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: 29
29
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I like Howard's claim that I'm trolling for points. Ha. That's a joke. Did you see how many points I HAVE? I'm trolling for TRUTH. Sorry about that. I happen to have a thing for it, an obsession even. And I'm kinda alone here defending my position, and I have not called anyone here a name -- like stupid, ignoramus, troll, etcetera. I might put up an emoticon when somebody says something particularly outrageous or ridiculous, but I can't see where I'm being mean and rotton or unfair to anybody here at all. I've been posting here for about 20 pages or more and Howard is the first one to come on and say I shouldn't be posting, that I'm just a troll. If I don't post, who will everyone have to disagree with? Also, I admitted I was flat out wrong about the Disney movie. It has come and gone, and it was a boring movie, a real snoozer. I never said I don't make mistakes. But at least I admit it when I do. Nobody else on this forum is giving an inch -- even when it's obvious that they are defending the indefensible (like about the stars and this moon lander made of cardboard and foil and tape, mylar, or whatever tape and about the spacesuits being able to sustain life for 8 hours by a "cool pack" when modern spacemen need much more equipment than that to survive.)

And I like Halfo's comment also -- it must be real or it wouldn't look so fake! Ha. Priceless.

Almost as good as Agent's claims that the Astronauts didn't see any stars because after all they weren't on vacation, and that their spacesuits wouldn't let them look up high enough to see them anyway!

And who was it that said NASA couldn't find anybody to build a spaceship like in the '60s because no contractor would consent to building the old parts? And that a spacepad would be too hard to build? That one blew me away. I'm really sure all these companies would turn down the money because they have such an aversion to the old technology.




[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]



jra

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
www.aulis.com...


Parts needed to build your own high-tech, scientific, STURDY,
multimillion dollar spacecraft:

lots of big sheets of cardboard
big roll of roofing paper
a few old curtain rods
some floodlight holders
an old antenna
a roll of gold foil
lots and lots of scotch tape to hold it all
together in the HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT OF
THE MOON SURFACE

by Jack White, of JFK Conspiracy fame, recently deceased (or murdered)


Click above to see the authentic NASA picture of their
lunar lander, the picture that Agent took off
because he decided to take the Fifth Amendment.

When you click on here you can also see
lots of ADHESIVE TAPE USED IN APOLLO 15.

Have a look!

www.aulis.com...


Wow that's so wrong it's not even funny. Scotch tape? Give me a break. It's Mylar tape. There's a big differnce. We've gone over the "gold foil" and "cloth" stuff. Perhaps you should look at various sources insted of using one biased and very uninformed one.

I forget who brought up this point, but they made a great point. If NASA was faking the moon landing why wouldn't they have made it look fancier and something more out of some sci fi movie with a big shiny, solid metal ship? If they faked it, they could have designed the spacecraft with whatever idea they could think of. But they didn't. Why is that? Maybe because they didn't fake it. They did what was really possible and affordable at the time.

EDIT: The caption under the photo on the site you posted even says it was mylar tape and not scotch. You don't even read the pages you post eh? Way to go


[edit on 7-11-2005 by jra]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
jra -- It says masking tape underneath. The spoofy intro says Scotch tape. So what if it's mylar or masking tape? The point is, the LM is held together by tape.

Looks it too.

But it must be real because it looks so fake, right? Ha!



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
The point is, the LM is held together by tape.


Just because it has tape on the outside, doesn't mean the tape held the whole structure of the LM together. The tape was just on it's shell. How can we even be sure it is tape anyway. I think this is getting pathetic now..

And what's with the HUGE writing you pasted on the previous thread page? Please edit it and tone the size down.

[edit on 7/11/05 by SteveR]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by resistance
The point is, the LM is held together by tape.


Just because it has tape on the outside, doesn't mean the tape held the whole structure of the LM together. The tape was just on it's shell. How can we even be sure it is tape anyway. I think this is getting pathetic now..

[edit on 7/11/05 by SteveR]


Why don't you click on the link and look at the picture for yourself and decide if it's tape or not. It's plain as day that the LM is all taped together like on a low budget movie set or something. Walt Disney usually does better than that. Maybe they were in a hurry and had to improvise.

But the Illuminati knows people will believe anything. Even that we flew a ship to the moon made of cardboard and tape and foil covered plastic wrap -- oh, and special textile black stuff that looks like cloth draped around on the top of the LM. (The pics from the Space Museum show it better.) The Illuminati has one flaw, I'm told. They are so arrogant they make a lot of mistakes. It's obvious to me they've made plenty. This Moon Hoax attempt was pretty sad. The only thing that carries it through is the sheer audacity of what was done -- which is probably why the three astroNOTs were squirming around in such obvious pain at their press conference.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by resistance
The point is, the LM is held together by tape.


Just because it has tape on the outside, doesn't mean the tape held the whole structure of the LM together. The tape was just on it's shell. How can we even be sure it is tape anyway. I think this is getting pathetic now..

[edit on 7/11/05 by SteveR]


Why don't you click on the link and look at the picture for yourself and decide if it's tape or not.


Maybe I already did. It's too unclear to say with any definance.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   
apperance wise scotch tape is similar to mylar so is any polystyrene... that is about it. Not many would go into space with a space suit that has 5 layers of scotchtape to keep the astronaut warm and protect them from radiation



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
apperance wise scotch tape is similar to mylar so is any polystyrene... that is about it. Not many would go into space with a space suit that has 5 layers of scotchtape to keep the astronaut warm and protect them from radiation


Did you click on the pics below the cardboard covered LM to see the pics of the masking tape? Scotch tape is not yellow.


jra

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- It says masking tape underneath.


You sure about that?


from the site
Editor's Note: This is a genuine Apollo 11 photograph, NASA file number AS11-40-5922, allegedly shot on the Moon. This picture was apparently taken just after a series of close ups of the LM's footpads. The adhesive tape used was more likely to have been a polyimide or Mylar¨tape.


under the second photo about the tape it says.


Editor's Note: This is also a genuine NASA photograph, this time a close up of an Apollo 15 LM allegedly on the 'lunar surface'. The adhesive tape may have been polyimide or Mylar¨.


It's not scotch tape, it's not masking tape.


The spoofy intro says Scotch tape. So what if it's mylar or masking tape? The point is, the LM is held together by tape.

Looks it too.


The LM is not held together with tape. Just the thermal coverings are. I'm guessing you forgot about all those photos I posted a while back showing what the LM looks like underneath all that? It's all solid metal and welded together. The tape was only for the thermal coverings.


But it must be real because it looks so fake, right? Ha!


It looks real and believable to me. Just because you don't understand it and think it looks fake doesn't make it so. You have yet to show the slightest amout of evidence to show that it is fake. You can't even get the names of the materials that were used in its construction correct. All you do is quote misinformation. Do you seriously think it's all just "foil", "cloth" and "cardboard" held together by scotch or masking tape and that's all? Get real, you're a sucker for believing such foolishness.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
JA -- NASA admits it's tape. It looks like tape. It IS covered in cardboard. It does have all that gold foil stuff on it.

If you want to believe it's some kind of wonder-foil, wonder-tape, wonder-cardboard, whatever -- fine. If that lets you go on believing that NASA landed a spacecraft that was only covered on the "outside" with cardboard, tape and gold foil, well that makes it okay, right? Perfectly fine with you.

That's why NASA doesn't lose any sleep at night. They know that people will just accept anything they say or do. The Illuminati can practice child sacrifice and nobody will believe it. Nobody. Do they worry about being found out? No. Why? Because they know people like you would never believe it anyway.

NASA mooned America. Face it.


jra

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
But the Illuminati knows people will believe anything.


You know this for a fact do you? But people don't believe in just anything. Everyone has different beliefs, this site should prove that.


Even that we flew a ship to the moon made of cardboard and tape and foil covered plastic wrap -- oh, and special textile black stuff that looks like cloth draped around on the top of the LM. (The pics from the Space Museum show it better.)


But that's not correct at all. So your point is moot.


The Illuminati has one flaw, I'm told. They are so arrogant they make a lot of mistakes. It's obvious to me they've made plenty. This Moon Hoax attempt was pretty sad. The only thing that carries it through is the sheer audacity of what was done -- which is probably why the three astroNOTs were squirming around in such obvious pain at their press conference.


You sure seem to know a lot of how the Illuminati works and what they do and how they think. One would almost think you must be one of "them"



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

www.aulis.com...


jra

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

www.aulis.com...


The first one shows a sunstruck shot. This usually happened on the first few shots and sometimes near the end too. It's just from light leaking into the film magazines.

For the second shot. I believe the dust that gets kicked up by the astronauts as they walk around covered up the tracks around the rover. I'm sure if the camera were to pan to the left, it would show the tracks further back.

Ok I went looking. The real name for the second shot is AS17-137-20979 and two shots later, shows what it looks like looking back from the rover. AS17-137-20981 So there you can see how the foot prints have covered over the tracks. Hope that helps


[edit on 7-11-2005 by jra]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
JRA: You said

You sure seem to know a lot of how the Illuminati works and what they do and how they think. One would almost think you must be one of "them"



I don't think that's funny at all. Maybe you should read up on them. They run the entire world. They control the military, finance, education, medicine, religion, the media. NASA is one of their main and most useful organizations to accomplish their purpose of the NWO.

Hopefully I won't be cited for going off-track here.


www.zephnet.com... (podcast interviews) I recommend Russ Dismar, Larry Taylor, Kay Griggs, Fred Whelen. The rest I've not listened to.

Also check out these websites on the Illuminati and
Mind Control:

Svali interview
educate-yourself.org...

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
educate-yourself.org...

Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula
www.whale.to...

Monarch Mind Control Programming: What It Is
mindcontrolforums.com...





[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
The first one shows a sunstruck shot.


No I'm not talking about the big patch of light.. I'm talking about the tiny little objects right at the top of the shot..



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
resistance, you have once again shown your inability to comprehend what any of us are saying.

Wikipedia - Mylar


Mylar was developed by DuPont in the mid-1950s. In 1960, NASA launched the Echo satellite, a 100 foot (30 m) diameter balloon of metallized 0.005 inch (1/8 mm) thick Mylar film.

In manufacture, a film of molten PET is cast on a roll and subsequently stretched in and orthogonal to the direction of travel. One of its sides is microscopically smooth, while the other side contains microscopic asperities which promote adhesion of coatings and printing media.

Mylar can be aluminized by sputtering a thin film of metal onto it. The result is much less permeable to gasses (important in food packaging) and reflects up to 99% of light, including much of the infrared spectrum. Like aluminium foil, aluminized Mylar has a shiny reflective side and a dull side. Mylar does not tear easily, unlike tin foil and aluminum foil. Its reflective properties enable it to be used as a solar viewer — commonly used for viewing events such as solar eclipses, although care must be taken because invisible fissures can form in the aluminum film, reducing its effectiveness in this application.


A 'wonder-tape' you call it? It was developed in the mid-1950's, before the space program vamped up. No need for any 'wonder' item when you have the technology.

And it's not a simple gold-colored foil covering cardboard. How could foil taped to cardboard and cloth sheets hold the heavy Ascent Module and the two astronauts inside? You claim it's all cardboard and clothed taped together but that couldn't hold two grown men and all the equipment inside. So, if the footage and LM were staged, by your own claims you're contradicting yourself.


and reflects up to 99% of light, including much of the infrared spectrum. Like aluminium foil, aluminized Mylar has a shiny reflective side and a dull side. Mylar does not tear easily, unlike tin foil and aluminum foil.


It was covering to protect the equipment in the equipment storage assembly.

Here's a picture of Apollo 16, with the covering taken off to allow access to equipment storage assembly.


And here's a diagram so you can see where the ESA is. To the left of the platform and ladder, as in the picture of Apollo 16.

Your so-called "wonder-foil" was a covering to help protect the equipment inside the LM. Not cardboard, masking tape, or black sheets.

You keep telling us that we are wrong on just about everything we say, while we provide credible sources of information to answer your claims. You have not once provided substantial evidence to back up your claims at all. If you don't believe the information we provide because it's from NASA or the government because you claim they 'doctored' the evidence and all that other nonesense, then you expect us to actually consider your links to a geocities webpage that some guy sitting at home decided to make as a legitimate source of credible information to refute our evidence?



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jra
The first one shows a sunstruck shot.


No I'm not talking about the big patch of light.. I'm talking about the tiny little objects right at the top of the shot..


Here's some more photos on the gold foil.

The last two photos here are very interesting. There are two bright lights. They look like lamplights to shine on the astroNOT. The pic is taken from behind the astroNOT facing the two lights. So the lights show up in the pic. I saved these because I was wondering what they could be. Did the lunar lander have headlights? Is that what they are? My first reaction is that they're just studio lights that NASA arrogantly didn't bother to airbrush out, but who am I to know about stuff like lights, shadows, etcetera?

www.myspacemuseum.com...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Sad Elf -- You miss the point. NASA claims the astroNOTs flew down from the mother ship and landed on the moon with cardboard, tape and foil already assembled on the outside of their spacecraft. It's not like they got down on the moon and then decided they'd better insulate things and got busy covering things up. They flew down to the moon with this stuff (supposedly, snicker) -- and what's more they took off from the moon and beamed back up to the mother ship with their cardboard and gold foil and the special textile stuff that looks like black cloth draped all around the top. (The nasascam website used to have some good pics of the lunar lander as displayed in the Space Museum, but that page has been closed down on their site. I don't know why they closed it down.)

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Ok let's put our minds to some good use here... there are two things that are admittedly confusing me.

Check them out.

www.aulis.com...

www.aulis.com...


Steve -- How do you like the cardboard "repair job" in the second photo? Seems cardboard, plastic wrap and masking tape (whatever kind of tape) were really popular on the moon. Maybe this will start a new trend like Tang and temperapedic? Isn't that gold foil the same stuff they wrap your hamburgers in at Burger King?

Yeah, I see all the stage lights at the top of the picture. There's no way those are anything but what they appear to be -- stagelights.

What do you think about the last two photos I put up? When I saw them I thought, whoa, what ARE those lights? The lights are obviously what is lighting the astroNOT and everything there -- AND NOT THE SUN. The lights are right there plain and big as can be. They look like big stagelights. I got these pics off NASA's sites, or NASA-friendly, not moon-hoax sites, when I was trying to find a decent picture of the lunar lander (which I couldn't find any except for these two I posted links to above.)

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistanceSad Elf -- You miss the point. NASA claims the astroNOTs flew down from the mother ship and landed on the moon with cardboard, tape and foil already assembled on the outside of their spacecraft. It's not like they got down on the moon and then decided they'd better insulate things and got busy covering things up. They flew down to the moon with this stuff (supposedly, snicker) -- and what's more they took off from the moon and beamed back up to the mother ship with their cardboard and gold foil and the special textile stuff that looks like black cloth draped all around the top. (The nasascam website used to have some good pics of the lunar lander as displayed in the Space Museum, but that page has been closed down on their site. I don't know why they closed it down.)

[edit on 7-11-2005 by resistance]


I think I got the point, actually. You're ignoring just about everything I posted. It was NOT cardboard, cloth, or simple foil. That was one point I was trying to get across, and after several people have informed you that you are wrong in that regard, you do not acknowledge it. You completely ignored everything regarding the covering when it is relevent to the next point you are trying to conjure up.

The LM after un-docking with the CSM

Yes, the covering is indeed on the LM. No doubt about it. You harbour the misconception that the scientists and engineers at Grumann and NASA just haphazardly threw on the covering without making sure that it would stay on during the trip to the moon. There was nothing out in space during their trip to the moon that would rip off the covering. It's not just foil taped to the Descent Module. The reason the covering has come off once they are on the moon is because they need to acess the equipment storage assembly. When they left, the Descent Module was left behind and the Ascent Module docked with the Command Service Module (not the mother ship...). So you are wrong when you say they "beamed back up to the mother ship with their cardboard and gold foil and the special textile stuff that looks like black cloth draped all around the top." The Ascent Module didn't require all that, with the exception of a small amount of covering around the LM thrusters. The Ascent Module was not "draped all around the top" with the covering. You can easily see that from photos.

Spot the difference between the AM and the DM?

Ascent Module part of the LM preparing to re-dock with the CSM

I believe that I hit the point right on the head, actually.

Edit: Ah, I almost forgot my source for the images. What a travesty that would have been...
The Project Apollo Archive

[edit on 7-11-2005 by TheSaddenedElf]


jra

posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by jra
The first one shows a sunstruck shot.


No I'm not talking about the big patch of light.. I'm talking about the tiny little objects right at the top of the shot..


Oh ok sorry. Didn't notice those at first. Not sure what it is exactly, but the shot is the very first one on that film magazine. That probably has something to do with it, but I don't have a good explination sorry.


Originally posted by resistance
What do you think about the last two photos I put up? When I saw them I thought, whoa, what ARE those lights? The lights are obviously what is lighting the astroNOT and everything there -- AND NOT THE SUN. The lights are right there plain and big as can be. They look like big stagelights. I got these pics off NASA's sites, or NASA-friendly, not moon-hoax sites, when I was trying to find a decent picture of the lunar lander (which I couldn't find any except for these two I posted links to above.)


Oh boy... those are lens flares. There are tons of photos with lens flares on them. And yes those are from the sun. The sun is just off to the side of the shot and it's creating that effect. Here are some other examples for your viewing pleasure.

Here are four shots taken in a row. Notice how the lens flare moves along as the camera pans.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Four more shots in a row. The sun coming into frame on these. Note the two little dots from the lens flare moving with the camera as it pans.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Three shots in a row. The sun just above the frame.

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Need I go on? It's a perfectly normal thing to happen when taking a photo towards the sun or a very bright light.

EDIT: just to add a few more

www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

Note the two dots from the lens flare are over top of the LM? Definately not stage lights or lights of any kind, just lens flares.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by jra]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join