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: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
I must say though some of the pictures you posted above look computer generated, or perhaps they are artists’ renditions.


Really? Wow no kidding? So what your saying is that one or all of the following are involved in a massive scheme to befuddle us with photos of spidery thingies in craters?

Nasa, Navy Reseach Laboratory, USGS and Arizona State University?

Come come now... sounds a little farfetched don't you think? They must be real...

Like this photo taken on the way to the moon for example by the same camera on the same spaceship..





One even looks a little like the mysterious jellyfish-blob thing. Although I reckon most of NASA’s images from the solar system aren’t going to be up to National Geographic’s Standards. After all they're not being shot on Fuji film.


Well they are only at 100 meter per pixel resolution... so they would be GIANT jeellyfish... so who does NASA buy film from? But it was the Navy who took those
Credit where credit is due afterall

Would like to pick your brain about the anti gravity stuff though... maybe a new thread?




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jraand just in case you aren't aware. The Shuttle isn't able to leave Earth orbit, so it wouldn't be able to put anything on the Moon.


Really? Thats odd...not even with the secret anti gravity drive?

But seriously, I wonder how the "Aluria" is doing?




Originally posted by mistr_b2It is however too late.Bush got to them and promised them who knows what,check the Link.....


Thanks for that link, but remember that the President of China visited with Bill Gates first at his home, then Bush on day two LOL So who really pulls the strings I wonder?

[edit on 18-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mistr_b2unlike the Clementine bull.


Clementine bull? but gee haven't they had 100 meter per pixel resolution color images since 1994?

Oh yeah forgot... no one could find them...

:shk:



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Dear zorgon:

Glad to see you back in action. Thought the greys might have gotten you. The existence of alien lifeforms is sort of like religion – it can be neither proven nor disproved conclusively. Anyone approaching the topic will be guided by their own biased mindset.

My logic, alas my ‘bias’, is that the universe outside our planet is an incredibly hostile place. Any ‘spidery thingy’ capable of existing in that hellhole we call outerspace, be it in craters, cracks or crevices on the moon or elsewhere, would be so far superior to us it would have ‘gobbled us up’ a long time ago. Heck, they would have ‘slimed up’ the whole Earth and helped themselves to the iron core for desserts. We wouldn’t be typing on ATS right now if there were such ‘thingies’. Perhaps the great Anhunahki lizard lord will punish my sorry soul for this blasphemy – but I’ll take my chances, hehe.

Being that there are rational reasons to believe the Moon landing was faked, a ‘critical/negative bias’ is in order toward NASA’s official story and documents. The hard part isn’t getting to the Moon with equipment – the immensely difficult task is getting people there and back (alive). Could it have been done, even in 1969? I think so, if we and perhaps a good part of the rest of the world had focused all efforts toward flying to the Moon — and that didn’t happen.

By chance, you have listed the institutions in their correct ‘pecking’ order; NASA, Navy Research Laboratory, USGS and Arizona State University. Anything coming from the organization at the top (NASA) won’t be questioned by the others. So no ‘scheme to befuddle’ is needed. What NASA says will be printed and taught everywhere as gospel truth. Some pictures are real others may be not. But in this day and age it’s getting more difficult to tell. I just reviewed some images of the Pathfinder Sojourner Vehicle driving on Mars. Some photos show wheel track imprints in the sand, some don’t. The ones that do, include NASA comments similar to ‘please notice the tracks made by the wheels’. We have no choice but to speculate sometimes.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   


Really? Thats odd...not even with the secret anti gravity drive?


What? link me to where you think they have this?
unless you were being facetious (spelling)
you know those moon video's of when they are traveling to the moon and they ware watching the earth for a while. if you watch the earth very closely the cloud patterns on earth never change, i find that odd. just my observations.

anyways quote at hand? response?



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
Glad to see you back in action. Thought the greys might have gotten you.


No worse than that!!! The wife...christmas shopping




The existence of alien lifeforms is sort of like religion – it can be neither proven nor disproved conclusively.


Well I can say one thing fro certain IF the existance of God is a given, then RT's exist... God and the Angels being not of this Earth make them true ET's


And the other guy and his minions would then be landed aliens.. undeniable logic my dear Wizard, though little to do with static electricity

As to the Anunnaki dude... maybe we are supporting the wrong side. They want man to have free will... the other side demands blind sheep like obedience and you shall not want! And by Jove you will do it or else!

And there are your thunderbolts... wrath of god static discharges...

Simplified to be sure but there you go...

As to the spiders... if those really WERE spiders they would be oh say 30 miles across.. so that leaves the question, why are they in the pictures


I bet the folks at NASA are laughing themselves silly..



By chance, you have listed the institutions in their correct ‘pecking’ order; NASA, Navy Research Laboratory, USGS and Arizona State University.


Oops sorry... no NASA just drove the thing LOL Better order DOD, NRL/NASA, USGS, ASU Clementine was a starwars toy first, space tourist second and just where did it go after?


Pathfinder?

umm how about Spirit and Rover that have taken pictures of each other across a crater?




posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedangler
What? link me to where you think they have this?
unless you were being facetious (spelling)


Facetious about the shuttle being thusly equipped... most likely...its the wrong shape LOL

About the drives.... MIT, Los Alamos National Laboratory, a little in the public area on Plasma tech at AFRL...

About "Aluria" PDF reports from LPI on CD I ordered...

If your serious drop me a line LOL



posted on Dec, 18 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   
excuse me if im grossly mistook here, but werent the mars rovers dropped on opposite (or near) sides of the planet?

just wondering. carry on.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 04:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Damocles
but werent the mars rovers dropped on opposite (or near) sides of the planet?


NASA has a picture of them looking at each other I thought I save it I will look for it and post it


jra

posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

Originally posted by Damocles
but werent the mars rovers dropped on opposite (or near) sides of the planet?


NASA has a picture of them looking at each other I thought I save it I will look for it and post it


I highly doubt that, because they are indeed on opposite ends of Mars. But I think I know the image you're thinking of... which wasn't real.

marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...


This image superimposes an artist's concept of the Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity atop the 'Cabo Frio' promontory on the rim of 'Victoria Crater' in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars. It is done to give a sense of scale. The underlying image was taken by Opportunity's panoramic camera during the rover's 952nd Martian day, or sol (Sept. 28, 2006).



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 11:09 AM
link   
Google Mars shows the landing sites of both rovers.

www.google.com...

Just click on the "spacecraft" link near the top and go to the next page.



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jra
I highly doubt that, because they are indeed on opposite ends of Mars. But I think I know the image you're thinking of... which wasn't real.


Not the image I had, but you could be right... I never followed up on it at the time nor saved the clip. I will go through the old mail see if I have it...

But then people wonder why there is confusion LOL

NASA simulating pictures.... its OK if you are provided with the info and context but just the picture no longer tells a thousand words, it tells a lie

We need an independent source!! Anyone have a few onces of Element 115 to spare for our drive system?



posted on Dec, 19 2006 @ 05:20 PM
link   
What video do you mean specifically? Are talking about footage that shows the earth (usually the whole Earth, or at least most of it)?

Well if that's the case, it would be very hard to observe the motion of the clouds relative to the earth. For example, when you're looking at say, North America (about 2600 miles wide from coast to coast) any clouds that you see there would need to be moving at 100's of miles per hour for the motion to be noticed relative to the continent that they cover. Even if you're looking at a smaller portion of the planet from a relatively close distance (say the space station, for example, which is only about 230 miles up.) At this close distance, in your field of view you're still looking at 100's of miles of clouds moving at maybe 10's of miles per hour - their relative motion will be very difficult to detect.

This is another example of a person not thinking through there "fuzzy logic" and just throwing out their falsely perceived observations on these boards and calling it "the truth".

Here is my favorite example of the bad logic used by the moon skeptics. They say "why are there no stars in the pictures from the moon?" Well, we can do this simple experiment. On the next dark and starry night, take your camera and snap a photo up in the sky at the stars that you see with your naked eye (don't use a long exposure - that's not fair...the Apollo astronauts did not take long exposure shots. All of their photos were taken on a very bright lunar surface, so the exposures were very short). Anyway, When you develop/download those photos you took of the star-fiiled sky, you will see (maybe) only the brightest stars, if any at all.

There are two explanations for this:
(1) Stars do no give off enough light to show up on photos that are taken at a normal exposure time (Likely) or,
(2) Your whole existence is a fabrication. The world that you perceive as reality is all a fake, like the movie "The Truman Show", and the stars in your sky are not real. (highly unlikely).


I could sit here all day and bebunk all of the moon hoax theories, but it has already been done ad nauseum on this thread and others, and I really don't have the time.

[edit on 19-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:16 AM
link   
Soylent Green,

You write one of the LONGEST posts (word wise) on this thread yet you say you don't have the time to debunk all "there" theories?

First of all, who the hell are you?

Based on your ATS points, it appears you're a new member, so perhaps an introduction and/or qualifying yourself would be more in line.

As a fellow newbie, I will contribute healthy comments and build a better perspective by sitting back and enjoy reading and commenting on specifics rather than bullishly denegrate the thoughts of others, regardless of the strength of their argument.

Despite my love of free speech, comments like these rarely makes any more an impact on my overall perspective then if I were speaking with an uninformed teenager.

I've followed this thread from day 1 (no life, i know..) and to my recollection, not one poster has tried selling his/her (are there women on this site?) comments as THE TRUTH. My only other thought is if you felt an opinion was so strong for you consider it this much, maybe it's your truth that is in need of validity.

Read classic Sci-Fi.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by chetinglendalevillage
First of all, who the hell are you?



Let's stay on topic and off personalities.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Great Idea!!

We were talking about NASA and Spaceships getting

ZZZZZZAPPPED

So in that context...

Here is the latest...(well okay so I'm a little behind...sue me
) weather report from the launch pad. Before they need to worry about whats on the Moon they need to get past Earth first...

If they can survive THIS a little static on the moon is peanuts!




SOURCE

MORE INFO HERE

[edit on 20-12-2006 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Dear zorgon:

That’s what I’m talking about – a bombastic photograph!

Notice how the massive lightning bolt ignores the space shuttle stack and the launch tower itself. Common thinking always assumes lightning strikes the ‘highest point’. NASA has somehow figured out how to keep that from happening -- brilliant! (The air around the launch pad is offering a path of less resistance that the other man-made objects – how do they do this stuff!)

On the Moon, things are different however. There are no thunderstorms because there is no atmosphere. Since there is no water/moisture, the Moon dirt is an extreme insulator. Which means excess electrons cannot bleed into it. Which implies it will be extremely difficult to electrically ‘ground’ astronauts and equipment. Why is this of concern? Because when objects move around they build up electrical potential. Here on Earth we normally don’t notice this since we are constantly shedding our electricity to the floor or air, where there is always some humidity present to ensure conductivity.

On the Moon, there won’t be cloud-to-cloud lightning. There will be astronaut-to-astronaut or astronaut-to-equipment electrical storms unless well-thought out counter-measures are employed.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   
chetinglendale...I'm sorry, I thought purpose of this forum was for the healthy debate of topics such as the Moon Landing Hoax...I didn't realize that this forum is only for one sided discussion on the topic. (sarcasm)

I see nothing wrong with my debate technique (although I was impolite to thedangler - see the paragraph below). I thought I stated my argument, then provided the facts in support of that argument.

To thedangler: I do apologize (really, no sarcasm this time) to you for my remark about posting your "falsely perceived observations on these boards and calling it the truth" [sic]. I was out of line. You did not state anywhere in your post that your observation was necessarily the truth. I should have found some more polite manner to point out the falacies in your observations regarding the lack of cloud movement in NASA footage.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Wizard_in_the_woods:

The problem with static charges on the moon is very interesting...

A couple of months ago, I was wondering about how the space station and shuttle prevent static build-up while in space, since they can't have a tradtional "ground wire", so I did a little research.

I'm not sure about the exact technology, but this is in a nutshell what is done to electrically "ground" the ISS and shuttle: Static electric charges on the spacecraft are collected by a device that contains gas particles. These particals draw away and accept excess build-up of electrical charges. These charged gas particles are then ejected into space, effectively "grounding" the spacecrafts. I'm not sure if this technology is used for moon-walking astronauts.

Anyway, if there is anyone out there who knows more about this subject who has anything to add (or to correct my layman's take on this), it would be interesting to hear about it.

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]

[edit on 21-12-2006 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The problem with static charges on the moon is very interesting...

A couple of months ago, I was wondering about how the space station and shuttle prevent static build-up while in space, since they can't have a traditional "ground wire", so I did a little research.


Well one of the reasons you have difficulty finding info is that google and searches in general work best with knowing the right questions to ask. I think the general public not having the knowledge to begin with, don't know what to ask.

Static, while there, is not the major concern...

The term NASA uses is Plasma Interactions

Also do a search for "Plasma Lightning"

I have mentioned the STS75 Tether experiment before. While the famous tether incident film clip has circulated around the UFO sites, people overlook just what that experiment was, and focus on the dust particle/UFO aspect. I am not going to get into the UFO angle here. If anyone is really interested in the explanation of that one from our perspective you can u2u me

What is important for this topic is just what was that experiment...

Basically very simple.... free energy from space... drag a 12 mile copper wire through the Earth's ionosphere and scoop up free electricity. NASA scientist miscalculated the amount that was there... by 10 fold... as a result the tether fried and broke.

Search for "Electrodynamic Tether" You can buy one for your spaceship


NASA reported on press release that overall the experiment was a success...true it was, they just lost a 100 million satellite minutes after turning it on...

Now many people accuse NASA of lies and deception... not quite true... but there are many levels of information... so its not that they lie, but just don't tell the WHOLE truth..


But to serious researchers you will find publicly accessible documents that have been declassified. Many people don't look for them, or read them when provided, that is even true of many ATS's. Also the documents are generally highly technical and hard for the lay person to understand. The one I am going to quote from is 367 pages long


It was released not too long ago and is available in NASA history documents

Here are some key excerpts relevant to this thread.


This document is intended as a design guideline for high-voltage space power systems that must operate in the plasma environment associated with Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Such power systems, particularly solar arrays, may interact with this environment in a number of ways that are potentially destructive to themselves as well as to the platform or vehicle that has deployed them.

The first objective is to present an overview of current understanding of the various plasma interactions that may result when a high voltage system is operated in the earth’s ionosphere. A second objective is to reference common design practices that have exacerbated plasma interactions in the past and to recommend standard practices to eliminate or mitigate such reactions.


So I would say NASA is aware of the danger... and since there is no atmosphere out there it is closer to conditions on the moon... BTW the moon does have a high earth ground considering all the metal on the surface
Check my Lunar Mining pages...




These guidelines are intended for space systems that spend the majority of their time at altitudes between 200 and 1000 km (usually known as Low Earth Orbit (LEO) applications) and at latitudes between about + and – 50 degrees. That is, space systems that do not (often) encounter the auroral ovals of electron streams, that do not encounter GEO (geosynchronous orbit) charging conditions, and that do not fly through the Van Allen belts. For the extreme radiation protection that is necessary for those orbits, exterior spacecraft charging will likely be a secondary concern


So that is one way... charge the exterior of the spaceship and repel the charges. A simple physics class demo of the charged sphere and the pith ball will explain that principle...


For systems with very large areas of high voltage surfaces, such as the International Space Station (ISS), this effect is large, and requires a plasma contactor to mitigate. Experience with high voltage experiments in the Orbiter payload bay indicates that significant charging of the orbiter does not occur. Generally, the large area of exposed metal presented by the main engine bells collects sufficient ion current to balance at a low potential unless ion currents of more than about 30 mA are emitted, or unless the engine bells are in the orbiter wake. If a system is completely isolated from the orbiter body, plasma interactions will result in the system itself floating negative with respect to the orbiter.


Wouldn't be pretty if ISS and the Shuttle had different charges... like two clouds?
ZAPPPPPPPPPP

So Mr. Layman I hope that helps...

And if your ready to proceed...

And have a free hour or two... warning its a big file and 376 pages

NASA Document

[edit on 21-12-2006 by zorgon]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join