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: 24
29
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   
32 New Questions Here Look at the bottom of that page. Food for thought, and a challenge to debunkers!

Also the author of the site made this note.


You may have read my Apollo hoax article elsewhere on this web site, where I believe that the Apollo footage that has been released by NASA seems to be a hoax. I have uncovered various pictures and transcripts of astronaut conversations from the Apollo missions that relate to encounters with UFOs, and perhaps this is one reason why NASA would release fake footage to the general public.
See here:
UFOs/Moon




posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I sort of read the page, and skimmed the questions, but question 2 shows just how much the person asking the questions knows about the Apollo program.

NASA quit using pure oxygen after Apollo1 when the astronauts were killed in the fire. One of the first things they found was that the astronauts weren't killed by the fire, they had very few burns on their body, but by superheated oxygen in their lungs from the pure oxygen. They switched to a standard nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere shortly afterwards.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I could go through each point brought up in the list again. But having to do it every week becasue some people can't search this board, read this thread or bother reading sites like www.badastronomy.com is rather annoying and time wasting.
Just because the author says they are 'new' questions does not mean they are, not any more at least.
How come about once a week we always get someone chipping in with their 'New' information or what they think is some new revelation that no-one else has thought of - when if they bothered to read the thread at hand they would quickly realise their 'New' information is actually 'Old crap'.

As Zaphod pointed out his ignorance is shown simply from his statement in 2. about the pure Oxygen atmosphere (or rather the fact there isn't one contrary to what he seems to think).

Things like the 25mm x 30mm video which shows 2 Earths... Apparantly...

Looks like light being reflected/refracted through the thick windows and the outgassing. Not that it's easy to tell on such a tiny, poor quality video.

And here's a good debunk of the mysterious Australian 'Una Reynold' and her mystery 'Coke Bottle' :

www.clavius.org...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Halfo -- In the first and only press conference where Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were squirming around and trying to figure out how to answer questions, Armstrong said he didn't see any stars, looked questioningly over to Collins. Collins said he "doesn't remember seeing any stars." Collins was in the mother ship circling the moon. They were farther away from the sun than we are on earth with no atmosphere to obstruct the view. Collins and all the astroNOTs should have a breathtaking view.

The blue sky thing was when they were supposed to be in deep space, so unless the earth was completely filling the window there would be no blue to be seen.

Looks like the astroNOTs are walking on wet sand. That's all.

The pics of the astroNOTs supposedly on the moon look no different than the pics of them taken in all their regalia in the mock ups before then ever supposedly WENT to the moon. NASA has lots of mockups that are admittedly mockups. One astronot even admitted that NASA "May have" recreated some scenes.

At this point in time we ARE NOT ABLE TO GO TO THE MOON. We can't do it. It is IMPOSSIBLE. So how come 35 years ago they all went so easily, with no practice runs? How do they get these super spacesuits that require no lifeline to oxygen and water that allows them to romp around the moon for 8 hours? How come the pressurized air didn't leak out the zippers? How come they could move their hands easily if they were wearing pressurized gloves, and be able to maneuver Hasselblads and take piles of photos and still have time to do all the other stuff they did?

NASA admits the moon is seething in radioactivity. Radioactivity would be hitting the astroNOTs from below and above. NASA is just now getting around to sending moon probes to try to find out about the radioactivity but we could just pop guys on the moon back in the '60s with no study or preparation, send them to the moon in a ship of thin aluminum?


I agree there may be some explanations that NASA can come up with that are somewhat plausible to answer these questions. But there's too many questions, and they all add up to one big HOAX.

How come the first time Buzz Aldrin was asked to describe what it was like to set foot on the moon he ran out of the room crying?

How come Neal Armstrong won't talk about it at all?

Why won't NASA even talk about it? Why doesn't NASA have something up on their site to describe what it was like on the moon, what it was like for the men who were there, some comments and reactions? How come they act like they committed a murder rather than the supposedly greatest exploratory feat ever done by man?

You guys are just making excuses. Did you know that most of the work done on the early Saturn rockets was done by German Nazis imported to the United States who stole the work of Dr. Goddard? www.reformation.org...






[edit on 2-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Every single thing you have brought up has been answered in this thread time and time again, so either you have some sort of hidden agenda, you struck your head and can't remember what was said 5 minutes ago, or you're just plain ignoring the facts.

If the future of humanity are people like this then we're screwed...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
So how come 35 years ago they all went so easily, with no practice runs?


I just want to comment on that... What about the years of training? More specifically, what about the Apollo missions that took place BEFORE Apollo 11?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Halfo -- In the first and only press conference where Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were squirming around and trying to figure out how to answer questions, Armstrong said he didn't see any stars, looked questioningly over to Collins. Collins said he "doesn't remember seeing any stars." Collins was in the mother ship circling the moon. They were farther away from the sun than we are on earth with no atmosphere to obstruct the view. Collins and all the astroNOTs should have a breathtaking view.

The blue sky thing was when they were supposed to be in deep space, so unless the earth was completely filling the window there would be no blue to be seen.


At this point in time we ARE NOT ABLE TO GO TO THE MOON. We can't do it. It is IMPOSSIBLE. So how come 35 years ago they all went so easily, with no practice runs? How do they get these super spacesuits that require no lifeline to oxygen and water that allows them to romp around the moon for 8 hours? How come the pressurized air didn't leak out the zippers? How come they could move their hands easily if they were wearing pressurized gloves, and be able to maneuver Hasselblads and take piles of photos and still have time to do all the other stuff they did?

NASA admits the moon is seething in radioactivity. Radioactivity would be hitting the astroNOTs from below and above. NASA is just now getting around to sending moon probes to try to find out about the radioactivity but we could just pop guys on the moon back in the '60s with no study or preparation, send them to the moon in a ship of thin aluminum?


I agree there may be some explanations that NASA can come up with that are somewhat plausible to answer these questions. But there's too many questions, and they all add up to one big HOAX.

How come the first time Buzz Aldrin was asked to describe what it was like to set foot on the moon he ran out of the room crying?

How come Neal Armstrong won't talk about it at all?

Why won't NASA even talk about it? Why doesn't NASA have something up on their site to describe what it was like on the moon, what it was like for the men who were there, some comments and reactions? How come they act like they committed a murder rather than the supposedly greatest exploratory feat ever done by man?

You guys are just making excuses. Did you know that most of the work done on the early Saturn rockets was done by German Nazis imported to the United States who stole the work of Dr. Goddard? www.reformation.org...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by resistance]


Sheesh. Ok, lets start on this little lot. First things first, the guys on Apollo 11 had an awful lot of things to look at and twinkly stars came waaay down on the list. But seriously, in space the sun, the Earth and the moon give off a hell of a lot of light. I forget the official name for this, but it basically means that the eye sees the bright parts and the faint bits get washed out. Have you ever looked up at a full moon on a clear night? The stars around the moon get washed out - it's very hard to see them.
And yes we can go to the moon. It happened 35 years ago. And yes, they had practice runs - Apollos 4-6 were unmanned, as they proved that the Saturn V worked and that the modules would perform to spec. The technology exists. Why do you say that it didn't? If we could send people into orbit - and if the Soviets could send a guy out for the first spacewalk - then yes the human race can build something to withstand the vacuum. Here's a link to a site that can explain the makeup of the suits in greater detail - vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...
As for the moon being radioactive, it's lethal yes. You've got UV radiation coming in from the Sun. But it's only lethal over a long period of time. The astronauts were in space for just 10 days. That's a short period of time. And by the way NASA has been sending probes to the moon since the '60s.
As for the silence, that's simple. These men stood on the surface of a non-terrestrial body and looked up at our green and blue planet. They saw something that the rest of us can only imagine in terms of sheer wonder. And you wonder why they won't talk about it? They are part of a handful of men to see a kind of beauty that must be unimaginable. They have every right to scorn those who doubt their experiences. They are bigger and better men then most of us.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Simmer down, Francis. Just because you dress up in waiters' costumes and hang out with old Illuminati guys doesn't mean you can lose it in the board.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Halfo -- In the first and only press conference where Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins were squirming around and trying to figure out how to answer questions, Armstrong said he didn't see any stars, looked questioningly over to Collins. Collins said he "doesn't remember seeing any stars." Collins was in the mother ship circling the moon. They were farther away from the sun than we are on earth with no atmosphere to obstruct the view. Collins and all the astroNOTs should have a breathtaking view.


When they we're in sunlight they wouldn't see any stars, check out the logs for the Apollo 8 mission and they had problems finding them then for navigational purposes using the specialised viewing equipment on the ship.
The fact they didn't see any stars was probably the last tihng on their minds and when asked it probably made them wonder if they actually had, it's normal human behaviour - if you spend time observing people you'll see it all the time. When you're flying a frikkin ship with a puny computer and having to rely on doing everything manually, gazing out the window's the last thing on your mind.



The blue sky thing was when they were supposed to be in deep space, so unless the earth was completely filling the window there would be no blue to be seen.


How many times do you have to be told? The blue tinge was due to outgassing and probably due to the nature of the cameras. It's not that complicated - if you don't understand then it's OK to listen to people that do - or was that you're problem at school and why you appear to know so little now?



Looks like the astroNOTs are walking on wet sand. That's all.


I can't be bothered to go back and find it but it wsa already explained that it's due to the nature of the dust on the moon and the way it clings together, this is an alien enviroment and substantially different to the Earth's, you can't compare it to here because it isn't here.



The pics of the astroNOTs supposedly on the moon look no different than the pics of them taken in all their regalia in the mock ups before then ever supposedly WENT to the moon. NASA has lots of mockups that are admittedly mockups. One astronot even admitted that NASA "May have" recreated some scenes.


Link to this astronaut - reputable site please..
And I imagine the mock ups would look pretty similar or they would be pretty crap wouldn't they?



At this point in time we ARE NOT ABLE TO GO TO THE MOON. We can't do it. It is IMPOSSIBLE. So how come 35 years ago they all went so easily, with no practice runs?


Keeny already commented on that, oh and didn't you wonder why Apollo 11 was the first on the moon - the other 10 were all part of the practise runs. We can't currently go to the moon because we don't have anything built to do so. We havn't needed to and it costs too much money, no other reason then that really. The technology used at the time has become old and redundant, the original people involved are either elderly or dead (though I know some of the Astronauts at least are currently involved as consultants for the next mission) and we basically have to start again.



How do they get these super spacesuits that require no lifeline to oxygen and water that allows them to romp around the moon for 8 hours?


I already explained this in extreme detail a few pages back, the suits were connected to their PLSS (Portable Life Support System) while on the moon.
What do you think the big box on the back was? They also had a reserve on top of the main until and also carried around (sometimes) another emergancy backup.


The Apollo space suits were the first to use liquid cooling garments with a separate ventilation garment. The cooling and ventilation system was drastically improved because the astronauts would be doing a great amount of physical activity exploring the moon therefore producing more body heat and perspiration. The astronaut would first dawn the liquid cooling garment, which was long underwear with poly-vinyl tubing sewn in it. This water was cooled in the PLSS and returned to the tubes to cool the astronaut. The ventilation garment was the inner most layer of the pressure garment. This ventilation garment used nylon fabric ducts to circulate the air inside the suit in order to remove carbon dioxide as well as perspiration. This system is very close to the current system in its design because they both use the PLSS to provide cool water and ventilation and their actual construction is very similar. These same Apollo suits were again used in the Apollo-Soyuz missions but relied on an umbilical tether to the spacecraft for air and water. The case was the same for the Skylab missions as well. ILC Dover manufactured and designed both of the suits. ILC Dover manufactures LCVG's for the current space shuttle suit.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



How come the pressurized air didn't leak out the zippers? How come they could move their hands easily if they were wearing pressurized gloves, and be able to maneuver Hasselblads and take piles of photos and still have time to do all the other stuff they did?


Due to millions of dollars worth of research and design, and also the suits are in two sections, an inner suit and the outer micrometeorite/radiation shield.



NASA admits the moon is seething in radioactivity. Radioactivity would be hitting the astroNOTs from below and above. NASA is just now getting around to sending moon probes to try to find out about the radioactivity but we could just pop guys on the moon back in the '60s with no study or preparation, send them to the moon in a ship of thin aluminum?


They sent probes before as well to check, they will obviously be doing more up to date research now as we have better capabilities and there may be greater dangers. I believe the sun is also a lot more active so that will be a greater problem.



I agree there may be some explanations that NASA can come up with that are somewhat plausible to answer these questions. But there's too many questions, and they all add up to one big HOAX.


Not really, no question is unexplained - you just seem to like to ignore that.



How come the first time Buzz Aldrin was asked to describe what it was like to set foot on the moon he ran out of the room crying?


Did he? A link to this claim would be nice and even if it's true he probably felt very emotional. I've nearly burst into tears when I've done something amazing and shyed away from people. I'm sorry if you don't know what that feeling is like.



How come Neal Armstrong won't talk about it at all?


He has done, someone even pointed that out a page or two back. Do you just com on here and post randomly or do you actually bother reading what people write to you and read the sources?



Why won't NASA even talk about it? Why doesn't NASA have something up on their site to describe what it was like on the moon, what it was like for the men who were there, some comments and reactions? How come they act like they committed a murder rather than the supposedly greatest exploratory feat ever done by man?


Oh you must mean a section like this with all the video, logs, schematics, audio, pictures, etc etc:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Which I had pointed out to you pages back, shows once again you have memory problems - have you thought about seeing your doctor?



You guys are just making excuses. Did you know that most of the work done on the early Saturn rockets was done by German Nazis imported to the United States who stole the work of Dr. Goddard? www.reformation.org...


Yesterday's news mate, I knew that current rockets were developed from Nazi technology (mainly the V2) years back - basic training in conspiracy school. And that's not all - but your point is exactly?
Hitler owned and loved a dog - must mean all dogs are evil.

So how many days before I have to repeat this for your benefit all over again?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Simmer down, Francis. Just because you dress up in waiters' costumes and hang out with old Illuminati guys doesn't mean you can lose it in the board.


Sorry but having to repeat oneself continuously is rather irritating, I'm sorry you find the information I try and provide at sometimes financial and timely expense to myself redundant or unwanted. I know I get a bit of an attitude, but I find it incredibly annoying to have to keep saying the same things day after day after day, just because some people can't be bothered to read. If they can't be bothered to read a few pages of info then why do they bother trying to contribute and where did they get all the information they must have, to have come to their conclusions?

I didn't realise that the astronaut's are part of a more than likely fictional group of people, but at least I have enough interest in the subject to try and do something positive and I at least give myself the oppurtunities to gain information first hand rather than simply relying on other people continuously. At least I get directly involved in the topics that mean the most to me.
Sorry I've been bragging about it, but understandably I'm rather chuffed as I'm sure most people could relate too, it was one of the best weekends I've ever had meeting some of my greatest heroes, I'm sure most other people would be equally enthusiastic if they had a similar experience.
I thought I'd share it with the guys here, but I'll assume that as you're an Administrator now that you represent the general concensus of the guys up top, so if you rather I don't or you think it's worthless then I won't bother.
And yes I know I'm childishly 'picking up the ball and going home'.
Feel free to delete the podcast I have already put up, the others will be staying safe on my computer.
The 'feedback' from my last interview was so abismal anyway, though people seem to find plenty of interest in trivial matters, that I can hardly be bothered anyway.

It's a shame in a way because I had several more things to share and I have a few things planned, but I can understand that not many people would like it coming from me as I know I am rather arrogant and rude a lot of the time - sorry I don't always follow the herd and tow the party line, I'm generally just not afraid to voice my opinons and I'm not into 'sucking up' either - at least when I say something people know it's genuine though and I'm not 'creeping' because of who or what they are.

Glad to see you leading by example there too by not resorting to the same sort of insults and pettiness that I do by the way!


And you can try and belittle it all you like, because you can't change the fact that it was probably one of the best times most people could wish for and very few will ever enjoy.


Oh and that "waiter's costume" - that's called a suit



A suit, also known as a business suit (US) or lounge suit (UK), comprises a collection of matching clothing consisting of:

* a coat (commonly known as a jacket)

* a waistcoat (optional) (USA vest)

* for men, a pair of trousers (USA pants), or for women, a skirt or trousers

A suit is generally accompanied by a shirt and tie (for men), or a blouse (for women). A Hat for men, such as the fedora and the bowler hat, in Western countries, used to complete the outfit, but over the course of the 20th century they have largely fallen out of fashion and are no longer worn with suits.

en.wikipedia.org...(clothes)




[edit on 2-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Every single thing you have brought up has been answered in this thread time and time again, so either you have some sort of hidden agenda, you struck your head and can't remember what was said 5 minutes ago, or you're just plain ignoring the facts.

If the future of humanity are people like this then we're screwed...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by Thomas Crowne]


This is not an answer. Would you like to pull up the answer to the fact that Collins was not on the moon and therefore could have seen the stars? I am rebutting the rebuttal. Is there something wrong with that?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Every single thing you have brought up has been answered in this thread time and time again, so either you have some sort of hidden agenda, you struck your head and can't remember what was said 5 minutes ago, or you're just plain ignoring the facts.

If the future of humanity are people like this then we're screwed...

[edit on 2-11-2005 by Thomas Crowne]


This is not an answer. Would you like to pull up the answer to the fact that Collins was not on the moon and therefore could have seen the stars? I am rebutting the rebuttal. Is there something wrong with that?


My God, you really don't read do you? I answered every point you made one by one in another post only a couple down from that one and a couple up from this one - point proven I think!

And specifically in relation to Collins:

He would have spent most if not all time in either Sunlight, Earthlight or both - depending on the positions of the celestial bodies and his orbit. He would also have had lights on in the craft - when he's supposed to be doing his job he's not going to spend the time with the lights out and his nose pressed against the window is he? They were on a mission not a vacation.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Smith, you'd better go outside and get a breath of frsh air as it seems you have really lost your sense of humor.
I do not disagree with your position on the moon missions. Furthermore, I understand how iritating it is to explain logic to those who cannot understand logic. What you need to understand is that you cannot make someone understand, so you might as well go and relax.

that being said,
Simmer down, Francis!



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Yeah OK sorry.... suit.... it was suit....


And.... *cough*....... **damn this hurts**.....

Sorry Resistance for insulting you.. but please do read all the material carefully, it really has been explained to you and if you can argue any of the scientific principles then I'm all ears, but please stop coming on and saying the same things every couple of days, ignoring what has been said to you - it's frustrating all round.

[edit on 2-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
The fact is Res that nervous actions of People in a press conference that is in front of a room full of press, being sent live on multi-national television proves NOTHING !!!! The only thing that is proves is that even rocket scientists get butterflies. Not to mention that If you pay taxes in the US then all NASA info belongs to you, Bart Sibrel is selling people something that they already own! for 30 freaking dollars! If you can't smell the scam then I got some swamp land to offer you, real cheap.
Please give this argument up, it doesn't fly, and never will at best it is circumstantial evidence (that means there are many other possible explanations and therefore proves nothing in particular)

As for the blue it seems that you still do not read, or just refuse to understand. If they were over the earth the whole time then the windows would show blue for 45 min and black for 45 min. I defy you to find a video showing this happening, better yet show me a video showing cloud or land mass through the windows. If you can't then this is a mute point.

When it comes to the "wet sand" you again refuse to address the lunar environment, or at least only when it suits you. There is no air on the moon so the particles of soil below the surface would compact under the weight of the soil above. The top layer would be a light dusting due to the spray of soil caused by the impactions of meteorites at various times. This light dusting would be easily compacted by the astronaut’s foot, due again to the lack of air between the partials. After it is compacted it holds it's shape due to the ragged shape of the particles "locking" against one another. It's very fine consistency can be re-created with any fine particle substance, flour for example will hold a print extremely well. On the moon there is no wind to erode the print and so the 1/6 gravity is the only thing acting upon the print.

lets compare the "wet sand" print with a real wet sand print.





Notice the displacement of sand squished out and the raised ridges on the earth sand print, notice that the moon print has a clean line no noticeable raised ridge.
Because the moon sand does not stick together like wet sand, the soil gets compacted beneath the foot, and some is sent flying out. I think buzz explains this best..



When you put your foot down in the powder, the boot-print preserved itself exquisitely.

When I would take a step, a little semicircle of dust would spray out before me. It was odd, because the dust didn't behave at all the way it behaves here on Earth. On Earth, you're sometimes dealing with puffy dust, sometimes with sand.

On the moon, what you're dealing with is this powdery dust traveling through no air at all, so the dust is kicked up, and then it all falls at the same time in a perfect semicircle.


The rest of your post is obviously not documented and you cannot prove any of it.

How about YOU answer some questions now Res.

1. The Russians... why did they not blow the whistle on the hoax? They must have been following the mission with the same tracking equipment that NASA had.

2. What qualifications does Bart Sibrel have that makes him an expert in physics, rocket propulsion, engineering or any other discipline that is needed to take a man to the moon? I mean in order to say, as he does, that NASA is wrong or that this or that is impossible he should at least have some training in the subject areas no? Would you accept Sibrel as an expert witness in court?

3. what do you say to this quote from the man who discovered the Van Allen belts

"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Edit:spelling


[edit on 2-11-2005 by Halfofone]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
When they we're in sunlight they wouldn't see any stars, check out the logs for the Apollo 8 mission and they had problems finding them then for navigational purposes using the specialised viewing equipment on the ship.


Fact 1: Yuri G. said they were very bright and prominent.
Source: "A delicate blue halo surrounds the Earth, merging with the blackness of space in which the stars are bright and clear cut."
As quoted from here.

Fact 2: NASA Airbrushed the stars out of the moon photos.
Source: Here.

I find it very hard to beleive, for one moment on that entire mission, they didn't look out and gaze at the view. Yuri saw them, so they should have too. They either lied about not seeing stars, or they never went.

Regarding your attitude, this is a discussion not an argument.

I still haven't heard anyone's opinions about this page: www.ufos-aliens.co.uk... Some of "real" moon photos actually do have stars, that's probaby because they weren't airbrushed in any way. They were also much lower quality, than the "hoax" moon photos. Which gives an indication that the higher quality moon photos were producted in a studio. The "real" moon photos don't have any strange shadows or weird light levels either. Perhaps they really did go to the moon
, it's just most of us are looking at hoaxed footage, as part of the coverup. Anyway, read the link.

I would love to hear what everyone makes of it.

Thanks
Steve



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
Please give this argument up, it doesn't fly, and never will.


I will, personally, if someone disproves all of the claims and answers the questions satisfactorily.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Halfofone
1. The Russians... why did they not blow the whistle on the hoax? They must have been following the mission with the same tracking equipment that NASA had.


Incorrect. The Russians did not invent tracking equipment able to track the rockets, until 1971/2, at which time the moon missions abruptly ended. As for blowing the whistle, that could of started war, or an argument of conspiracies. You see the Russians have done some dirty stuff aswell, and lied to their people. The CIA could easily disclose this, but they don't. It's like a pact.


Originally posted by Halfofone
3. what do you say to this quote from the man who discovered the Van Allen belts "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Incorrect. "Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts." Source.




posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Halfofone
1. The Russians... why did they not blow the whistle on the hoax? They must have been following the mission with the same tracking equipment that NASA had.


Incorrect. The Russians did not invent tracking equipment able to track the rockets, until 1971/2, at which time the moon missions abruptly ended. As for blowing the whistle, that could of started war, or an argument of conspiracies. You see the Russians have done some dirty stuff aswell, and lied to their people. The CIA could easily disclose this, but they don't. It's like a pact.


Oh right.... yeah... that's really fascinating...

Oh.. By the way... How did they track their first probe to the Moon back in 1959 then? Luna 1?.... oh and the 14 others after it too? (before the American landings). You know... know where they were, receive data and such... control them....


Soviet Lunar Missions

Luna 1
Launched 02 Jan 1959
Lunar Flyby


Luna 2
Launched 12 Sep 1959
Impacted Moon 14 Sep 1959 at ~07:30:00 UT
Latitude 29.10 N, Longitude 0.00 - Palus Putredinis

Luna 3
Launched 04 Oct 1959
Lunar Flyby


Luna 4
Launched 02 Apr 1963
Lunar Flyby


Luna 5
Launched 09 May 1965
Impacted Moon - Sea of Clouds


Luna 6
Launched 08 Jun 1965
Attempted Lander - Missed Moon


Luna 7
Launched 04 Oct 1965
Lunar Impact - Sea of Storms


Luna 8
Launched 03 Dec 1965
Lunar Impact - Sea of Storms


Luna 9
Launched 31 Jan 1966
Landed on Moon 03 Feb 1966 at 18:44:52 UT
Latitude 7.08 N, Longitude 295.63 E - Oceanus Procellarum


Luna 10
Launched 31 Mar 1966
Lunar Orbiter


Luna 11
Launched 24 Aug 1966
Lunar Orbiter


Luna 12
Launched 22 Oct 1966
Lunar Orbiter


Luna 13
Launched 21 Dec 1966
Landed on Moon 24 Dec 1966 at 18:01:00 UT
Latitude 18.87 N, 297.95 E - Oceanus Procellarum


Luna 14
Launched 7 Apr 1968
Lunar Orbiter


Luna 15
Launched 13 Jul 1969
Lunar Orbiter

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...





Originally posted by Halfofone
3. what do you say to this quote from the man who discovered the Van Allen belts "The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


Incorrect. "Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts." Source.



Well I can't say I 'knew' they had done it to try and 'punch a hole in the Van Allen belt' - but I don't understand how this 'proves' anything one way or another to be honest.. And I doubt it would be 100 times more intesne, I apologise if I am incorrect in thinking this - linky (decent one) please?

[edit on 2-11-2005 by AgentSmith]



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Halfofone
1. The Russians... why did they not blow the whistle on the hoax? They must have been following the mission with the same tracking equipment that NASA had.


Incorrect. The Russians did not invent tracking equipment able to track the rockets, until 1971/2, at which time the moon missions abruptly ended. As for blowing the whistle, that could of started war, or an argument of conspiracies. You see the Russians have done some dirty stuff aswell, and lied to their people. The CIA could easily disclose this, but they don't. It's like a pact.



So you claim. The Russians had at least one large radio telescope well before 1969, In addition, they had made a number of successful launches well before the Americans did.

October 4, 1959 - Luna 3 translunar satellite is launched, orbiting the moon and photographing 70 percent of the far side of the moon.

November 16, 1965 - Soviet Venus 3 is launched, becoming the first craft to impact Venus on March 1, 1966.

March 1, 1966 - Soviet Venera 3 impacts on Venus, the first spacecraft to reach another planet. It fails to return data.
March, 1966 - Soviet Luna 10 is the first spacecraft to orbit the moon.

October 18, 1967 - Venera 4 sends a descent capsule into the Venusian atmosphere, returning data about its composition.

September 15, 1968 - Soviet Zond 5 is launched, the first spacecraft to orbit the Moon and return.

September 12, 1970 - Soviet Luna 16 is launched, conducting the first successful return of lunar soil samples by an automatic spacecraft.
November 17, 1970 - Luna 17 lands on the moon, with the first automatic robot, Lunokhod 1. Driven by a five-man team on earth, traveled over surface for 11 days.
December 15, 1970 - Soviet Venera 7 is the first probe to soft-land on Venus, transmitting for 23 minutes.

my.execpc.com...




top topics



 
29
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join