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: 88
29
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:21 PM
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
2. What was the time the AA batter and the USB Drive hit the ground at?


1. If NASA can send a radio signal to the Moon (you do agree that that can do this, don't you?), then they can use that radio signal to tell a simple motor on a camera what to do. As jra already pointed out, the concept is as simple as a RC toy.

2. Why are you still doubting the results of Giambattista Benedetti's 500+ year old experiment -- ALL objects will fall at the same speed, relative to the gravitational pull of a specific body, and ignoring air resistance. So a dust spec and a double-decker bus would fall at the same rate on the Moon (and in a vacuum on Earth, for that matter).

Why do you find these two simple concepts so hard to grasp?


And, by the way, 1960's and early 1970's tech is was not that primative. The space shuttle was first conceived in the late 1960's and was largely designed in the early 1970's. The first shuttle went to space in 1981 -- only 9 years after the end of Apollo. The tech that was used on that shuttle was developed around the same time Apollo 17 was going to the Moon. Yeah -- It's been upgraded since then (a new "glass cockpit" and all), but those first shuttle flights were all done with Apollo-era tech.

The Voyager spacecrafts (that are now beyond our sun's "termination shock" and is now headed beyond the Sun's Heliopause) were created with 1960's and 70's tech. Along the way they visted 4 planets and took saome great pictures of the Jovian system (pictures that scientists still marvel at today).

The SR-71 Blackbird first flew in 1964 (built with late 50's/early 60's tech) and was still the fasted and mosted advanced plane in our military when it was retired in 1998. To this day, it's still the fastest production (non-secret)airplane that EVER flew...all on 1960's tech.

We are undoubtably more technologically advanced today, but don't sell the brainpower and technology of the 1960's and 70's short. Those were some pretty smart guys that got us to the Moon.




posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
this is soooooo boring (because somone want's to make it boring, so that any trace of reason will be removed from the discussion).

I just can't do this...nobody pays me for this, and otherwise it is NOT FUN. I feel as if I am explaining to fanatic muslims that who Muhamed really was...no use at all. I can talk from here to forever, they will have there "facts"...and it will never end.

[edit on 4-7-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleALL objects will fall at the same speed, relative to the gravitational pull of a specific body, and ignoring air resistance.


Not according to Boyd Bushman senior scientist from Lockheed Martin...







So a dust spec and a double-decker bus would fall at the same rate on the Moon (and in a vacuum on Earth, for that matter).


Precisely so filming that scene in a huge gravity chamber on Earth would produce those results


NASA 120 foot high 100 foot diameter vacuum chamber

Originally posted by Yandros
Would you believe they actually built a 30 meter diameter circular dome room between 1964 and 1969!? When their whole budget was supposed to be being spent on getting to the moon, here they are building huge vacuum rooms for “nuclear electric power studies under vacuum conditions.” And as if that weren’t enough: they decommissioned it in 1975! Just three years after the final Apollo mission, Apollo 17.




From THIS THREAD
Why do you find these two simple concepts so hard to grasp?



And, by the way, 1960's and early 1970's tech is was not that primative.


That is true in Dec. 12, 1962 we had an Atomic powered Flying Saucer... and by 1964 established a base on the far side of the moon
That's why the Apollo program was faked... it wouldn't do to let people know we and the Russians had a base up there already...

And stop blaming NASA for everything... try digging through DoD, Army, Navy and Air Force records... (you will need an FOIA for the good stuff) NASA is a front for public consumption... that's why they do not get annoyed by the hundreds of websites that call them liars, cheats and frauds


U.S. Air Force's Nuclear Flying Saucer



Those were some pretty smart guys that got us to the Moon.


Yes they were... but they didn't work for NASA

OH BTW Boyd Bushman says we already have the capability to reach the Andromeda Galaxy


Its going to be a fun next 10 years as all this stuff will come out> I can see the skeptics cringing already



[edit on 4-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Zorgon, the PM article talks about a secret nuclear test range south of Brisbane in Australia. Have you come across any references to this. I know that the entire coast is fairly urbanised through to Melbourne and across to Tasmania. There also alot of people in rural areas south of Brisvegas (Brisbane). Infact you might be surprised. If any old nuke sites had been built over it might be the beginning of an aussie conspiracy.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is PeopleALL objects will fall at the same speed, relative to the gravitational pull of a specific body, and ignoring air resistance.


Not according to Boyd Bushman senior scientist from Lockheed Martin...







So a dust spec and a double-decker bus would fall at the same rate on the Moon (and in a vacuum on Earth, for that matter).


Precisely so filming that scene in a huge gravity chamber on Earth would produce those results


NASA 120 foot high 100 foot diameter vacuum chamber

Originally posted by Yandros
Would you believe they actually built a 30 meter diameter circular dome room between 1964 and 1969!? When their whole budget was supposed to be being spent on getting to the moon, here they are building huge vacuum rooms for “nuclear electric power studies under vacuum conditions.” And as if that weren’t enough: they decommissioned it in 1975! Just three years after the final Apollo mission, Apollo 17.




From THIS THREAD
Why do you find these two simple concepts so hard to grasp?



And, by the way, 1960's and early 1970's tech is was not that primative.


That is true in Dec. 12, 1962 we had an Atomic powered Flying Saucer... and by 1964 established a base on the far side of the moon
That's why the Apollo program was faked... it wouldn't do to let people know we and the Russians had a base up there already...

And stop blaming NASA for everything... try digging through DoD, Army, Navy and Air Force records... (you will need an FOIA for the good stuff) NASA is a front for public consumption... that's why they do not get annoyed by the hundreds of websites that call them liars, cheats and frauds


U.S. Air Force's Nuclear Flying Saucer



Those were some pretty smart guys that got us to the Moon.


Yes they were... but they didn't work for NASA

OH BTW Boyd Bushman says we already have the capability to reach the Andromeda Galaxy


Its going to be a fun next 10 years as all this stuff will come out> I can see the skeptics cringing already



[edit on 4-7-2007 by zorgon]
I was wondering a missile traveling at 6000mph on earth, would be traveling at what speed in space?



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Here's a possible end to the conspiracy...

www.space.com...


Um am I mistaken? That would be Apollo 15's "landing site" not 11, which is the most debated moon mission and the OP's original thoughts.


jra

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 02:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
I was wondering a missile traveling at 6000mph on earth, would be traveling at what speed in space?


It would continue to accelerate until it ran out of fuel, since there is no friction affecting it.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DuncanIdahoGholem
Zorgon, the PM article talks about a secret nuclear test range south of Brisbane in Australia. Have you come across any references to this. I know that the entire coast is fairly urbanised through to Melbourne and across to Tasmania. There also alot of people in rural areas south of Brisvegas (Brisbane). Infact you might be surprised. If any old nuke sites had been built over it might be the beginning of an aussie conspiracy.



Well lets see now... lemme dig through my files here...


Pine Gap.... NSA/CIA base and space command listening post
(this is were all NASA communications go first before being transmitted to Goldstone)


Pine Gap is the largest US base in Australia. Established in 1968 as a CIA intelligence base and situated in Central Australia, 19 km south-west of Alice Springs, it consists of a large computer complex with eight radomes protecting its antennae from the elements and satellite reconnaissance.

The base is entirely financed by the United States Government, and is officially known as the Joint Defense Space Research Facility.
see US/Australia 1988 Agreement

SOURCE




Secret new US spy base to get green light


AUSTRALIA'S close military alliance with the United States is to be further entrenched with the building of a high-tech communications base in Western Australia.

The Federal Government is about to approve the base after three years of secret negotiations with Washington.

The Age has been told the base, which will be built on defence land at Geraldton... The base, about 370 kilometres north of Perth...

SOURCE


Black sphere hovers near U.S. Naval Comm. Station at North West Cape, Australia

Military, Nuclear Facility North west cape is part of the US ELF (extra low frequency) program


NORTH-WEST CAPE

On a narrow peninsula, over one thousand kilometres to the north of the main centres of population in Western Australia, stands an enigmatic monument to the military ethic. It is a remote spot even for a country as vast and thinly populated as Australia. A vast array of antennas and towers stand out in stark contrast to the harsh natural beauty of the surrounding terrain. Rising to a dizzying height of 387 metres is Tower Zero, the central structure of a vast array of satellite and radio communications equipment. Another 12 towers stand in two concentric rings around it. The towers support 'large spider webs of wire', a Very Low Frequency antenna array covering one thousand acres, the largest facility of its kind in the world. Altogether the base, which consists of three main sites, is spread over 60 kilometres.
SOURCE



Nurrungar is a US military communications base in South Australia's north. Established in 1971, with little community consultation, it receives data from US satellites which monitor missile launches and nuclear explosions, relaying it back to the US. All Nurrungar spy base tasks were relocated to Pine Gap in 1999. Nurrungar was a USAF ground station for the US Defence Support Program (DSP).

"We already have over 40 US military facilities in Australia"


New US War Base Condemned

“We are appalled by the announcement that the Federal Government has secretly agreed to set up a new United States base at Geraldton in WA,” Australian Anti-Bases Campaign Coalition National Coordinator Denis Doherty said this morning.

“We are sure Australians do not want to supply intelligence and communications for more Bush administration invasions or to host bases which spy on our neighbours and training areas for Australian soldiers to practice fighting under US command.

“The Federal Government has dropped all pretence about ‘joint facilities’ and is calling the new base, the first of several planned facilities, a United States military base.

“Defence Minister Nelson’s claim that the government will have full knowledge of all activities at the base is unbelievable,” Mr Doherty said.

“We already have over 40 US military facilities in Australia. We cannot afford more...

SOURCE


So is that enough for a conspiracy?



[edit on 6-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
I was wondering a missile traveling at 6000mph on earth, would be traveling at what speed in space?


It would continue to accelerate until it ran out of fuel, since there is no friction affecting it.
I know that, but what I need to know is, around what would it's speed be? 10,000mph, 20,000mhp what


[edit on 6-7-2007 by YASKY]


jra

posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
I know that, but what I need to know is, around what would it's speed be? 10,000mph, 20,000mhp what


Depends on what missile, what its mass is, how powerful its thrust is, how much fuel it carries, etc.

Or are you wanting to know specifically what 6000mph equals in space? If so, it's the same, the measurements don't change. But it's hard to know what a missiles top speed could be in space without knowing the specific details of the missile itself.



posted on Jul, 6 2007 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
I know that, but what I need to know is, around what would it's speed be? 10,000mph, 20,000mhp what


Depends on what missile, what its mass is, how powerful its thrust is, how much fuel it carries, etc.

Or are you wanting to know specifically what 6000mph equals in space? If so, it's the same, the measurements don't change. But it's hard to know what a missiles top speed could be in space without knowing the specific details of the missile itself.
DOES THE SPACE SHUTTLE TRAVEL 17,500MPH IN SAPCE OR IN EARTH?

[edit on 6-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
...DOES THE SPACE SHUTTLE TRAVEL 17,500MPH IN SAPCE OR IN EARTH?


17,500 mph is the space shuttle's speed in low Earth orbit. Objects must have a tangential velocity of about 18,000 mph to stay in Low Earth Orbit. (different speeds for different orbital altitudes). The shuttle's "sideways" speed (tangential velocity) keeps it from crashing into the Earth as the Earth's gravity pulls it down (the shuttle and the shuttle astronauts are still affected by 99% of the Earth's gravity while in orbit, but since the astronauts are "falling" at the same speed as the shuttle, they appear to be weightless). As the Earth's gravity pulls the shuttle down, the spacecraft is also moving forward fast enough to fall beyond the curvature of the Earth, thus it doesn't crash into the Earth. That is the definition of an orbit -- a controlled fall with a sideways velocity that is great enough to "miss" the Earth, thanks to the Earth's curvature.

If the shuttle tried to go 17,500 mph in the Earth's atmosphere, the friction would cause it to burn up, as it does when returning into the atmosphere -- although the shuttle "deals with" the heat caused by friction by only allowing the parts of the ship covered with heat shield tiles to experience the friction.

The shuttle doesn't have enough fuel to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, so even if they did tried to shoot it into deep space from Earth, it would go 17,500 mph (and probably faster if they use all of their spare fuel). But eventually the fuel would run out, and the Earth's gravity will slow the craft to a stop, then pull it back in.

If you took a fully fueled shuttle with external tank and solid rocket booster (just like the set-up at liftoff), and took it out into deep space away from any large body's gravitational effects, then "lit" the engines, it would go much, much faster than 17,500 mph (As jra said, you would need to know the mass, engine thrust, and amount of fuel to calculate the actual speed). So in this case, a missile that can go 6,000 mph in the Earth's atmosphere (and under the Earth's gravity's influence) would go much faster in deep, deep space -- far from the influence of the Earth's gravity and from the effects of atmospheric friction.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by YASKY
...DOES THE SPACE SHUTTLE TRAVEL 17,500MPH IN SAPCE OR IN EARTH?


17,500 mph is the space shuttle's speed in low Earth orbit. Objects must have a tangential velocity of about 18,000 mph to stay in Low Earth Orbit. (different speeds for different orbital altitudes). The shuttle's "sideways" speed (tangential velocity) keeps it from crashing into the Earth as the Earth's gravity pulls it down (the shuttle and the shuttle astronauts are still affected by 99% of the Earth's gravity while in orbit, but since the astronauts are "falling" at the same speed as the shuttle, they appear to be weightless). As the Earth's gravity pulls the shuttle down, the spacecraft is also moving forward fast enough to fall beyond the curvature of the Earth, thus it doesn't crash into the Earth. That is the definition of an orbit -- a controlled fall with a sideways velocity that is great enough to "miss" the Earth, thanks to the Earth's curvature.

If the shuttle tried to go 17,500 mph in the Earth's atmosphere, the friction would cause it to burn up, as it does when returning into the atmosphere -- although the shuttle "deals with" the heat caused by friction by only allowing the parts of the ship covered with heat shield tiles to experience the friction.

The shuttle doesn't have enough fuel to escape the Earth's gravitational pull, so even if they did tried to shoot it into deep space from Earth, it would go 17,500 mph (and probably faster if they use all of their spare fuel). But eventually the fuel would run out, and the Earth's gravity will slow the craft to a stop, then pull it back in.

If you took a fully fueled shuttle with external tank and solid rocket booster (just like the set-up at liftoff), and took it out into deep space away from any large body's gravitational effects, then "lit" the engines, it would go much, much faster than 17,500 mph (As jra said, you would need to know the mass, engine thrust, and amount of fuel to calculate the actual speed). So in this case, a missile that can go 6,000 mph in the Earth's atmosphere (and under the Earth's gravity's influence) would go much faster in deep, deep space -- far from the influence of the Earth's gravity and from the effects of atmospheric friction.
So in other words it is your testamony, that it's 17,500 in outerspace not earth, now at that speed it would take about 14.3 hours to travel to the moon, so if Nasa just takes up extra fuel, and places it in space ahead of time, (like they take up supplies for the ISS) then NASA can go to the moon much faster than 2 weeks, and it would also take them 16 hours to go the 280,000 miles to Mars, how come they don't do that, but instead tell us it takes 6 months to go to Mars?, The answer is simple= the U.S. Gov & NASA are lying about the real purpose of the NASA program.


[edit on 7-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 7-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
I know that, but what I need to know is, around what would it's speed be? 10,000mph, 20,000mhp what


Depends on what missile, what its mass is, how powerful its thrust is, how much fuel it carries, etc.

Or are you wanting to know specifically what 6000mph equals in space? If so, it's the same, the measurements don't change. But it's hard to know what a missiles top speed could be in space without knowing the specific details of the missile itself.
No it is NOT the same, in space it will be faster scince there is no atmousphere.



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKYNo it is NOT the same, in space it will be faster scince there is no atmousphere.


6000 mph on earth is exactly the same as 6000 mph in space.

It has nothing to do with gravity, atmosphere or anything else. Its simply a measurement of speed.

I would suggest you are confusing issues here. It appears you are trying to say a rocket traveling at 6000 mph the atmosphere would then go faster once it leaves the atmosphere...

Well it doesn't work that way LOL. Escape velocity at the surface is 6.96 miles/sec Do the math to give you mph...



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKYand it would also take them 16 hours to go the 280,000 miles to Mars, how come they don't do that, but instead tell us it takes 6 months to go to Mars?


Ummm maybe because your MATH is wrong?


At its closest point on August 27 Mars is 34,670,000 miles away and at its farthest point on November 8 it is 225,700,000 miles away

Not 280,000

225,700,000 at 17,000 would take 12897.14 hours to get there roughly 537.38 days

Now as many know I am all for proving NASA is lying about many things... LOL but even they can't change the distance



Here is the actual speeds of the Apollo craft... taking into account the gravity of both the moon and the earth


The Apollo Spacecraft didn't travel at a continuous speed the
whole time, as it left the Earth at the beginning of the translunar coast,
the speed was about 24,300 mph, but the Earth's gravity worked on it after
that to slow it down even as it traveled outwards. By the time it got to
210,000 miles out from the Earth, Apollo has slowed to 2,000mph, but then
the Moon's gravity started to make it's presence felt and the spacecraft
began to accelerate towards the Moon. By the time it was ready to go into
Lunar orbit, the speed had reached 5600mph relative to the Moon, the burn
into Lunar Orbit then slowed it again to a 3600 mph lunar orbit.

www.freelists.org...

[edit on 7-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by YASKYand it would also take them 16 hours to go the 280,000 miles to Mars, how come they don't do that, but instead tell us it takes 6 months to go to Mars?


Ummm maybe because your MATH is wrong?


At its closest point on August 27 Mars is 34,670,000 miles away and at its farthest point on November 8 it is 225,700,000 miles away

Not 280,000

225,700,000 at 17,000 would take 12897.14 hours to get there roughly 537.38 days

Now as many know I am all for proving NASA is lying about many things... LOL but even they can't change the distance



Here is the actual speeds of the Apollo craft... taking into account the gravity of both the moon and the earth


The Apollo Spacecraft didn't travel at a continuous speed the
whole time, as it left the Earth at the beginning of the translunar coast,
the speed was about 24,300 mph, but the Earth's gravity worked on it after
that to slow it down even as it traveled outwards. By the time it got to
210,000 miles out from the Earth, Apollo has slowed to 2,000mph, but then
the Moon's gravity started to make it's presence felt and the spacecraft
began to accelerate towards the Moon. By the time it was ready to go into
Lunar orbit, the speed had reached 5600mph relative to the Moon, the burn
into Lunar Orbit then slowed it again to a 3600 mph lunar orbit.

www.freelists.org...

[edit on 7-7-2007 by zorgon]
Wrong as I was saying, if extra fuel was taken up into space, before the shuttle leaves earth, at 17,500mph it woill take just under 83 days to reach Mars.
Even the poster who posted before me stated that a Missile that goes 6000mph on earth would travel faster in space, befcause of no resistance


jra

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
Wrong as I was saying, if extra fuel was taken up into space, before the shuttle leaves earth


Firstly, the Shuttle can't leave Earth orbit. It's designed to orbit Earth and nothing more, nor would you want to use it as an interplanetary vehicle. The wings, tail, landing gear, etc add too much unneeded weight. It's not an efficient design like a capsule is.


at 17,500mph it woill take just under 83 days to reach Mars.


Yes, it would take 82.5 days to travel 55,763,769km (34 650 000 miles) at 7.8km/s (17,500mph) ... If you traveled in a straight line and Earth and Mars didn't move. But unfortunately both planets do revolved around the Sun and Mars only gets as close as 55.7 million km away only once in every 50000 years or so.

The most recent probe sent to Mars, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, was launched when Mars was 72million km away, but traveled 310million km, due to the fact that the planets are moving and that you can't go in a straight line. Probes tend to travel in an outbound-arcing trajectory to Mars. And traveling 310million km in 7.5 months means that the MRO was going about 15.72km/s (35,164.64 mph) in case you're interested.


Even the poster who posted before me stated that a Missile that goes 6000mph on earth would travel faster in space, befcause of no resistance


It would travel faster because it would continue to accelerate, but for how long it would accelerate, we don't know, because we don't know the missiles mass, the power of its thrust, its fuel capacity, etc.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by jra]



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
jra, you should pay money to me - you are using my line...
"What the smart people are ashamed of, the stupid are proud of."

You have written the the most lines of text on this topic. In fact, you have written more than the next five people combined. Now, if you just copied the NASA articles, and added nothing of your thinking (which is basically what you do) it would be hard, very hard to discuss with you.

See, ATS does not have a validation system (nor is it possible, unfortunatally) that will say: "Ok, that is enough. jra is missing the point, his words are not proving anything, he is just taking a LOOOOOOOT of space for nothing" - end erase you.
Instead, you will bombard us with endless elementary school reasoning.

Now, if I worked for some government agency and wanted to prevent a lot of people from learning something here - I would hire somebody like you! You are perfect for the job!



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by YASKY
Wrong as I was saying, if extra fuel was taken up into space, before the shuttle leaves earth


Firstly, the Shuttle can't leave Earth orbit. It's designed to orbit Earth and nothing more, nor would you want to use it as an interplanetary vehicle. The wings, tail, landing gear, etc add too much unneeded weight. It's not an efficient design like a capsule is.


at 17,500mph it woill take just under 83 days to reach Mars.


Yes, it would take 82.5 days to travel 55,763,769km (34 650 000 miles) at 7.8km/s (17,500mph) ... If you traveled in a straight line and Earth and Mars didn't move. But unfortunately both planets do revolved around the Sun and Mars only gets as close as 55.7 million km away only once in every 50000 years or so.

The most recent probe sent to Mars, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, was launched when Mars was 72million km away, but traveled 310million km, due to the fact that the planets are moving and that you can't go in a straight line. Probes tend to travel in an outbound-arcing trajectory to Mars. And traveling 310million km in 7.5 months means that the MRO was going about 15.72km/s (35,164.64 mph) in case you're interested.


Even the poster who posted before me stated that a Missile that goes 6000mph on earth would travel faster in space, befcause of no resistance


It would travel faster because it would continue to accelerate, but for how long it would accelerate, we don't know, because we don't know the missiles mass, the power of its thrust, its fuel capacity, etc.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by jra]
Your making things much to difficult, this is how you catch NASA in it's lies, by listening to them explain things and then asking these simple questions, I was just using the Shuttle as an example, basically, what I'm saying is, it's been 40+ years scince the so called Apollo landings, and NASA, still hasn't come up with a advanced simple way of traveling to Mars/Moon, the answer is NASA is lying, everything I posted NASA know about, and uses, it's just a secret, like the AURORA, and at 17,500mph you can/will travel to Mars in under 83 days, don't make things complicated, all NASA has to do is make Thrust Vectoring Engines, to make sure the space ship, goes to Mars and not off cource because of the magnetical pull you talk about, see how simple it is, NASA knows this, if I do.
1. If you were the first person's on the moon, wouldn't you want to take film/pictures of space and the sun, to see what it looks like outside the atmousphere? NASA tells us that the astroNuts didn't because the camera's were not made for that, are we to believe that they wouldn't be prepaired for something that IMPORTANT, as pictures/film of space, are we to believe that in 1969 Science/Nasa didn't have camera's that could take film/pictures of the sun in outer space, these are the simple things that NSA wants people to overlook so you won't see threw the lies, sure NASA might have released some pictiures taken from the moon of space in a 360 degree manner, but the mass majority of the publicly available pictures don't show that, why, because too many scientists would have seen that these pics are fake.


[edit on 8-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 8-7-2007 by YASKY]




top topics



 
29
<< 85  86  87    89  90  91 >>

log in

join