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: 87
29
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   
some of the moon rocks were given to other countries to test and analys,
china was one of the countries given moon samples to test and analys and it is pretty obvious that the rocks were genuine because all the countries that received samples tested and analysed it, reached a conclusion that those rocks were from the moon and could not have been found on earth.




posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesun
some of the moon rocks were given to other countries to test and analys,
china was one of the countries given moon samples to test and analys and it is pretty obvious that the rocks were genuine


This called argumentum ad verecundiam.

What criteria were used to determine the proper configuration of a 'Moon rock'? Who set this criterion; NASA?

How do we know what testing they did?

Do we know these rocks weren't retrieved by unmanned probes, created in a lab, or found in Antarctica?

Too many questions to use this as a proof.


[edit on 30-6-2007 by Badge01]


jra

posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
Do we know these rocks weren't retrieved by unmanned probes, created in a lab, or found in Antarctica?


The Russians got there Lunar samples from 3 unmanned probes, but it was only 326g of soil, no rocks, since unmanned probes were fairly limited and could not pick up large rocks. Thee Apollo missions brought back a total of 382kg of rocks, 2m deep core samples etc. Stuff that unmanned probes can't collect themselves.

You can not create them in a lab. And lunites were not found in antarctic until the 70's by the Japanese and they were only discovered to be lunites much later when they were compared to the Lunar samples that were brought back from the Moon. You also couldn't use the lunites as lunar samples as they have be contaminated and weathered significantly.


Too many questions to use this as a proof.


Not really. If you take the time to learn more about it, your questions should be answered. The lunar samples are excellent proof. Thousands of geologists all over the world have studied the samples and done many tests. They would be the first to notice if there was anything that showed they were from Earth or man made. Unless you believe there is some global geologist conspiracy happening


Here's a good site I found. How Do We Know That It’s a Rock From the Moon?

[edit on 1-7-2007 by jra]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   
jra, you have, by far, written the most lines on this topic...a lot of effort. Most of it is just working towards making everybody tired of explaining stuff over and over...

In this case, you claim that "thousands" of scientists in the world have tested and confirmed the authenticity of the "Moon rocks". How can you do that? Did they transport all the rocks from country to country and scientists tested each rock and came to a 100% conclusion that they had to be from the Moon and that they had to had been brought by humans? Whose signiture is on the reports? Where was the testing done?
(Give me a few million dollars, and I will find thousands of scientists who will sign that the Earth is flat. )
But, in this case, NOBODY signed that. Nobody required REAL testing, because nobody dared to officialy dispute "Moon landing" fairy tale.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 07:33 AM
link   
JRA posted a very good link. But if you read carefully it does not say that 'faking' a Moon rock is impossible, merely difficult:


Indeed, says McKay, faking a Moon rock well enough to hoodwink an international army of scientists might be more difficult than the Manhattan Project. "It would be easier to just go to the Moon and get one," he quipped.


When you realize the small sizes of sample that are sent around, some of them just tiny vials, it wouldn't require much 'faked' sample.

Again, I think that's a great page that he posted and very informative.

However compelling, it still doesn't rule out that the samples of rocks that were sent out for analysis were collected in Antarctica and by unmanned probes.

So, while this is interesting it is not what one can consider conclusive 'proof'. It's merely 'indirect' proof - i.e. it requires some assumptions.

I like to use a standard that would preclude any kind of legerdemain. As some have said, scientists are the easiest for magicians' tricks to fool.

Particularly since there are so many other 'oddities' to the Moon landing, including the lack of visualizations of stars by eye of the Astronauts and the failure of NASA to get creditable pics of the star field (which would be -conclusive- proof) still gives me pause.

Moving right along, tell me, who took this picture?




[edit on 2-7-2007 by Badge01]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

In this case, you claim that "thousands" of scientists in the world have tested and confirmed the authenticity of the "Moon rocks". How can you do that? Did they transport all the rocks from country to country and scientists tested each rock


Yes. Well maybe hundreds of scientists and research papers, and none have questioned them.


Originally posted by Badge01

Moving right along, tell me, who took this picture?





I hope you were joking, but a remote controled camera. Same that shot the lanuch from the moon.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by numb99
I hope you were joking, but a remote controled camera. Same that shot the lanuch from the moon.


No, Numb99, I'm not joking at all.

Consider the logistics. This camera, allegedly operated from Earth was able to find a perfectly framed picture of the footer of the LEM after blast off and at the same time, get a picture of the rising Earth in the same frame. I can't imagine a more perfectly posed picture.

In addition, if you look at the relation of the camera to the LEM at blast off it was not this far away nor in this orientation. So, tell me, did they have two cameras?

Maybe a silly question, but why isn't this camera still in operation? Anyone know what kind it was supposed to be? Was it a live feed?



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
OK, fare enough.


Originally posted by Badge01

Originally posted by numb99
I hope you were joking, but a remote controled camera. Same that shot the lanuch from the moon.


No, Numb99, I'm not joking at all.

Consider the logistics. This camera, allegedly operated from Earth was able to find a perfectly framed picture of the footer of the LEM after blast off and at the same time, get a picture of the rising Earth in the same frame. I can't imagine a more perfectly posed picture.


It might have been planed that way.



In addition, if you look at the relation of the camera to the LEM at blast off it was not this far away nor in this orientation. So, tell me, did they have two cameras?


Maybe your image was croped.

Just saying these pics don't show anything that is not possible.



Maybe a silly question, but why isn't this camera still in operation? Anyone know what kind it was supposed to be? Was it a live feed?


Good question, but I have no idea.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by numb99

Maybe your image was croped.


This is an example, from Apollo 16 as to the general orientation of the camera to get the blast off:



As you can see it's fairly close to the LEM, and situated with the lens slightly pointing up, below the horizontal, anticipating the pan.

But this camera below is above the horizontal and well off to the side and appears to be several yards greater distance. It's just not the kind of shot I'd expect to see from a remotely-controlled device.



jra

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
In this case, you claim that "thousands" of scientists in the world have tested and confirmed the authenticity of the "Moon rocks". How can you do that?


By requesting a sample. curator.jsc.nasa.gov...


Did they transport all the rocks from country to country and scientists tested each rock and came to a 100% conclusion that they had to be from the Moon and that they had to had been brought by humans?


They didn't transport everything and have everything tested, just samples sent out to all sorts of places. Russia and the US even traded samples as well, if I remember correctly.


Whose signiture is on the reports? Where was the testing done?


The testing was done in various labs all over the world. There is no one specific place. As for signatures, no idea. I haven't looked.


(Give me a few million dollars, and I will find thousands of scientists who will sign that the Earth is flat. )


I highly doubt that...


But, in this case, NOBODY signed that.


Signed what? The reports? Do you have any evidence to show?


Nobody required REAL testing, because nobody dared to officialy dispute "Moon landing" fairy tale.


Why wouldn't anyone dispute the Moon landings 'officially'? If something wasn't right, they'd point it out.


Originally posted by Badge01
JRA posted a very good link. But if you read carefully it does not say that 'faking' a Moon rock is impossible, merely difficult:


Either way, like he said, it would be easier to go to the Moon, then to try and fake it.


However compelling, it still doesn't rule out that the samples of rocks that were sent out for analysis were collected in Antarctica and by unmanned probes.


Lunar meteorites from Earth will have signs of weathering, since they had to fly through the atmosphere, and then sat on Earth for thousands (or hundreds of thousands?) of years. Lunar rocks are 100% dry, no signs of water what so ever. Unlike any rocks you'd find on Earth, including lunar meteorites.

As for unmanned probes, like I said before, they are limited. They can't go and drill 2m deep core samples or collect decent sized rocks. And if we pretend for a moment that all the Apollo samples were collected by unmanned probes, you'd need a lot of them. The Russians got a little over 300g with 3 unmanned landers, so lets say 100g per lander. There are almost 400,000g of Apollo lunar samples, so that would take 4000 unmanned landers. When did all these thousands of launches happen? Where did they launch from? And what were they launched on? It would be extremely hard to hide something like that.

This also begs the question, if you can send unmanned landers, then why not manned ones too?


Moving right along, tell me, who took this picture?

www.gernot-geise.de...


I would say the Lunar Rover, but I also have a feeling the image may be an edited image. It's not from a NASA source either or even a good one. I don't recall the Earth ever being that low to the horizon on any of the missions. It was generally higher in the sky.



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 05:46 PM
link   
People have already gone through all of this, on this topic and other topics.
You said this:
"As for unmanned probes, like I said before, they are limited. They can't go and drill 2m deep core samples or collect decent sized rocks. And if we pretend for a moment that all the Apollo samples were collected by unmanned probes, you'd need a lot of them. The Russians got a little over 300g with 3 unmanned landers, so lets say 100g per lander. There are almost 400,000g of Apollo lunar samples, so that would take 4000 unmanned landers. When did all these thousands of launches happen? Where did they launch from? And what were they launched on? It would be extremely hard to hide something like that. "

I say: If there are 400 000g of "lunar samples", has anybody confirmed that? That all of those "samples" are from Moon. All of them? I know that "samples of samples" have been sent around the world...but not 400 000g of samples! So, they could just send the russian samples, or meteorites, or strange stones from Arizona...all would work.

jra, you work hard, and I will soon give up. I do not have time to talk about OBVIOUS things over an over again.

Since the begining of this topic, you (or anyone else) have not provided ONE SOLID PROOF that anybody ever walked on the Moon. I do not have to prove anything. The "Moon landing" is just a very simple, yet outrageous lie. NOBODY WALKED ON THE MOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jra I know that you will write back, and write back, and write back, and write back, with million meaningless lines....so I will not reply any more.

Not to you, anyway.

[edit on 2-7-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   
One of the most telling things that proove NASA faked it all, is the fact that, Militaries even till this day have a hard time, testing Missiles, yet NASA tells us, 1960's Tech was able to control a camera 250,000 Miles away from Earth!!


[edit on 2-7-2007 by YASKY]


jra

posted on Jul, 2 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
One of the most telling things that proove NASA faked it all, is the fact that, Militaries even till this day have a hard time, testing Missiles, yet NASA tells us, 1960's Tech was able to control a camera 250,000 Miles away from Earth!!


And what does a missile have to do with a remotely operated camera? The two things are not comparable. Could you also elaborate what you mean when you say that Militaries have a hard time testing missiles? In what way do they have a hard time with them and how does it apply to the Moon landings. Thank you.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
This thread really needs to be locked. BTW Seeya BigBrain, don't let the door hit you in the rear on the way out.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
One of the most telling things that proove NASA faked it all, is the fact that, Militaries even till this day have a hard time, testing Missiles, yet NASA tells us, 1960's Tech was able to control a camera 250,000 Miles away from Earth!!


And what does a missile have to do with a remotely operated camera? The two things are not comparable. Could you also elaborate what you mean when you say that Militaries have a hard time testing missiles? In what way do they have a hard time with them and how does it apply to the Moon landings. Thank you.
Here let me be as specific as I can, Militaries have had a HARD TIME testing out "Remote Controlling" 1990's UAV's even though, it works, Only after a long test period, but NASA/U.S.-Gov wants us to believe 1960's Tech remote controlled the camera's on the moon, this is what prooves NASA is lying, plus my Hammer/Feather test would proove 1000% Apllo missions were FAKE!!!


[edit on 3-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by YASKY]


jra

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Here let me be as specific as I can, Militaries have had a HARD TIME testing out "Remote Controlling" 1990's UAV's even though, it works, Only after a long test period, but NASA/U.S.-Gov wants us to believe 1960's Tech remote controlled the camera's on the moon, this is what prooves NASA is lying


I still don't see how an early UAV compares to a remote controlled camera. The remote controlled camera is pretty simple. If a guy on the ground in mission control wants to pan the camera to the left, he simply adjusts it on his end, the signal gets sent, and about two seconds later the camera pans to the left on the Moon. It's not rocket science. It's a lot like controlling an RC car one may have had as a kid, but over a greater distance. The technology involved isn't too complicated.

I think the problem with earlier UAV's was probably trying to get them to do things autonomously, I don't think there was much of a problem flying them like an R/C plane. Basic radio controlled airships have been around since the late 19th century.


plus my Hammer/Feather test would proove 1000% Apllo missions were FAKE!!!


Not really sure what you're hammer/feather test is exactly (the vacuum chamber stuff?) and how that would prove that it was fake. But without an atmosphere and no air resistance to slow down the feather, both would hit the ground at the same time. This is basic physics 101 kind of stuff. For example, I just took one AA battery and one USB drive. Both objects are roughly the same size, but are noticeably different in weight and neither are easily affected by air resistance. I dropped them both together a bit above 2m and both hit the ground at the same time. Try it yourself.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
Here let me be as specific as I can, Militaries have had a HARD TIME testing out "Remote Controlling" 1990's UAV's even though, it works, Only after a long test period, but NASA/U.S.-Gov wants us to believe 1960's Tech remote controlled the camera's on the moon, this is what prooves NASA is lying


I still don't see how an early UAV compares to a remote controlled camera. The remote controlled camera is pretty simple. If a guy on the ground in mission control wants to pan the camera to the left, he simply adjusts it on his end, the signal gets sent, and about two seconds later the camera pans to the left on the Moon. It's not rocket science. It's a lot like controlling an RC car one may have had as a kid, but over a greater distance. The technology involved isn't too complicated.

I think the problem with earlier UAV's was probably trying to get them to do things autonomously, I don't think there was much of a problem flying them like an R/C plane. Basic radio controlled airships have been around since the late 19th century.


plus my Hammer/Feather test would proove 1000% Apllo missions were FAKE!!!


Not really sure what you're hammer/feather test is exactly (the vacuum chamber stuff?) and how that would prove that it was fake. But without an atmosphere and no air resistance to slow down the feather, both would hit the ground at the same time. This is basic physics 101 kind of stuff. For example, I just took one AA battery and one USB drive. Both objects are roughly the same size, but are noticeably different in weight and neither are easily affected by air resistance. I dropped them both together a bit above 2m and both hit the ground at the same time. Try it yourself.

1. Wrong the Tech in the Apollo missions, was not able to turn cameras, NASA will just lie, and remote controlling the Camera's would have been hard 250K miles away, no matter hwta NASA says
2. What was the time the AA batter and the USB Drive hit the ground at?


jra

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
1. Wrong the Tech in the Apollo missions, was not able to turn cameras, NASA will just lie, and remote controlling the Camera's would have been hard 250K miles away, no matter hwta NASA says


How would have it been hard to do that? The tech to do it was available. It seems rather silly to deny it, especially without providing any evidence what so ever. Like I said, radio controlled devices have been around since just before the 20th century. And using this helps to send that signal to the Moon.


2. What was the time the AA batter and the USB Drive hit the ground at?


I don't know. I didn't have a stop watch handy, but I'd say roughly about a second or just slightly less.

We could figure it out mathematically.

t = sqrt( d / (.5 * g) )

So lets assume I dropped them from 2m exactly. That gives me sqrt( 2 / [.5 * 9.8) = 0.64 seconds

On the Moon, it would be sqrt( 2 / [.5 * 1.62) = 1.57 seconds.



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:23 AM
link   
lol YASKY/bigbrain doesnt even know the basic laws of physics



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
yeti, you may have big feet, but your brain....



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 84  85  86    88  89  90 >>

log in

join