Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street

The Greys exist, of course, and they have been selling us their technology since 1942 in return for people to eat.



OTS - as usual you have shown a blatent disregard for the facts. The Greys starting selling us their technology in 1943, and it was in exchange for our crispy snacks (which they had always envied from afar), not people.




posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Well wether you choose to believe we landed on the moon in 69 or not, we will all know fofr sure soon enough when the ESA's Smart-1 probe sends us back some lovely pics of the landers.
No doubt the doubters will say that the phots were faked tough.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:17 AM
link   
More proof. Not that I think it's needed of course.

www.space.com...



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
More proof. Not that I think it's needed of course.

www.space.com...


Yeah, yeah, yeah We did land on the moon you are right! But one thing is def. clear WE DID NOT land on the moon in 69 the technology would not have worked and by the time the rocket left orbit and the "Safe zone" the astronauts would have been killed almost instantly from the solar waves of radiation from the sun there is no way we could have had such technologies that would have blocked the suns radiation.

And NO I don't believe in greys but I do believe in UFO's that have been created by mankind using electro-magnetic engines it's easy to build a anti-gravity aircraft but as I stated before (in another post) it is very difficult to power it.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:20 AM
link   


the astronauts would have been killed almost instantly from the solar waves of radiation from the sun


They proved that we could and im trying to find the link to it now.
I'll edit this post when i find it!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Have any of y'all seen the episode of Loony Tunes with Daffy Duck (playing Robin Hood) and Porky Pig (playing Friar Tuck)? In this episode, Porky laughs so hard that he's about to have a seisure or something, then he pauses for the "camera shot" where he's got one little tear dripping out his eye, then he goes right back to the spasmic laughing. This thread did he same to me. 2 of you got voted for the way above thingy for making me laugh my tail off! What a way to wake up!



anywho, back to the topic.....

Did I just see someone make the argument that we couldn't land on the moon after successfully landing back on the earth??????
It would be far easier to land on the moon than on the earth, any day....



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   


It would be far easier to land on the moon than on the earth, any day....


Very true!!! I suppose it would be alot easier. But people will still believe that the radiation in space would have killed Armstrong & Co. I believe we went to the moon and i believe we (or the Japs) will be back there within 8 yrs!!!

:



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
We better be. Those giant dust bunnie monsters need some taming, imao.


Looking at the basic math equation to land on the moon, I's not be so worried about moon landings......except for the problem of not being sure of the accuracy of the data BEFORE the first landing......but that's why you send at least one person who has landed back on earht...if anything, he'd be a bit too heavy on the backthrust and would bounce away fromt he surface before landing a few times, lol.....



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Hunting veritas says:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah We did land on the moon you are right! But one thing is def. clear WE DID NOT land on the moon in 69 the technology would not have worked and by the time the rocket left orbit and the "Safe zone" the astronauts would have been killed almost instantly from the solar waves of radiation from the sun there is no way we could have had such technologies that would have blocked the suns radiation."

If you're serious about hunting veritas (latin for "truth") I suggest you get some "veritas" about basic physics.

Outside of the "why is the flag fluttering?" or "how come you don't see stars in the photographs?" the "Van Allen deadly radiation" myth is probably one of the most common -- and the most easily debunked.

I typed "apollo astronaut van allen radiation" into Google and got over a thousand responses. Here is one of the first, picked at randon:

spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

You really need to do some research on basic physics before setting yourself up as an expert on the moon flight. You can lose your credibility pretty easily here, and I'm sure you don't want that!



posted on Mar, 19 2005 @ 05:49 AM
link   
When we go to Mars will these insane people come up with 101 reasons why we couldnt have been there?
But i suppose great websites like ATS wouldnt survive without people who love conspiracies.




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:24 AM
link   
I'm sure they went (though I didn't see it with my own eyes), though not convinced of the pix we have been shown.
Even when its common place to visit the moon and it's 'tourist sites' I don't think the die hard skeptics will believe they are standing on the Apollo 11 site.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 01:52 AM
link   
I am not going to comment on the moon thing (it doesn't really matter to me when we live in a world still filled with war and starvation) Just your logic.


Originally posted by MickeyDee
I truly believe that we did land on the moon back in '69, and so should everybody else.


So if you believed that black and white were the same do you think I would accompany you across a zebra crossing?



So to finally end all the speculation regaurding the landings, why on earth doesnt NASA use Hubble to photograph the landing sites?
We've seen the amazing things that Hubble can do, so im sure it could give us amazing pics of the lunar surface.
It would be to NASA's advantage as their was no point them spending billions going to the moon if nobody believes they did!!!


And I guess by this logic the word or OJ Simpson and Michael Jackson or for that matter Jeffery Dahmer or Adolf Eichmann would be sufficient to you. To me the process of verification requires and independant and impartial party to do the verifying.



posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   


So if you believed that black and white were the same do you think I would accompany you across a zebra crossing?


Fair point, but what i meant was that there is far too much proof to show that we did land on the moon so everybody should believe it.
I did not mean that everyone should believe what i think.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
I cannot believe anybody still believes the landings were a hoax!

NASA would have to keep about 2000 people quiet!

It would have been impossible to fake it and get away with it for so long, somebody would have told by now!




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
If you're serious about hunting veritas (latin for "truth") I suggest you get some "veritas" about basic physics.


Ok, ok I done some more research on the subject and am coming around to the idea. It still puzzles me that we can send man to the moon with little more than a pocket calculator (alot of them mind you). But we just can't seem to fathom out why people are in poverty??? Yep spend millions upon millions on a pointless mission. What exactly was the whole point??? Just so we could prove it can be done??? or just so we can beat the russians at something.

Remember competition is a sin.


Outside of the "why is the flag fluttering?" or "how come you don't see stars in the photographs?" the "Van Allen deadly radiation" myth is probably one of the most common -- and the most easily debunked.


The flag "suposedly" looks like its fluttering because (correct me if i'm wrong) apparantly there was wire in the flag??

I don't think you see the stars because of the glare from the sun. I'm not sure though.


You really need to do some research on basic physics before setting yourself up as an expert on the moon flight.


I do not claim to be an expert on moon flight. I am still learning, everyday I learn something new. I do not mean to sound arrogant in my posts. Just expressing my opinion.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
what about the russians

1st Satillight,Spaceshipe and person to space why not to the moon

In that time the russians where far superior in space technology than the US so when the russians reached to space they proved scientifly that its impossible to land on the moon

then the amercian with there hollywood power did it on a hollywood basement to shut the russians up



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by eazy_mas
what about the russians

1st Satillight,Spaceshipe and person to space why not to the moon

In that time the russians where far superior in space technology than the US so when the russians reached to space they proved scientifly that its impossible to land on the moon

then the amercian with there hollywood power did it on a hollywood basement to shut the russians up


Wheres the scientific proof



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hunting Veritas

Originally posted by eazy_mas
what about the russians

1st Satillight,Spaceshipe and person to space why not to the moon

In that time the russians where far superior in space technology than the US so when the russians reached to space they proved scientifly that its impossible to land on the moon

then the amercian with there hollywood power did it on a hollywood basement to shut the russians up


I dont know exatly because i seen it in TV in dicovery channel.
as well as it common sense if there the first to do everything in space why didnt they landied in the moon first?

What are samples that the moon have?!?!? In howstuffworks.com the moon has dimond of the surface

Footprint where in the moon you far lighter than you on earth

How did the ship landed on them moon where it lighter?

Is there suit really desgin for the moon? the dark side it very cold and the light side is very hot?

Source of lights

But is for you to judge and i may convice they reached to the moon but not in that date particulary




Wheres the scientific proof



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Why oh why, has no other country, or the US for that matter, ever put another person back on the moon?

It does not make sense, why it has never been repeated?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by veritas 7
Why oh why, has no other country, or the US for that matter, ever put another person back on the moon?

It does not make sense, why it has never been repeated?



Bush OK's Moon Missions
WASHINGTON, Jan. 8 (UPI) -- American astronauts will return to the moon early in the next decade in preparation for sending crews to explore Mars and nearby asteroids, President Bush is expected to propose next week as part of a sweeping reform of the U.S. space program.

To pay for the new effort -- which would require a new generation of spacecraft but use Europe's Ariane rockets and Russia's Soyuz capsules in the interim -- NASA's space shuttle fleet would be retired as soon as construction of the International Space Station is completed, senior administration sources told United Press International.



USA Today - New Moon Missions
Quoting unidentified Bush administration sources, two publications have reported that the president wants Americans to return to the moon after an absence of three decades, and perhaps establish a base.


Why after an absence of 3 decades? Whats stopping anyone from doing it??

We might even see some UFO's.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join