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: 58
29
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   
I disagree.

Ridiculous comments and outlandish beliefs are the pillars that support ATS as a whole. If you squash threads like these or wish to provide real evidence, you are destroying ATS as we know it.

U2U sent...please read



[edit on 10-8-2006 by masqua]




posted on Aug, 10 2006 @ 02:37 PM
link   
For years i believed we never went to the moon then i latched on to ATS and read up on the tons of info on it, now im not so sure.

Isnt there a mirror or something that they put on the surface?

But for me is the fact that there was a race to the moon by USA and russia, and when the USA landed there, the russians said nothing, as if to say "damm they got there first".

And if they didn't go there then armstrong and aldrin are living the biggest lie in history.
Which they will take to their graves.



posted on Aug, 14 2006 @ 11:52 PM
link   
The lost NASA tapes sure seem to throw more fuel on this fire.

One has to ask why NASA doesn't know where tapes of such importance are.

Would such tapes prove that man never walked on the moon?

I used to wonder how anyone could doubt that men walked on the moon. Now the issue is totally open to me.


jra

posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by davenman
The lost NASA tapes sure seem to throw more fuel on this fire.


How so?


One has to ask why NASA doesn't know where tapes of such importance are.


They're only human. Things like this happen unfortunately.


Would such tapes prove that man never walked on the moon?


There is nothing on those tapes that we haven't already seen, they are just higher quality recordings.



posted on Aug, 15 2006 @ 10:32 AM
link   
If it really was a conspiracy, and they 'lost' the tapes because they don't have them, then why would they even tell anyone they lost them?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The way I see it is that there must be something on these tapes that shouldn't be seen...like clear evidence that the whole thing happened on a stage.

NASA never came right out and told us that they'd misplaced the tapes. There have been numerous requests for the tapes and after a considerable amount of searching in the archives, they had to answer something back to those requesting the tapes...."We cannot find them". That's how this whole story came out in the first place.

NASA stepping forward to tell the public that they cannot find the tapes just a day or so ahead of the conspiracy theorists who requested the tapes is just wise Public Relations in the face of a scandal. Just today, the people who requested the tapes have probably received their notice that "The tapes are not available because they cannot be found."

A politician, any government entity, or any other person whose past is just about to jump up and bite him in the butt would be wise to step up and be the first to tell the press. It's just smart PR and that is what has happened here.

I'm not saying that the walk on the moon was a hoax. I'm just saying that I'm open to look at the information that is being presented and considering the possibility that it was staged.

There was good reason to stage such a thing if they found it impossible to actually do it in reality at that time. Then today there is still good reason to maintain that the whole thing was real. If it came out that the whole thing was staged, then the people of America would begin to question many other things that could undermine our confidence in those in power over us. Those in power cannot risk such a thing today and therefore will go to great lengths to maintain the story.

The arguement that there are too many people involved to keep it a secret does not hold water. At that time, it was truly a matter of national security to be the first on the moon. Then if the story was carefully manufactured and staged because we could not actually do it, then it would still be a matter of national security to maintain the lie. We, the U.S., had to win the space race. We had to have superiority over all others in that realm because the alternative was the possibility that the USSR would have space superiority and therefore the upper hand in the nuclear arms buildup.

Even today, if it was all manufactured in a stage somewhere, those involved could not come forward. If they did, it could undermine so many other false fronts that we, The U.S., put on. Until today, we still have the image that we are the most powerful country in the world right next to China.

If other countries or even U.S. citizens began to question that, then the economy of the U.S. could very easily collapse. Our whole economy is based on foreigners buying our debt from us. They do this because they believe that those little green pieces of paper are worth something...and they are, but only because they and we continue to believe it.

If that belief in the dollar ever fails, then they won't be worth the paper they are printed on. That belief in the dollar is based on everything that the U.S. has ever done or appeared to have done.

The risk of the world questioning the moon landings boils down to the world questioning everything else about the U.S. and therefore it's currency and therefore about 1/4 of the economy of the world.

So....should we question such things? or should we just leave them well enough alone and be happy with our lot in life?

I, for one, would like to know the truth...even if I don't like it, even if the truth puts the American way at risk. I think that a lot of other ATS people feel the same way.

On the flip side, there will always be those who cannot imagine that our own government might manufacture a lie. Those are the happiest of people. They go along through life doing as they are told and believing as they are told.

Ignorance is bliss. Why, oh why didn't I take the blue pill?



.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I think comunication is a serios issue, let's see how nassa sent live tv feed from the moon, it just does not add up.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 08:40 AM
link   


quote: One has to ask why NASA doesn't know where tapes of such importance are.


They're only human. Things like this happen unfortunately.



you mean like when they lost JFK's brain?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
A recent conclusion I drew after hearing of the "missing" tapes is that the landings probably happened. My first thought was, "was the information imminent to be released by means of the freedom of information act?" If these ideas are linked, then maybe there is something within this "higher-definition" footage that the gov't doesn't want public. (other craft, other beings...you know where I'm headed) There are threads here about the "2 minutes of silence" during the broadcast and certain HAM radio operators picking up the "lost transmission".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This would provide a solid out for any release of this information. If they're lost, who will see it?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BadMojo
A recent conclusion I drew after hearing of the "missing" tapes is that the landings probably happened. My first thought was, "was the information imminent to be released by means of the freedom of information act?" If these ideas are linked, then maybe there is something within this "higher-definition" footage that the gov't doesn't want public. (other craft, other beings...you know where I'm headed) There are threads here about the "2 minutes of silence" during the broadcast and certain HAM radio operators picking up the "lost transmission".

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This would provide a solid out for any release of this information. If they're lost, who will see it?


Yep, it was to be relesed to the public 100% and all the sudden they lost the tapes

This is all clear now, I belive now more and more in the moon hoax than ever before.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

They're only human.

Actually they aren't. NASA is run by aliens who never misplace stuff. So this is highly suspicious....



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by thesneakiod
Isnt there a mirror or something that they put on the surface?

Yes, several of them...
We also have tons of moon rocks...
We've also been to Mars several times now (if we have the tech to get to Mars, why would anyone believe we haven't been to the moon?)


I'm still trying to figure out the motive of these people claiming the moon landing was a hoax. I think these people are just arguing for arguings sake. Some people are like that, they will completely ignore all credible evidence and believe anything simply because it goes against the grain.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   



I'm still trying to figure out the motive of these people claiming the moon landing was a hoax. I think these people are just arguing for arguings sake. Some people are like that, they will completely ignore all credible evidence and believe anything simply because it goes against the grain.


Can you please explain how the tv transmision was transimted to earth?
I for one dont belive it was posible, what do you think?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Here you go soda boy:

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
This is exactly my point


Radio telescopes work by capturing information transmited by powerful radio waves which can be planets , suns and so on.

A transmiter does not do the job of a reciver, if you transmit information with a powerful dish to the moon the result is that they would get that transmision, but that is just one way, you can not use the same transmiting singnal to transmit information of your own from the moon.
The question is not how nasa transmits radio signals to the moon from earth, the question is how does nasa at that time recived signals from the moon


A radio telescope recives data from strong radio waves generated by planets, radio waves generated by huge radiation emision.
If those radio waves are not powerful enough they die out in space, and become undetectable for the radio telescope on earth.
So really , radiotelescopes do not help like you think, they do not transmit powerful signals in space , what they do is they got huge recivers , the information is aqierd by the information coming to them and not by radiotelescopes fetching the info at huge distances.

So how did one small antena from the moon transmit all of this?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Did you know it is possible for amature radio opperators to bounce signals off the moon?

Called EME or moonbounce, it was first done in the '40s and '50s.

Why do you think that the 64 meter Praks dish was not capable of recieveing the signals?

From the link above:


This report is the web version of a refereed paper in the scientific journal "Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia"
The paper was received on 1 February 2001, and accepted on 1 July 2001. Full reference should be made to it when citing any part of this report. To obtain a hard copy of the article (PASA Volume 18, Number 3) click here to get a PDF version or a PS version.




So, are those scientists "in on it?"




posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Did you know it is possible for amature radio opperators to bounce signals off the moon?

Called EME or moonbounce, it was first done in the '40s and '50s.


it has nothing to do with transmison from the moon.
One thing is transmiting signals from earth and bouncing them off the moon, and another thing is reciving a broadcast from the moon.
A transmiter does not do the job of a reciver again.



Why do you think that the 64 meter Praks dish was not capable of recieveing the signals?

Simply because the signal sent from the moon would of been to weak.
In order to transmit from the moon you would need a uplink.
The recivers are not ment to go fetch the data out there, no they wait for the data to come to them, and depending how strong radio waves are they capture them.

A satelite dish with a reciver does just that, it captures the data that bounces of the dish, it does not some how capture the signal in space, the signal is captured on impact with the dish.

this would be your theory, and it's incorect.
To think the dish some how sends a signal in to space and then that signal is intercepted by another radio wave in space and then a connection is established is incorect

I would say if that would be the case we would not need geo stationary satelites which are ment to relay the signal.

Satelite recivers, and radio telescopes do not work that way, the only way they work is by the radiowaves coming to them
To bounce a singal on the moon would not result in a moon transmision, it would result in a earth transmison to the moon and not vice versa.



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Why do you bother, pepsi, you just look like a fool.


Originally posted by pepsi78
it has nothing to do with transmison from the moon.
One thing is transmiting signals from earth and bouncing them off the moon, and another thing is reciving a broadcast from the moon.
A transmiter does not do the job of a reciver again.


Do you even have the faintest idea just how stupid that is?

Anyway, for your continued education:



The first Amateur Radio signals to echo from the moon were transmitted in 1953. Ross Bateman, W4AO, and William L. Smith, W3GKP, bounced 144-MHz signals off the moon.
EME today is an increasingly popular Amateur Radio operating mode among VHF and UHF enthusiasts. Radio amateurs regularly beam signals to the moon, with their reflections painting a large area of our planet.
The ham who engineered the first Amateur Radio EME contact in 1960 with hams on the East Coast -- Orrin "Hank" Brown, W6HB -- also died in January 1999, in California. Brown also was 92.

www.arrl.org...
Today, many amateur radio enthusiast do it.

Communicating over great distances via VHF continues to fascinate many amateurs. EME (Earth-Moon-Earth) communication, also known as "moonbounce", meteor scatter, and VHF cw DX are some of the techniques used. In the case of EME and meteor scatter, the concept is simple: use the moon or the ionized trail of a meteor as a passive reflector for VHF and UHF signals. A simple but effective station is within the reach of most amateur experimenters. With the advent of very sensitive receiving preamplifiers and commercially available high-gain Yagi antennas, many VHF operators are enjoying successful weak signal contacts. With a total path length of about 500,000 miles, EME is the ultimate DX



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78


Why do you think that the 64 meter Praks dish was not capable of recieveing the signals?

Simply because the signal sent from the moon would of been to weak.
In order to transmit from the moon you would need a uplink.


An uplink? WTF are you talking about?



Originally posted by pepsi78
The recivers are not ment to go fetch the data out there, no they wait for the data to come to them, and depending how strong radio waves are they capture them.

A satelite dish with a reciver does just that, it captures the data that bounces of the dish, it does not some how capture the signal in space, the signal is captured on impact with the dish.


So what is to prevent the signal from coming directly to the radio telescope on the earth?



Originally posted by pepsi78
this would be your theory, and it's incorect.
To think the dish some how sends a signal in to space and then that signal is intercepted by another radio wave in space and then a connection is established is incorect


What the heck are you smoking?

Where did I EVER say anything like that? (whatever “that” is
)



Originally posted by pepsi78
I would say if that would be the case we would not need geo stationary satelites which are ment to relay the signal.

Satelite recivers, and radio telescopes do not work that way, the only way they work is by the radiowaves coming to them


Like from the moon?


Originally posted by pepsi78
To bounce a singal on the moon would not result in a moon transmision, it would result in a earth transmison to the moon and not vice versa.


What part of the word “bounce” don’t you understand?



posted on Aug, 16 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   



Do you even have the faintest idea just how stupid that is?
Anyway, for your continued education:
The first Amateur Radio signals to echo from the moon were transmitted in 1953. Ross Bateman, W4AO, and William L. Smith, W3GKP, bounced 144-MHz signals off the moon.
EME today is an increasingly popular Amateur Radio operating mode among VHF and UHF enthusiasts. Radio amateurs regularly beam signals to the moon, with their reflections painting a large area of our planet.
The ham who engineered the first Amateur Radio EME contact in 1960 with hams on the East Coast -- Orrin "Hank" Brown, W6HB -- also died in January 1999, in California. Brown also was 92.


1
The signal was bounced of for relay of the transmison being made from earth, it would relay the transmition back, but the transmition would not act as a connection to the nasa transmision.
You dont get back nasa's live tv transmision from the moon for bouncing off the signal.

2
The mission comunication wasent even thru what you mention, officaly it was thru "LOS " which is a direct link with a dish aimed at the moon , which does not make sence.

This is what you are impling.
That some how they bouced of a signal on to the moon that can relay and connect with the signal they were transmiting from the moon so a connection betwen radio waves can be aquerd, and a live tv feed can take place.

What you dong get is that is simply for relaying signal, what you give is what you get, which means the signal transmited is what is being relayed and not some other signal hooking up with the signal that is bouncing off the moon.
In your view the signal you transmit some how when it bounces off it changes in to something else and when it's bounced off to earth you get a tv live feed



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join