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 bigfatfurrytexan
You don't think that it is more "enemy" like to attack people who differ in opinion with you? Honestly, i believe nothing. I think I have some ideas, and many of them come from reading Zorgon's research. Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
you speak like an elitist, that is for sure.
Do you really think that the 'average person' is too dense to figure out that something fishy is going on out there? Heck, if you want to watch the news, occasionally they do polls on the subject. More Americans, it seems, believe in UFO's than God, as of late.
This closed minded attitude is what feeds the flock mentality of most humans
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Do you really think that the 'average person' is too dense to figure out that something fishy is going on out there?
Heck, if you want to watch the news, occasionally they do polls on the subject. More Americans, it seems, believe in UFO's than God, as of late.
If you really want to see "disclosure", then you should stop being so mean to people who have differing viewpoints.
Then there are folks like Zorgon, who spend their time finding information while ona personal quest, and are kind enough to share their findings with us. Just remember the key word: SHARE. If you don't want to share, then don't....but be polite. Can't be that hard, right?
However, as is the case with most skeptics... the reading is selective, and as his been numerously pointed out to us, you only quote the portion to suit your argument. LOL Fair enough we all do that...
Originally posted by MrPenny
I know that's just one small example.....but the point is, with that one short line the poster totally refuted your insinuation that atmospheric braking was needed on the moon. And you did exactly what you're accusing skeptics of doing. In fact, I think you ignored evidence that was clearer and more conclusive than what you offer.
Originally posted by MrPennyyour demands that skeptics view the 'evidence' seems like lip-service when evidence is presented that you ignore. I genuinely expected you to say something like, "I'll be darned, so that's why it has an aerobraking device",
Originally posted by zorgon
but the very fact that you 'skeptics' admit that the aerobraking device is as you say used for Earth atmosphere braking as it stops in LEO...
means that you accept the craft exists... If you claim the braking system is real then so must be the craft that HAS those brakes...
then whoever or whatever created us must be hiding in a dark closet and pretending that it wasn't them that started this creation game.
Originally posted by laserman-x
Zorgon, I admire your passion and dedication of your cause and especially how you back up what you say!
I think it about it like this..EVERYTHING we know about our solar system and beyond has been told to us mostly in the form of books. It also filters down to the public through news releases or through TV and the internet. This is our only window to this knowledge..What is "told" to us by print or pictures.
Who is to say for sure that the moon devoid of an atmosphere
Or that Venus is really 800 degrees F? Maybe it is not and has a similiar atmosphere like ours and its own kind of life forms.
Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
Thousands of scientists, a few astronauts, multiple countries probes, things that...i don't know.....COLLECT DATA FROM THE ACTUAL MOON. But then again, it's all this data against a few guys on the internet that just come out and insist the moon has an atmosphere, and anyone who challenges them is a fool. It's the other way around.
Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm):
Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000
Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000
Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000
Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+)
Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+)
Composition of the tenuous lunar atmosphere is [b[poorly known and variable, these are estimates of the upper limits of the nighttime ambient atmosphere composition. Daytime levels were difficult to measure due to heating and outgassing of Apollo surface experiments.
Title: The Lunar Sodium Atmosphere: A Study as Observed Through Four Lunar Eclipses
Authors: Morrill, A. L.; Mendillo, M.; Baumgardner, J.
Affiliation: AA(Boston University), AB(Boston University), AC(Boston University)
Publication: American Astronomical Society, DPS meeting #29, #13.10; Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 29, p.987
Publication Date: 07/1997
Abstract Copyright: (c) 1997: American Astronomical Society
The Moon's sodium atmosphere has been imaged during four lunar eclipses: November 29, 1993, April 2, 1996, September 27, 1996, and March 24, 1997, using a coronagraph type system at the Boston University four inch telescope located at the McDonald Observatory, TX, and at La Palma, Canary Islands. The Moon is imaged with a 5893A filter with a FWHP of 16A to include the sodium D1 and D2 lines. The eclipse condition provides the opportunity to observe the faint lunar atmosphere when the bright disk of the Moon is within the umbra and penumbra greatly reducing the scattered light in the system. In all four cases, the sodium atmosphere was imaged out to radial distances of 10 lunar radii. The brightness patterns were essentially uniform in azimuth and exhibited a radial decay far more gradual than seen at sub-solar radial distances at quarter Moon. While some variability appears among the four data sets, the large scale morphology under eclipse conditions was remarkably constant during the 1993 to 1997 events. This implies a steady source of sodium at times of full Moon.
Originally posted by yfxxx
That's just Zorgon's usual style. Also in this thread, he tried to present a radar image of Venus as evidence that Venus' sky is "crystal clear".
I didn't get any reply whatsoever (let alone a rebuttal of my point).
Add to this the fact, that Zorgon interprets each and every study, proposal, patent, outlook, speculation etc. as hard evidence that the things described therein already exist, and it's no surprise that Zorgon has always tons of pseudo-evidence to present, and no need to comment on his blunders.
In fact, I think that Zorgon harms his own agenda that way. Even if he ever uncovers some sort of cover-up or data hiding within "official" channels (but surely not on the "Grand Conspiracy" scale that he thinks !), this will be completely drowned by all the other obvious rubbish and leaping to unfounded conclusions.
Originally posted by Chorlton
How can we ignore the facts when, as yet there have been no facts published by people here?
Suppositions, assumptions, guesses but unfortunately no facts.
Originally posted by zorgon
Either way it sure doesn't show that BRIGHT ORANGE color that NASA uses to tint all their images from Venus to give the impression that the surface is all molten lava...
Are we correct in everything? Of course not... but as we assemble the puzzle we look for clues and pieces... some do not fit, so are discarded...
Why do I do this? Because it is interesting to myself and many others... If I were to get a balance out and look at supporters versus 'hard core skeptics' well.... I can count the 'hard core skeptics' on my hands...
You say you are a physicist... and you disagree with most everthing we present
Well I have two physicists on my email list that think otherwise, one in the nuclear fission dept. of MIT and one at Lawrence Livermore national Laboratories... I had the pleasure of meeting both at the UFO Expo in San Jose... The Livermore gentleman actually was showing a person who did not see the mining operation where the artifacts were on the Copernicus poster... That was an interesting moment
I guess you should be worried that 'lunatics' hold such high positions . BTW it was the MIT Doctor who explained to both John and myself (and gave us the name) Cherenkov radiation and described in detail how it can be related to Aristarchus Crater
So do I listen to your science? or theirs? LOL Nothing personal but that is a no brainer