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: 89
29
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
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.


Are you accusing me of plagiarism? If so, do you have anything to back up that accusation? I do not copy and paste things from "NASA articles". I use what I've learnt in school, what I've read in books and on other various webpages. I don't appreciate your false accusation.




posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? I do not copy and paste things from "NASA articles". I don't appreciate your false accusation.


I actually enjoy your posts.

I think what he's saying is that to 'hoax believers' (HB) the NASA apologists (NA) seem to be too quick to buy whatever NASA tells them.

So it seems that every 'reply' to a HB is just reading the party line. For instance one guy sent me a three page list of NASA .mov files and said 'that means they hoaxed all of these...'. I've heard that argument before - 'you mean you think NASA hoaxed all this data, experiments?'

For me, the thing is, the more I look into things, the more I seem to realize just how difficult it is to get into LEO and how difficult it is to plot a course to the Moon, and how difficult it is to land a LEM and then incredibly, launch and re-dock with an orbiter.

I've read about the culture that existed at NASA, and how complex the program was and how much fraud, waste, and lack of communication was going on.

Now when I mentioned this to my brother who is used to dealing with contractors, he said he's been on jobs where there was a LOT of that but in the end, somehow, things usually come together and the job gets done. Of course even a minor error on a NASA project is going to have potentially huge consequences downstream, unlike building a house.

I also know about the cold war and how we lied about Corona, and I would NOT put it past an administration like Johnson/Nixon to agree, nay -propose- a 'fake it' fall back plan. In fact I'll go so far as to say I think the'd be remiss as a true Cold Warrior, NOT to have a 'fake some or all of it' fallback plan if the main reason for going was political.



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY Your making things much to difficult,

Your right judging by your last few posts its much to difficult for you to understand... and JRA put it about as simply as anyone can. The fact that the planets move is not a NASA conspiracy...


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,


Try the Aquila LOL and what about the secret antigrav ships?
But even those take into account the planetary movements... If they didn't you would never get home

Might I suggest a little more school work on math and basic orbital mechanics?

:shk:



posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 08:49 PM
link   
If you are reading this topic for the first time, my advice is: read from the beginning. Spend some time, and you will understand better who is who here, and what the discussion is about.

Also, research on your own, find some good videos from both sides. I say from BOTH sides.

It is a research that will be rewarded with some interesting findings, and you will enjoy it, if you have INDEPENDENT mind.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by YASKY Your making things much to difficult,

Your right judging by your last few posts its much to difficult for you to understand... and JRA put it about as simply as anyone can. The fact that the planets move is not a NASA conspiracy...


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,


Try the Aquila LOL and what about the secret antigrav ships?
But even those take into account the planetary movements... If they didn't you would never get home

Might I suggest a little more school work on math and basic orbital mechanics?

:shk:
As I said, it will take 83 days to get there, and I think you misread my post, I know there are other type of space crft, but I'm just commenting on the "Officialy" reported ones, so stop making things more difficult.



posted on Jul, 9 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY so stop making things more difficult.


No I read your post right, you are just not expressing yourself correctly and simply ignoring facts that do not suit you. But your right I will stop making it difficult for you.

Have fun



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 11:13 AM
link   
i just spent the last two days reading this entire thread. overall it's a really good thread. there's tons of great information here, a lot of science, but there's a lot of crap as well.

for those of you who haven't read this entire thread from the beginning and would like to do so, might i suggest you click on the 'ignore' button for a few peeps before you get started (or as you come to them within the thread):

swimmer
bigbrain
truthlover
YASKY
golemina
SiberianTiger
resistance
pepsi78

getting rid of their posts up front will save you lots of time and frustration, believe me. albeit a lot of their drivel is still quoted within other posts, you'll see how every one of their 'arguements' is shot down and disproved with lots of great links and information.

jra, you have infinite patience and have made some awesome posts. it's too bad you had to repeat yourself 50 times for the same questions over and over again... AgentSmith was full of lots of useful information as well.



anyway, for the proponents of 'no stars in the pictures', here are a few from the Apollo 11 EVA that clearly show stars in the sky above:

AS11-40-5874
AS11-40-5875
AS11-40-5948
AS11-40-5949
AS11-40-5950
AS11-40-5962



so far, this is the only thing i'm still having trouble with:

www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicphotos.html

what's funny is this web site promotes the moon landing hoax but yet has this page about conversations the astronauts on the moon supposedly had with mission control. i think the two pages kind of contradict themselves, lol. if these transmissions can be comfirmed to be authentic somehow, then that will kill two conspiracies at once. it will prove that we have in fact been to the moon with the Apollo missions, and it will prove that the gov't is indeed covering up the existence of ETs. i've been through a few of the mission logs to try to find any confirmation but so far have come up with nothing. this will definitely be fun to research, but will probably be nothing more than a wild goose chase.



thanks to all who contributed something useful to this ongoing 2-year thread, i learned a lot.

[edit on 10 7Jul 07 by m3rlz]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by m3rlzi think the two pages kind of contradict themselves, lol.


Yes it is funny, but goes towards our theory at Pegasus that they did go, but faked the images for other reasons.

As to the transmission, one has to dig up old books and magazines printed before they started major coverup, which we believe took effect around 1971-2

Some of these transcripts posted on the sites are real and taken from old publications, but unfortunately they are all jealous of the "other guy" sharing their info so they don't post the direct source... which is frustrating to say the least.

I managed to fine one copy of a couple pages from an old mission log from Apollo 11 in John Lear's collection that has them talking about the glow of Aristarchus crater and they talk about another light coming on. I would love to find a printing of the whole mission log... I just don't know where to look




What they are referring to is this effect...

Taken by a 10" scope in Britain




Taken by a 12" scope in Britain
(sorry too big to post and I haven't clipped it yet)




Taken by the Clementine satellite in 1994



The most interesting thing is that the "lights" are not always on


[edit on 10-7-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Jul, 10 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by YASKY so stop making things more difficult.


No I read your post right, you are just not expressing yourself correctly and simply ignoring facts that do not suit you. But your right I will stop making it difficult for you.

Have fun
Did the space suits protect them from the heat only, or also the cold?

[edit on 10-7-2007 by YASKY]


jra

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by m3rlz
i just spent the last two days reading this entire thread. overall it's a really good thread. there's tons of great information here, a lot of science, but there's a lot of crap as well.


I can't imagine reading through this whole thing from the beginning, but glad to hear it was worth while.


AgentSmith was full of lots of useful information as well.


Yeah he was, unfortunately he doesn't seem to post here any longer.


anyway, for the proponents of 'no stars in the pictures', here are a few from the Apollo 11 EVA that clearly show stars in the sky above:


I believe those may just be specks of dust from scanning the images. The best thing to do is to look at the shots consecutively. Like for example, you posted links to shots AS11-40-5948, AS11-40-5949, AS11-40-5950 which all come right after one another, and you'll notice that all the specks move. How ever, recently on another forum, Venus was spotted in some of the photos. It was in the right place, relative to the Earth during the time of that mission and the speck didn't move for 9 consecutive shots. You can see the thread here if you're interested.


thanks to all who contributed something useful to this ongoing 2-year thread, i learned a lot.


Hard to believe this thread has been going on for that long.


Originally posted by YASKY
Did the space suits protect them from the heat only, or also the cold?


Yes, the suits were designed to keep the astronauts comfortable inside. The suits are white for a reason. It reflects most of the light, plus the material it's made out of is a poor conductor of heat as well, so it won't warm up fast when in the Sun. They also had a water cooling with tubes filled with water that flowed through all parts of the suit inside. It kept them warm enough too, but I imagine the main concern was about it getting too hot since they were in the Sun all the time while on the surface.



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra
I believe those may just be specks of dust from scanning the images.


I agree... zoom in on them in a graphics program... many look irregular shape... But thanks for the Venus link I will look at those




Yes, the suits were designed to keep the astronauts comfortable inside.


LOL why bother? I think you are being set up... just a hunch



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:40 AM
link   
Excellent post by JRA, advising using consecutive shots to detect white specks that don't move, thereby indicating stars. (I gave you a star)

However, it remains puzzling that one of the snapshots could even show Venus, though I believe the evidence that JRA links to. It was Venus, and it did show up on the snapshot.

So this begs the question. Why would the astronauts say they could NOT see (visually) stars on the surface of the Moon? If Venus would show up on a snapshot, I'd expect a fair number of less bright stars would show up when viewed by the eye.

Thus, Armstrong must not have been telling the truth. Either he did see stars, or he was not on the Moon.

Of course I'm aware of the circular reasoning here. If the shot with Venus is legit, then it seems to prove there was a LEM on the Moon. If it's legit, then Armstrong lied and he could see stars on the moon with his eyes without looking through the optics.

I must say I'm pretty close to jumping the fence and leaving the ranks of HBs (Hoax Believers)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Just looking at that animated gif of Venus and noticed that though it moves around, it keeps the same relationship in distance and position from the crescent of the Earth.

So it is an actual planet, not a dust speck, spotted using standard film speed on the Moon.

(Pretty odd, even careless, that NASA would have so much dust on their high-resolution photos, though, looking at the other pictures linked in that post.)



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Big shout out to M3rlz for providing a much needed (in my opinion
) bit of a road guide to even begin to attempt to swallow the Anacondian bulge that is this thread...

>'for those of you who haven't read this entire thread from the beginning and would like to do so, might i suggest you click on the 'ignore' button for a few peeps before you get started (or as you come to them within the thread): '

swimmer
bigbrain
truthlover
YASKY
golemina
SiberianTiger
resistance
pepsi78

Yes, M3rlz, you are so right.


But if I could be so bold... I would probably also have one other tiny little suggestion besides using the 'ignore' button to drown out the voices of the aforementioned pesky 'peeps'...

It would be to cover your ears with your hands, close your eyes and jump up and down shouting over and over 'I believe! I BELIEVE! IIIIIII believe Apollo went to the Moon!'

VERY effective in drowning out their 'drivel' and making sure NOTHING distracts you from hearing the NASA 'true believers' parrot symphony in all of it's glory!

Not to mention saving you 'lots of time and frustration'...



[edit on 11-7-2007 by golemina]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
And thus we add golemina to the above list


To the Badge...

Lets toss in another goodie...

Von Braun and his buddies went to Antarctica in the late 50's early 60's to collect meteorites, easy to find in the ice actually... so they had many pounds of unique space rock without ever leaving the surface of the planet...


Oh okay okay they took an airplane... but you know what I meant


jra

posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01
So this begs the question. Why would the astronauts say they could NOT see (visually) stars on the surface of the Moon? If Venus would show up on a snapshot, I'd expect a fair number of less bright stars would show up when viewed by the eye.


Well one thing to remember is that Venus is the next brightest object in the sky after the Sun and Earth, so it's a lot more likely to show up then a star. I'm not sure what the difference in magnitude is between Venus and one of the brighter stars. I'll have to look that up later.


Thus, Armstrong must not have been telling the truth. Either he did see stars, or he was not on the Moon.


I know some astronauts did see them when in the LM's shadow and blocking out the surrounding reflected light of the surface from there eyes. I don't see why Neil would lie about not seeing them. He really may not have at all. He and Buzz did see stars when using the LM's optics, which were used specifically for spotting stars to help figure out there exact position on the Moon, but they may have been unable to spot them with the unaided eye.

Also I don't know where Venus would have been in the sky during Apollo 11, if at all. The ones in the animated gif are from Apollo 14. It would be interesting to check and see where Venus was during all the missions and see if it shows up in other photos as well.

[edit on 11-7-2007 by jra]



posted on Jul, 11 2007 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by m3rlz
i just spent the last two days reading this entire thread. overall it's a really good thread. there's tons of great information here, a lot of science, but there's a lot of crap as well.


I can't imagine reading through this whole thing from the beginning, but glad to hear it was worth while.


AgentSmith was full of lots of useful information as well.


Yeah he was, unfortunately he doesn't seem to post here any longer.


anyway, for the proponents of 'no stars in the pictures', here are a few from the Apollo 11 EVA that clearly show stars in the sky above:


I believe those may just be specks of dust from scanning the images. The best thing to do is to look at the shots consecutively. Like for example, you posted links to shots AS11-40-5948, AS11-40-5949, AS11-40-5950 which all come right after one another, and you'll notice that all the specks move. How ever, recently on another forum, Venus was spotted in some of the photos. It was in the right place, relative to the Earth during the time of that mission and the speck didn't move for 9 consecutive shots. You can see the thread here if you're interested.


thanks to all who contributed something useful to this ongoing 2-year thread, i learned a lot.


Hard to believe this thread has been going on for that long.


Originally posted by YASKY
Did the space suits protect them from the heat only, or also the cold?


Yes, the suits were designed to keep the astronauts comfortable inside. The suits are white for a reason. It reflects most of the light, plus the material it's made out of is a poor conductor of heat as well, so it won't warm up fast when in the Sun. They also had a water cooling with tubes filled with water that flowed through all parts of the suit inside. It kept them warm enough too, but I imagine the main concern was about it getting too hot since they were in the Sun all the time while on the surface.
There is no cold in space, so there would be no reason to have a heating system in the suits, THATS ALL the evidence needed to PROOVE NASA FAKED IT
BTW if for example a certin part of the OZONE lets say over Utah was completey open about 12" and a ray of PURE sun light unfiltered was to hit the ground would the ground be radiationised?

[edit on 11-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 11-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
See JRA?

Told you he was setting you up


YASKY....

its not nescessary to quote the entire block... as a matter of fact its against T&C. Perhaps you might want to check and see how things are done around here


Okay Iggy button... engaging noww..... "Click"

So does anyone know what happens when you push it? Does it eject them into space or something like that? No? DARN

[edit on 12-7-2007 by zorgon]


jra

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Ok I found what the magnitudes are of some things. The Sun for example is -37, a full Moon is -12.6, the maximum brightness of Venus is -4.7, the brightest star, Sirius, is -1.5. Faint stars seen from an urban area at night are at a magnitude of 3 and the faintest stars visible to the naked eye period is 6.

But how much brighter is Venus then say, Sirius? Well, first we subtract the brighter object from the fainter object.

mf − mb = x

-1.5-(-4.7) =3.2

And then to calculate the variation of brightness:

vb = 2.512^x

2.512^3.2 = 19.057

So when Venus is at its brightest, it's 19 times brighter then the Sirius. So just imagine how much brighter Venus is when compared to even fainter stars. So hopefully that helps to illustrate why Venus can show up more easily on some of the shots then the stars.


jra

posted on Jul, 12 2007 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by YASKY
There is no cold in space, so there would be no reason to have a heating system in the suits, THATS ALL the evidence needed to PROOVE NASA FAKED IT


You are correct, space is not hot or cold, but objects in space can be. And I made the faulty assumption that you meant the temperature of the suit itself. When an Astronaut stands in the Sun. The part of his suit that is facing the Sun will get hotter. When he turns around to face opposite of the Sun, the part that was in the Sun will radiate the heat at the same speed that it gained it and get colder. So it is important to have a means to control the temperature of the suit so that the Astronaut remains comfortable inside.

The only thing you've proven is your ignorance I'm afraid.



[edit on 12-7-2007 by jra]



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 86  87  88    90  91  92 >>

log in

join