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.

 

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 117
29
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Hey, Anhinga

Are you able to talk only about your RSS (reverse speech system)?

Haven’t you got the hang of Tempel 1 similar to a bad animal?

Show us your intellegence.

I want to give you another argument upon which you can reflect:

NASA buffoons have used 3 moon buggies on the moon and have

squandered 38,000,000 USD to ask BOEING engineers the most

incredible and sophistic, ingenious device to find again

the mysterious JLTLM (jungle lane towards lunar module).

BUT IT WAS ENOUGH TO FOLLOW WHEEL TRACKS.



NASA buffoons have squandered a lot of billion dollars to build LMs with

the most incredible and sophistic, ingenious 32 kbyte RAM computer that

was able to do all these things:

klabs.org...

Read carefully all the things computer had to do, then reflect upon this event:


Nevertheless, Armstrong had time to notice that the LPD indicated "we were landing just short of a large rocky crater with very large rocks covering a high percentage of the surface"[15]. So at MET 102:43:08 (650 feet), after deciding that he could not stop short of the crater, Armstrong flipped the autopilot mode switch from AUTO to ATT HOLD to take manual control of the LM's attitude. He maneuvered to zero pitch to maintain horizontal velocity and skim over the rocky area.


THEN IT WAS ENOUGH TO CONTROL LM MANUALLY, IF IT WAS SO EASY.

WHY HAVE NASA BUFFOONS SPENT SO MUCH MONEY FOR USELESS

MOON BUGGY TOM TOM AND FOR USELESS LM COMPUTER?



[edit on 4-11-2007 by skeptic-friend]




posted on Nov, 4 2007 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


It's funny how you never answer questions posed to you but instead change to one of your standard subjects:
1. Expensive moon buggies
2. Astronauts without enough emotion
3. Lunar lander controls
4. A naughty comet animal with an eye problem????
etc.
These have already been answered and you are wrong. Show actual evidence if you believe you are right. FYI, Real evidence does not include your opinion.



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 

From reading your last post, it sounds like you are now finally convinced that we went to the Moon...

You sound convinced that the LEM landed on the moon, because, as you said, Armstrong needed to manually land it by turning off the expensive guidance computer, becuase the computer got overloaded with information (this is true, by the way.)

It also sounds like you are convinced the rovers were actually used on the moon, because you're claiming NASA wasted money on the navigation computers, since, as you say, the astronauts could have just followed their own tracks back to where the came -- although that wouldn't have helped if their path (such as that of Apollo 17) was more of a circle, and they didn't visit all the same places twice (uselessly and inefficiently going out and back over the same path) -- but that's a little off topic.

So it seems to me you're not accusing them of the moon hoax anymore, since your assertions about the LEM guidance computers and the rovers assume that they were actually operating on the Moon. You are now only accusing NASA of simply overspending.

Welcome to the side of us Moon-believers.

[edit on 11/5/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Hey, Anhinga

have you lost your head in reverse speeching?




posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   





.(esidarap gnihceeps esrever) PSR ni si won dna deid sah agnihnA







posted on Nov, 6 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic-friend



.(esidarap gnihceeps esrever) PSR ni si won dna deid sah agnihnA



If you're not going to contribute to the discussion, please do not post. This is nonsense and is in no way relevant to the topic. Thank you.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   


TEMPEL 1 OR A LITTLE BEAR?

Also this artist? is totally idiot:

solarsystem.nasa.gov...



TEMPEL 1 OR A BAD ANIMAL HIT IN THE RIGHT EYE?

NASA buffoons have turned this image to hide the fact that one of their

imbecile graphic artist? created it similar to the face of a bad animal.

I have unmasked NASA jokers.

The winner is: SKEPTIC-FRIEND




posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Skeptic-Friend (or should I say "Skeptic-Enemy" ?), now you are simply being annoying and insulting. You are not contributing in any way to the discussion of the topic at hand. Please stop posting nonsensical comments. You are using up valuable bandwidth with your buffoonery.



posted on Nov, 7 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Skeptic-Friend (or should I say "Skeptic-Enemy" ?), now you are simply being annoying and insulting. You are not contributing in any way to the discussion of the topic at hand. Please stop posting nonsensical comments. You are using up valuable bandwidth with your buffoonery.


Anhinga has died, the hawk has come back.




posted on Nov, 8 2007 @ 01:08 PM
link   
20 july 1969


LUNAR MODULE EAGLE HAS LANDED.



28 october 2007


www.space.com...

Lunar Lander Challenge Ends in Fire, Disappointment



Bad day


Pete Worden, a Lunar Lander Challenge judge – and director of NASA's Ames Research Center, told SPACE.com that the engine blew up, with the rocket's engine chamber tossing out pieces onto the pad.


"It's over for them for this X Prize Cup," Worden said. But he added: "I do think they are getting there...it's a robust design. I think they'll make it. Once again, it proves that rocket science is hard."





Once again, it proves that rocket science is hard

Hey, yankee

you are wrong:

Once again, it proves that rocket science is crap









[edit on 8-11-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
www.space.com...


NASA buffoons have in front of them an astonishing future





Congratulations




[edit on 9-11-2007 by skeptic-friend]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by skeptic-friend
 


WOW !!! you really don't understand the challenge at all do you ??? Maybe you should read a bit more on the subject you are posting so as not to embarrass yourself further. You're not making intelligent points but simply making yourself look foolish. Is that why you come here?? To humiliate yourself in front of a group???



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Skeptic-Friend (or should I say "Skeptic-Enemy" ?), now you are simply being annoying and insulting. You are not contributing in any way to the discussion of the topic at hand. Please stop posting nonsensical comments. You are using up valuable bandwidth with your buffoonery.


...and, Shadowduck (and the rest of the Flat Earth Society - Moon Landing Believers), how are you contributing to the topic? By attacking others? Skeptic-Friend is writing about NASA, about "Moon Landing" joke etc...and you and your friends are only writing about - Skeptic-Friend.

He does not need me to help him, and I hope he would not mind me answering this.

And, to answer to that other person who thought that Skeptic-Friend and I were the same - we are not. I am in Chicago (I think he is in Europe) and I am much less polite than Skeptic-Friend. Check the IP.

I really do not understand people who come to this forum to defend NASA by repeating obvious lies...over and over again. I can only think that they are paid for that or are extremely stupid.



[edit on 9-11-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Nov, 9 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
Swimmer, maybe you should read my other posts in this thread. I spent a great deal of time providing lengthy technical answers to Skeptic-Friend (under his various names). He seemed incapable of comprehending even the most rudimentary science, and responded by ignoring the answers or by spewing insults.

Also, calling Moon landing believers "Flat Earth Society" is backward thinking. That label sounds like something that would be better applied to the ignorant ones who believe the landings were a hoax.

Face it, the science involved in the lunar missions is fairly straightforward. The Apollo project is well documented. We have firsthand testimony from the people who worked on it, developed the science, built the spacecraft, and those who personnally walked on the lunar surface. I think the appropriate expression here is: "Stick a fork in it. It's done." This is truly An End To The Moon Conspiracy, as it says in the thread's title.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:44 AM
link   
[edit on 10-11-2007 by jfj123]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


While I completely agree that the landings took place, there's still plenty of shadows on the Moon. There's a few things that don't completely add up.

Not that I think there's any merit to some of the really far out ideas. And no, I won't say which ones just yet, because each of them has a grain of "believability". Enough to sit the fence for a while.

But a good job so far guys.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I'm just wondering why we haven't been back to the moon

Seroiusly, I've heard all the tales that the aliens said get off and don't come back but that doesn't do it for me. We should have a base on the moon by now, and who know's maybe we do. Just to many secrets in Nasa and the government. Saying that though doesn't mean I don't believe we landed on the moon. I think we did, but it's still lingering in my mind of why we haven't been back. So I'm about 70% / 30% on the truth.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Solarskye
 


Well, one of my questions is why we get such poor images of the Moon, and everywhere else for that matter, for all the money NASA sucks up? In this day and age, and for the last decade at least, cameras have come a long ways. So NASA spends a few million on a trip to look at the moon, and they don't spend enough on the one piece of equipment that matters?

I mean, look at the PR value of sending a satellite to the Moon with a decent camera and taking pictures of where man first stepped down. And take a look at this thread to see how good the images COULD be:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is the thread "Esa shows images of green trees and forests", which, by the way, I cannot see. But not how clear the pictures are from the European Space Agency. What, we can't buy as good a camera?

Edit: No "i" in "European"

[edit on 10-11-2007 by NGC2736]



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by NGC2736
 


I know what you're saying and I'm with you on that. And if there is no atmosphere on the moon then pictures should be crisp and clear compared to earth satellite photos. As far as mars goes I haven't a clue to why we can't see them in original color fromat. I know our technology in cameras are better than that. I wish I could build my own satellite and shoot it up to the moon and take picture with my camera hooked up to it.

Now there's an idea. Anybody here up to building the first ATS member satellite.



posted on Nov, 10 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 114  115  116    118  119  120 >>

log in

join