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.

 

Another Piece of Proof Why We Never Made It To The Moon!

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
Dear Everybody:

There are a thousand and one reasons why we never went to the moon. One of the most obvious indicators, to me at least, is the behavior of the astronauts. Why are they “in hiding”? And whey have they been shunning the public spotlight pretty much the entire time since the end of the Apollo missions. If they had really gone to the moon, they would be fixtures in the world of celebrities. They would be smiling into the cameras instead of “Tom Cruse”. But that’s “circumstantial evidence”. And ATS readers expect more.

Well, here goes. I came across this little gem just today through pure coincidence. science.nasa.gov... It’s an official NASA article, written only a year ago on 10 August 2005. And it says it all. From start to finish it shows the Moon landings never took place. I’ll quote some of the relevant passages:

1. “Astronauts on the Moon and Mars are going to have to cope with an uncommon amount of static electricity.” Are going to? I thought we were already there!

2. “But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.” Could be? Why so hypothetical?

3. “Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown. And when the astronaut or vehicle gets back to base and touches metal--ZAP! The lights in the base may go out, or worse.”
…whose magnitude is yet unknown. I thought we were already there!!

4. “Physicist Joseph Kolecki and colleagues at NASA Glenn first noticed this problem in the late 1990s before Mars Pathfinder was launched.” Hmm. We didn’t notice this until the late 1990’s?! I thought we landed on the Moon thirty years earlier in 1969!

5. “That discovery so concerned the scientists that they modified Pathfinder's rover design,..” “On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle.” Yep, they sure didn’t — because they never made it past the Van Allen radiation belts.

6. “Achieving a common ground on the Moon would be trickier, where there's not even a rarefied atmosphere to help bleed off the charge.” It sure would be. So let’s make sure we get things right when and if we finally do land on the Moon!

This NASA report was probably written and edited by more “junior” members, who forgot to be careful. In any case, I’m not anti-NASA whatsoever. In fact I’m their biggest fan. I think we should spend as much money on Space Research and research in general as possible. No, I’m not cynical, I’m serious. I actually think government is theoretically more capable of using resources wisely than private industry. In democracies, governments report to us, the people. Private industry is only beholden to their shareholders and could care less about the quality of their work (products). We just need to wisen’ up and start electing ethical leaders.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

[edit on 12/13/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



Edn

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   

On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle. "However, future lunar missions using large excavation equipment to move lots of dry dirt and dust could produce electrostatic fields. Because there's no atmosphere on the Moon, the fields could grow quite strong. Eventually, discharges could occur in vacuum."


Says it all really.

Although the article brings up a point which effectively should now be able to prove or disprove the moon landing conspiracy.


Physicist Joseph Kolecki and colleagues at NASA Glenn first noticed this problem in the late 1990s before Mars Pathfinder was launched. "When we ran a prototype wheel of the Sojourner rover over simulated Martian dust in a simulated Martian atmosphere, we found it charged up to hundreds of volts," he recalls.


Using the same principles you could run the same test to simulate Moon conditions the first astronauts would have done, if you get a charge that could prove they never went to the Moon. If not then your theory sadly fails.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:17 PM
link   
Dear Edn:

Maybe I was dreaming, but I thought I remember seeing “four-wheeling” on the moon. I mean I was just a kid at the time. Perhaps I was “seeing things”. But if I’m not mistaken the lunar rover was HUGE compared to the mars’ pathfinder or sojourner vehicles. The electrostatic charging would have been enormous on the moon buggy. But hey, maybe I’m missing something.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
nail in the coffin. i hope more slip ups come out. If the moon lading was a hoax and eventually none government people produce technology to go there. what will happen. will they be shut up with money. they can;t keep this a secret for much longer. if it is a hoax I'm sure they already have their bases covered.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
1. “Astronauts on the Moon and Mars are going to have to cope with an uncommon amount of static electricity.” Are going to? I thought we were already there!


I would not call that proof. Basically you are alluding to one common concept, and that is the electrostatic discharge. Could maybe... we have not had the necessary tools to measure such a discharge while out of our gravity norms, at the time we were on the moon?

Like number 4 on your list. That would make sense. If they were not able to measure the discharge then, they wouldn't have worried about it a whole lot. Now that they know, and they have the ability to measure it accurately, they can make the necessary design modifications.

Your post is like saying that since Europe didn't invent engines of today's standards way back in the 15th century, they never made it to America.


Edn

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Edn:

Maybe I was dreaming, but I thought I remember seeing “four-wheeling” on the moon. I mean I was just a kid at the time. Perhaps I was “seeing things”. But if I’m not mistaken the lunar rover was HUGE compared to the mars’ pathfinder or sojourner vehicles. The electrostatic charging would have been enormous on the moon buggy. But hey, maybe I’m missing something.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods
Now your just throwing around guesses without any proof. the vehicle they used wasn't a mars rover, it wasn't made of the same material, it didn't run the same. You can only theorize that the moon buggy would have produced static but unless you test it you cant prove it, even NASA don't know if static will be a problem on the Moon because they haven't tested it they only know that it may be a problem if the Moon shows similar conditions that Mars does.

now, you have the information you need to dis-prove the Moon landings so why don't you stop theorizing, being sarcastic and guessing and go out there and prove the Moon landings didn't happen

[edit on 13-12-2006 by Edn]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Dear niteboy82:

The key here is that NASA is speaking entirely hypothetically about the moon! Everything they say is “could be” — “would be” — “are going to” — “unknown” — “may”. That’s what’s so telling that we were never there.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Ok before we go down all this Path of "the moon hoaxed landing" AGAIN! read up on retroreflectoprs please.

physics.ucsd.edu...

They magically land there ?



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
But all the "coulda/wouldas" are not providing a proof. Only a guess, you're accusing NASA of speaking hypothetically, and you're speaking hypothetically. You have to provide more proof than that if you want people to make an educated judgement that we never went to the moon. Of course things were unknown to them then, compared to what they know now. Are we any different? We learn new things every day, and that doesn't negate our past experiences.

Here (.pdf), I found this to be a very helpful source of learning how testing of ESD works.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ednnow, you have the information you need to dis-prove the Moon landings so why don't you stop theorizing, being sarcastic and guessing and go out there and prove the Moon landings didn't happen


Dear Edn:

Er, why do I need to prove the moon landings didn’t happen when NASA says so itself? Their scientists put it in writing and that’s good enough for me.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The problem is that the astronauts are sworn to secrecy and some of them have already said too much. They probably want to live, so, they must just fade away and keep their mouths shut.
They saw plenty while out in the moon, in fact, not only did they see many ET ships, the way i hear it, they were also told to stay off the moon. (word has it), so they have to be careful not to rattle the governments.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Good find! I would also like to discuss the 2 conflicting conspiracies theories mentioned.

There is the "faked moon landings" question, and there is the "astronauts see large UFOs on the moon." Obviously both of these theories cannot be correct, they could both be wrong also. I personally feel the moon landings were faked out of the fear of losing the 'space race' with the Russians at the time. We simply didn't have the technology to achieve this in 1969 and keep the pilots alive, much less film themselves , do experiments, drive around the moon in a dune buggy, and safely return to Earth and give everybody high fives. I've heard the computers that NASA used at the time were the equivilent of a three dollar calculator. Hmmm...

But I hate the fact that believing this would destroy the "astronauts see UFOs on the moon" articles, of which I'd like to believe. But sadly, they cannot both be true.



[edit on 13-12-2006 by super70]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Dear Edn:

Maybe I was dreaming, but I thought I remember seeing “four-wheeling” on the moon. I mean I was just a kid at the time. Perhaps I was “seeing things”. But if I’m not mistaken the lunar rover was HUGE compared to the mars’ pathfinder or sojourner vehicles.

There was four wheeling, but I don't know if you'd call it huge. The Lunar Roving Vehicle was an open cab powered "go-cart", for lack of a better term.

exploration.nasa.gov...

I sure would be bummed if it turned out we had never been to the moon.
Mankind would have to back up "one giant step", and we have enough trouble moving forward as it is.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by subject xI sure would be bummed if it turned out we had never been to the moon.
Mankind would have to back up "one giant step", and we have enough trouble moving forward as it is.


Dear subject x:

Yes, it’s a downer that we haven’t been to the moon. I’ve always wished we as a country would spend more money on scientific research and less on silly marketing and consumer products/gadgets/crap. So many resources are being wasted — it’s scary. We need to “wake up” and quickly!

In terms of space vehicle the lunar rover was indeed colossal. It could carry two corn-fed astronauts or 1,000 lbs. And that’s a lot. Even for a “dune buggy”.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Could it possibly be, that the difference in materials used today, to manufacture suits and equipment have different static-causing properties than what was used 40 years ago ?

Just a thought,
Lex


jra

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
One of the most obvious indicators, to me at least, is the behavior of the astronauts. Why are they “in hiding”? And whey have they been shunning the public spotlight pretty much the entire time since the end of the Apollo missions. If they had really gone to the moon, they would be fixtures in the world of celebrities. They would be smiling into the cameras instead of “Tom Cruse”. But that’s “circumstantial evidence”. And ATS readers expect more.


They aren't hiding. Niel Armstrong doesn't like being in the spot light, but that's about it. Many of them speak at events, taught at universities, have been spokes persons for companies, served as board members for companies, started there own business, have written books and autobiographies etc.

That hardly sounds like they are hiding to me. Perhaps you should research before making such baseless claims? Seriously, go look up there biographies, you'll find that they've done lots of things post Apollo. And it's also completely up to them as to how far they want to take there celebrity status. They didn't do it for the fame and to be a celebrity. Why do you think they should be "fixtures in the world of celebrities" and being in front of cameras all the time?

Celebrities like Tom Cruise love being at the center of attention and being in the spot light and getting there ego stroked. Real heroes don't need that s***.


1. “Astronauts on the Moon and Mars are going to have to cope with an uncommon amount of static electricity.” Are going to? I thought we were already there!


This is in reference to future missions, thus them saying, “Astronauts on the Moon and Mars...".


2. “But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.” Could be? Why so hypothetical?


Because the Apollo astronauts didn't experience any static discharge, thus it's not 100% confirmed at the moment. From your article.


On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle. "However, future lunar missions using large excavation equipment to move lots of dry dirt and dust could produce electrostatic fields. Because there's no atmosphere on the Moon, the fields could grow quite strong. Eventually, discharges could occur in vacuum."


There's your clue. The Apollo Astronauts didn't move around lots of dirt and dust, thus no static build up. Also the future lunar missions plan to stay for weeks at a time, not days like Apollo. Spending weeks on the surface would allow more time/chance for a static build up.


3. “Because the soil is insulating, providing no path to ground, a space suit or rover can build up tremendous triboelectric charge, whose magnitude is yet unknown. And when the astronaut or vehicle gets back to base and touches metal--ZAP! The lights in the base may go out, or worse.”
…whose magnitude is yet unknown. I thought we were already there!!


Again, Apollo astronauts didn't move around lots of dirt or spend a long time on the surface. That's why they didn't experience it and why it remains unknown. It's not a sign that we didn't go.


4. “Physicist Joseph Kolecki and colleagues at NASA Glenn first noticed this problem in the late 1990s before Mars Pathfinder was launched.” Hmm. We didn’t notice this until the late 1990’s?! I thought we landed on the Moon thirty years earlier in 1969!


Again, same as I said above...


5. “That discovery so concerned the scientists that they modified Pathfinder's rover design,..” “On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle.” Yep, they sure didn’t — because they never made it past the Van Allen radiation belts.


Are you seriously going to try and bring up the Van Allen belts and claim they couldn't get through it?


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


You can read more about the belts here. www.clavius.org...

Just because they don't know what will happen during long term stays on the moon does not mean that they didn't go. I think that was a pretty poor attempt at trying to claim the landings never happened.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
I dunno. How can people be so smart and so stupid at the same time?



On the Moon, "Apollo astronauts never reported being zapped by electrostatic discharges," notes Calle. "However, future lunar missions using large excavation equipment to move lots of dry dirt and dust could produce electrostatic fields. Because there's no atmosphere on the Moon, the fields could grow quite strong. Eventually, discharges could occur in vacuum."


coupled with


Physicist Joseph Kolecki and colleagues at NASA Glenn first noticed this problem in the late 1990s before Mars Pathfinder was launched. "When we ran a prototype wheel of the Sojourner rover over simulated Martian dust in a simulated Martian atmosphere, we found it charged up to hundreds of volts," he recalls.


Makes it blindingly obvious that they never even though of the problem on the Apollo missions - it never arose, and was never considered a problem until the 90s.



Anyway, simple proof of them actually going to the moon is this...


Height of the cold war, mainly seen as - Soviet Union vs USA - now, Soviets have technology levels similar to the Americans. Do you really think they would have congratulated the US on the moon landings if (and lets face it - they would have known, end of) they knew it was faked? If they had any, and I mean any evidence it was faked, you can be sure it would have been made very public and the US government discredited.

Some people have to get real.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Dear jra:

NASA says: “But to astronauts on the Moon or on Mars, static discharge could be real trouble.”
You say: “Because the Apollo astronauts didn't experience any static discharge,…”

Now who are we supposed to believe, you or NASA? If the astronauts hadn’t noticed any electrical charge build-up in 1969 why would NASA consider it a potential problem now or as of 10-Aug-2005 to be precise (date of article). Yes, Lexion (fellow ATS member) mentions as a possible caveat that perhaps we are these days using more static-prone materials in outer-space equipment. But in that case, NASA would have said so. Scientists are normally very precise with their language.

Unlike mars, the moon doesn’t even have a little bit of an atmosphere — to shed off excess electrons into. Which means after joyriding in their moon buggy the astronauts would have seen “Saint Elmo’s Fire” while stepping up the lunar module ladder. And they didn’t. So something is rotten in Denmark.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods


[edit on 12/13/2006 by Wizard_In_The_Woods]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Why out of the 12 men to have walked on the moon, none of them have had their picture taken with the Earth in the backdrop behind them? Surely that would have been the Ultimate photo opportunity.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   
um there are some pictures with the earth in the background my only problem with the pictures is that the earth is way to small in the phots.

[edit on 13-12-2006 by thedangler]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join