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: 62
29
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:33 AM
link   
Sure a probe could have put the mirrors down, but getting the rocks and getting them back would have been more problematical. And again, the radio triangulation issue of the capsules around the moon.




posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schmidt1989
I have never believed in the moon landings, not a tiny tiny bit until about a week or so ago i saw a program on television debunking the moon conspiracy but at the same time, reinforcing it as well. the stuff they showed reinforcing it was just too true for me to see so now i am a beleiver that we did goto the moon, and sorry i cant post anything from the show itself, i have no clue what the program it was called or even what channel it was on.
"Is it real?"on National Geographic channel.Very good program and it's totally unbiased.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
You KNOW there are mirrors on the moon exactly how?

Frankly, religious zealots are more analytical... Not to mention logical.

log on to the Mcdonald observatorys web site. They have the info you are looking for.
type in "lunar laser" in the search bar at the bottom of the page.
(or retro-reflector then search)
[edit on 10-9-2006 by crowpruitt]

[edit on 10-9-2006 by crowpruitt]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
You KNOW there are mirrors on the moon exactly how?

Frankly, religious zealots are more analytical... Not to mention logical.



a more interesting question , is :

" why do you believe there is NOT a mirror on the moon ? "



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by golemina
You KNOW there are mirrors on the moon exactly how?


[sarcasm] good question[/sarcasm]

what consutitues a standard of evidence in your opinion ?

how do YOU know anything which you have not had direct first hand experience of is actually real ?


jra

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
Either you are paid some change, or you are one of those they call "useful idiots" (no offense)


And you are one of those people who lead a life completely unburdened by reality...


for the lasers theory, we need more proof, links, documentaries...tone of proof (your school). And, if you provide that (not gonna happen), I will tell you that mirrors could have been left on the moon by an unmanned vehicle.


So you believe that an unmanned probe can make it to the Moon? But humans can not? Why? Are you aware that electronics are more easily affected by radiation than humans? Since we have cells that can heal and repair themselves and electronics do not. But electronics can be shielded, so again, why can a probe make it to the moon but a human can't? What's the difference between an unmanned probe and a Lunar Module, beside the fact that one has room for Astronauts. A simpleton like myself would love to hear your highly educated explination.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
Show me.

Maybe I'm from Missouri.



And for you guys who that would be just a little too esoterical, go thru the nature of the access/mechanics of how this 'mirror' is actually used.

Sites containing cartoon drawings (read marketing glossy artists renderings) of the supposed installation sites... that also includes those 'Moon' 'photos' that look like they were taken on a The Little Prince sized asteroid...



should of course not be used.

[edit on 10-9-2006 by golemina]



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:33 AM
link   
sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov...
physics.ucsd.edu...
www.anthonares.net...

There are three pics of them. If you won't believe until you get up there and see them for yourself, I can't help you. But it must be a dissapointing world to live in where you can't believe anything you can't see and touch.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:03 PM
link   
golemina, for me it is fascinating that so many people believe that this poorly constructed story is true. The shots from the Moon are a joke, the whole footage is so bad an unconvincing...cheap.

Still, it is deep in the memory of people, and it is so hard to explain it...

It can only be compared to the illusions people had in socialism. They thought the world was ending when there was no more communism. They believed in the myth so strongly that thousands were severely depressed after the whole project was finished. A lot of them commited suicide...

Same is with the Moon. It is not just the Moon we are talking about. It is the whole concept of "reality". That is why there are so many die hards...



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
In Truth I think that some people will never be convinced about the moon landings unless they go and see the landing site for themselves.

1.Look at it logically ,Is it really that hard to go to the moon?
The answer to this is No,Once your clear of the Earth your well on your way.

2.Landing on and then leaving the moon.
Alittle more difficult but far from impossible.

3.And finally "The old favourite" The Van Allen belt
Well I must admit this had me for a while until I looked into it.
It is not the unpenetrable radioactive band some people claim.
Radioactive yes
Unpenetrable No

Swimmer, Golema maybe you should check this:


Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. Van Allen himself, now deceased (August 9, 2006), dismissed these ideas. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [6]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.


Source Wiki

Hope that helps.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:17 PM
link   
kuhl, all this has been talked about before. Nobody has been on the Moon. I do not even want to discuss that any more. I would rather talk to people who understand the facts - once you can see above the fence, the world is different. I have more to share with people who are not scared to do that.

It is not just the Moon. It is the truth in general.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
I would rather talk to people who understand the facts


I do understand the facts.It is you in my opinion who does not.


Originally posted by swimmer
- once you can see above the fence, the world is different.


Are you calling me short?That's heightist


Originally posted by swimmer

It is not just the Moon. It is the truth in general.

Ah now I see your not interested in this thread just your own personal Agenda.

Would I be right in this observation?



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
kuhl, both of us have seen the same facts (thousands of them) and made opposite conclusions. Therefore, the duscussion is over.

I was hoping to hear (read) more from some other people, not people like you. No offense, but what you are saying is boring to me.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
kuhl,
not people like you. No offense, but what you are saying is boring to me.



Not people like me????? (Isn't that a little offensive?)

Then who do you want to hear from surrender monkeys who believe your every word?

If I'm boring you I apologise.

Maybe you should watch an action film and stay away from informed debate.

[edit on 10/9/2006 by kuhl]


jra

posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
kuhl, all this has been talked about before. Nobody has been on the Moon.


Talk is cheap, show us some of your evidence that says they did not go. I'd really like to know what makes you believe we didn't go.


I do not even want to discuss that any more.


You come to this thread about the Moon landings, but now you don't want to discuss it. Why?


I would rather talk to people who understand the facts - once you can see above the fence, the world is different. I have more to share with people who are not scared to do that.


So we're to stupid for you? I have seriously looked at the evidence that claims we didn't go. I've watched documentaries by Bart Sibrel and read the ramblings and photo analyses of Jack White. The only conclusion I can come to is that they are suckering ignorant fools out of there money.


I was hoping to hear (read) more from some other people, not people like you. No offense, but what you are saying is boring to me.


So you'd rather be at a forum where everyone agrees with you? Some place where you can feel more safe and secure about your beliefs and where you don't have to worry about questioning them?

I also noticed you ignored my questions about what the difference is between an unmanned probe designed to land on the moon and a Lunar Module. How can you consider the possibility of an unmanned probe going to the moon, if you don't believe people can? I consider it to be somewhat of a contradiction to believe that one thing can make it, but the other can not. I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind this.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I think the Van Allen belts have been discussed many times already. The belts hold neutrons, and protons which are easily stopped by thin sheets of aluminum.

Radiation that is really dangerous such as high energy cosmic rays are of serious danger to astronauts on interplanetary voyages during low sunspot activity when these high energy cosmic rays can leak into the solar system from beyond. These will be a problem on trips to Mars and on the Moon during the Solar minimum.

Coronal mass ejection(during the Solar Maximum) and the high energy X-rays and Gamma rays they produce could possibly fry our asronauts on the Moon and on the way to Mars.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
I just do not want to talk to you, jra and kuhl. Which part don't you understand? This is an open forum, I do not have to talk to you, do I?

It is not your problem who I want to talk to. And I will not answer to any of your posts any more. Over.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   
The debate here has just gone offtopic and become personal. I suggest getting back to the subject at hand, which, after so many pages, still has not silenced those who would question the official story. Lovely.

To swimmer, though,I would point out the ignore button, after the use of which certain irritants would simply 'disappear'.

Imagine the freedom!?! One could speak into an echoing chamber devoid of anything but the sound of one's own voice. Marvellous...

Now, back on topic, please.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:32 PM
link   
masqua, thanks for the tip about "ignore". Maybe this thread will eventually be very short for me


Thanks again, I will use "ignore" with pleasure.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 08:48 PM
link   
How on Earth can a moon continuely not rotate at all if it is not being guided by an artificial source? The moon's dark side doesn't ever turn to give a chance for the people on Earth to see what is over there.
Even if you don't think there are alien bases up there, you've got to admit that this gravity situation is too hard to believe.
Astronomy data indicates that the internal regions of the Moon are less dense than the outer, giving rise to the inevitable but outrageous speculation that it could be hollow. The eminent scientist Carl Sagan, a typical sceptic, made the statement, 'A natural satellite cannot be a hollow object'. But meaning here that if it is hollow, it is not a natural satellite---and therefore artificial.
Possibly the strongest evidence for it to be a 'hollow object' comes from the fact that when meteors strike the Moon, the latter rings like a bell. More specifically when the Apollo crew in November 20, 1969 released the lunar module, after returning to the orbiter, the module impact with the Moon caused their seismic equipment to register a continuous reverberation like a bell for more than an hour. The same effect occurred with Apollo 13's third stage which caused the Moon to ring for over three hours.
Almost every Moon mission involved encounters with UFOs or UFO sightings, not to mention the discovery of many bases on the Moon's surface. Renowned astronomer Patrick Moore discovered over one hundred dome-like buildings. In fact, about one thousand such bases, dome-like structures of diameter around 700 feet, have been witnessed. Astronomy records extending back 200 years indicate no such artifacts until about the 1950s (remember the book Alternative III?).
It has been found that asteroids and meteors not only create shallow craters on the Moon's surface but produce a convex floor to the crater instead of concave as expected, supporting the idea of a rigid shell. Countless other pieces of evidence from astronomers and NASA scientists began to reveal that some 2-3 miles down there appear to be dense layers of metal---which would explain why the craters were convex. But the most astonishing conclusion is that the only theory which can completely explain all the anomalies is that the Moon is hollow with a shell about 20 miles thick---mostly metal. Note that mascons (higher concentrations of mass) found in the marias cause fluctuations in gravity and have never been satisfactorily explained.
Moreover, these structural anomalies were supported by two publications, one Time Magazine, which unwittingly revealed the gravity value of the Moon relative to Earth by publishing the distance from Earth to Moon of the null point between them, indicating a gravitational force some 60 -70 % of Earth. Furthermore, some people noticed the feeble plumage of the rocket exhaust as the module rose from the Moon's surface---explained away by NASA as due to the vacuum. But what about some of the telltale and suspicious features observed during the first Armstrong and Aldrin Moon landing. The American flag was seen briefly to wave in ... a breeze? But we are told there is no air on the Moon. The flag was then starched. Also we saw dust kicked up by the astronauts clearly drifting in . . . what? Dust particles do not drift in vacuum---they cling together. And what about the feeble leaps of the astronauts off the Moon's surface---were their spacesuits and backpacks really so heavy? The Moon is supposed to be about one-sixth the gravity of Earth.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 59  60  61    63  64  65 >>

log in

join