It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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 ?
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?
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.
Originally posted by pippadee
So are you saying that the lunar lander was actually carrying a lot more than 22,000 pounds of fuel ?
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.
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.
I believe we were allied with the Russians from the beginning.
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 ?
Originally posted by johnlear
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....
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?
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.