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

page: 2
114
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:33 AM
link   
Mike:

Another well researched post so to use a word you are familiar with, "cheers" to you sir. I do have a question though about the importance of a neutral point of 23,900 versus the neutral point referenced in the 1969 TIME Magazine & History of Rocketry and Space Travel articles you referenced (43,495 miles).

Is it not true that the "neutral point" fluctuates based on the fact that the Moon and Earth are not always the same distance from one another? Here is what I mean:

This excerpt is taken from:
www.nasa.gov...


The lunar orbit, like the orbit of Earth, is shaped like a slightly flattened circle. The distance between the center of Earth and the moon's center varies throughout each orbit. At perigee (PEHR uh jee), when the moon is closest to Earth, that distance is 225,740 miles (363,300 kilometers). At apogee (AP uh jee), the farthest position, the distance is 251,970 miles (405,500 kilometers). The moon's orbit is elliptical (oval-shaped).


I am not an expert by any strtch of the imagination, but if the Earth/Moon distance relationship varies by as much as 26,230 miles would it not be true that the "neutral point" between Earth/Moon with relation to gravity would vary by the same amount? If so, wouldn't the neutral point values of 23,900 and 43,495 fall within the "acceptable" range (difference of 19,595 miles between the two).

I am sure there is a way to see how far the Earth/Moon were from eachother during the dates in question but I just want to know if this is true or not.

With this being said, I have spent many hours looking at the moon pics from the ASU site and other places, and to me there is no question that the moon appears to be littered with structures of some sort.




posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


"
Lack of erosion? Check out the hills in the back ground. They're smooth and rounded, not sharp and rugged, and this can only happen if the Moon has an atmosphere!
"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason that the hills are smooth and rounded is because of the continuous meteoric bombardment which has pounded the moon into its familiar shape. There are craters on tiny stones that originated on the moon made by incredibly small meteorites. If your theory of an atmosphere on the moon is correct then all these smaller meteorites would have been burned up by friction with that atmosphere!
At the same time I have to admit that clouds cannot form in the vacuum of space. . . Its a puzzle.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Great thread and contributions by all!

I have a question. I will openly state that I am highly critical of the way the data has been 'shared' with the public, and have some truly skeptical observations about what we have been told. However, insofar as an atmosphere on the moon I am leaning towards none.

Here's the question. For a very long time we have observed, both from space, and the earth, eclipses of the moon that should have yielded some data about the light reaching us around the lunar disc's edge. Shouldn't even amateur astronomers have been able to detect that the light was passing through a layer of gas on the lunar surface?

As we observe the moon, and see starlight which similarly must pass through the vaporous atmosphere, wouldn't the effect be noticed there?

I am not saying this is a stand-alone flaw in the proposed theory, but it surely has relevance, no?

Perhaps these evident mists, and cloud-like conditions can be explained otherwise? Landslides, impacts, 'thermal expansion' (yuk yuk), who knows?

I nevertheless maintain that NASA failed in it's stated commitment to make the scientific data available to all. They have certainly concealed that which they don't wish to address publicly, and I feel there is strong and damning evidence that an active campaign of disinformation has taken place.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
First off, excellent thread well done, a fantastic read as always. Thanks for all your effort and bringing us fantastic information backed up by facts and sources.

Secondly, If the moon landings were faked (I believe catagorically they were) what was 'the powers that be' objective? with modern technology how are 'they' going to get away with their illiusion when they go back to the moon, aren't we the people going to start asking questions when we don't get any HD photos and video footage?

What is your take on the music that supposedly came from the dark side of the moon.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Or its a REALLY bad idea to try to jump high wearing a suit, that if pierced, you die. They were walking, possibly trotting.... its not smart to take risks like trying to jump when there are so many unknowns (like possibly falling into a hollow pocket within the ground).




Originally posted by JPhish
according to the alleged moon gravity and atmosphere; Since my vert. on earth is 27 inches, If i were on the moon, I would have a more than a 52.38 inch vert. jump. That means if i jumped strait up and did not bend my legs; there would be more than 4 and a half feet between my heels and the ground. The astronauts aren't getting anywhere close to this in the videos. They're actually not even close to half as high.

Either the videos are fake, the suites are in excess of 300 lbs, the astronauts are in extremely poor shape, OR the data we've been given in regards to the moons atmosphere and gravity is inaccurate.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
In regards to the atmosphere the haze is real and was discovered back in the 60's I think but we must be careful in judging things with Earthly eyes, the lunar environment may be dominated by other forces.
For example the Lunar Prospector mission discovered a significant voltage difference when it passed through the magneto tail of the Earth.
The Earths plasma sheath extends like cometary tail that stretches beyond the Moon (actually the same phenomena) it passes through the tail once a month at full moon phase, this is where the charge differential was discovered.
It's possible the charge differential may cause a negative charge in the fine lunar dust, the negative charge would accumulate to a point where the dust particles would repel against each other and levitate off the surface.
Like wise the differential between the night and day side would incur a similar effect across the terminator.
Other than that I find the Apollo missions highly suspect, the gravity stuff is interesting.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Moserious
 


You're right Moserious! There is a slight fluctuation in the NP distance depending upon the Earth-Moon distance. There are inconsistencies between the quoted figures which vary between 38,000 and 43,495 miles. Many different values are given with varying degrees of precision, yet they still lie within a range which is radically different from pre-Apollo calculations. And that is the crux of the issue.

There is no way to get around the discrepancy between the conventional, pre-Apollo distances of 20,000 to 25,000 miles, and the post-Apollo range of 38,000 to 43,495 miles, since the Earth to Moon distance varies between 221,463 and 252,710 miles, and spacecraft do not travel on a straight line between the Earth and Moon.

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Excellent post, however, you made an error. NASA is not a purely civilian space agency. It is a part of the DOD. Please see Richard Hoagland's latest book, Dark Mission for a critical analysis of our supposedly civilian space agency, its origins, and missions. He also includes a great section on evidence surrounding artificial structures and objects on the moon as depicted in many of the Apollo photographs.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Although written very well and very interesting to read, but in truth its a lot of rubbish. I still can't believe that there are still people out there that will read a conspiracy into everything?
Did any of you watch "Myth Busters"?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
There are craters on tiny stones that originated on the moon made by incredibly small meteorites. If your theory of an atmosphere on the moon is correct then all these smaller meteorites would have been burned up by friction with that atmosphere!


Agreed! But do you realize that those 'stones' (meteorites) were probably much larger when they entered the Moon's atmosphere and burned up to become small meteorites that you refer to! The smaller ones may have burned out completely before hitting the surface!

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


While I appreciate opposing positions on any issue, I must say that the idea, that the Apollo missions were staged in the manner being described here is utter nonsense.

There were confirmations of the lunar orbiter and the lunar landing module from terrestrial telescopes world wide. Many of these telescopes were independent and/or not affiliated to the US government. Schools all over the world were looking through telescopes at the mission. Added to the mix are/were the thousands of shortwave and Ham radio operators working to monitor the progress of the Apollo missions.

When you add these independent entities together, you get a zero possibility that the missions were staged in manner being described in this post.

The entire world watched these missions, some wanting to believe and just as many wanting to disprove the event as it happened. Several nations wanted the missions to be a fake and tried very hard to find a means to discredit the United States.

It wasn’t as it is today, whereas a space mission launch is a common event and treated as any other story on the evening news. No, these missions were a big deal and everywhere you went, people were glued to any source of information they could find, waiting for any and all details of the missions. The entire world was buzzing about it, the entire world watched these events unfold.

No, this idea is absurd. Now if you want to say that the missions had other objectives, alterative motives, alien cities were discovered, a new a free energy source was discovered, they found gold or diamonds or even green cheese on the moon, I can entertain these ideas. But to suggest that the missions did not occur or that they didn’t actually make it to the moon, no, you are way off center on this one, I was around at the time. Independent confirmation was critical at this time in earth history and the evidence irrefutable.

So much of the interpretations of the video documentation contained in this thread are in error or are purposefully misleading. When discussing the gravity of the moon and using the weight ratio of the astronauts involved, not taken into consideration were/are the weight of the suits and backpacks which were by design made to compensate for 1/6 gravity. The things were very heavy, between 55 and 75 pounds each and each contained an air conditioning/heat pump system as well as moisture condensers and a contain breathing system and air recycling system. If memory serves me, the overall weight of the entire system with the suit exceeded 100 pounds. And aside from some light refraction that occurs in normal fashion, the host of these videos is intentionally misleading the audience, perpetrating a hoax for financial gain, this and other similar hoaxes have been proven as hoax back in the seventies, the eighties, the nineties and so on.


[edit on 9/11/2008 by eaganthorn]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I'm interested in what exactly you think is the relationship between the military and NASA. A hell of a lot of time is spent on these boards discussing the idea that NASA themselves are to alrge degree responsible for a cover up and hiding the truth. Is it your belief that the truth is hidden from NASA too?
LW


Hi LW! An interesting question! I would suggest you read my thread, The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

That should clear things up!

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


A lot of work done, there Mike! I did read through the entire thing...and I'm still on the fence, but will keep looking at the data.

May I quibble, though, on one bit you repeated from an outside source regarding the Rovers? The 'tires' are not rubber. They are a metal mesh.

There is a Rover that (obviously} never flew on display here at the NASM in the Smithsonian that shows no sign of rubber tires.

But, if you insist they were rubber, and would have exploded in a vacuum....errrr....then what about the Space Shuttle tires?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Swing Dangler
 


"Excellent post, however, you made an error. NASA is not a purely civilian space agency. It is a part of the DOD. Please see Richard Hoagland's latest book, Dark Mission for a critical analysis of our supposedly civilian space agency, its origins, and missions."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I to am a Hoagland fan so please don't take this the wrong way. It seems that both Hoagland and Bara have got some of their facts wrong see;

dorkmission.blogspot.com...

NASA continuously throw their lies at us but maybe not to the extent that the likes of Richard C Hoagland would have us believe.



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Weedwhacker is correct. The tires on the rover were not made of rubber, but of wiremesh.

[edit on 9/11/2008 by eaganthorn]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:00 AM
link   
im reading 'nasa..dark mission' and in it are images taken from the moon of the earth rise..and..as with the moon rise here on earth..when the earth is close to the horizon its distorted..squashed vertically.....and gets less so as it rises...im no scientist but the book claims this sort of refraction can only happen if the moon has an atmosphere or if the image was taken from under a glass dome...makes sense..but..as i say..im no expert..



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:06 AM
link   
mikesingh is right in every area here. all you need to create gravity is an atmosphere. here on earth it's 14.7 lbs of pressure. with the correct measurements of the distance from the earth to the moon, anyone can prove that there's more gravity than what NASA says there is by using the correct formula(s)! the truth is out there!

thanks mike - i do hope more people read this for what it really is! also, i think we really did land on the moon, but i think we visited there long before they officially say we went...

[edit on 11-9-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Swing Dangler
reply to post by mikesingh
 

NASA is not a purely civilian space agency. It is a part of the DOD.


Right! Do check out my thread The Top Secret US Military Space Program. Is The Future Already Here?

But the moot point is whether the NASA-DoD collaboration was discontinued after the Apollo 17 mission? Look at the cut in NASA funding (Which was cited as a reason for termination of the program) and the fact that NASA, now as a purely civilian program, will take a couple of decades more to send man to the Moon! How come it's going to take that long? As I said in the OP, is it because they do not have the technology to do so? No more piggy backing on the secret Military space program, what?



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


also, this book, from 1959, talks much more about the moon's true atmosphere, and goes heavily into details using formulas and equations...




i believe John Lear recommended this book, and i believe he said it tells about a man's experience setting foot on the surface of the moon without a spacesuit, and his ability to breathe the air freely! i bought the book a while ago, but have yet to get around to reading it..

[edit on 11-9-2008 by adrenochrome]



posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by eaganthorn
 


Well, I never said that the Moon landings were faked. Far from it! All I meant was that what NASA was telling us wasn't the whole truth! Some of it was kept secret from the public. In fact much of it. That they landed on a Moon with 2/3rd gravity and an atmosphere is the crux of the issue! What were they trying to hide and why? I've tried to answer that in the OP.

Cheers!





new topics
 
114
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join