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.

 

The Big NASA-Military Cover-up On Gravity And Atmosphere On The Moon!

page: 19
114
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
I am just curious why anyone would be so convinced that we did go to the moon. It all boils down to the word of the United States government in the end. Nobody believes them about anything else, but they believe them about this for no reason other than they said so?




posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


As someone who understands about these things, could you please be more specific about the bad design decisions made by makers of the Moon buggies?

Thanks.


Well it is so simple a child can understand.

If you are going to design a method of transport, that is going to enter a hostile environment, that is not really known, the First Priority is Reliability and Safety!

So you make the device as simple and rugged as possible.

You don't take risks.

Two things that were against them in just getting of the ground, before going anywhere;

1. Size. In other words you make the payload as small as possible, to safely complete the task at hand.

2. Weight. As in what the payload weighs on Earth.

Weight and volume of the payload, dictates the amount of energy and the energy supply required, to launch the payload!
(From Earth)

This is required if you fight against gravity, or any other forces.

To retain reliability, you use very simple steering, for example, that has already been used, in other vehicles, and that has been well proven to be reliable.

You don't add technology (so called) just for the sake of technology (That is if you can call it that) such as electronic controlled "electric powered steering" especially when electric power, is a matter of life and death.

The size of batteries would have to be kept to an absolute minimum, dictated by weight and the power consumption.

Electric steering is Not I repeat, Not Required.

All it does, is provide a bigger chance of failure, when simply Not required!

When Energy is Valuable, you certainly would Not fool about, behaving like a boy racer on the Moon just for show.

The control on its suspension was disgusting to say the very least.

Time would also be very, very, precious, and you would Not have the time to play flags or playing around, doing doughnuts in the sand etc and fool about in a irresponsible manner.

An achievement such as landing on the moon, Representing humankind, is a very serious and responsible matter.

If humankind is represented in this manner, I can understand the Universal community, Not wanting primates roaming around on their back doorstep.

Why have 4 wheel steer???

It was simply Not required this only adds to the weight factor and just lends its self to the possibility of failure.

The chassis is of very weak design, geometrically poor in its construction design.

In rough terrain a suitably designed quad bike would be far more practicable, smaller, lighter and cheaper!

The electric motors, using traction control and 3 stage epicyclic gear systems are again just more moving parts and weight.

Brush-less hub motors are a much better system. (Stepper motors as used today on Electric cars and Quad bikes road bikes etc) You Don't need gearing and the Torque is good from Brush-less motors, where you don't need speed on the moon.

This is only a couple of things to start with OK???

Our Company designs and build electric transport systems, so we might know a little, just a little about this....

We are about to build another production line, in another country, in the next 12 months.

What was built for the exploration of the moon, A practical design I don't think so, not even in you most absurd dreams.

Realistic design practices?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Just one more question, do you know if (and which) the technological alternatives were available at the time they designed to rovers?

I am not, obviously, talking about design changes, but the type of alternatives that you, for example, would use today if you were to build something like this.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:10 AM
link   
For anyone who thinks aliens helped us get to the moon because of the 2/3rds gravity thing.....


We had the technology back then to do this type of landing and we have the technology now.

its called nuclear energy. It is 100 times more efficient than burning fossil fuels and 100 times more powerful.

They have had the designs to make nuclear powered propulsion systems for a long LONG time now but claim they have never used them.

so IF we did land on a 2/3 gravity moon a much more realistic... much better theory would be that they used nuclear powered propulsion systems.... not gray big headed aliens...

do aliens exist? probably.... but i doubt they are escorting our goverment around space.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


The retroreflectors left on the moon would disagree. That's pretty solid evidence right there.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I am curious here, terribly for sure, and hope someone can answer this for me.

If there is no atmosphere on the moon, then there are no particles to reflect light, right? This is why the moons sky appears black. If there is no atmosphere and no light reflecting particles, what colors should be seen? I mean, how do colors appear on moon landing photographs?

If there are no light reflecting particles, would one be able to detect colors? What creates the color in the photographs?

Also, who takes all the space photographs, and what kind of camera does one need to take photos in a no-atmosphere environment?

Sorry if this all sounds silly, but I am terribly curious how this works.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 12:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Unknown Truth
 


The surface of the moon reflects light. The astronauts' space suits reflect light. The lunar module reflects light. Just about everything that light touches reflects light.

On the moon, the astronauts took the photographs using cameras like this: www.history.nasa.gov...


[edit on 12/10/2008 by Phage]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks for taking the time to respond, although I think I need to chew on the info a bit.

The information you provided about the camera is a little too technological for me though.

More researching for me.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


The retroreflectors left on the moon would disagree. That's pretty solid evidence right there.


You may very well be correct Dave, but is there any way, you or I can go and look through a telescope ourselves, and see this equipment on the moon.

Where I live we have public access to a reasonable sized refraction telescope and the atmospheric conditions are excellent.

I will go and see if this can be achieved when I get a chance.

But personally I think such equipment will be far too small to see this way, that is if it is there in fact!

But I have this horrible feeling, this is not possible.

Apart from this, I don't know how we can prove this to be the case or Not.

If we can then you have convinced me!

But at this stage it is only a matter whether you believe NASA or Not, isn't it???

So I guess its down to belief or disbelief....

What do you think?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by The Matrix Traveller
 


Just one more question, do you know if (and which) the technological alternatives were available at the time they designed to rovers?

I am not, obviously, talking about design changes, but the type of alternatives that you, for example, would use today if you were to build something like this.


Yea take a look at any old or new Japanese Quad Bike today, or even back further to 3 wheelers...

It is better to design a Box frame or chassis as used in the case of any Japanese quad bike, rather than a platform for obvious reasons to do with Lightness, strength and compactness...

Even old aircraft used box constructed frames in the fuselage so this has been around for many many years and is well proven engineering.

Remember Quad Bikes are used on farms and rough terrain.

There are other examples of transport around made in a similar form, used in rough terrain applications.

As for "Stepper Motors" and their Controllers, they had the technology back then, and it would have cost NASA far less to produce.

Its all about Safety, Realistic Function, Reliability, and unfortunately US $$$$$$'s


jra

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I am just curious why anyone would be so convinced that we did go to the moon. It all boils down to the word of the United States government in the end. Nobody believes them about anything else, but they believe them about this for no reason other than they said so?


But it doesn't all boil down to the word of the United States Government. Not in the slightest. I believe we went to the Moon and none of the reasons why has anything to do with what the US Government says.

There are 800lbs of Lunar samples that are clearly not from Earth. The nearly half a million people and the hundreds of contracted companies who built all the hardware. People with HAM radios who were able to recieve the Apollo transmissions and listen to the Astroanuts while on the Moon. Amature astronomers that optically tracked the space craft with there telescopes. Lets also not forget about the USSR. They would have been the first to cry foul, if something was up, as they were watching very closely no doubt.

I find it hard, if not impossible, to believe that it could all have been a hoax. How can you fake something like that, with nearly half a million people working on it. You can't make them all stay quiet, definately not for 40 years. Hell, Nixon couldn't keep his own scandals a secret. How the hell could they keep something as big as faking 6 Moon landings over 3 years a secret? I don't believe any Government is competent enough to be able to do something like that.



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Did you track it with a telescope or have you just seen pics and heard stuff?

Have had this moon stuffs? Did you get to analyze the material?

How about those HAM radio transmissions? How do you know they came from the moon and not just orbit?

See, it still all boils down to what you have been told.

As far as all the companies that worked on it...I never said none of this stuff was ever built. I never said the government did not waste tons of tax dollars on it. Did I say there was no LEM? Did I say we never went to space? No.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
reply to post by jra
 


Did you track it with a telescope or have you just seen pics and heard stuff?

Have had this moon stuffs? Did you get to analyze the material?

How about those HAM radio transmissions? How do you know they came from the moon and not just orbit?

See, it still all boils down to what you have been told.

As far as all the companies that worked on it...I never said none of this stuff was ever built. I never said the government did not waste tons of tax dollars on it. Did I say there was no LEM? Did I say we never went to space? No.


[edit on 10-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]


You are onto it, I am glad someone has some sense, and not just blindly believe anything, because a government department, has made a few statements, and thrown a couple of photos round for the gullible.

But what is the truth???

How do we find out, and prove it one way or other????



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


All you have is your belief, but this is no foundation for fact.

If you can see the junk left behind by primates on the moon today, through a telescope with your own eyes, then I will accept we went to the moon in the way that has been reported!

Last Time I looked through a large refracting telescope, I could see no evidence mainly because the junk, supposedly left on the moon is too small to see!

So how do we get Proof to say it did take place or it didn't.

Seeing is believing....


jra

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Did you track it with a telescope or have you just seen pics and heard stuff?


Since I wasn't alive durring that time, I've just seen pics and heard stuff

Do you seriously think that even amature astronomers and radio operaters are in on it too? Or have been fooled in some way?


Have had this moon stuffs? Did you get to analyze the material?


No, I have not studied any Lunar samples personally, but thousands of people, scientists and geologiests have studied them in various scientific and educational institutions all over the world.

Are you seriously going to say that they're all in on it too or have been fooled? Either option is equally ridiculous.

By the way, you might be interested to know that you can make a request for Lunar samples although they don't give them out to just anyone obviously. But you can request a research sample if your part of scientific organization, or an educational sample for Universities and the like or even public display samples for museums.

Plus many new things about the Moon were learned by the study of these samples. How would that happen if the samples were fake?


How about those HAM radio transmissions? How do you know they came from the moon and not just orbit?


Maybe because they were tracking the Moon itself and not an object in orbit. Just think about it for a second. Have you ever watched the ISS fly by? It's only visible for about 5 seconds because it's in orbit and constantly flying around the Earth. Any one with a HAM radio would realize really quickly if the signal wasn't coming from the Moon. Getting roughly 5 seconds of audio every 90mins or so, yeah no one would notice that at all



See, it still all boils down to what you have been told.


No, it really comes down to common sense and logic.


As far as all the companies that worked on it...I never said none of this stuff was ever built. I never said the government did not waste tons of tax dollars on it. Did I say there was no LEM? Did I say we never went to space? No.


Ok, so you believe that all the hardware was built and it all worked as intended. So what part don't you believe? Just the landing itself or what?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Look, all you have said is "No, I do not know for sure, I am trusting all these other people."

Ok, fine. The only decent argument that you offered is this

Maybe because they were tracking the Moon itself and not an object in orbit. Just think about it for a second. Have you ever watched the ISS fly by? It's only visible for about 5 seconds because it's in orbit and constantly flying around the Earth. Any one with a HAM radio would realize really quickly if the signal wasn't coming from the Moon. Getting roughly 5 seconds of audio every 90mins or so, yeah no one would notice that at all

Unfortunately that is still other people's word for it. You were not tracking it, who was? Where are they all? I'd like to meet with them and ask if they don't know the difference between stationary orbit or geosynchronous orbit.

Do you know the difference between the two?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   
It's true that we can not be really sure about anything that we do not witness, but even those we do may fool us, and we may think that we are seeing something when in fact we are seeing something else.

In cases like the Moon (or even just another country), we can only accept the word of other people, unless we have been really there, so we have to have some kind of measurement for what makes it likely that these things exist.

Some people say that the word of presidents, police officers, politicians, scientists, etc., is enough to proof that there are extraterrestrial beings flying over our heads with some frequency, while some people (and of those, some are included in the previous group) think that the word of presidents, police officers, politicians, scientists, etc. is not enough to prove that we went to the Moon.

So, if it all comes down to who do we believe and why, and many of you posting on this thread believe that Almada (the city where I live) exists? Or even Portugal? How can we know?

Only by having some faith in other people's word, but should we accept all we are told?

No, we have to have some kind of reasoning that shows to us that some cases may not be trustworthy, while others are, and we should be consistent with our opinions, not changing them according to our own beliefs, because in that case we are not really trusting other people's words, we are considering our opinions stronger than what those people say.

I hope this isn't too much mixed up, most of the times, when I try to put my thoughts into words, my explanations are even more complicated, so, if those that do not understand what I wrote can just ignore it, it wasn't anything really important.


jra

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Unfortunately that is still other people's word for it. You were not tracking it, who was? Where are they all? I'd like to meet with them and ask if they don't know the difference between stationary orbit or geosynchronous orbit.

Do you know the difference between the two?


The difference between Stationary orbit and geosynchronous orbit? There's no difference, they're both the same thing. But I assume you meant the difference between low Earth orbit and geosynchronous orbit. And yes I know the difference between the two. And no, geosynchronous orbit wouldn't fool those people either as it would not be inline with the Moon at all times. Don't forget that the Moon moves across the sky. An object in geosynchronous orbit would stay in one place.

EDIT to add more:

Also, if you want to know who was tracking them optically and by radio. Try reading the link I supplied a few posts ago. www.astr.ua.edu...

[edit on 10-12-2008 by jra]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Did China recently land on the moon? If so did they have any problems and did they learn anythig we did not?

or was it india?



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bejing
Did China recently land on the moon? If so did they have any problems and did they learn anythig we did not?

or was it india?

1) No
2) No
3) India's chandrayaan MIP crashed into the moon as planned (with no one aboard).

No one has landed or attempted to land on the moon (with people) since 1972.




top topics



 
114
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join