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: 81
29
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 8 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   
The space shuttle also has an aluminium skin. How come it doesnt melt during re-entry?




posted on May, 8 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
The space shuttle also has an aluminium skin. How come it doesnt melt during re-entry?


Because on space shuttle NASA BSJ use:

en.wikipedia.org...

RCC system

FRCI system

HRSI system

AFRSI system

LRSI system

TUFI system

FRSI system

and, the most important

CRAP (Covered Rapidly with Afmesonyl* Painting) system

(*) SSS Super Secret System





Confute my reasonings, don't change issue

And... try to say something intelligent







[edit on 8-5-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
so how come the soyuz capsule doesnt melt? Are you saying nobody has been into space except those on the shuttle?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   
One way to find out is to check how russian capsules are built, from what materials are they made, rusian capsules have made it in to space more recently on the mir space station before the station was crashed in to the ocean.
Now I beilive that the moon landing is a hoax but also I want to reason and find out if those apolo capsules had what it took to get in to space and back, I'm curios about the russian capsules and how they are designed.

To get some things clear first.
I know the russian capsules can make it in to space and back, otherwise mir would of not existed, and second of all, we all saw how mir crashed in to the ocean so it's not some animated invention, so this indicates that capsules cand make it in to space and back.
But I wonder if they are built from the same material, or similar to the apollo capsules.




[edit on 8-5-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Wow, here's an interesting quote from 'physics expert'.

He says the Astronauts did see stars in space.

www.physlink.com...

Apparently, they just don't see them on the moon. Or specifically:


Armstrong: I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.


They might have, they just can't freakin' remember. LOL.

Here's a quote from Yuri Gagarin:

I could clearly discern the outlines of continents, islands and rivers. The horizon presents a sight of unusual beauty. A delicate blue halo surrounds the Earth, merging with the blackness of space in which the stars are bright and clear cut.


So the in low Earth orbit and the entire way to the Moon the Astronauts could see stars. But the moment they landed on the Moon the stars are gone. Right.

One thing that people don't think about. Common sense says they should have been able to see the stars with their eyes (which are many times more sensitive than a limited camera setting). I think one of them would have made a comment. "Dayum, the sky is black as pitch. I can't see any stars".

They never said that.

In fact during the post flight Press conference, Collins looks at Aldrin and Armstrong for guidance and asks them if they could see the stars. He says he can't remember if he saw stars (from orbit).

What the heck? He has to ask if them if they saw stars? He wasn't even on the Moon. Did he forget that? Is he saying he didn't see stars from orbit? Yet 10 years later in his book he recounts seeing stars.

Even the U2 pilots say that when he climbs to high altitudes the sky becomes dark, the stars become brighter, and more stars become visible:


"The air is so much clearer up there; you can see what seems to be 10 times more stars. They just carpet the sky."


Here's a picture from the SOHO telescope. It shows what the area would look like if you blocked out the sun and looked at the corona. (Michael Collins, take note of those white dots)



I'd think at the very minimum they'd have tried to take some shots of the brightest stars, or, oh, how about the brightest object in the sky, the planet Venus?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   
OK, finally found the clip. Interestingly NASA mis-credits Collins' comments to Aldrin:

www.youtube.com...


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 don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.
ALDRIN I don't remember seeing any.


www.hq.nasa.gov...

Aldrin did NOT say this. Collins said it. He was in the orbiter.

In addition in his journal about the solar corona Armstrong says he DID see stars:

during the solar corona experiments. He said he saw thousands of them in the journal.

"It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the nightside of Earth"


Get your stories straight, fellas.


Yeah, just makes me full of confidence that NASA can't even get the transcript attributions right in one of the most important press conferences of the 20th century.

EDIT: OK, I'm a bit confused here. I think they were talking about the Solar Corona that was done before they got to the moon. Thus Collins was not as out to lunch as I thought. It still remains that NASA mis-attributed the comments. AND, I think it's clear from the SOHO photo that you DO see stars and Armstrong's journal clearly mentions this. Selective amnesia during the press conference?

[edit on 8-5-2007 by Badge01]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Let the stars in the sky.

We are reasoning about Command Module that, at 2,800°C due to friction with air, would have melted and boiled too.

No stars, wrong shadows are old issues.

Let's talk about aluminum alloys that at 520°C - 660°C melt and at 1,500°C boil.

Jra has to give us explanations. I'm waiting for his answer.



To Pepsi78:

Russians are liars too. For this reason they didn't say a word about USA Moon landing.

Space race is Fake race.

NASA BSJ woul have hit a comet but men of Pentagon didn't hit Saddam palace with their intelligent bombs.

Pentagon cameras didn't film Boeing that would have hit it.

Hit comet, intelligent bombs, only shameful lies.





posted on May, 8 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The Apollo program is well documented. The hardware, the training, the budgets, the schematics, the science, the photos, the films, the moon rocks, the fact that half a million experts who worked on the program will testify to its validity, every scientist in the world believes it happened, we still use the retroreflectors left on the Moon, and the 1994 photograph taken of the Apollo 15 landing site by the Clementine lunar orbiter...



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
The Apollo program is well documented. The hardware, the training, the budgets, the schematics, the science, the photos, the films, the moon rocks, the fact that half a million experts who worked on the program will testify to its validity, every scientist in the world believes it happened, we still use the retroreflectors left on the Moon, and the 1994 photograph taken of the Apollo 15 landing site by the Clementine lunar orbiter...


OK, kindly direct me to the site with the Telemetry. Oh, you can't, it's missing.

How about the specs on the Saturn V rocket. Oh, you can't it's been discarded or is missing.

How about the proposal on the Rover? You know the document with barely any information, about 100 pages when similar proposals were typically 10-100 times larger than that.

How about having the curator at the space museum lower the capsule and let us measure it. Oh, they won't, they denied that request (after oking it).

I'd like to see the mission params on just how they did the tracking and the docking of the LEM with the Orbiter. I'd like to see the percentage of success predicted for that. Remember we have it on film, Aldrin saying it was 30% chance of success.

I think you could easily 'create' a rock on Earth that was indistinguishable from a 'moon rock'.

Clementine photo? Got a link?

Why didn't they measure the radiation on the moon when they were there the first time and why does the current mission planned in 2018 have as a goal that they want to know the radiation levels on the Moon? I thought they already went to the Moon. You telling me they're playing golf and they've never measured the radiation??

I hope you'll try to give specifics and links in the future OK? You're just parroting the standard line here. No independent verifications, no links proving your statements. Why not include that?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
...

and the 1994 photograph taken of the Apollo 15 landing site by the Clementine lunar orbiter...




This is the image of the Apollo 15 landing site:



Are you imbecile or you simulate to be stupid?


This image doesn't give any evidence.

Confute my statements, yeti101:

Can a plastic covering defend a troncated cone made by aluminum from a temperature of 2,800°C?

Can a rocket land going backwards?

Is it normal that 3 poor men went to the Moon with a rocket that would have to land going backwards without testing it on the earth?

Answer my questions and try to say something intelligent.







[edit on 8-5-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   
what are you going to say when a future orbiter gets clear pictures of the landing site?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Confute my statements, yeti101:

Can a plastic covering defend a troncated cone made by aluminum from a temperature of 2,800°C?

Can a rocket land going backwards?

Is it normal that 3 poor men went to the Moon with a rocket that would have to land going backwards without testing it on the earth?

Answer my questions and try to say something intelligent.








posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:41 PM
link   
hypothetically speaking lets just say the chinese lunar rover drives into one of the apollo landing sites and shows footprints on the lunar surface.

would you change your mind and believe they did go to the moon?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
You are a greatest imbecile and can't confute my reasonings, my statements are unconfutable.



[edit on 8-5-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 04:51 PM
link   
im sorry im not an expert in those areas. Maybe you should email nasa and ask them if it really bothers you. It doesnt bother me at all, I trust they knew what they were doing with re-entry etc


anyway back to that chinese rover. Would images of the footprints change your mind?



[edit on 8-5-2007 by yeti101]



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   


To Pepsi78:

Russians are liars too. For this reason they didn't say a word about USA Moon landing.

Space race is Fake race.

NASA BSJ woul have hit a comet but men of Pentagon didn't hit Saddam palace with their intelligent bombs.

Pentagon cameras didn't film Boeing that would have hit it.

Hit comet, intelligent bombs, only shameful lies.



Now wait just one minute there, I can understand reasonable arguments but there was a space station built by rusians with capsules that docked.
The space station was real, I saw it on live tv crash in to the ocean, now that rusian space station was built by the rusians that went in to space and returned in capsules on earth, what is questionable is if the capsules are similar in design, to the apollo capsules ,cause if they are similar you got no case at all, because russia uses to this day capsules, I'm intrestied in how were the saiuz capsules designed at the time of the mir space station construction, what where they made out of.


jra

posted on May, 8 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Wow, here's an interesting quote from 'physics expert'. He says the Astronauts did see stars in space. Apparently, they just don't see them on the moon. Or specifically:


Armstrong: I don't recall during the period of time that we were photographing the solar corona what stars we could see.


They might have, they just can't freakin' remember. LOL.


Yes the astronauts did see stars during ideal conditions. When they aren't looking towards the Sun or objects reflecting Sunlight. When they were on the Moon it was day time, the Lunar surface reflected lots of light. I do believe some astronauts could make out a few when in the LM shadow, but it depends on how much reflected light you can block out from your eyes.


Here's a quote from Yuri Gagarin:

I could clearly discern the outlines of continents, islands and rivers. The horizon presents a sight of unusual beauty. A delicate blue halo surrounds the Earth, merging with the blackness of space in which the stars are bright and clear cut.


So the in low Earth orbit and the entire way to the Moon the Astronauts could see stars. But the moment they landed on the Moon the stars are gone. Right.


Because you have a lot more light reflecting off the surface all around you. Try going outside on a clear starry night and stand under a street lamp and see how many stars you can see compared to when you block out the light or stand away from it.


One thing that people don't think about. Common sense says they should have been able to see the stars with their eyes (which are many times more sensitive than a limited camera setting). I think one of them would have made a comment. "Dayum, the sky is black as pitch. I can't see any stars".

They never said that.


They did see stars from time to time. Again, it depends on the conditions.


In fact during the post flight Press conference, Collins looks at Aldrin and Armstrong for guidance and asks them if they could see the stars. He says he can't remember if he saw stars (from orbit).


This was in reference to photographing the Solar corona. He probably saw stars at other times, but perhaps not while photographing the solar corona.


What the heck? He has to ask if them if they saw stars? He wasn't even on the Moon. Did he forget that? Is he saying he didn't see stars from orbit? Yet 10 years later in his book he recounts seeing stars.


Again, he doesn't remember seeing them while photographing the solar corona specifically, it doesn't mean he didn't see them at other times.


Here's a picture from the SOHO telescope. It shows what the area would look like if you blocked out the sun and looked at the corona. (Michael Collins, take note of those white dots)


How sensitive is SOHO's CCD and what was the exposure time? How does it compare to film and the human eye? You really cannot compare what SOHO sees to what the naked eye sees. Both are very different.

Also, here are some photos of the solar corona taken during Apollo 15.
www.apolloexplorer.co.uk...
www.lpi.usra.edu...

You can see stars in some of them. I'm not sure how long the exposure was, but they were also using film that had an ASA rating of 4000, which is very sensitive to light.


I'd think at the very minimum they'd have tried to take some shots of the brightest stars, or, oh, how about the brightest object in the sky, the planet Venus?


I guess you missed my post on page 78?


Originally posted by Badge01
OK, kindly direct me to the site with the Telemetry. Oh, you can't, it's missing.


It is? Since when? Perhaps you're thinking of the original slow scan tapes, which are missing, but the data on those tapes are still available on other formats. Plus all the data from 12 - 17 is available as well. Only some of the Apollo 11 tapes are missing.


How about the specs on the Saturn V rocket. Oh, you can't it's been discarded or is missing.


I'm pretty sure I told you that the blueprints are on microfilm.


How about having the curator at the space museum lower the capsule and let us measure it. Oh, they won't, they denied that request (after oking it).


What's this all about? Why the need to measure it?


I'd like to see the mission params on just how they did the tracking and the docking of the LEM with the Orbiter. I'd like to see the percentage of success predicted for that. Remember we have it on film, Aldrin saying it was 30% chance of success.


When and where does Aldrin say this? I'm not saying he didn't, I'd just like to see it myself. Also the rendezvous between the LM and the CSM isn't really that complicated. They know the orbital path and speed of the CSM, they know when it will pass over the landing site, they know how long the LM should take to reach the same orbit, because they know how much it weighs and how powerful the thrust from the rocket is etc. So it's not too difficult to figure out when they should launch. They had lots of practice doing this during Gemini.


I think you could easily 'create' a rock on Earth that was indistinguishable from a 'moon rock'.


Really? How do you extract all the water from within it? How do you make it appear to have been formed in 1/6th gravity? How do you pit it with micrometer impacts over its surface? How to make it appear to have been exposed to long periods of radiation from the Sun and also cosmic radiation and all that? Plus many other things. I'd really like you to explain this one to me please.


Clementine photo? Got a link?


Here you go, you might not find it convincing though. www.tass-survey.org...
www.space.com...

But MRO will be launching next year and it should have some pretty good resolution. ~1m per pixel I believe.


Why didn't they measure the radiation on the moon when they were there the first time and why does the current mission planned in 2018 have as a goal that they want to know the radiation levels on the Moon? I thought they already went to the Moon. You telling me they're playing golf and they've never measured the radiation??


Of course they measured the radiation, what do you think some of those probes did pre-Apollo? Some of them measured radiation, they also measured it during the missions. But the radiation isn't constant. Just like the weather here, it changes from time to time. Would you look at the forecast just for one day or one week and assume it will be the same from the rest of the year? Of course not. What they want to do now is find out the long term radiation conditions because they plan to stay for much longer periods of time than Apollo did.


I hope you'll try to give specifics and links in the future OK? You're just parroting the standard line here. No independent verifications, no links proving your statements. Why not include that?


Same to you, ok?



posted on May, 8 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The real hoax is radio transmision after leaving the moon as I said before.
And the problem is transmision from apollo to earth, not transmiting from earth to apolo.
How did apollo manage to transmit to earth after leaving the moon from so far away with a simple radio antena leaves me blank.



[edit on 8-5-2007 by pepsi78]



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
...
The space station was real, I saw it on live tv crash in to the ocean
...


I also saw on live tv LEM's Moon Landing but it was completely fake.

Could LEM land going backwards?

Look at this interesting video:

www.armadilloaerospace.com...

Look at the two men that move the rocket on a trolley: this rocket is very light. I think those 4 balloons are full of helium.

Then people are still testing various old crocks able to land going backwards.

The attempts to build a rocket able to do it are still ridiculous.

www.space.com...

Go to: Google > Armadillo aerospace > Images








[edit on 9-5-2007 by bigbrain]

[edit on 9-5-2007 by bigbrain]



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 07:01 AM
link   
hey birdbrain

nothing you can say would make me think the moon landings were fake. It would take soemone who worked on the mission to come out and say its fake before i would consider believing it to be false.

anyone of 500,000 people or if a future probe/lander imaged the landing sites and revealed nothing was there.

would you change your mind if the chinese rover found the apollo footprints on the moon?



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join