Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 179
29
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by turbonium
The dust starts to be blown out from under the LM at around the 2:30 mark. There are videos like this for every Apollo mission.

www.youtube.com...





A mad thing with that vid. At about the 2:47-8 you can see a Grey alien. I know it's just the shadows creating a form of pareidolia but I thought it was kinda funny. Try it out.

[edit on 28-2-2010 by The Teller]




posted on Feb, 28 2010 @ 01:29 AM
link   
If there was faked footage of being on the moon, it does not mean no one went there, it means they didn't want people to see what was really there.
I think some footage is the real thing, but carefully manipulated so not to show anything.
faked landing doesn't mean we didn't still go there.



posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by qmantoo
 


May be some of the Believers think that they don't mess with pictures, I happen to believe they did... it' was all Propaganda back then.

Space technology was not in no way capable of landing any apollo mission. They are just now figuring out the Solar Radiation complicatios.
Come on why would they send up any astronaut into space without knowing the fatal repercussions of just this alone.
I read this any many article like it onn the NASA web site that explains what their scientists ar working on and have not figures out yet so if any one can't figure this out oh well .....here is some snippets from NASA

RELEASE : 07-264
Spacecraft Reveals New Insights About the Origin of Solar Wind
www.nasa.gov...

>>>>>>>>>>
"Until now, Alfvén waves have been impossible to observe because of limited resolution of available instruments," said Alexei Pevtsov, Hinode program scientist, NASA Headquarters, Washington. "With the help of Hinode, we are now able to see direct evidence of Alfvén waves, which will help us unravel the mystery of how the solar wind is powered."
>>>>>>>>>>
What happens then? Next-generation astronauts are going to find out. NASA is returning to the moon in the decades ahead and plans to establish an outpost for long-term lunar exploration. It turns out they’ll be exploring the magnetotail, too.
>>>>>>>>>>
imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The question regarding the Van Allen Belt
(Submitted June 30, 1997)
How is it possible for manned space flights to survive the effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt?

Typically, manned space flight (such as the Shuttle) stays well below the altitude of the van Allen radiation belts. Safe flight can occur below altitudes of 400 km or so.

These are just a piece of the cake that involves our ability to even go into space..... They did not know all this... and they are STILL working on many many things... So if all this is not possible now to return to the moon what makes any one think it was possible back in 1969 .

My question is (If scientists admit there is dangerous consequences to radiation exposure

The answer is always--no. The radiation is bad, but not THAT bad. Astronauts went through the belt quickly, and the dosage was minimal. Two hours were certainly not enough to kill anyone--two weeks, maybe, I am not sure (the dosage to the skin would be heavy, but to the heart or brain much less so because most of the inner belt protons do not penetrate far).

MORE snippets of disscussion on this issue...

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Further question: Were those astronauts safe from solar flares?

Dear Dr. Stern,

Thank you for your speedy response. Was there a contingency plan for X class solar flares? Would such flares have posed a danger to life for the astronauts?

Reply

High-energy ions from large solar flares can be very dangerous to human life. They can be quite penetrating and hard to shield against; "can be," because the energies vary from event to event, and the size of a flare is only loosely related to the high-energy ion danger.

Such flares occur infrequently, a few times each 11-year solar cycle, but if you send people to Mars, they pose a real risk (they also pose a risk on Mars itself, since the thin atmosphere there is not a very good shield).



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 04:03 AM
link   
reply to post by NorthStargal52
 


I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say, NorthStarGal. Your first paragraph suggests radiation is a show-stopper, then you follow it with several paragraphs on why it is not.




posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


Hi If you are referring to the bottom of my post that is a SNIPPET From the bottom of my post that is a snippet of a debunker telling a disbeliever his explanation on radiation..

I just find it hard to believe our technology was advanced enough...
They even drop hints as to what they are just finding out now.. I believe it was a way to get money so that they in fact could continue on in the research and necessary technology needed for a real mission but like they say that isn’t happening now... they say like 2018 is a possibility



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
dude, we've been going back and forth to the moon ever since.

why would they tell us, its none of our concern.


jra

posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorthStargal52
I just find it hard to believe our technology was advanced enough...


Why is that? What do you think is required for radiation shielding that they wouldn't have had in the '60s?


They even drop hints as to what they are just finding out now.. I believe it was a way to get money so that they in fact could continue on in the research and necessary technology needed for a real mission but like they say that isn’t happening now... they say like 2018 is a possibility


Of course scientists have continued to work on finding and developing better materials for shielding. Radiation shielding is all about limiting how much radiation you're exposed to over a period of time. The Apollo missions spent less than two weeks in space. There shielding worked fine for that amount of time, but for long-term missions like what was proposed for the Constellation program. Better shielding needs to be developed since astronauts would stay on the Moon for whole months at a time rather than just days, like the Apollo missions.



posted on Mar, 2 2010 @ 09:40 PM
link   
I think the moment NASA attempts to please conspiracy theorists they are opening up a can of worms and will find themselves in way over their head. I guess from their point of view ignoring us and pretending we dont exist is the best course of action because they know theyd loose hands down in an ATS vs. NASA truth conference, the amount of mainstream cosmologists and physicists questioning their paradigm is expanding daily so if NASA delays such a confrontation it will only make things worse for them.



posted on Mar, 11 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by polarwarrior
 

NASA and all it’s sub category affiliates that are involved with all the bogus claims. I Can believe They have brainwashed the American people in to believing that these missions’ to the moon and the one in 1969 were possible.
Truthfully I believe the real reason they used NASA is that the CIA and others have had information on UFO’s. true existence, and what a ingenious way to side track the people in believing they did in fact land on the moon, so they produced a Hoaxed Hollywood fake broadcast of the Apollo 11 mission.
Over the years they NASA has been funded ex amount of dollars indeed to support the technology greatly needed to in fact get to the moon. But yet what’s their excuse now? Ok now its money but the last 6 years they did nothing to make a trip back. Not to mention the solar sun has been at it’s lowest these last 8 yrs. In 1969 it was not at the highest but if you look at the charts it wasn’t far off. In 1957 or abt that time the UFO possibility was just starting to be a more popular topic as to is it true and it started surfacing in the news other reports and articles go back to 1940 and earlier. The topic of research concerning our government on whether the US should expand and explore the existence of UFO’s began sometime in these years or the project was just getting off the ground. They new they needed a program that could perform everything they wanted to side track us from their real involvement with the extraterrestrial beings and UFO’s. I am not saying they never intended on truly gong to the moon that was in the plan but yet to come. But during a certain period of time they developed NASA and behind the scenes what I think they were really investigating and documenting everything about these ufo’s and other beings. Sonar records have been hidden the list goes on these are all records from back in 1950’s and maybe before that. So who is keeping who in the dark??



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 



How exactly would the KGB have known if NASA fakes anything that had to do with the moon landing?
Also...Russia at the time had no way of tracking that far into space.
They DIDnt get that technology until 72 (I believe). NASA then canceled the last two planned moon missions. And the only other time we were going to go there....what happened?
BOOM!
Thats what.

Also, Russia wouldnt have ratted us out. They needed us for trading.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 




Also...Russia at the time had no way of tracking that far into space. They DIDnt get that technology until 72 (I believe).

Russia could not track spacecraft to the Moon? Huh. Interesting. I wonder how they managed to perform the first lunar impact (Luna-2) in 1959. I wonder how they managed to get the first image of the far side of the Moon, also in 1959 (Luna-3). I wonder how they succeeded with the first soft landing on the Moon in 1966 (Luna-9). I wonder how they had so many successful (and unsuccessful) lunar missions if they could not track their own spacecraft. Interesting.
www.russianspaceweb.com...

[edit on 7/7/2010 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
becasue if they did, someone from ats would run the pix through a program that breaks down photos and "debunk them", and then turn it into a conservative vs. liberal debacle.

lol in reality either way its because nasa knows the truth...


That deserves a star my friend.

I haven't laughed that hard or that unexpected in quite some time.

The truth and wisdom in those words is absurd and astounding.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Also...Russia at the time had no way of tracking that far into space. They DIDnt get that technology until 72 (I believe).

Russia could not track spacecraft to the Moon? Huh. Interesting. I wonder how they managed to perform the first lunar impact (Luna-2) in 1959. I wonder how they managed to get the first image of the far side of the Moon, also in 1959 (Luna-3). I wonder how they succeeded with the first soft landing on the Moon in 1966 (Luna-9). I wonder how they had so many successful (and unsuccessful) lunar missions if they could not track their own spacecraft. Interesting.
www.russianspaceweb.com...


Is there a difference between USSR communicating with their own spacecraft and USSR tracking and decipher transmissions from the US alleged Apollo ?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by MickeyDee
 


We didn't land on the Moon...everyone has a sneaking suspicion but nobody says anything.

NASA make it or Fake it...

It doesn't really matter to me I just think it is absolutely terrible to carry on in this way.
The point is we need to find a better way, b/c obviously the way we suppos-ed-ly went to the Moon in 69' is not a vital way to travel to Mars(per Nasa).
This in Total Recall times, we need to get to Mars or some place to advance our civilization.
If we have really been to the Moon why then have we funneled a majority of money into other missions that do not necessarily benefit man kind(LCROSS)?!
Why have a mock 500 day mission to Mars?

These are the questions that should really be asked. Whether or not we've been to the Moon is a silly debate that goes no where.

Listen its not about proving someone wrong its about finding out what these agencies are really doing with the money given to them!

Thank you Sheeple, that is all.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Also...Russia at the time had no way of tracking that far into space. They DIDnt get that technology until 72 (I believe).

Russia could not track spacecraft to the Moon? Huh. Interesting. I wonder how they managed to perform the first lunar impact (Luna-2) in 1959. I wonder how they managed to get the first image of the far side of the Moon, also in 1959 (Luna-3). I wonder how they succeeded with the first soft landing on the Moon in 1966 (Luna-9). I wonder how they had so many successful (and unsuccessful) lunar missions if they could not track their own spacecraft. Interesting.
www.russianspaceweb.com...


Is there a difference between USSR communicating with their own spacecraft and USSR tracking and decipher transmissions from the US alleged Apollo ?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...



Oh, now it's "tracking AND deciphering"?

To answer your (amended) question, no, there is no difference between tracking a Soviet spacecraft and a US spacecraft. The signals come from a certain point in space, and that cannot be faked.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Is there a difference between USSR communicating with their own spacecraft and USSR tracking and decipher transmissions from the US alleged Apollo ?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Tomblvd
Oh, now it's "tracking AND deciphering"?

The telemetry requires deciphering.


To answer your (amended) question, no, there is no difference between tracking a Soviet spacecraft and a US spacecraft.

Wrong answer, at least the frequencies and formats of signals were different;
sit down.


The signals come from a certain point in space, and that cannot be faked.

They had to know the coordinates of those 'certain points in space', didn't they?
AND
why 'that cannot be faked'?



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by bokonon2010
Is there a difference between USSR communicating with their own spacecraft and USSR tracking and decipher transmissions from the US alleged Apollo ?:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Tomblvd
Oh, now it's "tracking AND deciphering"?

The telemetry requires deciphering.


We are discussing "transmissions" not "telemetry" and that has nothing to do with being able to tell where the signal is coming from. And that is what we are discussing here.



To answer your (amended) question, no, there is no difference between tracking a Soviet spacecraft and a US spacecraft.

Wrong answer, at least the frequencies and formats of signals were different;
sit down.


Perhaps, and if it were true, all that requires is tuning your receiver to different frequencies. And these frequencies were published prior to launch.



The signals come from a certain point in space, and that cannot be faked.

They had to know the coordinates of those 'certain points in space', didn't they?
AND
why 'that cannot be faked'?


Most of the receiving they did was when the spacecraft were around the moon, and most scientist were aware of the coordinates of the moon.

And despite JWs efforts, he never explains exactly how an entire Apollo mission would be faked, so until I see an reasonable explanation of how it could be faked, I'm going with it "cannot be faked".



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 



To answer your (amended) question, no, there is no difference between tracking a Soviet spacecraft and a US spacecraft.

Wrong answer, at least the frequencies and formats of signals were different;
sit down.


Perhaps, and if it were true, all that requires is tuning your receiver to different frequencies. And these frequencies were published prior to launch.

'if it were true' - if you are not sure, try to educate yourself first about these frequencies and formats, before your 'tuning'.



The signals come from a certain point in space, and that cannot be faked.

They had to know the coordinates of those 'certain points in space', didn't they?
AND
why 'that cannot be faked'?


Most of the receiving they did was when the spacecraft were around the moon, and most scientist were aware of the coordinates of the moon.

Are you saying that to receive TV, voice and telemetry from the lunar spacecraft,
only the moon coordinates required, and not spacecraft orbits and surface position on the moon?


And despite JWs efforts, he never explains exactly how an entire Apollo mission would be faked, so until I see an reasonable explanation of how it could be faked, I'm going with it "cannot be faked".

It seems you have difficulty with the logic, and you may want to have simple and practical explanation. So,
go to the supermarket with a fake banknote and get caught;
then try to explain to the judge in your defense
that you are not guilty unless it is shown how you made the fake banknote.
Then share your experiences with us.



posted on Aug, 29 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

'if it were true' - if you are not sure, try to educate yourself first about these frequencies and formats, before your 'tuning'.


Why? I know radios are able to be tuned to that frequency range. It isn't that hard.



Are you saying that to receive TV, voice and telemetry from the lunar spacecraft,
only the moon coordinates required, and not spacecraft orbits and surface position on the moon?


Yes.



It seems you have difficulty with the logic, and you may want to have simple and practical explanation. So,
go to the supermarket with a fake banknote and get caught;
then try to explain to the judge in your defense
that you are not guilty unless it is shown how you made the fake banknote.
Then share your experiences with us.


Uh, you're the one with logic issues. Apollo is a fact. It is recognized as a fact by most people and all educational organizations. You have invented an alternative history. It is up to you to prove it.

So get to it.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:36 AM
link   






top topics



 
29
<< 176  177  178    180  181  182 >>

log in

join