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.

 

Jesuit priest debunked the lunar breathable atmosphere theory!

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by musikman I apologize in advanced if my question seems "dumb"


LOL nope no question fits that category... but at the moment we are all 'holding our breath' to get ANY data released from these two crafts

Four possibilities here...

A) they will prove us right
B) they will prove us wrong
C) they won't tell us anything
D) they will stick to NASA dogma


So far its at C)


[edit on 3-12-2007 by zorgon]




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 



Pheww.. thanks Zorgon, for a minute there I felt my question would be too juvenile for this board seeing how most of you seem to be so informed about these topics.


Hey... maybe these two crafts will once and far all answer all the questions about whether or not NASA actually "Landed" on the moon. Afterall, we DID leave equipment behind right? Did we? and if so, shouldn't these two crafts be able to photograph the Apollo landing areas?

That should be interesting!



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Thread on Moon's gravity and how it relates to the so-called "neutral point":
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by musikman
reply to post by zorgon
 

Hey... maybe these two crafts will once and far all answer all the questions about whether or not NASA actually "Landed" on the moon. Afterall, we DID leave equipment behind right? Did we? and if so, shouldn't these two crafts be able to photograph the Apollo landing areas?

That should be interesting!


But the question that must be asked is why would they want to photograph any equipment? it is of no interest to them.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Todal
But the question that must be asked is why would they want to photograph any equipment? it is of no interest to them.


If they do a thorough survey, they'll find it anyway, whether they want it or not. They can also target the landing areas because such pictures carry some coolness factor



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbra Sideralis He will just say what the Pope want he says!


Well Pope just said...

""We can free our life and the world from the poisons
and contaminations that could destroy the present and
the future. We can uncover the sources of creation and
keep them unsullied, and in this way we can make a
right use of creation, which comes to us as a gift..." - Pope Benedict

Interesting 'interpretations' here




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   

But the question that must be asked is why would they want to photograph any equipment? it is of no interest to them.


Well I think it would be of "anyone's" interest to see photographs of equipment that has been sitting on the moon surface for decades. Afterall, their intent is to eventually send a human to the surface of the moon... wouldn't it make sense to see what condition this equipment is in after all these years?? Not to mention that any human made object sitting on the surface of any planet or moon other than our own planet would be a point of interest in my opinion. But that's just me.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by musikman

But the question that must be asked is why would they want to photograph any equipment? it is of no interest to them.


Well I think it would be of "anyone's" interest to see photographs of equipment that has been sitting on the moon surface for decades. Afterall, their intent is to eventually send a human to the surface of the moon... wouldn't it make sense to see what condition this equipment is in after all these years??


It's a pity that space aliens probably took all this gear for scrap metal



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by musikman
Well I think it would be of "anyone's" interest to see photographs of equipment that has been sitting on the moon surface for decades. Afterall, their intent is to eventually send a human to the surface of the moon... wouldn't it make sense to see what condition this equipment is in after all these years?? Not to mention that any human made object sitting on the surface of any planet or moon other than our own planet would be a point of interest in my opinion. But that's just me.


We did this with one of the Surveyor probes during Apollo 12.

Maybe this is something to get around to when we have a more permanent settlement in place. I, for one, would like to see them focus on areas they have not visited before. Why wastes billions of dollars to go back to a place where were just were 40 years ago? Once we have a permanent foothold there, we can go sightseeing.

Course, even if we did that there would still be people crawling out of the woodwork to say that we staged it somehow. That once again NASA swindled people out of their tax dollars and faked the whole thing.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by musikman
 



What I find interesting is how easily the skeptics and others just take the "Earth Rise" film at face value. I don't have time to deal wth that now and not in this thread... but has anyone really looked at it closely?

Also China showed us ONE picture... just ONE? and its less resolution than Lunar Orbiter...

LOL back to the "Saffron Skies of Luna" that have AWESOME sunset and sunrise rays that NASA calls "Moon Fountains" that have been recorded since Surveyers and that the Astronauts drew sketches of...

NASA scientists, not quite ready to use the term 'atmosphere" have come up with a better more plausible reason why the dust particles needed in the "air" to make the sunset rays appear exist... They say its 'levitating dust' So I guess that would cover the clouds too huh? I mean the static on the moon is so high it levitates the dust...

What gets me though is this... If surveyor took pictures of these rays... why can we not see them?

And NASA released a sketch from the Apollo 17 astronauts who saw them... and tell us that many Apollonauts saw them... and drew SKETCHES in there little notepads...

Yet they have a full color Hasselblad strapped to their chest to take pictures of rocks... You mean to tell me they would rather just SKETCH what they saw rather than snap off a shot?

This would be a cool Movie

"Moon Fountains under a Saffron Sky"




[edit on 3-12-2007 by zorgon]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HANDThat once again NASA swindled people out of their tax dollars and faked the whole thing.


NASA hasn't 'swindled' anyone.... They are giving you your dollars worth of pretty pictures and sci fi rocket stories


If you want to get mad at 'swindlers' talk about the 3.5 trillion MISSING DOLLARS from the Pentagon that most likely funds the OTHER space program...

LOL I can't prove the other space program yet... but I get a laugh at how apathetic Americans are over the 3.5 TRILLION

And THAT one is fact not fiction.. So while we sit here and debate atmosphere and gravity ad finitum the black ops astronauts are laughing at you while eating their fresh fruits and vegetables



Hey ITF how many of those 'whatchamacallems" will THAT buy?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by zorgon
NASA scientists, not quite ready to use the term 'atmosphere" have come up with a better more plausible reason why the dust particles needed in the "air" to make the sunset rays appear exist... They say its 'levitating dust' So I guess that would cover the clouds too huh? I mean the static on the moon is so high it levitates the dust...


The amount of dust is apparently tiny and it doesn't take a lot of static to levitate it. I'm sure you have access to same papers as anybody else, so it's easy to check out.

I agree with you, Zorgon, that this is indeed a plausible explanation.


And NASA released a sketch from the Apollo 17 astronauts who saw them... and tell us that many Apollonauts saw them... and drew SKETCHES in there little notepads...


My guess is that the faint objects are extremely hard to photograph, or at least such was my experience when photographing at high altitudes. Eye works better than a camera discerning subtle detail.

The "saffron" atmosphere you are talking about, if it existed, would be observable from Earth, and this is not the case. There are plenty of amateur astronomers who like to watch occultations of the Moon, and this would really stand out.



[edit on 3-12-2007 by buddhasystem]



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
We did this with one of the Surveyor probes during Apollo 12.


I guess the point I was trying to make was that maybe someone other than "our own" people (NASA), could perhaps provide newer, sharper, HD photos of the Apollo landing sites.

I'm sure that sooner or later, China's or Japan's crafts will orbit over these sites anyway so I don't see how that would cost all these extra millions. A picture is a picture is a picture.




posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by musikman


Unless the picture looks like another picture save for one little spot..

China's pic on left Nasa's pic on right...

Seems the Chinese are upset that some people think they faked it






posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


What is the difference between the two pics, except for resolution and Sun angle?



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Originally posted by syrinx high priest


compared this to a non-nasa source of the lunar surface(to eliminate satanic free masons corrupting everything)


Thanks for the post high prient. The photo you posted, allegedly from Kayuga, in my opinion is a fabricated video to the extent the moon is a model, probably carefully built with plaster of paris or someting like that and the earth is a rendering, cut out and pasted onto a stick in the background which was raised or lowered depending on whether the earth was rising or setting.

Thanks for the post.


so you are basically of the opinion that anything that clearly refutes your speculations is fabricated. How convenient. I'm sure you had dinner with someone who told you this was true, but you can't provide any actual evidence to back up your speculation.

Is that all ATS requires of a "conspiracy master" ?


plaster of paris ?

you're not even trying anymore John, you can do better, like maybe it's made out of cheese or something

[edit on 3-12-2007 by syrinx high priest]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Is that a new 'small' crater?

Must be like a shooting gallery up there.



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Something one needs to keep in mind is that the "church" has always had a vested interest in declaring that the earth is the only planet with life on it. So,this "revelation" is really not a revelation at all.


classic special pleading

the exitance of martian and venusian atmospheres has never been challenged or denied by the " church " or any scientific establishment

why is that ???

[edit on 4-12-2007 by ignorant_ape]



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Because they are absurd, and not based on real data, that's why.

No point in acknowledging nonsense in their opinion, I bet. Same reason why many people, corporations, and institutions don't bother to opinionate or respond to wild, outlandish woo woo material. An official organization responding to something so obviously false tends to give it credit in the eyes of the ignorant and uniformed, so why bother?



posted on Dec, 4 2007 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by zorgon
 


A percursory examination indicates that in the 40 or so years between the two shots of the lunar surface, a small crater appeared. Zorgon, you made a truly outstanding discovery. New craters coming into existence on the Moon... You also have proven, single-handedly, that there is no atmosphere on the Moon since it's apparently so suceptible to meteoric bombardment, according to these pictures. Thank you for confirming the point I previously made.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join