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.

 

Infrared Moon Images

page: 18
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by sherpa





originally posted by Zorgon "Does anybody else get the picture yet? Remember Sir Patrick Moore? The RUSSIANS got their moon data from him, not NASA "

So are we saying the Russians got up their first or was it a dead heat ?



I think Zorgons is referring to the photos of Aristarchus.

As to getting to the Moon first Russia was there long before we were. They got farside photos from Luna 3 on October 4, 1959.

They sofrt landed Luna 9 on Feb. 3, 1966 and Luna 13 on Dec. 24, 1966.

They were orbiting the moon with Luna 15 to welcome Apollo 11.

We were, however, the first manned lunar landing.




posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 09:39 PM
link   
So was the televised moon landing of 69' just a staged event and a hollywood account of what was going on behind closed doors? Hoax or not, the moon was occupied back then yes, but the NASA tapes are getting real fishy. Armstrong was a mason, which only adds to him being part of this hollywood campaign. Why not let us know about the real thing? Why does all that real estate have to go to all you guys. Now that profit is threatened by a climate changes and a destabilizing economy and stock market, does this NWO include new lunar real estate and mining oppurtunity for the common joe smoe?



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher



So was the televised moon landing of 69' just a staged event and a hollywood account of what was going on behind closed doors?


My opinion is that it was real. We went to the moon. But a lot of pictures were faked for various reasons. One of those reasons being that the sky is probably saffron in color and NASA couldn't let that fact be known. If that fact were known then it would mean the moon had an atmosphere. If it were known that the moon had an atmosphere then that meant the moon had substantially more gravity than the one sixth the public was told. If it had more than one sixth gravity then the lunar lander couldn't have descended out of a 60 mile orbit, landed, then taken off and climbed back 60 miles to the service module with 22,000 pounds of fuel it had. It would have been impossible.



Hoax or not, the moon was occupied back then yes, but the NASA tapes are getting real fishy. Armstrong was a mason, which only adds to him being part of this hollywood campaign.


Yes, the moon has been occupied for probably thouands, maybe hundreds of thousands maybe millions of years. The moon rock samples I believe are at least 5 billion years old. And the moon has not always been in orbit around earth. It was towed here from someplace else.


Why not let us know about the real thing?


I would like to know also but I don't think either of us are on the 'need to know' list.


Why does all that real estate have to go to all you guys. Now that profit is threatened by a climate changes and a destabilizing economy and stock market, does this NWO include new lunar real estate and mining oppurtunity for the common joe smoe?


All that destabilization of the economy and threatened climatic changes are just to give something to people toi worry about so they don't have time to figure out whats really going on. As if we could even figure it out.


Our job is to pay our taxes and die.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

If it had more than one sixth gravity then the lunar lander couldn't have descended out of a 60 mile orbit, landed, then taken off and climbed back 60 miles to the service module with 22,000 pounds of fuel it had. It would have been impossible.



Hello John,

So are you saying that the lunar lander was actually carrying a lot more than 22,000 pounds of fuel ? This one could be interesting to any engineers/ mathematicians studying this. It should be reasonably easy to calculate the size of the lander tanks from photos and thus the capacity. If indeed the tanks could carry 3 or 4 times more fuel for it to escape increased lunar gravity, then this is the smoking gun ( or rocket ) that we are looking for.

Regards,

Brian.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by pippadee

So are you saying that the lunar lander was actually carrying a lot more than 22,000 pounds of fuel ?


While your looking for the fuel tanks, show me where they stowed the lunar rover




I too agree we went, but faked the photos for various reasons. Seems there are many that know the color of the sky...


So after all that wealth of data about Aristarchus and fusion reactors... all we hear is silence?


Wazza matter cat got yer tongue?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Thanks for the clarification John regarding Aristarchus, classic wrong end of the stick on my part.

You have also amended a mental note of mine about Zond 3, funny I had 1965 in my head, 1959 is a lot earlier and would explain the image quality.

I would speculate that they would have wanted to get a manned ship there as quick as possible but was unable to solve the power to weight ratio problem, which leads nicely into the 22,000 lb fuel load of Apollo 11.

So given that this amount of fuel would not have been enough under a heavier gravity then what is your theory on supplemental or alternative power source for the lander, anti grav ?

If the above than could an anti-grav unit be concealed on the lander without it being to obvious ?

Incidently Normans book arrived today, he seems a very nice man and says the book was years ahead of it's time, I have got to finish the book I am on first and then I can make a start, I get the feeling the science is going to go way over my head though.


[edit on 21-8-2007 by sherpa]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


Now that's strange I hadn't even thught about the Rover, funny how you take some things for granted.

And regarding Aristarchus this is clearly a blue crystaline deposit amplifying the light of volcanic activity beneath the surface.

How's that for an explanation, happy now ?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Ok, here is what I found about the LRV, apparently it was stored in the 1st quadrant of the lunar lander, pics below:











Interesting though this document says the ASCENT stage.


"The Rover is stored in the Ascent Stage of the Lunar Module for the trip to the Lunar surface. This inspection came during a review of Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments at the Spaceport. Launch is set for March 17."


grin.hq.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Originally posted by sherpa




You have also amended a mental note of mine about Zond 3, funny I had 1965 in my head, 1959 is a lot earlier and would explain the image quality.


Luna 3 took the pictures of the farside of the moon on October 4, 1959 I don't know if I have ever seen a copy of those pictures. Zond 3 took its pictures Jul 20, 1965.


I would speculate that they would have wanted to get a manned ship there as quick as possible but was unable to solve the power to weight ratio problem, which leads nicely into the 22,000 lb fuel load of Apollo 11.

So given that this amount of fuel would not have been enough under a heavier gravity then what is your theory on supplemental or alternative power source for the lander, anti grav ?


It had to be anti-grav of course. Think of deorbiting from 60 miles using a rocket to slow you down. Now think of the astronauts standing up with only armrests to hold them up. Now think of that paper thin gold foil that served as the lunar lander walls between 'outer space' and the interior. Now think of that mighty rocket blasting away not 3 feet away from the astronauts feet. It would have broken a normal persons eardrums. Of course there wasn't the slightest indentation, after landing, under the thrust nozzle to which NASA says "The moons surface is hard from the vacuum." Hmmmm, thats why Neil's boot sunk in an inch? Now think about blasting into orbit, 60 miles above you, standing up, with no seat belt, using an armrest? Do this sound logical to you?


If the above than could an anti-grav unit be concealed on the lander without it being to obvious ?


Yes, we had developed it to the point it was getting very small. Of course not as small as the alien anti-grav which is a half sphere 13 inches in diameter.


Incidently Normans book arrived today, he seems a very nice man and says the book was years ahead of it's time, I have got to finish the book I am on first and then I can make a start, I get the feeling the science is going to go way over my head though.


The science is not over your head. Take his advice at the beginning of the book. Don't skip a page and start at the very beginning. Don't go beyond a word if you don't know its exact meaning. Have a dictionary beside you.
Its tempting to leaf through and look at the pictures. You can do this but when you start to read the book, don't do that. Start at the beginning. And don't skip a page. Did I already say that?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 


Damn and blast my brains confusing zond with luna.

Now Luna 3 1959, no I have not seen any pictures from this satellite unless they was on that web site we talked about do you have any ?

Sorry just re-read your post, you havn't seen any either.

If the gravity was higher then no sense at all.

13 inches, what is your source Bob Lazar ?

Anti-grav, thats why the Russians stalled then, surely they must have had it since then though, I wonder why they could not make a show landing like Apollo.



[edit on 21-8-2007 by sherpa]

[edit on 21-8-2007 by sherpa]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Originally posted by sherpa



13 inches, what is your source Bob Lazar ?


Yes, here is a half scale (non-working) model I have in my den:






Anti-grav, thats why the Russians stalled then, surely they must have had it since then though, I wonder why they could not make a show landing like Apollo.



I believe we were allied with the Russians from the beginning. They launch Sputnik and get us all in a tizzy. We have some spectacular failures with Vanguard. Then they orbit Laika the dog and then Gagarin. Then we launch Sheppard. It was all a diversion. A show. A magic trick to keep our eye on the ball. Their ball.

There was never any real cold war or space race. It was a diversion.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by johnlear
 



Nice..so what are the parts you are missing ?


So where is this going are you on in the same ball game as Bill Cooper ?, is your conclusion exclusive to you ?, or is it still a work in progress ?



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   


I believe we were allied with the Russians from the beginning.


this fits in precisely with the theories on how the power elite
system is constructed and ways to recognize it.

as has been my theory for awhile now, the world leaders are ALL
on the same page. when one steps outta line, the problem
is resolved quickly. war, technology races and so forth, same thing.



[edit on 21-8-2007 by undo]



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Originally posted by sherpa



Nice..so what are the parts you are missing ?



All I am missing at this point is the anti-matter reactor, the element 115 to power it, the wave guide, and the saucer that it fits in. And a chair. The ones that are in it are too small for me.


So where is this going are you on in the same ball game as Bill Cooper ?, is your conclusion exclusive to you ?, or is it still a work in progress ?



The only thing I know for sure is that I haven't finished my presentation for San Jose and that at 6pm tonight I am going to light up a Macanudo Hyde Park (Maduro).



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear



Am I the only person here who thinks this looks like a stainless steel salad bowl?

I gotta say John, I'm really interested in this topic, but the more you say, the less I believe any of it.

I think you're just seeing what you want to see in the pictures...the "brighter white" around the crater being airbrushed and what-not is straight up false. If you cover the entire picture up, but leave ANY white remaining, you'll see that it's all the same shade of white. It's an optical illusion that makes you think color shades are different depending on the surrounding color contrasts.

I'd honestly love to believe what you have to say, but ALL of your proof is shaky at best, and some of your theories just sound completely off the wall and made up. It would make for a great sci-fi novel and/or movie....



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Originally posted by Jaruseleh



I'd honestly love to believe what you have to say, but ALL of your proof is shaky at best, and some of your theories just sound completely off the wall and made up. It would make for a great sci-fi novel and/or movie....




Jaruseleh, if you ever get to Vegas please give me a call. You gotta meet my wife. You and her have a lot in common.



posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   
BTW John here is the final color for the sky





posted on Aug, 21 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon

So after all that wealth of data about Aristarchus and fusion reactors... all we hear is silence?


Wazza matter cat got yer tongue?


Sorry Zorgon, I don't have a clue. It sure is a luminous crater and definitely gives off a blue glow as seen on Mike Singh's pic. Fusion reactor would make sense with all that Helium3 around.

There are also, what appear to be, luminous glass domes to the west of Copernicus. These have almost perfect geometric shapes bit like a shell you'd find on a beach, that shine like beacons on the Hubble shot of the Moon.

On the Lunar lander issue. Where is the Nitrogen tank?. On watching the STS 118 space walkers, before going '' outside '' I am sure they were breathing Nitrogen to prevent the '' Bends ''. Maybe I'm wrong and it was oxygen.



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   
Wow my first post so here I go.

I don't know if anyone has asked this....but how does the moon create oxygen for these bases. Are they like a bio-dome in the sense that plants filter the oxygen or am i way off base. i do believe that there is always more to the story than what we are told. or do i need to post this in another thread.

thanks
The Hampster



posted on Aug, 22 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_hampster
Wow my first post so here I go.

I don't know if anyone has asked this....but how does the moon create oxygen for these bases. Are they like a bio-dome in the sense that plants filter the oxygen or am i way off base. i do believe that there is always more to the story than what we are told. or do i need to post this in another thread.

thanks
The Hampster


Hi Hampster,

About 45 per cent of lunar rocks and soil contain oxygen, so all you have to do is mine it and extract it, simple eh.



www.asi.org...



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join