Proof We Didn't Go To The Moon?

reply to post by Illustronic


40 years since man apparently landed on the moon. We have the technology to see millions of miles into space, to go to Mars, to build a space station...

..but we can't take close up images of the LM on the moon. Why? maybe because theres nothing to see... maybe NASA won't take/release hi-res photos because they know there is nothing there.

Even if NASA did release close up images of the LM on the moon then me and others could quite rightly say... 'well NASA released them so NASA could have doctored them'.

This is why we need independant verification and proof that what NASA says is there, is there. Si I'm waiting patiently for some super-douper telescope/ lunar satellite (from another country/ company not affiliated with NASA) hi -res image confirming, without any doubt their existance on the Lunar surface.

I cannot believe NASA as it too closely affiliated with the lying corrupt US government.

reply to post by Illustronic


Your illustration shows a object that falls in a vacuum with a gravity fall of 10m/sec.
Your illustration displays a falling object with earth "g" (with a 10m/sec fall) but in a vacuum atmosphere.

Display the same illustration with a object/sand that falls in a vacuum with a "g" of 1.662m/sec
and see if you get the same illustration.

They shouldn't look the same. So you can't use your illustration to prove to me that you see sand falling on the moon.

A object that falls with 10m/sec would not fall with the same speed or distance if the g is 1.662m/sec.
In a gravity field where a object falls with 1.662m/sec. It should travel a lot further before it hits the surface. Because it falls/descends with a lot slower speed (1.662m per second).

Because of the moons gravity attraction and vacuum atmosphere. The projectile would only reduce speed when it travels at a angle that is away from the surface. That means up wards. As the projectile levels out it is only forced down by the gravity 1.662m/sec (^2) but it wont reduce any of its speed after that, because of the vacuum atmosphere.

I have a few more things;

When the rover drives around, dont you people pay attention to the speed of the wobbling ( the speed which the rover bounces with when it hits bumps).
(This might have something to do with the filming, it might not be real time speed).

I have to remind you that the moons "g" is 1.662m/sec. Earth g is close to 10/sec.

The rover shouldn't wobble this fast with a gravity fall of 1.662m/sec. in a vacuum.
But it gain, it might, do to the speed of the film.

reply to post by spy66

The rover shouldn't wobble this fast with a gravity fall of 1.662m/sec. in a vacuum.

Why not?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



by Soylent Green
"The level of allowable risk is much MUCH more strict today than it was during Apollo. The systems they used then would not pass the safety protocols (e.g., system redundancies) NASA uses today. An example would be the single ascent engine in the LM. If that one engine didn't work, there would be no way to get back, because there was no redundancy in the system like NASA demands today."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NSG52 replys:

So what are you saying that the Apollo systems weren’t acceptable to today’s standards?
But yet they didn’t know any of this back then in 196's and didn’t realize that they had a long ways to go to develop a system that would really work?

And what your saying is that the single engine was not sufficient
to go to the moon because of the single engine.. I doubt that NASA would send of any mission to the moon knowing that this wasn’t a concern.

That isn’t the only issue they had with allowable risks .. The solar fares were at its maximum back then

So with all this going on at NASA Disaster missions only goes to show that they would of never went to the moon because yes it is true , they didn’t have the right systems .
Not to mention all the other problems many from what Im reading associated with space exploration.

They also had a fail with Apollo 1
en.wikipedia.org...

And they admitted to deadly design and construction in the early Apollo command module. And a manned phase of this project was delayed for twenty months so they could correct the problems.

Then there was Apollo 5
en.wikipedia.org...

Then they tried again with Apollo 7 low earth orbit
en.wikipedia.org...

Then there was the Columbia disaster 2003
en.wikipedia.org...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
by Soylent Green
"The risks assumed by the Apollo astronauts were much greater than what is assumed by astronauts today, but at the same time most of those early astronauts were people whose job before becoming astronaut was equally as dangerous -- being a test pilot. Back in the early 1960s when many of the astronauts were working as test pilots, the death rate was staggering -- there was a stretch from the late 1950s to early 1960s that there was one test pilot death per week on average."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

NSG52 Replys:

Oh I can clearly understand that ,,, and I know they risked their lives , but they were no where near to going to the moon successfully
Also Apollo’s re entry to earth that alone has never been discussed ..
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

by Soylent Green
"The Apollo astronauts accepted the EXTREMELY high risk of the Apollo missions because extreme risk was part of their prior jobs. Astronauts today are largely scientists and engineers, not test pilots. The people of the U.S. today probably would not find it acceptable to fund a program that was so dangerous.

Six manned Apollo missions made it to the Moon. One tried and failed, with a nearly disastrous outcome. Of the 12 manned Apollo missions, one DID have disastrous outcome -- a fire that killed all three astronauts. I think if they hadn't pulled the plug on Apollo when they did (after Apollo 17, scrubbing three planned missions), the risk was high enough that there may have been more fatalities.

Space travel is much more expensive today because the acceptable risk is not as great as it was during Apollo (or even the early days of the shuttle program, for that matter) -- which means much safer space systems, but also much more expensive systems. However, something so much more expensive is less likely to get funded by congress."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NSG52
IMO
Yep and now they have had the last 40 years to find out what they really need to do before they actually do go back to the moon it wont be in a shabby space capsule of the past because that one they knew wouldn’t make it so know it still will take to 2020 to actually design a craft that will make it to the moon hopefully. An by the way me an my cousin who has been here discussing this whole mess of the moon hoax also has the same thoughts .. as so many others have debated this issue

but more and more evidence is coming and someday maybe we will get the real truth with all the real proof so far what they have is very credible .. Although everyone knows even if you had all the proof in the world it most likely would not matter and that’s just how it is.. I personally don’t care one way or another other then presenting information that does make one wonder just how lies can be construed

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

The risks assumed by the Apollo astronauts were much greater than what is assumed by astronauts today

Really? How come 14 shuttle astronauts died?
How many Apollo astronauts died after a succesful lift off? I'll tell you... none. Zero.

You know full darn well that three of them died on the pad, and three more were nearly killed in deep space. Apollo killed a much higher percentage of its astronauts than the shuttle.

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Illustronic

 

40 years since man apparently landed on the moon. We have the technology to see millions of miles into space, to go to Mars, to build a space station...

..but we can't take close up images of the LM on the moon.

Half meter resolution images have already been provided. I'd say that's close up enough for a reasonable person.

Why? maybe because theres nothing to see... maybe NASA won't take/release hi-res photos because they know there is nothing there.

LRO has already proven you wrong about that. Thanks.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by spy66

 

The rover shouldn't wobble this fast with a gravity fall of 1.662m/sec. in a vacuum.

Why not?

There are a few reasons. The vacuum atmosphere and the moons attraction of 1.662m/sec.
This rover is very light because of the moons gravity (attraction) of 1.662m/sec and its vacuum atmosphere.
And it should be very light on the from wheels.

Because of the rovers weight on the front wheels, and the rovers horizontal speed/force forward; the rover should not be falling down this fast because of the moons attraction "g" of 1.662m/sec and vacuum atmosphere.

The rovers horizontal speed is much greater then the moons gravity fall of 1.662m/sec.
Unless the rover travels at a speed of 1.662m/sec. But it looks like it travels a lot faster then that.

If the rover travels faster then the fall speed (gravity) of 1.662m/sec. The rover should also fall a lot slower towards the surface.

The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions.

“Dust - I think probably one of the most aggravating, restricting facets of lunar surface exploration is the dust and its adherence to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and it's restrictive friction-like action to everything it gets on.

Gene Cernan: after Apollo 17

So how come we have close up photos showing not a spec of dust on the LM pads resting on the dusty surface? If the astronauts could kick up enough dust to obscure the Lunar Rover tracks, as suggested by NASA believers on this thread, then surely they would have been kicking up dust around the feet of the Lander too. Check out the footprints around the foot. If one says that walking around kicks up dust then why not here?

I don't buy it that every piece of dust was 'blown away'. The above quote suggests at the very least that photos of the LM were faked on Earth.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e702a6b16d6a.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

The risks assumed by the Apollo astronauts were much greater than what is assumed by astronauts today

Really? How come 14 shuttle astronauts died?
How many Apollo astronauts died after a succesful lift off? I'll tell you... none. Zero.

You know full darn well that three of them died on the pad, and three more were nearly killed in deep space. Apollo killed a much higher percentage of its astronauts than the shuttle.

'Nearly killed' doesn't quite mean the same as 'killed'.
I clearly stated of the astronauts who took off successfully. I'm not referring to the poor souls who burnt to death due to unbelievable lapses in safety by NASA.
I still can't work out your maths.
14 shuttle fatalities.
0 Apollo fatalities (of ones who took off). 3 on the launch pad.

So how does that make the Apollo missions more risky that the shuttle missions?

Originally posted by ngchunter

Originally posted by manmental
reply to post by Illustronic

 

Half meter resolution images have already been provided. I'd say that's close up enough for a reasonable person.

The best LROC image I saw actually had a 200 m bar scale on it and it measured only 194 pixels long, even adjusting for error (not on my measurement part), its half the projected capability. When the LRO orbit decreases altitude and the angles improve over a landing site (if that ever happens) we should expect twice the resolution and that 200 m bar should measure 400 pixels long, and we should get crisper images of equipment outlines by a 200% image quality improvement.

reply to post by manmental


I have also wondered about the dust under the craft. The craft it self weighs a lot more then the sand on the surface. To land this craft softly on the surface, you would need a force greater than the weight of the craft it self to land. That force would without doubt push a lot of dust away from the thruster(s).

My question is; where is the creator, or why is there so much fine dust under the craft and non on the craft it self.

If you look at the foot of the craft, it dosent even sink into the soft dust. And the weigh on that foot would without doubt weigh a lot more then the hardly compressed dust/sand surrounding it.

The astronauts foot print sinks further into the ground then the craft does?

reply to post by spy66


It could be the lander had 53 inch spikes under the landing pads which also helped to 'cushion' the landing shock. Were you unaware of those?
Images

reply to post by manmental


Why would lunar dust cover the top of the landing pads? How much would you expect there should be? How can you even see dust in that photo? It would appear to me that there would have to be a great deal of dust to settle on top of the pads just to make it out in a photograph.

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by spy66

 

It could be the lander had 53 inch spikes under the landing pads which also helped to 'cushion' the landing shock. Were you unaware of those?
Images

Well the sand does not seam to be very compressed at all,
so even with spikes the foot should sink in.

If the foot print from a 13 pound astronaut makes a very clear foot print in the sand. When this craft landed it had all the astronauts on it. I dont know if the rower was on this craft?

I dont know what the total weight would be at touch down. but it would be more significant weight.

reply to post by spy66

There are a few reasons. The vacuum atmosphere and the moons attraction of 1.662m/sec.
This rover is very light because of the moons gravity (attraction) of 1.662m/sec and its vacuum atmosphere.
And it should be very light on the from wheels.

Because of the rovers weight on the front wheels, and the rovers horizontal speed/force forward; the rover should not be falling down this fast because of the moons attraction "g" of 1.662m/sec and vacuum atmosphere.

The rovers horizontal speed is much greater then the moons gravity fall of 1.662m/sec.
Unless the rover travels at a speed of 1.662m/sec. But it looks like it travels a lot faster then that.

If the rover travels faster then the fall speed (gravity) of 1.662m/sec. The rover should also fall a lot slower towards the surface.

You keep repeating "The vacuum atmosphere and the moons attraction of 1.662m/sec," but you never explain how this is relevant, or how you expect it would affect the motions of the rover. The rover's mass remains 210 kg unladen, and up to 490 kg fully loaded, and it could travel at up to 13 k/h. Since momentum, p, is equal to mass times velocity (p=mv), a fully laden rover travelling at top speed would have a forward momentum of 63,700,000 gm/s, exactly the same as on Earth.

1. In what way would the Earth's mean atmospheric pressure of 101.325 kPa alter the trajectory of the rover?
2. Would these effects be noticeable at the Moon's atmospheric pressure of 10^-7 Pa?
3. How would you expect the lunar gravitational acceleration of 1.662 m/s^2 to affect the motion of the rover, given that its mass and speed are the same as on Earth?

reply to post by manmental

I clearly stated of the astronauts who took off successfully. I'm not referring to the poor souls who burnt to death due to unbelievable lapses in safety by NASA.
I still can't work out your maths.
14 shuttle fatalities.
0 Apollo fatalities (of ones who took off). 3 on the launch pad.

Let's walk through it, then:
Apollo program: 12 missions, three crew members per mission, 36 astronauts, three fatalities.
3/36 x 100 = 2.78 % fatality rate

Space Shuttle: Approximately 360 crew members flown, 14 fatalities.
14/360 x 100 = 3.8% fatality rate.

An average fatality rate of around 3% seems inevitable. I guess the Shuttle is slightly more dangerous, after all. Not counting the ones who died on the pad is called "cherry picking."

reply to post by spy66

Well the sand does not seam to be very compressed at all,
so even with spikes the foot should sink in.

You keep saying "sand." They did not land in sand. They landed in lunar dust.

This is sand:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/97cf2161f2cd.jpg[/atsimg]

Note how rounded and polished it looks.

This is "moondust":

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b7c7f102dcc8.jpg[/atsimg]

Note how jagged and pitted it is.

reply to post by manmental

The above quote suggests at the very least that photos of the LM were faked on Earth.

As a film-maker, how would you light the set in order to produce such crisp shadows? There is umbra and penumbra are perfectly aligned, as though from a single extremely distant source.

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

gee, I wonder why your post is being ignored ?

very inconvenient for the HB's I imagine. It shoots everything to pieces. the radiation argument, the unmanned missions argument, all of it goes up in smoke with this

it pretty much seals the deal and ends the debate in my mind

Yes I had noticed!

NorthStarGal being noticeable silent regarding the Jodrell Bank tracking graph!

I guess that the standard ploy of most conspiracy theorists......If something doesn't fit the theory then you simply ignore it!