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: 80
29
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2007 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

1 - It doesn't get as hot on the sides, just the bottom takes the most heat. That's why the capsule has that cone shape, so that the sides stay cooler.

2 - Don't you think other engineers scientists and other professionals would raise questions about this stuff if there was an issue with the design? Or if something didn't add up?
...


1 - YES, THE SIDES STAYED COOLER, AT 2,795°C

SINCE ALUMINUM ALLOYS ARE GREAT CONDUCTORS.

2 - NO, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE TRONCATED CONE SHAPE, THERE
IS ONLY A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF THAT MOUSE-TRAP: ALUMINUM AND GLASS.

ALUMINUM ALLOYS MELT AT 520°C-660°C, GLASS MELT AT 1,200°C-1,600°C.

ALUMINUM ALLOYS BOIL AT 1,519°C


THINK LIKE YOU PREFER: HOW DID THOSE 3 POOR MEN DIE? BURNED, BOILED, BAKED, GRILLED, ROASTED?








posted on May, 4 2007 @ 03:10 PM
link   
well how come the windows on the soyuz return capsule dont melt? are you saying nobody has ever been into space & returned safely?

let me guess the ISS is actually a hologram produced by project blue beam!?

[edit on 4-5-2007 by yeti101]



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101

well how come the windows on the soyuz return capsule dont melt? are you saying nobody has ever been into space & returned safely?
...



HAVEN'T YOU YET UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SPACE RACE IS A SPACE JOKE?

URSS






USA






CHINA






[edit on 5-5-2007 by bigbrain]

[edit on 5-5-2007 by sanctum]



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   
and when in 1971 - 3 cosmonauts died during re-entry was that "a joke" too?

what about the 3 astronauts who died on the launchpad in 1967 another "joke"?

Im sure their families would like to hear you tell them it didnt really happen its all a big joke. in future you should be more carefull what you call a joke. It might offend people.



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
and when in 1971 - 3 cosmonauts died during re-entry was that "a joke" too?

what about the 3 astronauts who died on the launchpad in 1967 another "joke"?

Im sure their families would like to hear you tell them it didnt really happen its all a big joke. in future you should be more carefull what you call a joke. It might offend people.



SOME DEAD MEN CAN MAKE THEIR JOKE MORE CREDIBLE.

INSTEAD THESE 3 POOR MEN WERE NOT ABLE TO MAKE THEIR JOKE MORE CREDIBLE:

"Apollo 11 mission!...MOON HOAX NASA APOLLO11 ARMSTRONG ALDRIN COLLIN'S MISERY DEPRESSED"

www.youtube.com...

THEY SEEM 3 BEATEN DOGS SINCE THEY ARE ASHAMED OF BEING LIARS.

THINK TO ENTHUSIASM, TO EXCITEMENT THEY WOULD SHOW IF THEY HAD GONE TO THE MOON.

REASON WITH YOUR HEAD, DON'T LET LITTLE GULLIBLE MEN INFLUENCE YOU





Mod Edit: The use of All-Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 5-5-2007 by sanctum]



posted on May, 5 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
video says it all...poor guys had to be actors whole life. "Although we were far from home, we were a lot closer than the pure disctance might indicate" - really.

But, there are thousands of liars all over the world - politicians, scientists, writers, businessmen - without whose participation it would not be possible to fool the world.

We are being lied to on a daily basis, about much more serious things than "Moon Landing".

There is no business like show business!



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   
Swimmer and bigbrain were made for each other,

. It's scary to think that there are such people in this day and age.


(mod edit- please refrain from insults,)



[edit on 6-5-2007 by asala]



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Mister shadow, it is a rare occasion to be called savage and a lunatic at the same time. Savages are sane, and lunatics are usually civilized, yet believe in strange things.

So, since I do not believe in "lunar landing", I should not be called a lunatic. "Lunatics" are those that landed on the Luna (Moon), or believe in such a fake story... hehe

Savage I have been called before. I will take it as a compliment.

I wish you many more happy postings



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   
closed minded people will never accept we landed on the moon.

i wonder what stories they will come up with with china or the usa go back and get good pictures of the landing sites. I guess their conspiracy will have to stretch to hundreds of thousands of people


too much x-files & capricorn one i think....

[edit on 6-5-2007 by yeti101]



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
With all that modern technology...Chinese and Americans...plan to go to the Moon...in a decade or so. Yet, in the good old sixties, it was a piece of cake. Everybody and their little sister walked on the Moon.

But, the facts say that even now nobody has the technology to go to the Moon. Not with humans on board anyway.

We just don't have that technology. It is a simple fact if you want to be honest to yourself. Chinese can't get there, Americans can't. Not even Russians. Even if all of these guys joined. Nope. Even if all the money in the world that is used for wars and other intelligent activities was used for organizing Moon Landing - we do not have the technology!
We could land there with a group of dead astronauts in the capsule, I guess. That would not be so nice for public TV...



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   
wow swimmer you really dont have a clue.

of course NASA has the technology to goto the moon, but its not just about a quick vist this time. The next moon mission is far more complex than the last one and it needs alot of funding.

china has never done it before and will need to develop its own expertise in many areas before it can do the mission. You cant just outsource whole nasa departments to do your mission for you. Their work begins later this year when theyre sending a probe to beam back info for their moon mission.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
No human has ever been past the Van allen belts in a man made craft imo.

The moon thing is a big hoax, funny that now that CGI are so advanced there is more so called evidence appearing. I could edit some pictutes to prove many things its not difficult. Look at how many fake UFO things are on Utube made by amatuers, imagine what Nasa could do with thier Computing "farm".


jra

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
With all that modern technology...Chinese and Americans...plan to go to the Moon...in a decade or so. Yet, in the good old sixties, it was a piece of cake.


Who said it was a piece of cake? It wasn't, but you'd know that if you had actually read anything about the missions. They were everything but easy.


Everybody and their little sister walked on the Moon.


... huh?


But, the facts say that even now nobody has the technology to go to the Moon. Not with humans on board anyway.


No, the facts do not say that. We do have the technology to go to the Moon. What NASA and a lot of other Countries lack, is the money to go. It takes lots of money to design and build and launch large payloads like Apollo to the Moon. Again, you would have known this if you actually spent some time reading about the Space program. NASA current budget doesn't even come close to what it had back in the 60's. Right now NASA gets $16 billion and that money gets used for every single project, so it gets spread really thin. Where as Apollo had $135 billion (2006 dollars) spent on it in total.

Again, it's not that we lack the technology. Seeing as how we've sent probes to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and some that are nearing the edge of our solar system. And yet you think we lack the technology? Whatever you say
Do you believe that every satellite, probe and rover that all the various space agencies from all over the world are all fake too? If you don't, why do you think we lack the technology? What makes manned space exploration so different from unmanned? (besides the need to bring oxygen and supplies). Please explain what technology you think we need to make it work.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
jra, you and people like you are here only to make me, bigbrain and the likes tired of discussing same things over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...until we give up.

I hope you are not paid to do this, but if you were, you would be doing exactly the same thing you are actually doing with your writing.

I write for a few people who can understand what I am talking about (or better, who dare to see the simple truth). Who do you write for, jra, and why?

Best wishes to all.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
...

of course NASA has the technology to go to the moon

...



NASA BSJ sent men on the moon 6 times

apollo 11 - 7/21/1969
...
apollo 17 - 12/15/1972

Every 6 months for 3 years, like if landing on the Moon and coming back were simple like to go on a cruise.

Hey, they can do incredible things like those who razed to the ground the building WTC 7 in 6 seconds without hiting it or hit Pentagon with an invisibile Boeing.

NASA BSJ are real magicians and men of Pentagon too.

What a pity they have not scientists able to discover a new energy and then decided to invent Bin Laden terrorism as a pretext to seize Iraq oil.



jra

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
jra, you and people like you are here only to make me, bigbrain and the likes tired of discussing same things over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...until we give up.


No, I'm just trying to understand what issues you have with this stuff. You have never explained any of your reasons. You just say it didn't happen, that we didn't have the technology, etc. And I ask you to explain what technology we lack and then you accuse me of trying to make you tired of discussing the subject? Give me a break. If you're getting tired of it, that's not my problem, but you keep coming here and discussing it and stating false information. Myself and others are obviously going to question you about it. Perhaps you shouldn't make such false claims if you can't back them up?


I hope you are not paid to do this, but if you were, you would be doing exactly the same thing you are actually doing with your writing.


Ah, it's the old "imply that I'm some sort of paid dis-info agent to make you look like the good guy" tactic. Nice try, but how about we try to discuss the subject instead of doing childish things like that?


I write for a few people who can understand what I am talking about (or better, who dare to see the simple truth). Who do you write for, jra, and why?


I write for myself and for others who may wish to learn more about the Apollo missions.



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   

I write for myself and for others who may wish to learn more about the Apollo missions.


I wish I could believe you, jra. I wish. Your writing is so well timed, you are tireless in repeating same stuff over and over again, defending the official story. You do NOT SHOW EMOTION. You are a professional, an average one. Not very expensive.

And...you are right. I "keep on coming here"...sounds like you would like me to stop coming here. I do not have funds to waste time here, nor do I think that I can win here - where everything is so carefully controlled.

But, jra, YOU AND I KNOW, and that is enough for me. Others will have doubts who to trust, but we know.

You see, it is fun to talk to you after all. You never expected that, right?




[edit on 6-5-2007 by swimmer]


jra

posted on May, 6 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
I wish I could believe you, jra. I wish. Your writing is so well timed, you are tireless in repeating same stuff over and over again, defending the official story.


I only repeat stuff over and over, because people keep bringing up the same issues over and over. Bigbrain being a good example of that.


You do NOT SHOW EMOTION. You are a professional, an average one. Not very expensive.


This is an internet forum. That makes it kinda hard to show emotion. And I'm not some "professional" (by that I assume you mean a dis-info agent). I'm just an artist with a big interest in aircraft and spacecraft, nothing more.


And...you are right. I "keep on coming here"...sounds like you would like me to stop coming here.


No, I'd like you to try and defend the points you bring up instead of calling me a dis-info agent, when it seems you can't answer my questions.

So to get back on topic, what technology do we lack for manned exploration to the Moon?



posted on May, 6 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   
jra, I have nothing to tell you. Read the topic. If you have questions, read it again.

Nice try.



posted on May, 7 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
...

I only repeat stuff over and over, because people keep bringing up the same issues over and over. Bigbrain being a good example of that.
...



I hate imbeciles. Imbeciles don't understand simple things I have raised.

You have said:

"1 - It doesn't get as hot on the sides, just the bottom takes the most heat. That's why the capsule has that cone shape, so that the sides stay cooler.

2 - Don't you think other engineers scientists and other professionals would raise questions about this stuff if there was an issue with the design? Or if something didn't add up?
...

I wrote:

"1 - YES, THE SIDES STAYED COOLER, AT 2,795°C

SINCE ALUMINUM ALLOYS ARE GREAT CONDUCTORS.

2 - NO, THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE TRONCATED CONE SHAPE, THERE
IS ONLY A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OF THAT MOUSE-TRAP: ALUMINUM AND GLASS.

ALUMINUM ALLOYS MELT AT 520°C-660°C, GLASS MELT AT 1,200°C-1,600°C.

ALUMINUM ALLOYS BOIL AT 1,519°C


THINK LIKE YOU PREFER: HOW DID THOSE 3 POOR MEN DIE? BURNED, BOILED, BAKED, GRILLED, ROASTED?"

Try to confute my reasonings instead of saying this crap:

"Don't you think other engineers scientists and other professionals would raise questions about this stuff if there was an issue with the design? Or if something didn't add up? Clearly it is you who has a huge misunderstanding about all this".

Confute my reasonings instead of saying:

"Clearly it is you who has a huge misunderstanding about all this".

And try to say something intelligent.




[edit on 7-5-2007 by bigbrain]




top topics



 
29
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join