Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Secret Apollo Astronauts

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sylpho

John, maybe do you know a name of that son?




Yes, I have both the name of the son and the father. They are the same name.




posted on Apr, 8 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by micpsi
I love the way Lear passes off his speculations as though it were 'insider' knowledge that he had acquired. Teasing tidbits of disinformation carefully crafted to deceive and to astound. The truth of the matter is: he does not know a damn thing. If someone can make such scientifically incorrect statements like that, how can any of you suckers trust a single thing he says?





Thank you for your post micpsi, insults are always taken with a grain of salt.

I am not a physicist or mathmetician so I can not tell you where your calculations are in error but I can tell you that the gravity on the moon is at least 64% and there is a breathable atmosphere.

Thanks again for the post.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   


Yes, I have both the name of the son and the father. They are the same name.


John, probably you can't disclose his a name than... right?



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I am not a physicist or mathmetician

Yes, this is very obvious.


so I can not tell you where your calculations are in error

But I did clearly tell you where your "calculations" were wrong
!

To remind you:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...


but I can tell you that the gravity on the moon is at least 64% and there is a breathable atmosphere.

This is the "argumentum ad nauseam" fallacy
! Which means that a false statement doesn't become true just because you repeat it until everyone gets sick of it!

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I can tell you that the gravity on the moon is at least 64% and there is a breathable atmosphere.


Mr. Lear,

You may be utterly convinced by what you post although the disclaimer in you signature suggests something rather different but can you please rationalise the following with regard to your earlier contentions.

1. If the Moon has a breathable atmosphere how can its surface be so scarred by impact craters when the meteorites which would have caused them must have burnt up in that atmosphere?

2. If the Moon has breathable atmosphere then how did the LEM fly in that atmosphere? Whatever its propulsion system to say it has the aerodynamics of a brick is a serious understatement and in any kind of atmosphere that would make its supposed flight completely untenable, yes?



[edit on 9-4-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sylpho


Yes, I have both the name of the son and the father. They are the same name.


John, probably you can't disclose his a name than... right?






Yes, I could disclose his name but I want someone to come to me and say I believe it is 'such and such'. If I don't disclose the name beforehand I will know that I have a third verification.



posted on Apr, 9 2007 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
You may be utterly convinced by what you post although the disclaimer in you signature suggests something rather different but can you please rationalise the following with regard to your earlier contentions.

1. If the Moon has a breathable atmosphere how can its surface be so scarred by impact craters when the meteorites which would have caused them must have burnt up in that atmosphere?


The moon hasn't always been in orbit around the earth and it probably hasn't always had an atmosphere. The impact craters were probably from a time the moon was in storage without an atmosphere.



2. If the Moon has breathable atmosphere then how did the LEM fly in that atmosphere? Whatever its propulsion system to say it has the aerodynamics of a brick is a serious understatement and in any kind of atmosphere that would make its supposed flight completely untenable, yes?



Good question. The LEM allegedly had about 22,000 pounds of fuel and it would have been impossible to make a descent from an orbit of 60 miles and then ascent from the surface of the moon back to a 60 miles orbit with 22,000 pounds of fuel in 64% of earths gravity.

So based on the fact that I think the moon does, in fact, have a gravity of 64% that of earths and the fact that there was little or no dust blown about on any photo or video we have of its departure from the moon and the fact that there was no visible exhaust crater under the LEM or the fact that there was no dust or dirt on the LEM landing gear foot pad it is likely that they used an anti-gravity propulsion system.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The moon hasn't always been in orbit around the earth and it probably hasn't always had an atmosphere. The impact craters were probably from a time the moon was in storage without an atmosphere.

In "storage"?!? In Magrathea's planetary construction hall?!



So based on the fact that I think the moon does, in fact, have a gravity of 64% that of earths ...

... which is demonstrably wrong.


... and the fact that there was little or no dust blown about on any photo or video we have of its departure from the moon and the fact that there was no visible exhaust crater under the LEM or the fact that there was no dust or dirt on the LEM landing gear foot pad ...

... which is all perfectly normal for the described events.

So, based on completely flawed premises, you come to a conclusion ...

it is likely that they used an anti-gravity propulsion system.

... which is, as expected, complete hogwash.


Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
The moon hasn't always been in orbit around the earth and it probably hasn't always had an atmosphere. The impact craters were probably from a time the moon was in storage without an atmosphere.


Thanks for the reply but it doesn't really get us anywhere does it? You could equally well argue that the craters are the result of the activities of huge rock eating termites that died out millions of years ago and biodegraded to form Moon dust.



based on...[ ]...the fact that there was little or no dust blown about on any photo or video we have of its departure from the moon and the fact that there was no visible exhaust crater under the LEM or the fact that there was no dust or dirt on the LEM landing gear foot pad it is likely that they used an anti-gravity propulsion system.


The videos of take offs and landings of LEMs here,Apollo Archive , show plenty of stuff getting blown around with some force and dust being disturbed. I haven't looked for it but the audio of Armstrong reporting that they were "kicking up some dust" on descent of Apollo 11 is also probably there. So the simpler and far more logical answer is that the Moon has approximately one sixth gravity and they did the trip in a vacuum with the reported use of rocket engines which did not produce a crater as the rocky surface under the dust layer is far too hard to be damaged by a low power rocket which was throttled way back and actually cut out before the LEM hit the surface.

You see I understand that you only post this stuff for discussion purposes and do not represent it as fact etc. etc., but without any evidence to support what you say it really does end up reading as some kind of game you like to play with other posters rather than a serious presentation of rational beliefs.

...and I'm not sure that's helping anyone to understand the real history of the Apollo programme at all.

Edit, sorrry, forgot to add the link to the Apollo Archive

...and edited again to add that I notice the thread has veered way off the original topic and this may be more appropriate on the "Questions for..." thread. My apologies to the OP.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by timeless test]

[edit on 10-4-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
So, based on completely flawed premises, you come to a conclusion ...

it is likely that they used an anti-gravity propulsion system.

... which is, as expected, complete hogwash.






Yes, it certainly would appear as complete hogwash. Especially the part about anti-gravity propulsion.

Thanks for your input yfxxx it is always appreciated.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

Thanks for the reply but it doesn't really get us anywhere does it?


That would depend on where it is you would like to go and how long you have to get there.


You could equally well argue that the craters are the result of the activities of huge rock eating termites that died out millions of years ago and biodegraded to form Moon dust.


Lets stick with my outrageous theory. Thanks.


So the simpler and far more logical answer is that the Moon has approximately one sixth gravity and they did the trip in a vacuum with the reported use of rocket engines which did not produce a crater as the rocky surface under the dust layer is far too hard to be damaged by a low power rocket which was throttled way back and actually cut out before the LEM hit the surface.


Yes I noticed how Armstrongs boot print failed to make the slightest dent in the surface of the moon which pretty much proves your theory of a rocky surface.






You see I understand that you only post this stuff for discussion purposes and do not represent it as fact etc. etc., but without any evidence to support what you say it really does end up reading as some kind of game you like to play with other posters rather than a serious presentation of rational beliefs.


Rational, conventional, repeatable, scientific, serious, are all types of restraints that keep modern man from exploring the unknown. Its what separates us from the 'dark ages'. But were the 'dark ages' really dark?

The main problem with ferreting out the truth is that the truth 'undermines' everything we have been taught in school and college. Its like going back to 'square one', and people, particularly those highly educated are not willing to go back 'and start all over'. They are comfortable in their warm, fuzzy scientific beliefs. They don't want to risk peer review. They believe hook, line and sinker the lie about the moon being a barren chunk of dirt, with no gravity, with no air, and so dry that, left unprotected your body would turn to dust.

Of course, that is nonsense. The moon has gravity, about 64% of earths, a breathable atmosphere, huge cities, giant constructs, vegetation, lakes, undeground laboratories. But it is a secret. And no secret this important is going to be easily discovered or uncovered.

The devil is in the detail. For instance, most scientists can't tell you at what altitude all Apollo missions orbited the moon. But its 60 miles. So what? Well if the moon is a quarter the size of earth and its gravity is only 1/6th why orbit at a wasteful 60 miles? Why not orbit at 15? The reason is that at the speed Apollo approached the moon, 60 miles, with a margin of safety, was the closest it could orbit because of the moons gravity, which is about 64% that of earths. It HAD to orbit WAY OUT THERE.

Take a look at this picture of the moon taken in January of 1946 by the Lick Observatory. You see that big explosion of dust and dirt. No thats not the LEM taking off, But whatever it is it proves conclusively that the moon has an atmosphere without which the dust and dirt could not form a cloud. You can see the column of dust/debris/smoke drifting to the northwest which means there must be wind. All of which cannot occur without an atmosphere. And to have an atmosphere you must have gravity: (1. The base of the explosion 2.The distance travelled by the column of dust/debris before rising 3. the column of dust/debris rising to the top of the atmosphere)




Or this apparant reactor where Aristarchus should be:






Or this bucket wheel excavator in Copernicus:








So, yes, I do advance my theories for discussion and, yes, they are really 'out there'. But my evidence is not theory. It is in these photos presented here and hundreds more like it.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Yes I noticed how Armstrongs boot print failed to make the slightest dent in the surface of the moon which pretty much proves your theory of a rocky surface.


That would be the theory about the rocky surface "under the dust layer" to quote my words in their proper context. Clearly the low power low throttle descent rocket which was cut out completely before landing would remove only some of the dust, (hence the footprints of Apollo astronauts and the dust around the feet of the LEM and the Surveyor craft as well), and the videos I linked to clearly show dust being blown around during descent but you seem to be expecting some spectacular blast crater which I do not understand.


But were the 'dark ages' really dark?

Maybe not, perhaps we should go back to those enlightened days of burning witches and heretics.


...why orbit at a wasteful 60 miles? Why not orbit at 15?...[ ]...It HAD to orbit WAY OUT THERE.


Yes it did, but not because the Moon's gravity was so much stronger than is widely believed. It was because this was the optimum orbit to allow, (amongst other things), a staged ascent of the LEM to allow course corrections if necessary whilst maintaining the optimum altitude differential between the two space craft. But please don't take my word for it, there is a very good, (if lengthy), explanation here.

As for the photographs, well, there are over 120 pages of comment on these on the main thread on the subject and I have to say that if those are the best three you can extract from that huge discussion, (and at least two of them even when visually enhanced are wildly unconvincing), then I am happy in the knowledge that my decision a long time ago to cease granting any credibility to the premise of the thread was not in error.

By the way, how do you account for the very obvious blast forces from the ascent engine on the LEM in the videos I linked to?



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
(and at least two of them even when visually enhanced are wildly unconvincing),





The bucket wheel excavator was colorized. What is the other photo you claim was visually enhanced? Thanks.



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
Forgive me, I was assuming that the picture of Aristarchus was not in its original form.

Edit to clarify: for "original" read "natural"

[edit on 10-4-2007 by timeless test]



posted on Apr, 10 2007 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Rational, conventional, repeatable, scientific, serious, are all types of restraints that keep modern man from exploring the unknown. Its what separates us from the 'dark ages'. But were the 'dark ages' really dark?

Do you prefer the "dark ages"? A world full of wild superstitions, irrational fears, unpredictable plagues, and an average life expectancy in the 30s? And if you held the "wrong" superstition, you were tortured, burned, drowned (or everything in turn) by those with the "correct" superstitions!


Regarding science and rationality as an unnecessary "restraint" is like regarding a parachute an unnecessary restraint to free-fall!

Emphasis in next quote by me ...

They believe hook, line and sinker the lie about the moon being a barren chunk of dirt, with no gravity, with no air, and so dry that, left unprotected your body would turn to dust.

Of course, that is nonsense. The moon has gravity, about 64% of earths, a breathable atmosphere, huge cities, giant constructs, vegetation, lakes, undeground laboratories.

As a scientist, I feel personally attacked by the above. However, the only liar here is you, as I have demonstrated more than once! Or do you prefer "raving mad lunatic" to "liar"? Take your pick!

Your images of "strutures" on the Moon are below pathetic
! Even a three-year-old understands that the "images" you see in clouds, ink-blots or - in your case - grainy shots of the moon surface, are not "real", but exist only in the imagination! You, on the other hand, wouldn't know how to spell "pareidolia", let alone know what it is!


So, yes, I do advance my theories for discussion and, yes, they are really 'out there'.

Oh no, Sir! You don't "advance" anything for "discussion"! A discussion is only possible between two sentient beings, which are intellectually able and willing to evaluate the opponent's arguments, and are prepared to admit an honest mistake if it has been shown to them. You do not fall into this category. You only repeat your ridiculous claims ad nauseam. This is not "discussing"! And therefore you can put your "disclaimer" signature where our central star's photons do not impact
! Your words "The above is my opinion and is intended to promote discussion" are obviously not true for most of your postings (including the ones about the Moon). In other words, your "disclaimer" is a blatant lie! You should drop it, if you have any honor left!

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
Do you prefer the "dark ages"? A world full of wild superstitions,..


like religions? or lucky underwear?



irrational fears,..


such as rascism?



unpredictable plagues,


HIV, ebola and smallpox perhaps? How about the flu?



and an average life expectancy in the 30s?


perhaps no longer globally, but in some parts in Africa 30 is pushing it.



And if you held the "wrong" superstition, you were tortured, burned, drowned (or everything in turn) by those with the "correct" superstitions!



Do you think that's any different now? Remember WW2? How about terrorism? The war against terrorism for that matter..

Today is not so far from your version of the Dark ages. The real differences possibly being nature, natural resources, level of technology etc.



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   
I guess I really need someone to show me how the "bucket excavator" is identified from that picture. I mean, I see nothing in that picture that remotely looks like a piece of mining equipment. At least overlay something that is partially convincing.

I have seen people claim to see parking garages and all kinds of structures and things in these moon shots yet not one has really shown me any thing even remotely convincing.

And how do we know that is a reactor?



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laserjock
I guess I really need someone to show me how the "bucket excavator" is identified from that picture. I mean, I see nothing in that picture that remotely looks like a piece of mining equipment. At least overlay something that is partially convincing.



There is a possibility that some people are not ready to see these things. While it seems clear to some of us, there are some that, really, really, can't see anything. Its not their fault. They just honestly don't see it.


I have seen people claim to see parking garages


That would be me. The 'parking garage' statement was tongue in cheek. Actually I think it is a 'drive-in' complex where you can bank, shop for groceries, see a movie, that kind of thing.


and all kinds of structures and things in these moon shots yet not one has really shown me any thing even remotely convincing.


As I said above, some people are obviously not meant to see anything and its through no fault of their own...they honestly don't see anything!


And how do we know that is a reactor?


We assume it is because the blue glow is air molecules reacting to radiation. If there was no blue glow it would mean there was no reactor. Or no air. But as some pictures show over the past few years no blue glow, apparently the reactor is being powered down from time to time.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 02:17 AM
link   
The site with all the great films on the ufo and other subjects is down. Any one know about this?

this site:

www.projectcamelot.org...

It was up just two days ago...and now has been down for 2 days.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
There is a possibility that some people are not ready to see these things. While it seems clear to some of us, there are some that, really, really, can't see anything. Its not their fault. They just honestly don't see it.

Should I ever see such "things" on your moon photos, I'd be going to see a physician really quick to ask if they can help me with an obvious neurological problem
!


We assume ...

No, you assume! Or do you speak for all the gullible ones who fell for your nonsense?

By the way, the absence of any reaction whatsoever to my previous posting is noted, and rather telling
!

Regards
yf






top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join