Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: turbonium1

I just wanted to confirm what you're saying, because it's an important point.

If you recall, I told you wires can be used to control a jump. You didn't agree.

The wires ARE used to control the Mythbusters jump. You say - the wires "have slowed the Mythbusters jump".

Good. That is correct. The jump IS slower than a normal jump in 1g.

Then, it is true that we CAN match Young's jump on Earth, by using wires.

possible yes, but what about the dust?? also this means we can rule out the theory that it was filmed in some desert.. for obvious reasons..

You said it was impossible because the wires do NOT slow the jump down, and do NOT control the speed of the jump (specifically, the descent).

So there is nothing in Young's jump that can only be done in lunar gravity. We can do it on Earth, with wires, and slow it to 66.66% speed, for a perfect match to Young's jump.

nothing?? what about the dust??

the dust falls at lunar gravity which indicates that each speck of dust is actually attached to a string or wire..

Young's jump is easily repeatable on Earth. Because Young's jump WAS done on Earth!

A jump in true lunar gravity would NOT look like Young's jump. It would be very different. An astronaut in 1/6g would jump MUCH higher than Young did, without a doubt.

and you know this how??? have you seen what a jump will look like on the lunar surface?? or are you just guessing??

Do you really think a jump on the moon would be identical in every way to a jump on Earth, by just using wires and set to 66.66% speed?

you seem to believe so.. isnt that your whole argument??

It shows exactly how they did Young's jump - using wires and putting it to 66.66% speed!

you say exactly..

but the mythbusters jump higher and land BEFORE john young.. are you sure that is exactly how NASA done it??

also.. regarding the dust.. the dust falls at lunar gravity.. which is impossible if the footage was slowed 1.5x..

was each speck of dust and dirt attached to its own wire/string?

Seen the landing sites? You place arrows pointing at white dots on the lunar surface and require our imagination to see them. The "landing sites" look like cosmic rays to me. [snipped]

originally posted by: FoosM

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: FoosM
Wait, where are you getting this 1200 BTU/hr figure from?

Time and time again you are demonstrating that you are not reading what I wrote!

Here is what I wrote in the very post you linked to:

The astronauts' body weight was one sixth of that on the Earth, so moving around expends less energy. With that in mind, the PLSS design which was based on a nominal metabolic rate of 1200 BTU per hour [1] looks quite generous.

See that little [1]? That's called a reference. That's how scientists quote citations. Look at the bottom of my post:

[1] Apollo Operations Handbook: Extra Vehicular Mobility Unit www.lpi.usra.edu...

That tells you that the figure referenced by the [1] comes from the source numbered [1] in the footnotes. This is pretty basic stuff.

Oh... cause I got this from NASA:

Analysis results indicated that the Apollo astronauts fell 3% of their EVA time; walked, loped, or ran at speeds ranging from 1.3 to 5.5 kph (0.8 to 3.4 mph); and reached metabolic rates of more than 2 215 617.39 J/hour (2100 BTU/hour).

And yeah, obviously numbers like 2100 likely wasn't sustained for a full hour, but I wonder how fast water would get depleted when such numbers are being reached? And how much discomfort an astronaut was feeling if he wasn't being cooled quick enough. Or the air was not being scrubbed fast enough?


Lets see here:

Heat gains:

Electrical system: 140 BTU/hr
Solar gain: 250 BTU/hr
Astronaut metabolic rate: 2000 BTU/hr
Total: 2390 BTU/hr

Heat loss: 1600 BTU/hr

hmmm...

Let me ask you this question.
Did NASA ever state that there were problems with the sublimators getting clogged?


ston.jsc.nasa.gov...

Why not ask the astronauts? NASA did, right after they landed for the mission reports.

Google it.

originally posted by: ipfreely32
Seen the landing sites? You place arrows pointing at white dots on the lunar surface and require our imagination to see them. The "landing sites" look like cosmic rays to me. [snipped]

do you have any idea what a cosmic ray is?

a reply to: ipfreely32
Could you explain how cosmic rays happened to strike the camera in exactly the right spot to create an image of the lunar module, not just once but on each orbit that took the LRO over the site? Is the LRO perhaps powered by Douglas Adams's Infinite Improbability Drive?

BTW, for the record, the only thing I have in common with Phage is some knowledge of science.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yes.
en.wikipedia.org...

duh.

a reply to: Rob48

It was a joke, lighten up. The POINT is, the pics that are shown of the landing sites on the moon are no more clearer than what the rover is showing. Just like most ufo pics, i don't believe them, and are debunked, because they are fuzzy, grainy, pieces of crap. Show me a clear picture of the Apollo landing site, or a clear picture of a UFO, sure I will believe. And if I am thinking this, others in the room are as well.

www.nasa.gov...

If someone posted these pics saying this was a UFO on the moon,he would be ridiculed off this site.

originally posted by: ipfreely32
Seen the landing sites? You place arrows pointing at white dots on the lunar surface and require our imagination to see them. The "landing sites" look like cosmic rays to me. [snipped]

You can and have, decisively. Please play nice. As for your comparing photographs taken by space probes to photographs of supposed UFOs, are you serious? Someone as educated as yourself must certainly understand the concept of context.

originally posted by: ipfreely32
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yes.
en.wikipedia.org...

duh.

You read (or at least post the link - who knows if you've read it!) but do you comprehend?

If someone posted these pics saying this was a UFO on the moon,he would be ridiculed off this site.

Apples, meet oranges.
If the LRO pictures were the only evidence of the LMs being there then you might have a point. If you didin't know, then you couldn't really tell what the object actually is, other than that it is shiny, roughly circular, has legs and is about 4 metres across. But the fact that they do show AN OBJECT there which is in the exact spot we expect to see the LM, and matches the shape and size of the LM, what does that tell us?

By the way, the LRO pictures are actually higher resolution than satellite photos of Earth. To the best of my knowledge, the best commercial available satellite imagery of Earth is the 30cm per pixel imagery from DigitalGlobe. (Anything you see on Google Earth or wherever that is higher resolution than that is aerial photography, not satellite data.) The LRO captures images down to 25cm (10 inches) per pixel.

I made an illustration of this fact on another thread here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ipfreely32
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Yes.
en.wikipedia.org...

duh.

You might know how to use google, but that doesn't mean you know what a cosmic ray is, or what the information in that link means for your argument.

Please explain to us, with your in depth knowledge of science, how Apollo 12 managed to take photographs of the lunar surface showing details that the LRO photographed 40+ years later. Claiming that cosmic rays managed to duplicate both Apollo equipment and surface details doesn't do it.

So NASA did it again. They smashed another lunar probe. Crashed on the far-side of the moon. Where nobody could confirm it. Along with LADEE went the LLCD, which was a very big deal for space communications.

I'm sure the LRO will be able to find the LADEE crater. It seems like LRO has a never ending supply of fuel with which to monitor and make maneuvers. It didn't take long for LRO to get images of China's landing site. It didn't take long for LRO to take pictures of LADEE. Lot's of self confirming business going on here, imho.

LADEE means that $250 million will net you about 100-days of lunar science orbit.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Please explain: are you claiming that LADEE was not actually orbiting the Moon or what?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
So NASA did it again. They smashed another lunar probe. Crashed on the far-side of the moon. Where nobody could confirm it. Along with LADEE went the LLCD, which was a very big deal for space communications.

I'm sure the LRO will be able to find the LADEE crater. It seems like LRO has a never ending supply of fuel with which to monitor and make maneuvers. It didn't take long for LRO to get images of China's landing site. It didn't take long for LRO to take pictures of LADEE. Lot's of self confirming business going on here, imho.

LADEE means that $250 million will net you about 100-days of lunar science orbit.

Again your making no sense this isnt a spy satellite that they recast over an area. This is in an orbit designed to map the moon wait long enough and every spot on the moon will be observed does not take fuel unless they decrease orbit to get a better picture. As far as finding the crater maybe depends on how obvious it is i suppose if it landed in a crater maybe not. But this is a thread about Apollo not about LADEE we can create one if you want to discuss its mission.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
So NASA did it again. They smashed another lunar probe. Crashed on the far-side of the moon. Where nobody could confirm it. Along with LADEE went the LLCD, which was a very big deal for space communications.

I'm sure the LRO will be able to find the LADEE crater. It seems like LRO has a never ending supply of fuel with which to monitor and make maneuvers. It didn't take long for LRO to get images of China's landing site. It didn't take long for LRO to take pictures of LADEE. Lot's of self confirming business going on here, imho.

LADEE means that $250 million will net you about 100-days of lunar science orbit.

LADEE was running out of fuel and had actually exceeded its mission goals.

The LRO is actually heading towards the end of it's lifespan, and gee do you think they might have put enough fuel in there to do the job? Roughly half a tonne of its payload was fuel, and you only need small amounts to maintain orbit or make small changes to it.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

It didn't take long for LRO to get images of China's landing site. It didn't take long for LRO to take pictures of LADEE. Lot's of self confirming business going on here, imho.

A lunar mapping satellite taking photos of stuff that's on the moon. Pretty suspicious stuff, right?

Let me guess, if the LRO hadn't yet sent back those images, you'd be asking why not. If you start from the premise that everything's a conspiracy, can argue anything.


By the way, SJ, thank you for acknowledging the work I put in to comprehensively prove that Jarrah's "24 bottles of milk", which you liked so much, were an utter nonsense. Oh no, wait, you completely ignored it and moved on to some totally unrelated vague accusations about lunar satellites. That technique is in Chapter 1 of the Apollo Reviewers' Handbook, if I recall correctly?

originally posted by: Rob48


In what way? Everyone who matters already knows that they were genuine. The people giving them funding certainly know they were genuine. All the international organisations and scientists they collaborate with know.

We have already seen the landing sites from just 25km orbit. What tangible benefit would there be to wasting billions on a mission to photograph sites in close-up that we already have photos of (from the original missions) just to convince the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe? And who, in any case, have shown that no amount of evidence would change their mind?

So you think it's more beneficial to image the sites from 25km orbit, and show a few little specks and blobs?

Are you serious?

Close-up detailed images of the landing sites would allow scientists to study the effects of 40+ years in the lunar environment. Perhaps they'd see how micrometeorites shredded one flag, while all the other flags remained intact.

You can't do such analyses with your little spcks and blobs

It would also benefit by sparking public interest in further manned space exploration. Do you think people would get more excited by detailed, close-up images of an American flag on the moon, or seeing a little speck from orbit that they claim is the flag?

Come on, now. You're making up some ridiculous excuses to avoid the fact of the matter.

originally posted by: ipfreely32
Seen the landing sites? You place arrows pointing at white dots on the lunar surface and require our imagination to see them. The "landing sites" look like cosmic rays to me. [snipped]

edit on Sun Apr 20 2014 by DontTreadOnMe because: off topic material removed. Terms and Conditions of Use--Please Review

Yes, who needs detailed, close-up images of landing sites, when we have those little white dots!!

a reply to: turbonium1

Close-up detailed images of the landing sites would allow scientists to study the effects of 40+ years in the lunar environment. Perhaps they'd see how micrometeorites shredded one flag, while all the other flags remained intact.

Why would that be important?

You can't do such analyses with your little spcks and blobs

You could not do that sort of analysis with any sort of photograph; you would need to return the flags to Earth and study them in a laboratory. That would be expensive, don't you think?

It would also benefit by sparking public interest in further manned space exploration. Do you think people would get more excited by detailed, close-up images of an American flag on the moon, or seeing a little speck from orbit that they claim is the flag?

We already have breathtaking color photos of the American flag on the Moon, along with the astronauts who placed them there. Some morons think they are fake, however.

Come on, now. You're making up some ridiculous excuses to avoid the fact of the matter.

And you are making up ridiculous excuses to do something that would in no way change your ignorant opinion.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48


In what way? Everyone who matters already knows that they were genuine. The people giving them funding certainly know they were genuine. All the international organisations and scientists they collaborate with know.

We have already seen the landing sites from just 25km orbit. What tangible benefit would there be to wasting billions on a mission to photograph sites in close-up that we already have photos of (from the original missions) just to convince the tiny proportion of the population who don't believe? And who, in any case, have shown that no amount of evidence would change their mind?

So you think it's more beneficial to image the sites from 25km orbit, and show a few little specks and blobs?

Are you serious?

Close-up detailed images of the landing sites would allow scientists to study the effects of 40+ years in the lunar environment. Perhaps they'd see how micrometeorites shredded one flag, while all the other flags remained intact.

You can't do such analyses with your little spcks and blobs

It would also benefit by sparking public interest in further manned space exploration. Do you think people would get more excited by detailed, close-up images of an American flag on the moon, or seeing a little speck from orbit that they claim is the flag?

Come on, now. You're making up some ridiculous excuses to avoid the fact of the matter.

The LRO was not put into lunar orbit to image the Apollo landing sites, it was put into lunar orbit to carry out detailed mapping and research. It just happens that during those orbits it can pass over the Apollo landing sites. The LRO's use is subject to mission requirements and to its technical capabilities, not the passing whims of anti-science unbelievers.

There are limits to how low a probe can fly and stay in a stable orbit, and changing orbits uses fuel. You can't just dive in to a few hundred feet and back up again - this is not some sort of drone or low flying aircraft.

You also need to remember, because apollo science deniers seem to conveniently miss out this when they're looking at this thread, that it isn't just the hardware and astronaut/LRV tracks that are visible. There are rocks and craters that can also be found in Apollo photographs, live TV and 16mm DAC footage.

Handwaving away the photographs of the hardware because you don't believe it is there is ignorant enough, but hand waving away every rock and crater is just dumb.