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.

 

NASA Hoax

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:
jra

posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:42 PM
link   
What's the point of linking (spamming?) your thread in this one with a really a large annoying animated .gif? How does that add to the discussion in this thread?




posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Possibly yet another sighting of the once-rare Posterus Gotnoanswerus?

I'd much rather find answers to why said poster hasn't really answered any of the posts which have thus far made great steps in disproving the NASA Hoax.



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
It would be laughable if it were'nt so sad, that so many are decieved into thinking NASA really went to the moon, how gullible are we ?

There are several points you can not get around.

Firstly, micro-wave signals(used by satellites to transmit video) are not endless. The proof of this is that if you use KU-Band, the signals cannot peirce the heavy clouds, because of the nature of that signal, anytime you had heavy clouds you would lose your signal.
KU-Band allows the use of smaller dishes, but is far more susceptible to rainfading and thus is why many who own direct tv, dish and other like systems lose their pictures in heavy rainfall.
This is proof that the signals are not endless and can easily be blocked or lost, and here we are only talking about an alledged 22,300 miles, much less 200,000 mile or more, what a joke.

If you use C-Band, you will need a larger dish(antenna)
In order to send a signal from Europe to the USA, you would need a dish at least 25 ft. at each location.

There is no uplink antenna of any size on the moon so how are pictures and video sent back to the earth?

If the cable companies use antennas as large as 50 ft. to recieve signals from a satellite that sits in an orbit alledged to be 22,300 miles, what size antenna would you need to receive a signal 200,000 miles away ? roughly 500 ft. what a joke.

I stated earlier that in my early days of satellite tv I had a tool the size of a cigar that was used to track and find satellites. I know for a "FACT" that you could look through this tool and see the satellites in the sky. The question arises, how could a tool this size see a satellite 22,300 miles away?
The answer, quite simply it could'nt, for the satellites are not that far away and actually sit in an orbit 300 miles above the earth.

As I have already stated, if NASA can use rockets to launch satellites into orbit and have not had problems doing so, the same type of covering could have been used for the Shuttles. The first alledged trip to the moon was 35 years ago and they had no problems, I don't accept the story that it was not intended for reuse and this is the reason that they are having so many problems with the shuttles.

Now they are about to send a probe to mars, much further out, how will they control it ? I quess it has "AI" or maybe they will have an alien crew.
They can't solve the problem with the shuttle yet they can send a unmaned probe to mars, what a joke.
I can hear them now "More Donuts" "More Coffee" , make sure it's Dunkin.
More Pizza, they have the 3 for $15 bucks special, I want Pepperoni !



[edit on 10-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
Apollo 12’s S-band antenna


Apollo 11 broadcast the television images of the first moonwalk using the 0.66 meter antenna on the LM.





They were received by the 64 meter (210 feet) radio telescope antenna at Parkes in Australia




Click the Parkes Link for more info.


jra

posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
As I have already stated, if NASA can use rockets to launch satellites into orbit and have not had problems doing so, the same type of covering could have been used for the Shuttles. The first alledged trip to the moon was 35 years ago and they had no problems, I don't accept the story that it was not intended for reuse and this is the reason that they are having so many problems with the shuttles.


Same type of covering? What are you talking about? A satellite that is launched on an unmanned rocket is completely differnt then the way the shuttle launches. It's enclosed at the top (much like Apollo was) and put into orbit. You can't enclose the shuttle in the same way. It's just a metal covering anyway, nothing fancy. Now when you talk about the moon landings and saying they have no problems. Are you referring to there heat shield and re-entry? If so, the Apollo used ablative heat shielding. It was a one time use only and could not be replaced. The whole point of the shuttle was to have something reusable. Thus differnt materials and design were needed.

They arn't having problems with the shuttles because they are reusable. The problem is simply the foam. And the reason they have a problem with the foam is because of the EPA, as I stated earlier. The new foam increases the chance of breaking off by 11 fold compaired to the old foam.


Now they are about to send a probe to mars, much further out, how will they control it ? I quess it has "AI" or maybe they will have an alien crew.
They can't solve the problem with the shuttle yet they can send a unmaned probe to mars, what a joke.
I can hear them now "More Donuts" "More Coffee" , make sure it's Dunkin.
More Pizza, they have the 3 for $15 bucks special, I want Pepperoni !


It doesn't have A.I. They control it from the ground like they do with every probe. They don't need to control it constantly. They just plot a trajectory and do some minor adjustments through out the trip. There are a lot of pre-programmed things though, they don't control everything, but it's not A.I. Just pre-programmed tasks.

I still fail to see why you compair satellites and probes to the shuttle. There is nothing to compair them with eachother. They are both very differnt things.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by jra]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   
wow ! LDP you have more stamina than I initially gave you credit for . Bravo !

In the face of well thought out answers to your questions that nail you to the wall and leave no wiggle room, you stick to your guns and break out the "you are gullible, I am smart" defense, well done !

I haven't seen denial like that since the "british royal family are shape-shifting reptilians from the 4th dimension" thread (I'm not kidding, do a search, its a beauty)

the best part is how you scoff at and ridicule the other posters with a disdain normally reserved for a grizzled old college professor dealing with a newbie freshman class. Brilliant !


Its really too bad you have no faith in your fellow mans ability to acheive great things, but you do posses an unquestioning faith in your fellow man to deceive and hoax.

Whatever website gave you these ideas must have had really cool colors and graphics



[edit on 10-8-2005 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Howard, the small dish you showed on the moon is hardly able to send a signal back to the earth, even with a 200 ft. diameter downlink.

High Priest, I really do find it almost laughable, how gullible people are.
I have stated severall times that i used to be a satellite technician and know for a fact that it is a "HOAX"
My greatest proof is that I once used the instrument called a satellite finder, which as I have said several times , is about the size of a cigar.
I could look through it and see the satellites in the sky.
Tell me how a instrument that size can see a 18 ft. satellite 22,300 miles away ? It's not happening.

Also when I refered to the satellites being taken up into orbit, I was saying that they could have used the same covering that was on the "Rockets" not the satellites.

I am not so gullible as to beleive that 35 years after they alledgedly went to the moon they could not repeat the mission if it truly happened the first time. Every other technology has advanced, how come NASA is going backward ? It is all a lie.

Also to note, why is it that most of the men that went to the moon were "MASON'S" ? Many people beleive that there are certain masonic orders that are a part of the New World Order, I am not suggesting that "ALL" masonic orders are a part of the conspiracy, but that there are certain orders that can be traced back thousand of years and even back to the days of Babylon and thus is where they got their skill in Black Magic and Satanic Worship. This is the art they are currently using that causes many to beleive their "Deceptions".

If you really begin to add all of the facts together, the true picture begins to appear.

Mason are involved and probably control the space program, we see the occult signature throughout the space program, Apollo 13, the dates and times of lauches contain 13's, even the NAME "APOLLO" gives reference to the Ancient Greek God Of Legend, Apollo. Atlantis, the "MYSTERY" lost City.

You will also find this true when you take a look at the NAMES of Automobiles, it follows a very similar pattern, it is the Signature of the "ELITE" and their signs, symbols and numbers can easily and consistently be found.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet

I have stated severall times that i used to be a satellite technician and know for a fact that it is a "HOAX"


You keep saying this, and you're yet to actually show any of it as being "fact".

You keep accusing us of being gullible - but you're not providing anything to show exactly why we're gullible, and why your theories are more viable than those presented elsewhere.

Sorry, it's just "not happening", as you put it.

I just cannot fathom how you've come to the conclusion that the NWO/Masons are somehow behind it all.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Lastday Prophet.

I already told you to go look up Moon Bounce and see what AMATUER radio buffs are doing (bouncing signals off the moon and back to earth using a couple hundred dollars worth of equipment). How are they accomplishing this without a giant dish on the Moon or on Earth? How are they accomplishing this without hundreds of watts of transmitting power?

Is everything you say imaginary? If you were indeed a satellite technician you would know how satellite signals work, and you would know how radio signals work. You CLEARLY know neither.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Cat, your response is laughable, bounce a signal of the moon ?, firstly satellites are used to reflect signals, not planets.

Second what is on the moon to reflect a signal, what a joke.

Tink, if you are going to quote me do it in context, it appears you are about deception and thus is why you only posted part of what I said. If you are intending to work your art of deception with me, you need to step up several levels, that one was very weak.


I have stated severall times that i used to be a satellite technician and know for a fact that it is a "HOAX"
My greatest proof is that I once used the instrument called a satellite finder, which as I have said several times , is about the size of a cigar.
I could look through it and see the satellites in the sky.
Tell me how a instrument that size can see a 18 ft. satellite 22,300 miles away ? It's not happening.


[edit on 11-8-2005 by Lastday Prophet]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest

Whatever website gave you these ideas must have had really cool colors and graphics




I bet it had a lot of animated gifs and a midi soundtrack too!



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Alrighty. I just re-read the entire thread.


I stated earlier that in my early days of satellite tv I had a tool the size of a cigar that was used to track and find satellites. I know for a "FACT" that you could look through this tool and see the satellites in the sky. The question arises, how could a tool this size see a satellite 22,300 miles away?


Before we go any further, do tell us the name of this gadget. Then we can take the "how it works" thing step by step. Such a thing must have a name, and probably a brand/manufacturer.

Upon re-reading the thread (an interesting half-hour, it must be said), there's one thing that keeps coming up, LDP:

You have been consistently unable to counter any of the evidence which effectively debunks your claims.

Please, humour me once more. Disprove (without the use of numerology) any of Catherder's points, any of Howard's points...or really, any of the points you still claim to "know" for a fact are hoaxes.

Thankyou. Sincerely, thankyou.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
What about apollo 8,10,11,14,15,16,17 ?
are those numbers an evil message from the masons ?

oooh...wait...there was no apollo 9....must be a satanic reason, I'm sure

Can you demonstrate all the masonic connections to all the astronauts ?


Frank Borman, commander
James A. Lovell, command module pilot
William A. Anders, lunar module pilot
Thomas P. Stafford, commander
John W. Young, command module pilot
Eugene A. Cernan, lunar module pilot
Neil A. Armstrong, commander
Michael Collins, command module pilot
Edwin E. Aldrin, Jr., lunar module pilot
Charles Conrad, Jr., commander
Richard F. Gordon, command module pilot
Alan L. Bean, lunar module pilot
Alan B. Shepard, Jr., commander
Stuart A. Roosa, command module pilot
Edgar D. Mitchell, lunar module pilot
David R. Scott, commander
Alfred M. Worden, command module pilot
James B. Irwin, lunar module pilot
John W. Young, commander
Thomas K. Mattingly II, command module pilot
Charles M. Duke, Jr., lunar module pilot
Ronald E. Evans, command module pilot
Harrison H. Schmitt, lunar module pilot


jra

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
My greatest proof is that I once used the instrument called a satellite finder, which as I have said several times , is about the size of a cigar.
I could look through it and see the satellites in the sky.
Tell me how a instrument that size can see a 18 ft. satellite 22,300 miles away ? It's not happening.


I'd like to know more about this "satellite finder". I can't find any such device that one looks through to find satellites. I find nothing of the sort at all. So I agree with who ever else asked for more information about it. What is its magnification level. Just how much detail did you see it in? Was it used durring the day time or at night? So far I can find no such device.


Also when I refered to the satellites being taken up into orbit, I was saying that they could have used the same covering that was on the "Rockets" not the satellites.


Well as far as I know. Stuff fell off the Apollo rockets too, like ice and what not. It's just that they didn't have to worry about it hitting anything. Since there was nothing strapped to the side of it.


I am not so gullible as to beleive that 35 years after they alledgedly went to the moon they could not repeat the mission if it truly happened the first time. Every other technology has advanced, how come NASA is going backward ? It is all a lie.


Did you read anything I wrote? They arn't going backwards. Do you not understand that the shuttle is an orbiter? Meaning it is designed to orbit the Earth and nothing more. Do you also understand that going to the moon is expencive? Do you understand that NASA doesn't have nearly as big of a budget as they did in the 60's? If you understand all that, then you should understand why we haven't been back. It has nothing to do with our technology. It is simply a money issue and nothing more. I don't know how many times it needs to be said till you get that.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   
If you don't believe then now you can go find out for sure for only 100 Million

Source


While it would be very cool to go, I could think of plenty of things I'd rather do rate here on earth with 100 Million, but then again the people that they are marketing to could probably already have and have done just about everything on earth, and could afford to go a few times and still have cash to burn.


jra

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by warpboost
If you don't believe then now you can go find out for sure for only 100 Million

Source


That's just for flying around the moon though. Not to land on it.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
So if radio waves aren't endless, how did Voyager keep transmitting right up until it left the galaxy? Do tell please, or are we all so gullible that we believe that all the Voyagers missions were faked too?


jra

posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So if radio waves aren't endless, how did Voyager keep transmitting right up until it left the galaxy? Do tell please, or are we all so gullible that we believe that all the Voyagers missions were faked too?


I think you mean the solar system.
And it hasn't quite left it yet, it's just at the edge of it. about 90au from Earth. But you point still stands none the less.

[edit on 11-8-2005 by jra]



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Galaxy, solar system lol. It's been a long week with little sleep.



posted on Aug, 11 2005 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
Cat, your response is laughable, bounce a signal of the moon ?, firstly satellites are used to reflect signals, not planets.


So let me get this straight... In your mind, a vacation spot completely devoid of reason, you can send a signal up to a satellite, and then bounce it back to earth, going through the atmosphere TWO TIMES, but you still think it's impossible to send a signal from the moon to the earth on a one way trip through empty space and through the atmosphere one time (this has been your assertion many times in this thread)...


Second what is on the moon to reflect a signal, what a joke.


Well, what is on the moon to REFLECT THE RAYS OF LIGHT FROM THE SUN? Or do you think the moon glows all by itself? *tap tap ....is anyone home in there?* The moon is a (gasp) near solid object, it surprises you that energy reflects off the surface?

Here are some links. GO READ THEM ALL! Please, for the sake of decency pretend for a few minutes that you don't suffer from cranialrectalinfarction and read some stuff from private citizens, people with hobbies, and some nerds with government jobs, from all over the world.

Links to Moon Bounce (EME) related websites
Now, if you've clicked on ANY of them, and read ANYTHING on those pages, and can comprehend ANY of it, I think you'll see that the only one here being laughed at is you... Seriously, educate yourself prior to posting on a subject you know nothing about.



Tink, if you are going to quote me do it in context, it appears you are about deception and thus is why you only posted part of what I said. If you are intending to work your art of deception with me, you need to step up several levels, that one was very weak.


In context??! I show you how utterly meaningless and daft your number 13 references are/were by using YOUR examples and arriving at 17 each time -- you don't respond; I show you how you are utterly uninformed about how the transfer of heat energy works through 4 different mechanisms -- you don't respond; I show you (as you demanded of us) examples of professional sports teams with numbers in their logo other than 13 -- you again don't respond; I question your sources as being invalid (illuminati) and ask you about the 8 'minority' Bush staff members -- you don't respond; I show you the difference between heat shielding on the 3 space capsules in comparison to the tiles used on the shuttle -- you again don't respond; you are a very peculiar individual.


I have stated severall times that i used to be a satellite technician and know for a fact that it is a "HOAX"


You obviously are no longer a satellite tech because you have NO CONCEPT of how they work! You're an utter fraud, a poorly educated individual who lacks a rudimentary grasp on basic scientific principals, never mind how to apply them in real world use. You have no idea what atmospheric interference is, you obviously don't know how atmospheric loss works (the value of atmospheric loss is strongly dependant on frequency of the signal), you have no clue what doppler shift means, you have no inkling about beam spreading, you've never heard of scintillation loss, Rayleigh fading is a new term to you, you are completely ignorant regarding polarization and linear, circular, or cross polarization (or specifically WHY it's important), you probably never even heard of free-space loss, and you display a complete lack of understanding about rain attenuation in your previous posts! You are 100% incompetent to even discuss the topic. I mean, you're probably even completely unaware how current satellite receivers work and why they can now use 18 inch dishes instead of the 10 foot dishes that were around before you lost your job due to lacking comprehension of what it was you were working on! (Be honest with us, you were the guy who used the wrenches and held the ladder while the other "tech" aligned the dish and set up the receiver, right?)

And when you are given the tools, links, and the information to educate yourself with (education = to better yourself as a member of the human race imho) you refuse to read any of it, and you shove that head of yours even deeper up your ass.


My greatest proof is that I once used the instrument called a satellite finder, which as I have said several times , is about the size of a cigar.
I could look through it and see the satellites in the sky.
Tell me how a instrument that size can see a 18 ft. satellite 22,300 miles away ? It's not happening.


You remind me of my 90 year old grandmother who is constantly amazed at my car; how it beeps when I lock the doors as I walk away from it, how it chirps and says "KBand" , "KA-Band"or "Laser" when it detects radar, or how the trunk opens by clicking a button on my keychain. (Even though she sees it every week when I take her for lunch and to do some shopping, it's a new and excitingly mysterious thing for her every single time.) Come out of the stone age, it's not a mystery how a satellite finder works. I've used a Sat Catcher myself in the past, it's nothing extraordinary. But if you're talking about some magic scope that makes all the satellites stand out, I'd love to have one! I currently just use a small dish and one of these when setting up a dish (although most times I just point the dish to where I think the sat is and I'm pretty close (60% signal before alignment steps). I currently do LinkSat, DirectWay and VSat installs (and some other new one that I can't remember the name of right now), and judging from your very limited knowledge of what's up in the skies I'll bet this map of geosats is news to you... (and these are JUST the ones that provide TV and web communications).


When looking for satellites, you can get the same results with a good set of binoculars if you know where to look in the first place. If you want to learn more about watching/observing satellites, I'd head right over to saao or utexas and check out over a hundred websites dedicated to the hobby!

Note: In case you're totally unaware how posts on this website work, the bold reddish brown letters are links to other web pages containing thousands of words and pretty pictures to look at. They are all important and relevant to this post.



[edit on 11-8-2005 by CatHerder]



new topics




 
1
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join