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.
Originally posted by Wind
Agentsmith
I have been posting my links and photos of I think they were faked.
The moon rocks May be just like the evidence of Colin Powel. They didn't find weapons, which mostly means the CIA mocked up the evidence.
Kaysing received his Bachelor of Arts in English in 1949 from the University of Southern California. Those are his academic credentials. He worked for Rocketdyne not as an engineer, but as a cataloger of their technical publications.
Further, Rocketdyne manufactured only the main engines for the spacecraft, not the electronics, computers, or structures. Kaysing left Rocketdyne in 1963, before they started work on the Apollo project.
www.clavius.org...
The moon rocks were made on Earth. Bill had an (unnamed) expert Geologist examine the rocks. He was convinced they were made on Earth. Just quite he managed this without the smallest sample of said rocks is anyone's guess. Maybe his expert doesn't bother with such details?
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
The Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth some rocks from the moon. We know for certain that they came from the moon. 100% certain. They are like nothing else on Earth and they couldn't have been constructed artificially because they bear the evidence of billions of years exposure to a vacuum, high energy cosmic rays, tiny asteroids and virtually no water. Nothing on Earth could replicated this, either naturally or man-made.
So how do we know they didn't just fall as asteroids? NASA certainly has examples of these that have been collected from various parts of the world. We can rule asteroids out, however, as they all have the scorching and oxidation inevitable from their fiery entry to Earth through the atmosphere. The Apollo moon rocks, of course, show none of this.
But don't take my word for it. Geologist Callum MacAlister emailed me about this;
Moon rocks are certainly non-terrestrial basalt in origin, and do not match in composition any other extraterrestrial rocks (i.e. meteorites). I could go on at great and boring length about QAPF diagrams, intergrown feldspars, oxygen-depleted micas and the like. But I won't.
So, my point? I KNOW man went to the moon. There's no other way moon rocks could have come here. If they had fallen as meteorites, the atmosphere would have oxidized them in a most obvious way. These rocks are genuine, and have spent, oh, the last 5 billion years or so in an oxygen-poor, radiation-bombarded environment (fusion trails...ask me later)
So there we have it. And you don't have to just trust Callum here. Hundreds of other geologists have examined these rocks. None of them have any doubt as to their origin. Unless some kind passing aliens dropped them off for us, they must have come from the moon and arrived unscathed within the Apollo spacecrafts.
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
No detailed reports, no breakdown of the analysis that brought about this conclusion and no name to do a check on and verify this opinion. Doesn't that smell fishy to you?
evidence, why are you selling it instead of offering it for free?
A: The film is Earth-shattering evidence, indeed. The fact is that investors put up five hundred thousand dollars to produce the film, and they would like to recoup a little of it. This is simply the concept of exchange; when someone does work to provide you with something of value, you compensate them when you receive benefit from that work.
Thirty bucks for a half a million dollar film is not bad, if you ask me.
(The lie cost every citizen $800--the truth... $30.)
Over 99% of the rocks returned from the moon were found to be
at least 90% older than the rocks found on Earth, ranging from
3.6 billion to 5.3 billion years old. The area where the lunar
rocks were chosen was thought to be one of the youngest on the
moon. The oldest rocks found on Earth are only 3.7 billion
years old, leading some scientists to conclude that our moon
may have been formed eons before our sun was born.
Another, even more perplexing puzzle is the discovery that the
lunar soil is older by at least a billion years than the rocks
which rest upon it. This seems completely unexplainable since
soil has always been understood to be the residue of eroded or
decomposed rocks. Analysis of the soil revealed that it is not
rock residue and, therefore, has its origins somewhere else.
www.cyber-north.com...
SIBREL: "After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. .......I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic....."
--
REPORTER: I have two brief questions that I would like to ask, if I may. When you were carrying out that incredible Moon walk, did you find that the surface was equally firm everywhere or were there harder and softer spots that you could detect? And secondly, when you looked up at the sky, could you actually see the stars in the solar corona in spite of the glare?
ALDRIN: The first part of your question, the surface did vary in its thickness of penetration somewhere in flat regions. [...]
ARMSTRONG: We were never able to see stars from the lunar surface or on the daylight side of the Moon by eye without looking through the optics [i.e., the lunar module's navigation telescope]. I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
COLLINS: I don't remember seeing any.
Analysis:
Collins' response is a followup to Armstrong's reference to solar corona photography which had been taken from the command module during the translunar coast, in which all three astronauts participated. (Apollo 11 Preliminary Science Report NASA SP-214, 1969, p. 39). The reporter's question is a bit confusing since the solar corona cannot be seen from the lunar surface except when the earth eclipses the sun. Or, of course, from a spaceship positioned such that the earth is between the spaceship and the sun. Apollo 11's course provided just such an opportunity. It appears Neil Armstrong interpreted the reporter's phrase "solar corona" to refer to this data.
www.clavius.org...
What was Neil like to speak to? You might have seen my posts a month or so back about the dinner I had with Buzz Aldrin, he was a great guy!
the reason why NASA CAN'T use Hubble is do to the fact if is a deep space viewing telescope. It is set at a magnification that is far deeper than the moon. It would be too fuzzy. The moon is just too close.
Originally posted by AgentSmith
Exactly, I don't get 'offended' I get annoyed with people not bothering to check before bringing up the same tired issues. A couple of weeks ago we were at a stage of discussing the accuracy and methods used to measure Gamma Rays being emitted from by Moon, caused by the bombardment of Cosmic Rays (or more accurately particles) and their potential effect on the Lunar missions.. Today we are onto the misunderstanding of the British Language and craters again.
Having to dredge through this once more, is like a University Graduate being forced to sit through Kindergarten all over again - please read the information!
We covered this basic stuff a long time ago, it gets annoying having to repeat every couple of weeks when people come diving in and don't think that maybe, just maybe, this stuff might have just been covered QUITE some time ago!!!
I don't mind helping and I did say that the answers to your questions can be found in this thread or in one of the many links I provided for you, all in one place.. So please USE THEM!
I don't want to kill your enthusiasm or curiosity, but if you are genuinely interested then be prepared to do a lot of studying!
If you still find you have questions unanswered then please feel free to ask, but please, please don't make us go through it all again, if you're prepared to read through any replies then save us all the hassle and read the previous ones to much the same questions. The answers havn't changed!
Thank You.
[edit on 2-12-2005 by AgentSmith]
Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- Excuse me, but Wind has been in and out of this discussion from the beginning and isn't just jumping in cold. In fact she may have been in this discussion before YOU were.
So I have noticed this tactic being used a lot on ATS by rude people who are more interested in winning a debate at any cost than conducting a serious discussion-- wherein they accuse their "opponents" of being ignorant and/or lazy and to go read the front of the thread. Wind has been watching and putting in remarks here and there throughout this thread, and she is trying to nail down one point that you are IMO using a sleazy tactic in order to sidestep her/him.
(I get the impression Wind has a point to make and I think you guys should be fair enough to let Wind make it -- since it's Wind against the rest of you space junkies.)
So how about letting Wind make the point and taking Wind seriously -- if you dare!
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I know the reasons they faked it, to beat the Russians to the Moon, because they were ahead of us in the space Race. So the American pysche wouldn't be damaged, & so the rest of the World woulld see us as the major Super Power.
Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas
I know the reasons they faked it, to beat the Russians to the Moon, because they were ahead of us in the space Race. So the American pysche wouldn't be damaged, & so the rest of the World woulld see us as the major Super Power.
Agent -- Excuse me, but Wind has been in and out of this discussion from the beginning and isn't just jumping in cold.