Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

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

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:41 AM
link   
iv said this before in another thread that if hubble teliscope can find galaxys in a part of space we thought was empty then why cant they get perfect pictures of the moon ,mars,venus,satern,jupiter,pluto,nibiru ??

they havent because they wont it would break down the secret they hav kept for years




posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply to post by Tomblvd
 

www.abovetopsecret.com...



I'm repeating the post from the other thread so others can follow. I encourage the readers to click the link because I asked a simple question of boko that he has ignored.


Originally posted by bokonon2010


In the first video analyzed the claim (underwritten by Leonov) that
the stations in or near Moscow have received live TV from the Apollo 11 'moonwalk'.


Please give the specific time stamp from that video where that is stated.


As for other deep space Russian stations at Siberia, Far East, ships -
did they have the equipment to receive the Apollo transmissions?


www.russianspaceweb.com...

www.astronautix.com...


Present the documentation, or continue to believe that in 60s Russians were monitoring everything from under the beds in Area 51.



While you beleive they sent probes to the moon in the mid-sixties without the ability to communicate with them.

How does that make any sense at all?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by satnav_c-1
iv said this before in another thread that if hubble teliscope can find galaxys in a part of space we thought was empty then why cant they get perfect pictures of the moon ,mars,venus,satern,jupiter,pluto,nibiru ??


The HST does not have the resolution to image something as small as the LM descent stage which is approximately 4 meters in diameter. Compare that to the large celestial bodies (4 meters vs Saturn or a galaxy that is 100,000 light-years across???) it is meant to image, and you can see why.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tomblvd


Originally posted by bokonon2010
reply topost by Tomblvd
 

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I'm repeating the post from the other thread so others can follow. I encourage the readers to click the link because I asked a simple question of boko that he has ignored.


Originally posted by bokonon2010
In the first video analyzed the claim (underwritten by Leonov) that
the stations in or near Moscow have received live TV from the Apollo 11 'moonwalk'.


Please give the specific time stamp from that video where that is stated.

0:00




As for other deep space Russian stations at Siberia, Far East, ships -
did they have the equipment to receive the Apollo transmissions?


www.russianspaceweb.com...

www.astronautix.com...



Present the documentation, or continue to believe that in 60s Russians were monitoring everything from under the beds in Area 51.



You have failed to provide the documentation and recordings.
These stations have been designed to communicate with USSR spacecrafts,
and not for tracking the Apollo. Besides, what's the point to use them for tracking Disney-Hollywood TV shows? Russians recorded them from under the beds of silly US folks.



While you beleive they sent probes to the moon in the mid-sixties without the ability to communicate with them.

Did I say that?



How does that make any sense at all?

Your flood here only makes sense for apollo props show,
the thread is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 31.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:24 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. The signals come from a certain point in space, and that cannot be faked.
 


Try to think about this:


Some days after another Moon vehicle “Zond-6” had been launched (10th Nov.1968) the rumours started to circulate that two cosmonauts were on board. Moreover the name of one of them – Pavel Popovich – was given. It’s a surprise to say that the information appeared thanks to NASA staff. The “Zond-6” schedule envisaged working from many systems including vehicle- Earth communication lines. Cosmonauts Pavel Popovich and Vitaly Sevastianov had been in Evpatoria communication centre and talked to FCC in Kaliningrad (now Korolev) of Moscow region using “Zond-6” as re-translation unit.
That exchange of communications had been recorded by the Americans, who thought at once that the Russians had flown to the Moon.
www.cosmoworld.ru...

[edit on 31.8.2010 by bokonon2010]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   


Originally posted by bokonon2010
In the first video analyzed the claim (underwritten by Leonov) that
the stations in or near Moscow have received live TV from the Apollo 11 'moonwalk'.



Please give the specific time stamp from that video where that is stated.

0:00


At the time stamp specified this is what is on the screen:

"On the morning of 28 July 1969, everyone forgot, for a few moments, that we were all citizens of different countries of Earth. That moment really united the human race. Even in the military centre where I stood, where military men were observing the achievements of our rival superpower, there was loud applause."

Nowhere does it state that the signals were being received directly from Moscow, as Jarrah asserts over and over.





Present the documentation, or continue to believe that in 60s Russians were monitoring everything from under the beds in Area 51.


Moving the goalposts, AGAIN? This is the specific question you asked:


As for other deep space Russian stations at Siberia, Far East, ships -
did they have the equipment to receive the Apollo transmissions?


I provided 2 links with that information. And you ignored it.



You have failed to provide the documentation and recordings.


What are you talking about?


These stations have been designed to communicate with USSR spacecrafts,
and not for tracking the Apollo. Besides, what's the point to use them for tracking Disney-Hollywood TV shows? Russians recorded them from under the beds of silly US folks.


What would be the difference between the equipment needed to receive signals from Soviet and US spacecraft?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Why NASA doesn't send a camera equipped with transmitter to a Apollo landing site so as that we get some new pictures of the landing site? the internet conspiracies regarding the Apollo program has cost NASA more than that.


[edit on 31-8-2010 by masterp]



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Why NASA doesn't send a camera equipped with transmitter to a Apollo landing site so as that we get some new pictures of the landing site?


They, and other countries, already did (although it wasn't the primary mission):

Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter

SELENE (Japan)

Anyway, if the first pictures didn't convince the HBs, what makes you think more pictures will make a difference?





the internet conspiracies regarding the Apollo program has cost NASA more than that.


Huh? How are the internet conspiracies costing NASA anything? And how about some numbers please?



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Purely laughable, that is my opinion of those photos. Why did they even bother to provide them when they prove nothing, if that is the best they
can provide what chance do we have of them finding anything of the
slightest significance. And dont start giving examples of the crap that this
tool of propaganda dishes out. I find it terribly dificult to believe anything
they claim. Also how can anyone prove or disprove any of their claims?Just like any government funded department they have to justify their
existence.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


I don't see any apollo spacecraft new pictures in the links you posted. what we need is real apollo pictures showing the rovers, the modules, the footprints etc.

Why the elevation data don't take into account the lunar module left behind?

The cost I spoke about is the political cost; the bad publicity. It's no coincidence that people say NASA means "never a straight answer".



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Purely laughable, that is my opinion of those photos. Why did they even bother to provide them when they prove nothing


It is simply astonishing that many NASA critics see all sorts of alien structures in the lunar photos that NASA is alleged to try to suppress, yet just as many NASA critics refuse to see the terran craft sitting in a location which is correlated with pics taken from same craft.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhasystem


It is simply astonishing that many NASA critics see all sorts of alien structures in the lunar photos that NASA is alleged to try to suppress, yet just as many NASA critics refuse to see the terran craft sitting in a location which is correlated with pics taken from same craft.


Indeed. And again I ask, if those who don't believe we went to the moon are not swayed by the original pictures, why would more pictures make a difference?

The answer is, of course, they won't.



posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas

Perhap's when China get's there they can confirm the landing happened.

Dallas


And... MUCH MORE....



posted on Sep, 2 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


I don't see any apollo spacecraft new pictures in the links you posted. what we need is real apollo pictures showing the rovers, the modules, the footprints etc.


Again I ask, why would you believe these pictures, when you don't believe all the others? NASA could send probes to every landing site and when the pictures were returned, you would shout "FAKE!".


The cost I spoke about is the political cost; the bad publicity. It's no coincidence that people say NASA means "never a straight answer".


I see no "bad publicity" in the media regarding NASA and the moon hoax. All I see are occasional articles belittling people like Bart Sibrel.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


According to the historical information the Russians deliberately scrubbed earlier launches?



1959 Jun 18 08:08 E-1-5 spacecraft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome by Vostok rocket on a mission to hit the Moon by way of a direct ascent trajectory - a failure of the inertial guidance system 153 seconds after lift-off leads to the rocket being deliberately destroyed


As you like to say definitely something screwy here?



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Topics been done to death but no, sorry, we didnt land on the moon. It was a lie born out of the cold war at the time. It didnt happen, we didnt go. Im sorry.


jra

posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nonchalant
Topics been done to death but no, sorry, we didnt land on the moon. It was a lie born out of the cold war at the time. It didnt happen, we didnt go. Im sorry.


And why should I take your opinion as the truth over all the worlds scientists and engineers, who have expressed no issues with the data that's available. What knowledge or evidence do you possess that they do not?



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bordon81
reply to post by Phage
 


According to the historical information the Russians deliberately scrubbed earlier launches?



1959 Jun 18 08:08 E-1-5 spacecraft launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome by Vostok rocket on a mission to hit the Moon by way of a direct ascent trajectory - a failure of the inertial guidance system 153 seconds after lift-off leads to the rocket being deliberately destroyed


As you like to say definitely something screwy here?

There's nothing particularily "screwy" about that the incident that quote is describing.

Rocket trajectories are planned in such a way that they don't travel over inhabited areas during ascent, so engine failure won't cause the vehicle to fall on population areas. But if the rocket starts veering considerably off course, it can cause danger to populated areas.

Because of that, all launch vehicles are equipped with range safety devices, which is a fancy way of saying that there's a considerable amount of explosives strapped to the rocket. If the rocket leaves the launch corridor, the rocket is destroyed before it can cause any danger to other people.

Your quote describes a situation like this. With the inertial navigation lost, the launch vehicle would have had no way of controlling it's direction. Nobody likes a building-sized collection of metal, bolts and rocket fuel flying with no sense of direction around the neighborhood, so it was destroyed before anything bad happened.

The United State's first interplanetary probe, Mariner 1, suffered a similiar fate. Thanks to a rather ridiculous software error in the launch vehicle, it left the launch corridor and was destroyed.



posted on Dec, 2 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Here are my top 5 reasons why the moon landings did, in fact, happen.

1) The Soviet Union and the U.S.A. were in the Space Race (duh). It was highly competative, with each side looking for a way to get ahead politically and economically (yep). Yet, the Soviet Union did not contest the American's claim that they did indeed land on the moon (ever). If the Soviets had the opportunity to prove it didn't happen, you think they would have done it, knowing the possible reprocussions to the U.S.?

2) The number of photographs taken - vs. - number of photos that are used as "proof it didn't happen." Don't you think there would be more evidence that it was faked? A project this huge surely would have produced massive numbers of tiny (but HUGE, speaking in a different manner) errors, given the massive number of people involved (see # 3). There would be more evidence. If it was faked, it wouldn't be discussed in Conspiracy Forums. It would be changing the world.

3) At it's peak, the Apollo Program employed around 400,000+ people, and had around 20,000 businesses and colleges working for the The Man. Don't you think any of the people would have come forward by now? The sheer scale would surely have produced a whistle-blower or 2 (hundred or thousand).

4) The rock samples brought back are estimated at around 600,000,000 years older than any rock on Earth. They are from the Moon. This is universally accepted around the globe by the majority of scientists. And no it is not 100% accepted, but when discussing things like this, when is it? There is always a "disagree-er."

5) If you study history, pretty much every large scale event (in recent times - this topic, 9/11, JFK assasination, etc.) is shrouded in controversy. For some darn reason, when something happens that is very signifigant in the Human world, there are always people who just simply cannot believe that the provided answer is justifiable. These people are looking for an answer that's as big as the event itself, but will never find it, because this is reality. This is not some fictional book or Hollywood movie.

Sorry for the long comment...!



posted on Apr, 12 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by satnav_c-1
iv said this before in another thread that if hubble teliscope can find galaxys in a part of space we thought was empty then why cant they get perfect pictures of the moon ,mars,venus,satern,jupiter,pluto,nibiru ??

they havent because they wont it would break down the secret they hav kept for years


not to contraddict you but watching a huge galactic body across the universe or watching a tiny piece of hardware a few hundred thousands of Kilometers isn't really the same thing.

The thing few people put on the table is the re-entry issue, which is really my only perplexity; how could they make everything so precise with 60s technology keeps being a mistery, I remind you of the famous U2 incident: at the time, just to take down one slow moving high altitude spy plane the soviets had to launch 5 missiles, to get one on target; would you accept going on a space mission knowing that your chances of coming back home alive are little better then marginal? I have no problem in believing crash landings on the moon, I have no difficulties in believing we could send someone in lunar orbit. The fact that it could be reasonable with 60s technology to land on the moon doesn't surprise me, the surprise is that they could reliably come back.

oh... and btw I wonder: how old is this moonlanding conspiracy talk? Older then the Capricorn One movie?






top topics



 
29
<< 177  178  179    181  182 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution