One thing no one can disprove...

[Elvis Hendrix]

And what happened to the Apollo 16 ascent stage? Hmmmmm.

[Elvis Hendrix]

I saw a documentry on the Apollo landing, can't remember the name though, and it explained how that shot was done.
A young engineer, panned the camera up with a joystick. Now they knew there was a time delay and he practiced timing the pan with the delay. They all were surprised how well it came out.

so now you know..

Rock...




btw...I believe we went to the moon, just not the way it was protrayed.

Rock...

Thanks Sarge.
Elvis

[Lunica]

Id love to know who moved the camera to follow the Lander AND  who ZOOMED out.



Also the " Ascent stage" dosent resemble all the other pictures that we see of it. look carefully
its completely different.
because its a model.

This is a genuine movieclip? 

In that case I think it are the green aliens who did the camera work (not the grey ones)

[ArMaP]

The Lunar Lander had a single skin... it had no airlock

Explain to me how THIS twisted piece of cardboard  was air tight

I don't understand that, it had no airlock but was airtight?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

This is a genuine movieclip? 

In that case I think it are the green aliens who did the camera work (not the grey ones)

Yes it is the genuine article. No aliens involved! Just a young engineer who spent a lot of time practicing!

[Lunica]

Yes it is the genuine article movieclip . No aliens involved! Just a young engineer who spent a lot of time practicing!

[Somamech]

This thread kinda gets me wondering how we could fake a moon landing.  Given that we have people in apsects of engineering and other related disciplines as members here we just might appear legit 

[Elvis Hendrix]

Boing, boing, boing, boing

[Elvis Hendrix]

This is a good one..

Same backdrop anyone??

[Lunica]

I think it is an young engineer who spent a long time making the scene in a studio?

[RUSSO]

This is a good one..

Same backdrop anyone??

Yeah... i remember that one, its really embarrassing. Its like this one:



embarrassing.

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

I think it is an young engineer who spent a long time making the scene in a studio?

Nope, saw him actually do it!

[RUSSO]

btw...I believe we went to the moon, just not the way it was protrayed.

Rock...

I believe we still on there, and not just for mining purposes.

Talking about staged shows:

[thorfourwinds]

Another view:

"It is commonly believed that man will fly directly from the earth to the moon, but to do this, we would require a vehicle of such gigantic proportions that it would prove an economic impossibility.

It would have to develop sufficient speed to penetrate the atmosphere and overcome the earth's gravity and, having traveled all the way to the moon, it must still have enough fuel to land safely and make the return trip to earth.

Furthermore, in order to give the expedition a margin of safety, we would not use one ship alone, but a minimum of three ... each rocket ship would be taller than New York's Empire State Building [almost ¼ mile high] and weigh about ten times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons."

Wernher von Braun, the father of the Apollo space program, writing in Conquest of the Moon



There was much about the Apollo flights that was truly miraculous, but arguably the greatest technological achievement was the design of the lunar modules.

Has anyone, by the way, ever really taken a good look at one of those contraptions? I mean a detailed, up-close look?

I'm guessing that the vast majority of people have not, but luckily we can quickly remedy that situation because I happen to have some really good, high-resolution images that come directly from the good people at NASA.

Notice that the 10,000 lb thrust motors did not disturb the lunar surface, nor splash dust on those landing pods.   

While what is depicted in the images may initially appear, to the untrained eye, to be some kind of mock-up that someone cobbled together in their backyard to make fun of NASA, I can assure you that it is actually an extremely high-tech manned spacecraft capable of landing on the surface of the Moon.

And incredibly enough, it was also capable of blasting off from the Moon and flying 69 miles back up into lunar orbit!

Though not immediately apparent, it is actually a two-stage craft, the lower half (the part that looks like a tubular aluminum framework covered with Mylar and old Christmas wrapping paper) being the descent stage, and the upper half (the part that looks as though it was cobbled together from old air conditioning ductwork and is primarily held together, as can be seen in the close-up, with zippers and gold tape) being the ascent stage.
 
The upper half, of course, is the more sophisticated portion, being capable of lifting off and flying with enough power to break free of the Moon's gravity and reach lunar orbit.

It also, of course, possessed sophisticated enough navigational capabilities for it to locate, literally out in the middle of friging nowhere, the command module that it had to dock with in order to get the astronauts safely back to Earth.

It also had to catch that command module, which was orbiting the Moon at a leisurely 4,000 miles per hour.

But we'll get to all that a little later.

I think we can all agree for now that such a sleek, stylish, well-designed craft would have no problem flying with that kind of power, precision and stability.

If you don't believe that, ask Sarge or ArMaP.   

source

[The Matrix Traveller]

Hi ArMap.

Many simulations were set up on earth re. the conditions on the moon for astronaut training.   

IF what you suggest were true, WHY would millions of us$'s be spent on  training exercises NOT relevant
to the moons environment ?

IF what you suggest is true re. a vacuum on the moon WHAT difference would this make on an astronaut
in a pressure suit ?

Pilots use Pressure suits in high flying aircraft.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2252168/Preparing-moon-walk-The-ridiculous-ways-astronauts-prepared-significant-moment-history.html

What made you think I suggested one was weightless on the moon ?

I was referring to a range of exercises used to simulate going to the Moon and NOT just on the Moon.   


Oh and by the way it is B.S. about being 'weightless' in space.


IF a satellite was to stop in its orbit, it would soon fall back to earth !

IF in orbit about the moon then the satellite would soon fall to the moon.

IF the Moon was weightless in Space it would NOT remain in orbit about the Earth.

IF the Earth was weightless it would NOT remain in orbit about the Sun.

Neither would we have Tidal effects re large lakes and seas on Earth if things were weightless in Space.  LOL.



The condition of like being weightless, is a phenomena of being in 'Orbit' or traversing in an 'arch'
suitable to produce the phenomena.

It's all about 'Dynamics' NOT Gravity which produces the phenomena humans are lead to believe
is 'weightlessness'.