NASA!!!...Psy-op, Photoshop, Terra-forming... What's Up, NASA?

[Dok]

how did a science discussion devolve in to this???

Thats because if Ruffles cant derail at least one thread a day he cant sleep at night. He has to troll around and make snide comments, hoping to be banned again for not following the rules again.

[BlueBaron]

Two Bible Thumpers arguing over Physics. 

Fascinating, do carry on! 

I'm a Bible thumper, and traveled all the way to Africa to carry out a physics experiment.

I loved Physics it's was my favourite science subject.

To balance the argument, have any of you seen the MythBusters program on the moon myth.

Also I noticed people are talking about the lunar lander having no rocket plume when it took, off, that is not your biggest problem with this film shot. Your all missing the big story, how did the stationary camera follow the trajectory when it took off, the camera must rotate at speed after the first second to follow the ship as it took off. Plus it keep the ship in shot. Watch it again and you see what I mean.

Also if Neil Armstrong is the first man on the moon who is filming him.

Stanley Kubrick, made the moon landing film. He was the only one capable at the time.



 

[Voskhod3]

nope prove that it is.

I don't have to.

You have to prove that what you saw there was impossible on the Moon.

It's your claim.

All I see is oscillation in a vacuum as you would expect.

[Voskhod3]

My question now is how do retro rockets work in a zero atmosphere?

OMG!

Newton figured this out a few centuries ago.

You guys have some education to catch up on.

[Voskhod3]

Also I noticed people are talking about the lunar lander having no rocket plume when it took, off, that is not your biggest problem with this film shot. Your all missing the big story, how did the stationary camera follow the trajectory when it took off, the camera must rotate at speed after the first second to follow the ship as it took off. Plus it keep the ship in shot. Watch it again and you see what I mean.

Google is your friend.

Seriously, how do you think they filmed it? 5-4-3-2-1 liftoff  +  4 second delay + remote controlled camera.

Work it out.

Also if Neil Armstrong is the first man on the moon who is filming him.

First it was a camera on the side of the LEM.
Second (and the picture you are probably referring to) is Buzz Aldrin being photographed by Neil Armstrong.

Google is your friend.

Stanley Kubrick, made the moon landing film. He was the only one capable at the time.

No NASA did, they were the only one's capable.

Go and watch 2001 and laugh at the effects.

[luckee1]

[Voskhod3]

I haven't done much research on this subject.

You haven't.

Google is your friend.

Seriously, go to the Bad Astronomy website and put your questions in their forum (oh and use the search function as well).

[Michal Ptacnik]

Retro rockets do not need atmosphere to function. Jet engines use atmosphere air as propellant, they suck it in, heat it up and accelerate it and then they hurl it away at the rear end and thus, by the reaction to that motion, they move themselves. Sort of like a recoil when you fire the gun.

Rockets are the same in principle but they take their own propellant with them, that is why there are always the big tanks present on a rocket. Only small quantity of the fuel is used for the actual heating (like petroleum is used on a jet plane), most of the tanks are filled with reaction mass, the gas that is hurled away at the rear end of the rockets and thus moves the spaceship.

Thus the motion is created even in vacuum.

If there are really reflex granules of dust on the Moon, that would account for the secondary lightening and the flag waving is also explainable - and I believe that if the flag was to be still and if they did fake the landing, they would bother making the flag in such way that it would stand still (attach strings, make from some solid material, that sort of thing).

The only remaining problems are the lack of dust on the LEM and the lack of stars. To be honest, until you present here some kind of an explanation better than "you don't see the stars by day," I won't be convinced. When the astronauts go to the orbit, they do see the stars, do they? Even when they are on the dayside of Earth?

Lastly, the lack of crater would make sense if the rockets would have only low thrust and that would again make sense if someone provided here a mission plan for the Apollo, stating that most of the reverse acceleration was actually done higher above the Moon's surface.

And what was the reason for the invisible engine exhaust while the lander was departing the Moon again?

[Jackson Holly]

Did anyone watch the video I linked to above that clearly shows someone (stagehand) on the set? If not, please check it out ... this is a deal breaker if it is not a faked video, and it appears to be real to me.

Someone else on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

[iks83]

Did anyone watch the video I linked to above that clearly shows someone (stagehand) on the set? If not, please check it out ... this is a deal breaker if it is not a faked video, and it appears to be real to me.

Someone else on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

aaaand how do we know this one isnt a fake?

[Jackson Holly]

Did you see the info at the beginning? It was hoarded away by the OPs grandfather who worked for NASA.

Also, the grandfather's BW version that shows the stagehand MATCHES the color version released by NASA ... minus the cropped stagehand.

They are caught red handed.

[Voskhod3]

Did you see the info at the beginning? It was hoarded away by the OPs grandfather who worked for NASA.

Also, the grandfather's BW version that shows the stagehand MATCHES the color version released by NASA ... minus the cropped stagehand.

They are caught red handed.

Prove it.

[Dok]

I don't have to.

You have to prove that what you saw there was impossible on the Moon.

It's your claim.

All I see is oscillation in a vacuum as you would expect.

Prove it.

[BlueBaron]

Did anyone watch the video I linked to above that clearly shows someone (stagehand) on the set? If not, please check it out ... this is a deal breaker if it is not a faked video, and it appears to be real to me.

Someone else on the moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifC6dqmsY1k

Why is the land sloped like this \ surely the video would be flat like this _____. Who know? More mystery, could be fake.

[Voskhod3]

Have you heard of thrust? Newton 2nd and 3rd law come into play here....

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Newtons laws have nothing to do with thrust in a "zero atmosphere" or any kind of atmosphere.

[Voskhod3]

    You have no idea what you are talking about........ Go back to reading the blogs. Or educate yourself. How can you really be this ignorant?

 http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

   Here it is in simplified terms.

Newton's laws of motion are three physical laws that form the basis for classical mechanics. They are:

1. A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.

2. Force equals mass times acceleration (F = ma) (or alternately, force equals the time rate of change of momentum).

3. To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

They describe the relationship between the forces acting on a body to the motion of the body. They were first compiled by Sir Isaac Newton in his work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, first published on July 5, 1687.[1] Newton used them to explain and investigate the motion of many physical objects and systems.[2] For example, in the third volume of the text, Newton showed that these laws of motion, combined with his law of universal gravitation, explained Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

None of that has to do with "thrust in a zero atmosphere".

The words are yours.

[Jackson Holly]

Prove it.

Well, hell let's drag those NASA SOBs into court and have them prove that it is fake!

I don't need to know about spacecraft engine thrust, or the action of a stiff flag in a 'vacuum', or the way shadows fall with a one light setup vs a multi-light setup, or the relative feasibility of 1960s computer, space travel and life support systems to know a forged and counterfeit bit of illuminati sleight-of-hand when I see it with my own eyes.

Just like I don't need to have a degree in physics to know that the destruction of the twin towers was a controlled demolition ... or to know that JFK, RFK, MLK were shot down dead in their tracks by conspiratorial, NWO forces.

BTW ... I asked the question way earlier ... why do you think they 'lost' practically the entire APOLLO library of original footage? Does that not set of an alarm in your solid 'believe-everything-NASA-says' worldview?

[Voskhod3]

You cant grasp it, sorry..... I cant help there.

You said that there was a problem with thrust and retro-rockets "in a zero atmosphere".

That is complete BS.

Newton could have told you that.

It' simple action and reaction.

I hope you're going to retract your retro-rocket BS now.

[Voskhod3]

I don't need to know about spacecraft engine thrust, or the action of a stiff flag in a 'vacuum', or the way shadows fall with a one light setup vs a multi-light setup, or the relative feasibility of 1960s computer, space travel and life support systems to know a forged and counterfeit bit of illuminati sleight-of-hand when I see it with my own eyes.

Actually you do need to know.

If you don't know then you are ill-informed.

Educate yourself and debate properly.

[Jackson Holly]

I believe I am informed ... you are dodging the question ...

Why is NASA hiding the film???

[phasma]

I still do believe that they did land on the moon !
What would they gain from lying about this?
What of the other countries that went to space - why didnt they discount what NASA claimed?
At the end of the day - does it matter either way? We have enough to prove with the truth movement !

[Jackson Holly]

What of the other countries that went to space

You still believe in 'other countries' and the 'space race'?

LOL

Why is NASA hiding the film?

[Jackson Holly]

What they got is what you see.

[phasma]

Couldn`t the Govt just give them that anyway if they wanted to and bury it ? seems a bit amazing to pull this whole thing !

[Unintelligable Name]

I still do believe that they did land on the moon !
What would they gain from lying about this?
What of the other countries that went to space - why didnt they discount what NASA claimed?
At the end of the day - does it matter either way? We have enough to prove with the truth movement !

That's an ineffective means of investigation. Follow the evidence, don't ask questions like "What's it for?" or "What's the point?" as the basis on reseach.

I can't tell you have many times I've talked about 9/11 and someone asks "What's the point, it just doesn't make sense why they'd do that, hence I disagree."

[carlee]

Did we really land on the moon?   No!

[xfahctor]

still no takers on my challenge I see.

[Voskhod3]

Why is NASA hiding the film???

You have to prove NASA are hiding a film.

[Voskhod3]

You still believe in 'other countries' and the 'space race'?

Yes Russia had a space program including plans and a rocket to go to the moon (The N1).

The Russians know America went to the Moon.

I guess the 1960's passed you by, perhaps you weren't even there, your ignorance of this subject is astonishing.

[Voskhod3]

Despite all the evidence with the pings showing wires to the astronauts.

You talking about lens flare and the backpack antenna.

The Lem ascension module not having a enough room to get in and out of.

This complete nonsense, you have no proof of this.

However the plans of the LEM, and hundreds of hours of film prove you wrong.

Let alone carry fuel and the telemetry computers. And the rock and soil samples, oxygen, and water. It was said to carry 5187 lb of fuel that the astronauts are lying on top of.

You have proof the LEM didn't have enough room for all these things?

Bring it on.

 

Thermal radiation I guess does not cause heat? The rockets where burning for 439 seconds for their flight from the surface of the moon The whole ascension stage weighed 10,300 and over half of that was fuel?

I'm failing to see you point.. (actually I losing the will to live)... what are you talking about?

Do you have an PROOF that the LEM could not fly?

And Newtons Laws do not Apply in a vacuum?  Where do you come up with this? Because I said this?

YOU were the one saying there was a problem with retro-rockets in a "zero atmosphere". I'm the one saying a "zero atmosphere" has nothing to do with how retro rockets work.

Theres no crater, are you trying to say they had over 12 tons of thrust and did not leave a crater?

It had a throttle control and the trust was not full on at touch-down, nowhere near.

Again, where is your proof that the LEM should have left a crater?

Are you telling me that they stopped their thrusters 3ft from before the surface of the moon and their is no crater or dust on the landing pads?

Were they landing in a ploughed field?

Where is your PROOF that they should have left a crater?

Some science would be nice.

The Lem weighed approx 26,400 lbs and it did not leave any evidence of a retro burn? The sensors on the bottom of the pads just went straight into the soft moon dust, but the astronauts did not sink?

How thick was the lunar regolith? Google is your friend.

" Here's 33 things that need to be answered!

1) Sceptics argue that the lack of stars on Moon photographs is acceptable, despite zero atmosphere to obscure the view.

I'll address point 1... I can't be bothered with this sh*t anymore, you're obviously not interested in the truth... you want answers go to the Bad Astronomy website all these questions are answered like this...

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

The stars are there! They're just too faint to be seen.

This is usually the first thing HBs talk about when discussing the Hoax. That amazes me, as it's the silliest assertion they make. However, it appeals to our common sense: when the sky is black here on Earth, we see stars. Therefore we should see them from the Moon as well.

I'll say this here now, and return to it many times: the Moon is not the Earth. Conditions there are weird, and our common sense is likely to fail us.

The Moon's surface is airless. On Earth, our thick atmosphere scatters sunlight, spreading it out over the whole sky. That's why the sky is bright during the day. Without sunlight, the air is dark at night, allowing us to see stars.

On the Moon, the lack of air means that the sky is dark. Even when the Sun is high off the horizon during full day, the sky near it will be black. If you were standing on the Moon, you would indeed see stars, even during the day.

So why aren't they in the Apollo pictures? Pretend for a moment you are an astronaut on the surface of the Moon. You want to take a picture of your fellow space traveler. The Sun is low off the horizon, since all the lunar landings were done at local morning. How do you set your camera? The lunar landscape is brightly lit by the Sun, of course, and your friend is wearing a white spacesuit also brilliantly lit by the Sun. To take a picture of a bright object with a bright background, you need to set the exposure time to be fast, and close down the aperture setting too; that's like the pupil in your eye constricting to let less light in when you walk outside on a sunny day.

So the picture you take is set for bright objects. Stars are faint objects! In the fast exposure, they simply do not have time to register on the film. It has nothing to do with the sky being black or the lack of air, it's just a matter of exposure time. If you were to go outside here on Earth on the darkest night imaginable and take a picture with the exact same camera settings the astronauts used, you won't see any stars!

It's that simple. Remember, this the usually the first and strongest argument the HBs use, and it was that easy to show wrong. Their arguments get worse from here.

So this is what usually happens now.. I nail this first point... the "no stars" argument is a real no brainer.. the hoax believer then ignores it and moves onto the next in the list and I nail that... again no acknowledgement just move onto the next point...

At no stage does a hoax believer EVER question him/herself even when they are CLEARLY shown to be wrong.

Maybe you are different, maybe you will accept your "no stars" claim is BS and we can move on.

[iks83]

Actually there are photographs where you see stars but you have to increase the brightness of the photos alot to barely see them... but they are there. I used even official nasa photos and they are there.  The rest of your questions burlguy are just as retarded.

Like... of course you can make a flame in a vaccum as much as you can make a flame under water... ffs how stupid are you?

Or why they just jumped only 19 inches... the suits had a weight of 180 pounds... i mean... try jump with that on earth i really would like you see doing that. Seriously you are a total moron. Please stop posting here since you have no clue about anything.

[Unintelligable Name]

Or why they just jumped only 19 inches... the suits had a weight of 180 pounds... i mean... try jump with that on earth i really would like you see doing that. Seriously you are a total moron. Please stop posting here since you have no clue about anything.

The moon has 1/6 the gravitation force of the Earth, so a 180 pounds suits become 30 pounds.

Link to the photographs with stars with your changes in brightness, for the record

[iks83]

The moon has 1/6 the gravitation force of the Earth, so a 180 pounds suits become 30 pounds.

And? Its still like 15 kg and you cant move as freely in a space suit anyways... so own weight+30 pounds+hindered movement=19 inches = absolutely plausable... i mean could they even use their feet for jumping? or was it just from the legs... try jumping without moving your feet... lets see how high you get.

[Unintelligable Name]

lets see how high you get.

200 pound man, 180 pound suit [your numbers, not mine], in 1/6 gravity is 1/6 of 380; 63 pounds.

 In 1/6 gravity 63 pounds [divide by 2.2 to get kg] ain't a whole heck of a lot to get off the ground, plus when you jump you reach an apex, and that apex is determined by the obvious things, force upwards[the jump], and force downwards [gravity].

Do you think a guy in a suit weighing 63 pounds could jump higher than say 8 inches whilst floating the rest of the way before gravity overcame inertia and brought him back down?

In terms of arguments... I'd say the guy if he really was on the moon was not about to try to reaaaly jump into the air for fear of simply flying away!  Not that someone in a suit could jump that effectively anyway.

Moot point I feel, onto the next one.

[Voskhod3]

The moon has 1/6 the gravitation force of the Earth, so a 180 pounds suits become 30 pounds.

The suits are not that flexible - they are quite rigid because of the internal/external pressure difference.

[Unintelligable Name]

The suits are not that flexible - they are quite rigid because of the internal/external pressure difference.

I understand that -- I'm merely correcting your argument about the weight of the suit.

[Voskhod3]

Man these people are just so difficult to reach.....  We where able to go there 40 years ago but now it is huge hurdle....?  Does this really make sense to people.

Yes it makes perfect sense. It was a huge expensive hurdle back then.

It still is.

The political will died after the first couple of landings.

I mean even with all the evidence and the astronauts themselves even talking about not remembering even going to the moon.

What evidence? "No stars"? Are you going to admit you are wrong on this first point? I will not move on in this debate until you do.

[Voskhod3]

Is this a fake picture?



http://www.fototime.com/DB1311BAB7A89E5/orig.jpg

[Voskhod3]

Is this a fake picture?



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Atlantis_Docked_to_Mir.jpg

[Unintelligable Name]

Looks weird but I suppose real to me -- why would they be fake?

The moon =/= orbitting the Earth.

Where are the stars anywho?