It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

page: 20
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I wondered about that too but I don't think it's "clearly" what he meant. Honestly, he starts by saying we need to go back to the moon, because if you want to leave the solar system, that's where we're going to have to start. He seems adament that Mars is a waste of time because of the delay. If you read the convo, he really wants to get back to the moon.




posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: onebigmonkey

I wondered about that too but I don't think it's "clearly" what he meant. Honestly, he starts by saying we need to go back to the moon, because if you want to leave the solar system, that's where we're going to have to start. He seems adament that Mars is a waste of time because of the delay. If you read the convo, he really wants to get back to the moon.


The key word being "back".

TK Mattingly (Apollo 16 CMP) at a presentation I attended, was asked about what Craft was like to work with - he was very complimentary about him.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

haha, nice touch you put there.

I may go farther into this Craft guy. Seems to have some beef with the way NASA has been run. He also makes some interesting concerns about reentry. I'll be back later with some more posts. I'm off to go golf. Gonna try to get under 90 this year



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: wmd_2008

I believe you're blaming the wrong person who contributed to Aulis. This was a claim made by Jack White. I've been thinking about my doorbell; when ya gonna ring it?


Check the link

From the link


A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images

University Kharkiv by OLEG OLEYNIK, Ph.D.c
Previously of the Department of Physics and Technology
Kharkov State University, Ukraine


Once I have tracked you down MUHAHA

edit on 29-4-2015 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: wmd_2008

Oh, I thought we were discussing the missing crater photo, not stereoscopic. My mistake!



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

You will find a lot of former NASA personnel, astronauts and otherwise have issues with NASA's recent administration and are very vocal about it.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Maybe it's just not that difficult to go to the Moon.



posted on Apr, 29 2015 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

There are many even in Nasa that think going to Mars is a waist of time. They would much rather see us establish basses on the moon. Theory goes from there you can venture out into interstellar travel.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:14 AM
link   
It makes far more sense to have a base on the Moon once we are in a position to mine materials and extract commodities for spacecraft construction, fuelling and of course water.
The lesser gravitational field makes it ideal for more economical and realistic travel further afield. Just look at the ease the LEM could lift off compared to the effort in getting the combined modules there in the first place.
While I think Mars exploration is great and frankly think there should be enough money to go around to do all missions, if you have to choose depending on what your goals are it makes more sense.

It's a shame the vast budgets that go on defence can't at least go partly on space travel.
Back in 1966 NASA's budget peaked at 4.41% of the federal budget while in 2014 it was a measly 0.5%.
In 2014 the budget money wise for NASA was just under $18 Billion dollars while defence was an estimated $581 Billion. (Sourced from Wikipedia).

JWST is due to be launched soon and what's really exciting is that we will be able to spectroscopically analyse the atmospheres of any observed planets to determine what their atmospheric composition is in far greater detail with smaller candidates than we can now.
In fact our capabilities are getting to the stage of being technologically advanced enough that we should finally have proof of life elsewhere than Earth within a few decades.
TESS is another exoplanet survey satellite which will more than likely be used to find potential candidates for observation by JWST. Of course it takes time, if for instance we observed a replica of our solar system to make 3 observations of Earth you would have to wait three years - if the orbital period is 2 years then wait 6 years, if it's 6 months then 1.5 years, etc.

Then there's the next step, once we've found any 'nearby' candidates we will want to think about sending probes and eventually humans, it's a very long term plan as we have a lot to overcome and it's a much bigger task than sending anyone to the Moon - which was impressive particularly then but pretty tame to our long term goals. Sadly, these longer term and more complex goals are also having to be achieved with much smaller budgets.

I think some people find this threatening though, I realised this in the Flat Earth thread when a guy said the alternative to that garbage was that we aren't special in the Universe or something. Well, frankly we're only as special as we make ourselves and no I do not believe that we are the centre of anything apart from our own little made up world. We're just a small part of something more amazing and wondrous than even fantasy can come up with, and lucky for us we live at the beginning of a time when we can try and make some sense of it. How amazing it will be to find out we are not alone in all of this, to me anyway, and I just hope humans can get over their need for conflict, greed and desire to cling to ancient belief systems so we can achieve something before our planet inevitably snuffs out it's dominant lifeforms once more.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: onebigmonkey

not to mention the multiple references in the ALSJ to astronauts picking up the rover and moving it short distances // new orrientations by hand




There is no mention in the Apollo 15 transcripts of 'picking up the rover' after returning to the LM post EVA1 and driving away in EVA2. Could you point me towards that specific instance please?

If they didn't pick the rover up, then why are there no tracks between the wheels?
The surface between the wheels is so evenly distributed it appears to have never been disturbed.

Original Image from NASA image AS15-85-11470

Transcript in relation to image - Lunar Surface Journal A15



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

you'd have to think that launching from the moon has its advantages once it's discovered



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: ppk55

Look at a better quality image, and also the next image in the sequence where the rover is moving.

You can clearly make out footprints and that dirt is dropping back from both wheels.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Here, let me help you with that:





Notice in the picture showing the wheel moving how soil is falling back into the place where the wheel was, thanks to the fact that it is a wire mesh and acts almost like a sieve.

Notice in both pictures the large numbers of footprints, something you would expect given that the astronaut has climbed into the vehicle, unless someone wishes to claim that it was lowered into place on a crane with the astronaut sat in it.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Well, most times there's tracks - so the wheels leave tracks or don't they? Wait, we know they do because of the crater picture!



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: bobbypurify

I believe I stated this already, and it is something that regular visitors to the outside world will have noticed for themselves:

it depends.

It depends on the substrate, how cohesive it is, how much force is being exerted and what sort of force.

I suggest you google some vehicles of vehicles driving on sand dunes or beaches. You will find plenty of vehicles that seem to have got there by magic.

Feel free to post alternative explanations as to how that vehicle got there. Ideally they should not sound ridiculous.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

a reply to: onebigmonkey
wheel acts almost like a sieve that covers over the rover tracks


lol, & you expect people too believe that.. I would of stuck with the "it was moved theory" , but your correct that wire wheel has unique properties & without going into to much detail, it also could be used against propagandists , are the propagandists prepared to accept that ...
edit on 30-4-2015 by Misinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Okay, I go outside all the time, I realize that's part of you trying to win the argument but I'm trying to have a discussion. So, let's get this straight - there's FOOTPRINTS right next to the rover. I think that tells me enough about the substrate/regolith to believe that it should have left tracks. In fact, you can freaking see the tracks from the LRO.

Are you hear to say that there's more force from an astro's boot than the tire of a rover with an astronaut on top of it?

I don't care how the vehicle got there, maybe it was shopped in the photo for all I know. I wasn't there.

What examples on google can you give me if there's plenty? And so a still of a vehicle in sand with no tracks (couldn't find plenty) on Earth could have a plethora of reasons as there are weather factors at play.

You're at a conundrum - trust the journal which states they didn't move it there or twist the realities of physics to fit your story. Again, footprints right next to the rover indicate that not much force is needed to leave a half inch imprint in the regolith.
edit on 30-4-2015 by bobbypurify because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
wheel acts almost like a sieve that covers over the rover tracks


lol, & you expect people too believe that.. I would of stuck with the "it was moved theory" , but your correct that wire wheel has unique properties & without going into to much detail, it also could be used against propagandists , are the propagandists prepared to accept that ...


Go on!



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: ppk55

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: onebigmonkey

not to mention the multiple references in the ALSJ to astronauts picking up the rover and moving it short distances // new orrientations by hand




There is no mention in the Apollo 15 transcripts of 'picking up the rover' after returning to the LM post EVA1 and driving away in EVA2. Could you point me towards that specific instance please?

If they didn't pick the rover up, then why are there no tracks between the wheels?
The surface between the wheels is so evenly distributed it appears to have never been disturbed.

Original Image from NASA image AS15-85-11470

Transcript in relation to image - Lunar Surface Journal A15

This is not a real rover, it's a model with dummy astronaut. You can clearly see that the astronaut is not really sitting in the seat.



www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ove38

but your photo's show he's as far in the seat as possible due to the pack...clearly

thanks for the pics so we don't have to address the "dummy driver" anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join