. (Dave took this pan from the rim of a small crater about 100 meters east of Hadley Rille. - Apollo 15 image library). What you posted as the second panoramic was taken at station 9. In fact, they had traveled about 2 kilometers to reach station 9, as marked on this map:



Take a look at the terrain between that point near the ridge and the LEM and you'll see why the LEM doesn't show up - the terrain is quite rough and spotted with all kinds of craters with their attendent hills. In this image, station 9 is situated directly west of the lander, just by the ridge, much like in the previous map:



That is why there is no lander.

I also still disagree about the lighting - you can't get parallel light waves out of studio lighting with only one light source, and multiple sources would create multiple shadows. It also doesn't explain how their "still image backgrounds" can account for the shifting perspective seen in the video of the mission shot simultaneously to the images you posted:
history.nasa.gov...
164:09:43 - 165:13:26
And of course, it doesn't account for the arching low gravity non-billowing dust kicked up by the rover.

reply to post by ngchunter


great research.
2 klm's would well explain the lack of visable lander in the second series of photo's.

and thanks for your help, ngc and all, think we've well got to the bottom of the common 'moon anomaly' set of images, (regardless of any disagreement. )

cheers

I offer the following photographic proof that at least one lunar module landed on the moon.

Then again maybe this is an alien structure or secret helium-3 mining camp??

reply to post by darkbluesky


Beautiful find, darkblue! Thanks much for posting those.

This thread is on the verge of dying, so I thought I'd liven it up. We seem to have lost our friend, the one of so many screen names, who always said a spcecraft couldn't land going backwards...I miss him, a little. It was entertaining!

Well, back to the Apollo program, and more solid pics from the six landing sites. As optics improve, in the next few years, and as focus is directed back at the moon, the truth will out.....

We could ask the Russians seeing as how they were up there around 1970-73 according to new declassified information.

reply to post by 3vilscript


Can you link to this new information?

Originally posted by darkbluesky
I offer the following photographic proof that at least one lunar module landed on the moon.

Then again maybe this is an alien structure or secret helium-3 mining camp??

all I see is a bunch of dots, it could be a rock formation, or a bunch of hills, I can't see the suport of a lunar lander.This does not prove anything.
Just like with the 911 pentagon video it shows a big explosion with 3 frames and then they say can't you see the plane going in to the building.

All I see in this picture that you are providing for us is a bunch o dots.

reply to post by pepsi78


Hey, pepsi78!

I think you missed the irony on the Moon pictures that were posted by darkblue, but that's just my opinion.

I could be wrong, but I thnk I remember you were one of the people who posted that Apollo was faked. Forgive me, if I have confused you with someone else, long time no see...

If you look long and hard enough, stare at it for a while, you can see anything your imagination can conjure. Throw in some 'false color' frames, then don't tell anyone about the use of false color, then post those frames as 'proof' of whatever you want it to look like...even when some of us squint, and tilt our heads...and still can't see it...

It's like those '3-D' prints that came out in the 1990s..."You can see an airplane, there, if you unfocus your eyes..." Never saw a 'derned thing'....glad I never bought one of them...

One day, soon, optics will allow the resolution necessary to once and for all finish this argument. Either the six landing sites will be revealed, or not. If they ARE shown to the public, I will still expect a hue and cry that they are 'faked' in some way, despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary...

Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon. There's nothing to make the LEM whirl at all, the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity.

The vertical descent velocity and horisontal speed would make it swing. Air is not the decisive reason for what an object swings, on the contrary in offers stability, an object would tend to swing even more in a vacum, there is no air resistance, what makes an object swing and swirl is speed, less speed more stability, it's only logical, what makes a plane fly and how can it stay up? because there is air resistance? pull your hand out of your window while you are driving and you will see it will have resistance, if you were to drive in a vacum and you would pull your hand out how much resistance would you have? zero?
While you have vertical and hosrisontal speed in a vacum the craft would become more unstable where gravity is present, if you pan left or right
the craft would tend to go down on it's side because there is no air resistance and aerodinamics can't be used, how does a plane fly side ways? because it can due to air , how does the lem fly sideways? what keeps it up? since you have gravity on the moon I don't see what keeps it from crumbeling down.

various unmanned probes that have gone to various planets and used thrusters for landing Are those all faked too?

Yea you forgot to specify that those drones did not weight 7 tons, and you forgot to mention that some of them used an infletable air bag.

the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity.

The what? there is no center of gravity, gravity aplys everywhere uniform there is only a balance point of an object influenced by air flow.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78

Aerodynamics? There's no "aero" to the dynamics on the moon. There's nothing to make the LEM whirl at all, the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity.

The vertical descent velocity and horisontal speed would make it swing. Air is not the decisive reason for what an object swings, on the contrary in offers stability, an object would tend to swing even more in a vacum, there is no air resistance, what makes an object swing and swirl is speed, less speed more stability, it's only logical, what makes a plane fly and how can it stay up? because there is air resistance? pull your hand out of your window while you are driving and you will see it will have resistance, if you were to drive in a vacum and you would pull your hand out how much resistance would you have? zero?
While you have vertical and hosrisontal speed in a vacum the craft would become more unstable where gravity is present, if you pan left or right
the craft would tend to go down on it's side because there is no air resistance and aerodinamics can't be used, how does a plane fly side ways? because it can due to air , how does the lem fly sideways? what keeps it up? since you have gravity on the moon I don't see what keeps it from crumbeling down.

various unmanned probes that have gone to various planets and used thrusters for landing Are those all faked too?

Yea you forgot to specify that those drones did not weight 7 tons, and you forgot to mention that some of them used an infletable air bag.

the engine is installed directly under the center of gravity.

The what? there is no center of gravity, gravity aplys everywhere uniform there is only a balance point of an object influenced by air flow.

[edit on 11-2-2008 by pepsi78]

Oh please, May I????

Apologize, at the outset, for the large 'pull-down' quote...just had to...!!!

Last paragraph, from pepsi78....EVERY object has a CG, or center of gravity. The influence of a fluid (air is a fluid, in dynamics physics...not of course, as dense as water...)

I wouldn't know how to fly an airplane if I didn't understand the concept that EVERY object has a CG....

BUT!!! Space is not a fluid. Objects in a vacuum do not behave as if they are in air....

Inflatable airbags...if you are referring to the two Mars Landers, Spirit and Oppurtunity, it was a very creative way to land a ROBOTIC vehicle on a planet with a thin atmosphere!!! Humans, would need a different way to execute a landing....

You seem to keep going on about aerodynamics, even when you can't spell the word....

Vehicles designed to work in a vacuum will not, of course rely on aerodynamic principles!!!

Please, do not confuse the need to recover a vehicle to the surface of the Earth, whether manned or not, with a vehicle that must effect a soft landing on the Moon or on Mars,, just to name two extraterristial bodies.

Re-entry, from Earth orbit, is a delicate affair. To maintain an orbit, high enough above the atmosphere so that drag from that atmosphere will not cause a degradation of the orbit, and eventual burn-up in the atmosphere, requires a velocity of about 17,000 to 18,000 MPH. This orbital speed will vary, by altitude.

Example (and I have no idea what the velocity is) there are satellites that orbit in what is called 'Geo-synchronous'. That means, simply, that they are high enough that their orbital period is equal to 24 hours...hence, they seem to remain over one geographical spot on the planet. This works only on an Equatorial Orbit...does this make sense yet? Of course, from that distance, they have a pretty wide range of coverage...but these are not the only satellites that are currently in orbit, just an example....

Bck to re-entry...a lot of kinetic energy exists in a body moving at 17,000 MPH. The atmoshpere is the 'brake'.....and the kinetic energy has to be dissipated...into heat, since that's where energy goes....like the brake discs in your car. A Space craft that re-enters Earth atmosphere used to use an ablative process...like the brake pads in your car, but only good for one stop!

The STS (Shuttle) uses a ceramic technolgy developed AFTER Apollo, using the well-publized 'tiles' that can dissipate heat in a way that is not ablative. I don't know the physics behind the ceramics tech, but it obviously works!!

Seems, though pepsi, you are not fully understanding about a space vehicle, where there is NO atmosphere. THAT is why, all manned spacecraft, from Mercury to Apollo to the Shuttle have thrusters...these are fueled by hydrazine mixtures (two chemicals, that when introduced to each other, react by expanding) and are directed out of various nozzles, as commanded by the pilots.

YOU DO know, I hope, about Newton? A force acting in one direction will result in an opposite reaction? (I paraphrased, there...apologies)

To clarify Newton...when you impart a force in one direction, and there IS NO opposing force (such as friction, or a wall...or a floor if in a gravity well) then the object ejecting the force will react in the opposite direction.

Of course, once in motion, an object will tend to stay in motion, until an opposing force intervenes. Again, we find that our thrusters can supply both the initial motion, in a vacuum and micro-gravity environment, and can also supply the thrust necessary to stop the original motion mentioned earlier.

Mass does not equal weight...get that concept yet???

Mass is the same....a 500kg mass will be the same mass, whether on Earth, or the Moon, or on Mars. Its 'ACCELERATION' relative to the gravitational pull of the nearest body, that will be called its 'weight'.

ON Earth, at sea level, 500kg is known to exert a gravitional acceleration of 10m/sec/sec...that's why we know it 'weighs' 500kg.

This is not due to the 500kg weight....this is what the Earth produces, as a gravitional constant.

Mass...and momentum related to mass...very different. Think of 'momentum' and then think of 'inertia'. Doesn't matter what gravity field you are in, you may 'weigh' less, but your mass stays the same, and, thus, your inertia stays the same.

If space capsules coming back to Earth didn't have momentum, and inertia, and kinetic energy, then there would not be the obvious heat dissipation evidenced on every re-entry.....

Any way I can make this clearer?????

BUT!!! Space is not a fluid. Objects in a vacuum do not behave as if they are in air....

There is no gravity middle point, if you can undestand that okay if not...in gravity there is only the weight factor and that is it, no middle point or anything like that.


It could be any point where weight is being distibuted no matter how you rotate it.In all cases if the object tilted right or left too much the heavier part could put presure on it's ligher part and it could come upside down and fall with the heavier part pressing down on it's ligter part.

If you have a plane and it's tail is havier than the middle part of the plane the tail will pull the plane down and the tail will go towards the grownd first, this aply's everywhere , moon, earth etc.

While gravity does not play a decisive role on falling objects that are fallling at free falling speed as in 2 objects falling at the same time , it will play a decisive role on objects that are oposing gravity.objects that are trying to stay above or delay their falling.

Gravity plays a decisive role on weight when an object is not free falling,
when it trys to stay up the haviest part will always go down first. To the best of my knolege the lem did not free fall , it put up resistance against gravity.

Meaning

Inflatable airbags...if you are referring to the two Mars Landers, Spirit and Oppurtunity, it was a very creative way to land a ROBOTIC vehicle on a planet with a thin atmosphere!!! Humans, would need a different way to execute a landing....

While it's a very creative way it does not prove the lem landed on the moon, it has nothing in commun.

You seem to keep going on about aerodynamics, even when you can't spell the word....

Oh yes your precios english, germanic by nature(barbaric languege by origin), sorry I'm used to latin and will at times spell it the way latin sounds.

Vehicles designed to work in a vacuum will not, of course rely on aerodynamic principles!!!

Of course not , but they will respect gravity in the same manner, the exception is it's easyer to keep an object up where there is air as gravity plays a factor but air also plays it hand otherwise we would not have flying planes.

If space capsules coming back to Earth didn't have momentum, and inertia, and kinetic energy, then there would not be the obvious heat dissipation evidenced on every re-entry.....

I'm just going to quote you on this, since there is air on earth there is resistance, since there is resistance the haviest part of the capsule will tend to point down, since the bottom part is the haviest part of the capsule will point down.

There is no middle part of an object that will balance the craft, the object will tend to fall down with it's heavier part first.
Take a hamer with a wooden handdle and throw it up as hard as you can, and look at it as it falls down, you will notice how it falls down with the iron part with a good chance of smashing you in the head, because air will offer resistance gravity will decide on the heaviest part and the part with the iron will fall first, same with the lem, it resist gravity because it's not free falling, then gravity will pull the part that weights more first.

Any way I can make this clearer?????

No not really.
www.wikihow.com...

The center of gravity (CG) is the center of an object's weight distribution, where the force of gravity can be considered to act. It is the point in any object about which it is in perfect balance no matter how it is turned or rotated around that point. For a finite set of point masses, CG may be defined as the average of positions weighted by mass. That is, the (Sum of mass*position)/(Sum of mass).

If you have a plane and it's tail is havier than the middle part of the plane the tail will pull the plane down and the tail will go towards the grownd first, this aply's everywhere , moon, earth etc.

As I said before:It could be any point where weight is being distibuted no matter how you rotate it.



[edit on 12-2-2008 by pepsi78]

Now about the lem.
The lem could of had a redistribution of weight at any time, it would be enough for astronauts to move a bit inside and change the distribution of weight to the side.The lem could also turn upside down on it's weight , it could also move too much to the side and go in to free fall.At such speeds I doubt the lem could make it with vertical thusters.
With a total weight of 2 tons falling at 10 feet per second, and in the last stage at about 4 feet per second I doubt the lem wpuld pull off a soft landing.






[edit on 12-2-2008 by pepsi78]