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: 91
29
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by swimmer
zorgon, your friend jra has written more lines of text then the next ten members COMBINED on this topic. He is simply trying to make everybody tired of discussing obvious things over and over and over again.

He was wrong 99% of times, but he still wrote hundreds of lines every time.

I simply KNOW that NOBODY WAS EVER ON THE MOON. I have watched videos, listened to BOTH sides and figured out what really happened. It WAS NOT HARD at all to see that there is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY even today for humans to land on the Moon.

Everybody has to do their on research. Reading this whole topic is a good start.
[edit on 14-7-2007 by swimmer]


Please tell me and others how you 'KNOW that NOBODY WAS EVER ON THE MOON' other than how you 'figured it out' from watching videos.
Then tell us all how the mirrors etc were carefully placed on the moon and where the moon rocks etc came from?




posted on Jul, 19 2007 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Go back to school man, if your going to sit here and WASTE all that time trying to tell us/me space is hot you better go back to school NOW!!!!


So in other words you just put your schoolbag on the ground after a hard day of gluing stars to paper and decide that instead of actually talking, youll just annoy people.

Mission accomplished, comrade.

***

Hmmm, I dont claim to know physics at all or anything like that. But all this talk of a lack of molecules in space and stuff...well, doesnt the astronaught bring them with him?

So space doesnt heat up when touched by sunlight because there arnt many molecules to rub together, but an astronaught, literally covered in billions of the things, would heat up wouldnt he?

Same with a space shuttle, right?

Hmmm, space isnt my forte.



posted on Jul, 20 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   


Hmmm, I dont claim to know physics at all or anything like that. But all this talk of a lack of molecules in space and stuff...well, doesnt the astronaught bring them with him?

So space doesnt heat up when touched by sunlight because there arnt many molecules to rub together, but an astronaught, literally covered in billions of the things, would heat up wouldnt he?

Same with a space shuttle, right?


Your reasoning is essentially correct. The photons in sunlight can be either reflected, absorbed, or absorbed and re-emitted, depending on the surface properties. If they are absorbed, the surface heats up and emits infrared photons more or less in a blackbody spectrum.

For example, a solar array gets quite hot, because you point it at the sun, it only converts about 28% of that energy into electricity, and it is dark. Modern solar panels are pretty much black, although the older Silicon ones were a lovely dark purple. Frequently, the solar array designers will paint the back side of the array in a white paint that has a high emissivity, allowing the solar panel to stay in a temperature range that doesn't melt the adhesive that holds the cells on.

[edit on 20-7-2007 by disownedsky]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape

Originally posted by YASKY
NASA says that the stars were not picked up by the astronots camera's because there is no atmosphere,


hi , can you please cite exactly where NASA states this[ please link to or quote a primary source , not heresay - thanks ] - because that is certainly not the correct answer

the correct answer is that as the apollo landing sites were lit by direct sunlight - the pictures taken were exposed for that light - the magnitude [ brighness ] of the stars was way too loow to capture them

here is a simple experiment to verify this

using a digital camera on " manual mode " go outside in direct sunlight and calulate the correct exposure settings [ shutter spped and arpeture - about 1/250th , f6 ] to correctly expose a person standing 5 m from you

then use the exact same settings to take a picture of the stars @ night -

then reverse it :

still at night - open the arpeture and dial in a 20 second shutter speed - the stars are now visible

use the same settings in bright sunlight

what happens ?

now do you understand why the stars are not visible in photographs that are correctly exposed for daylight conditions on the lunar surface


Here is what Nasa says about the stars, www.hq.nasa.gov...
Now take a look at these 3 explainations, and tell me do you still believe what NASA says; 1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
3. www.iamthewitness.com...
That site talks about other things, besides the "Moon hoax", but the guy has his "Moon Hoax" info down pretty good, make sure to read everything, before coming to a conclusion.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Ah, thanks Muchly, Disownedsky.

i was just wondering why people forgot that an astronaught and everything they take with them is made of molecules, so space cant heat up, but they can.



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
The truth has finally been revealed!

I just watched an excellent documentary called "In the Shadow of the Moon." Anyone who wants to know the truth about the Apollo lunar exploration program should see this movie. It will be released in September.

The film has been described as follows:
"Between 1968 and 1972 twenty-four Americans journeyed to the Moon. They remain the only human beings to have visited another world. In this film the Apollo astronauts tell their own story, and share their reflections on what these great voyages of exploration meant to them and to humanity. In their own words, this is the story of the men who journeyed to, and walked on, the moon. The film-makers have shot intimate and revealing interviews with prime crew members from every Apollo mission. Visually stunning NASA film footage-much of it never seen before-is interwoven with riveting firsthand testimony to provide an unparalleled perspective on the Apollo program, one of the defining passages of human history, and the fragile state of our planet. 'In the Shadow of the Moon' is intimate in tone and epic in scope."

For a preview:

www.hollywood.com...



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The truth has finally been revealed!

I just watched an excellent documentary called "In the Shadow of the Moon." Anyone who wants to know the truth about the Apollo lunar exploration program should see this movie. It will be released in September.

The film has been described as follows:
"Between 1968 and 1972 twenty-four Americans journeyed to the Moon. They remain the only human beings to have visited another world. In this film the Apollo astronauts tell their own story, and share their reflections on what these great voyages of exploration meant to them and to humanity. In their own words, this is the story of the men who journeyed to, and walked on, the moon. The film-makers have shot intimate and revealing interviews with prime crew members from every Apollo mission. Visually stunning NASA film footage-much of it never seen before-is interwoven with riveting firsthand testimony to provide an unparalleled perspective on the Apollo program, one of the defining passages of human history, and the fragile state of our planet. 'In the Shadow of the Moon' is intimate in tone and epic in scope."

For a preview:

www.hollywood.com...
The links I provided are NASA's own words which the author clearly shows NASA lied, go to those links MAN!!
1. www.hq.nasa.gov...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
3. www.erichufschmid.net...
4. www.iamthewitness.com...
[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]


[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]

[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 21 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Here is what Nasa says about the stars, www.hq.nasa.gov...
Now take a look at these 3 explainations, and tell me do you still believe what NASA says; 1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
3. www.iamthewitness.com...
That site talks about other things, besides the "Moon hoax", but the guy has his "Moon Hoax" info down pretty good, make sure to read everything, before coming to a conclusion.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]

I looked at those three sites, and all I saw was lots of egregiously argued pseudoscience that skirted the whole issue of photographic exposure. It you find that sort of twaddle persuasive, you need to be much hard to persuade.

Phil Plait, who actually knows a bit about science and logical argument, has the lowdown on all the bogus claims.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 12:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Here is what Nasa says about the stars, www.hq.nasa.gov...
Now take a look at these 3 explainations, and tell me do you still believe what NASA says; 1. www.erichufschmid.net...
2. www.erichufschmid.net...
3. www.iamthewitness.com...
That site talks about other things, besides the "Moon hoax", but the guy has his "Moon Hoax" info down pretty good, make sure to read everything, before coming to a conclusion.

[edit on 21-7-2007 by YASKY]

I looked at those three sites, and all I saw was lots of egregiously argued pseudoscience that skirted the whole issue of photographic exposure. It you find that sort of twaddle persuasive, you need to be much hard to persuade.

Phil Plait, who actually knows a bit about science and logical argument, has the lowdown on all the bogus claims.
So it's your testamony here today infront of ATS.com viewers that NASA does not say that stars are not seen from the moon because "moon's surface reflects sunlight from the sun and Earth" is this your answer my friend, because I'm ready to disproove you RIGHT this second? IS THIS YOUR ANSWER YES OR NO, don't give me a long reply YES or NO? BTW are you on DRUGS
badastronomy (B.A.) has been debunked by my links PERIOD, did you read the explaination of why the astroNUTS couldn't see stars, only a child would believe that, if you read carefully he doesn't even give NASA's "official" explaination on why the NUTS could/wouldn't see the stars, all B.A. does is use carefully orcistraighted words to make it seem like a scientifical explaination. But anyways I'm stll waiting for your answer for my question.

[edit on 22-7-2007 by YASKY]



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 02:15 AM
link   
This site has this huge problem where people provide links as an explanation.

YASKY, why dont you tell us YOUR theory? I dont like reading through endless blogs and other crap. I want to know what you believe.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Octavius Maximus
This site has this huge problem where people provide links as an explanation.

YASKY, why dont you tell us YOUR theory? I dont like reading through endless blogs and other crap. I want to know what you believe.

It's not theory when NASA contradicts there own words, thats why I'm tellin people to go to those links, evrything the guy posted it written in a manner that "lay-men" can understand, he also backs up what he says by simple providing links to NASA's own statements that can/has been proven to be wrong by science during/after the Apollo missions, I assure you you'll be shocked by reading those links, for example before JFK was assasinated he stated that the Space mission is a hoax, you can actually watch him say it, here's the link www.erichufschmid.net... after going to the link, scroll down towards the bottom where it says "Historic video - JFK first tells the world of this dumb hoax" and click on the link under it and watch him say it HIMSELF



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Yasky, good link, thanks.

Everybody, get ready - here comes jra with "War and Peace".

Why did they not see the stars? Simply, they never went to the Moon...or, wait a minute...there comes jra with ever so detailed explanation - it does not make sense, but it will confuse you good, if you are not well informed. And that is all that jra wants - he does not really care about Yasky, golemina, bigbrain...they are beyond his reach.



posted on Jul, 22 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by YASKYfor example before JFK was assasinated he stated that the Space mission is a hoax, you can actually watch him say it, here's the link www.erichufschmid.net... after going to the link, scroll down towards the bottom where it says "Historic video - JFK first tells the world of this dumb hoax" and click on the link under it and watch him say it HIMSELF
Exactly where does he say that? I watched that video, and this is what JFK says: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish."


[edit on 22-7-2007 by nataylor]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Oh well, YASKY, im sorry. But no.

If i provided links at my university as evidence i would be thrown out.

I would prefer if people would actually say what they think.

Look, people call me a sheep on this site, then they try to provide links as evidence with no actual mention of their own thoughts or opinions?



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Now I grew up a young boy during the Moon race 60'-70's and as much as I do Love all the aspects of everything Nasa was involved from planning up and not limited too Final launches. And I still have quite a bit of Early pic's posters' books,etc. from the Space Race.
However this is 2007 and its a fact that we have multiple Very high resolution assets available to photograph pretty much Anything within our little part of the Galaxy and especially the Moon and Mars and Venus as well. Yet no pic of the Frickin Lander the tracks or Anything from any missions.
I know Im a broken record on this but Why no med or high res pics too just shut the controversey down? And Nasa admits much higher res moon images exist yet Cant find them or just ignore the requests.
Show me the money! Its a simple image for Nasa to capture. Heck has even one Recent Satellite or Telescope pic Ever surfaced showing the equip After the Missions. Should be a lot of stuff up there too see IMO.

And I wish Nasa's newest Moon missions actually happen and in my life time.






[edit on 23-7-2007 by VType]



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by VType
However this is 2007 and its a fact that we have multiple Very high resolution assets available to photograph pretty much Anything within our little part of the Galaxy and especially the Moon and Mars and Venus as well. Yet no pic of the Frickin Lander the tracks or Anything from any missions.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by VType]


Maybe time for a little arithmetic? The moon is roughly 400,000 km away from Earth. At that range, 1 meter (about the resolution you'd need to tell a lander from boulder) represent 0.0005 seconds of arc. If you have an asset that can image to that resolution while tracking a target moving at about 0.5 arcsec/sec, I'd like to know about it. I'm sure that Hubble is nowhere near this.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by VType
I know Im a broken record on this but Why no med or high res pics too just shut the controversey down? And Nasa admits much higher res moon images exist yet Cant find them or just ignore the requests.
Show me the money! Its a simple image for Nasa to capture. Heck has even one Recent Satellite or Telescope pic Ever surfaced showing the equip After the Missions. Should be a lot of stuff up there too see IMO.

[edit on 23-7-2007 by VType]


But one has to ask why would NASA even want pictures?.
The controversy has nothing to do with them and is created by conspiracy theories by crackpots.
They know where their stuff is but I doubt there are telescopes with cameras able to take pictures of things that small.
They might look big to us but in reality, compared to the moon they are tiny.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   
"scientifical"?

Anyway, go ahead and disprove. Don't just throw these sorry little links at us. The authors of those sites wouldn't know from evidence if it bought 'em a beer.

And no, I'm not on drugs, unless you want to count ibuprofen.



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
to people demanding "new " pictures - a challenge

you want pictures of what , exactly ?

you have hi res pictures of every step of the appollo program - all catalouged in the ALSJ , apolo lunar surface jornal archives

why do you not accept them as evdence

do you claim they are fake , do you claim nasa fabricated them ?

if so who are you going to trust to take these " new " hi res pictures of the moon / apollo sites ?

and why are you sudenly going to accept "new " pictures as genuine when you so cavalierly dismiss the ALSJ

pleaseanswer - this has always intrigued me

my view is that is is noththing but a dishionest ploy , if hi res pictures of the appollo landing sites could be taken and were made available HBers would denounce them as fake and demand sonme " new evidence " insted - quite pathetic really



posted on Jul, 23 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by VType
However this is 2007 and its a fact that we have multiple Very high resolution assets available to photograph pretty much Anything within our little part of the Galaxy and especially the Moon and Mars and Venus as well. Yet no pic of the Frickin Lander the tracks or Anything from any missions.


[edit on 23-7-2007 by VType]


Maybe time for a little arithmetic? The moon is roughly 400,000 km away from Earth. At that range, 1 meter (about the resolution you'd need to tell a lander from boulder) represent 0.0005 seconds of arc. If you have an asset that can image to that resolution while tracking a target moving at about 0.5 arcsec/sec, I'd like to know about it. I'm sure that Hubble is nowhere near this.
When ever the CIA releases pictures of SPYSAT pics of Soviet Bombers, thiese pics are far away and they use a Microscope to zoom in and take a picture before showing the President/Public i.e. The History Channel, now if you don't think the CIA or NASA could do the same to show us the Moon Equipment( That doesn't exist) left on the moon, then your not analysing correctly, they are not doing it because there was no one on the Moon MMMAANNNNNN!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 88  89  90    92  93  94 >>

log in

join