It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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: 5
114
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 05:49 PM

Tuga.....please explain why you believe there is no friction on the Moon.

Perhaps I see where you might be misunderstanding...you are equating a vacuum (lack of air) with a friction-less environment. Well, basically you're correct (although there is no such as a true vacuum).

But on the surface, your feet provide the friction.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:30 PM
Well just from the numbers presented for the neutral point:
Moon ship to Earth: 215,100
Moon ship to Moon: 23,900
The Earth mass is 81 Moons.
Force of Earth on Ship = Mass Earth x Mass Ship over 215,100 squared
Force of Moon on Ship = Mass Moon x Mass Ship over 23,900 squared
Mass Earth = Mass Moon x ( 215,100/23,900) squared
= Mass Moon x (9) squared
= 81 times the Moon mass

So that checks out.
So we are using our mass/force equation for gravity.

Not the same thing perhaps.
We do not know what gravity is.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 06:36 PM

I don't see how an encyclopedia can be trusted more than NASA.

This could be the quote of the year. You WERE joking, right?

If you were to make an analogy, if an encyclopedia were NASA, it would only have print on the lower half of every third page. And the first half of the volume would be misplaced.

How could i trust a group that is inept enough to have forgotten how to make it to the moon? It would seem that they have failed the "put up or shut up" test, even with technology that wasn't even in the wildest dreams of the original Apollo crew.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:03 PM
Stephen Hawking just recently wrote a childrens book entitled.

George's Secret Key To The Universe

I bought this for my kids, the first chapter contains the basic numbers for the moons weight and size. I wonder how these compare to the numbers sited in this thread?

I have a strong suspicion that Stephen Hawking laid out the elements for someone to calculate some truth about the moon based upon the numbers in his book. I am planning to crunch the numbers when we finish reading the book.

What a curious title!

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:24 PM
Front side of the moon

Dark side of the moon

just incase anyone wants to compare..

[edit on 11-9-2008 by monkeybus]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.

"
Moon dust is also not like earth dust and I would imagine is closer to gravel and most visible particulate would return to the lunar surface in the observed time frame in the clips and not much later as is being suggested.
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually the moon dust was described as being like talcum powder not like gravel. I think its because everything on the moon has been finely beaten and smashed by meteors.

Well, what I mean is the dust is made of rock and not lighter material that tends to have a greater air resistance in our thicker atmosphere for a similar sized particle in comparison to moon dust.
If the rover drove through similar material here on earth in a windless area, the dust would stay airborne for awhile.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:32 PM

Thank god you mentioned this.... The tires were Metal MESH not rubber inflatables.

I loved everything that he had to say in this article until I got to the tires.... check your facts people, it looks like he checked everything in great detail, except that.

Again, thanks for mentioning the tires.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 07:53 PM
I am a big dummy, but isn't Apollo a sun representation? Why name a "Moon" mission the name of the Sun. We don't spend billions of dollars on things for no reason, but to gain "power". I have a feeling that we weren't targeting the moon, as told to us plainly with the name of the missions. Even the mission badge for Apollo eleven shows us a yellow target, with the path as a figure 8. I'm thinking that the Sun was the actual target, and that it works a little differently then we are lead to believe. Then again, I'm a big dummy.

Peace

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:01 PM

I am a big dummy, but isn't Apollo a sun representation? Why name a "Moon" mission the name of the Sun. We don't spend billions of dollars on things for no reason, but to gain "power". I have a feeling that we weren't targeting the moon, as told to us plainly with the name of the missions. Even the mission badge for Apollo eleven shows us a yellow target, with the path as a figure 8. I'm thinking that the Sun was the actual target, and that it works a little differently then we are lead to believe. Then again, I'm a big dummy.

Peace

mission badges are always interesting, and are said to contain hidden meanings for the people who worked on it.

but why would they send people into the sun???!!

\/ whys that phage? I don't think they use a random word generator\/

[edit on 11-9-2008 by monkeybus]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:03 PM

By your reasoning Project Mercury should have gone to the planet Mercury and Project Gemini should have gone to the stars Castor and Pollux. I wouldn't put a whole lot of meaning into the names of the projects.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:48 PM

Hi ,I am sorry citizen`s of the US. I am sorry to have to tell you . But your citizens of the United States of Lie`s. After much research into 9/11 ,the moon landing`s etc, We here at my research centre have all come to the same conclusion... Your all victim`s of a lying Govt / or Agency whom is in control of what you do and Watch. Just like our Royal family. What you believe to have been moon landings and terrorist attacks were nothing but Govt Lie`s. Look deeper into 9/11 and the moon landing`s and the evidence speaks for itself . I Promice you I am NO sucker or fool! Research this stuff for yourself please, I beg You!

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:52 PM

monkeybus.....oh dear.

I guess we must blame Pink Floyd for an (otherwise fabulous album) that brought a poor term into the vernacular.

The Moon rotates about its axis, just as the Earth does. You don't think there's only one 'Dark Side of the Earth', do you? Of course not. There is 'night side' -- and 'day side'. It's the same on the Moon...except, the Moon rotates in, give or take, about 29 days. Hence, we see ONE side, when we look up (actually, we see more than half, about 69%, but hard to tell with the naked eye). EDIT: Forgot to add, as the Moon rotates about its axis every 29 days, give or take a few minutes, it also orbits the earth in about the same time...so it always 'shows' one hemisphere to we, who observe her.

SO, when it is what's called a 'new moon'....the "FARSIDE" is having its 'day', so to speak.

If you were living on the Moon, you would see the Sun moving VERY SLOWLY in the sky....from Lunar 'dawn' to Lunar 'sunset' would take just about 14 Earth days....more than 336 hours. Same with the Lunar 'night'.

And then the pattern would repeat.

Now, the Apollo missions to the Moon were planned to coincide with what you and I would think of as early 'morning'. Two weeks of no sunlight exposes the surface to extremely cold temperatures. Of course, heat won't radiate into a vacuum...I think it tends to draw underground, but I'm not a thermodynamics whiz.

By planning the landings to the "early morning" on the surface, at the landing sites selected, it meant that the heat from the Sun would be less intense, for the EVAs....the soil would just be beginning to be heating up again after two weeks of being cold...and the long shadows would help provide a perspective, in an alien environment, where there are no familiar shapes and sizes to provide a visual reference that we're used to, here on Earth.

High 'noon' on the Moon, based on the Apollo sites, would not be tenable based on that technology....possibly not even today. This is why, from what I've read online about future possibly permanent bases, they are looking at the Polar region...especially the Southern Pole of the Moon.

The Southern Pole seems to have the majority of 'permafrost' (water ice) due to its never being heated/cooled extensively.....it does not get direct sunlight, it's actually almost always semi-dark, hence a moderate environment.

(Could wreak havoc with human sleep patterns.....but they already deal with that in cities like Anchorage, or Seattle).

AND, if there IS an atmosphere, this is where it would most likely survive, especially if there were lowlands. This is opposite of what we know of Earth...the poles of the Moon would be the best place for a stable atmosphere, given its rotational speed.

[edit on 9/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 08:53 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:01 PM

The few lunar excursions indicated that the moon was a very dry world. One lunar expert said that it was "a million times as dry as the Gobi Desert." The early Apollo missions did not find even the slightest trace of water. But after Apollo 15, NASA experts were stunned when a cloud of water vapor more than 100 square miles in size was detected on the moon's surface.

Originally posted by masterp
Do you happen to have any links? I searched for that but I could not find anything.

I had a bit more of a look.

As far as I am concerned, this is the biggest claim in the whole OP.

I looked for this info as well and found these sources ... I wouldn't trust any of these sites with making my bed let alone this kind of info.

www.maid-ez.com...

www.geocities.com...

www.cyber-north.com...

Extraterrestrial Archaeology by David Hatcher Childress

David Hatcher Childress (born 1957) is an American author of books on topics in alternative history. His works often cover such subjects as pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, the Knights Templar, lost cities and vimana aircraft. [1] Much of his writing, particularly his claims for ancient technology, relies upon 'channelled' information from other writers. Within the academic community his works are not cited and his books generally dismissed. Although Childress regularly claims to be an "archaeologist," in fact he has no college degree, having dropped out of his freshman year of college never to return

As far as I can tell, the info seems to have come from Childress's book ... where he got this info from is not clear.

There doesn't seem to be any source that mentions names, dates or reports from NASA to verify clods of water vapour.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:01 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:09 PM

Sorry People ,this quote came from a side bar ,not many post`s back. So Please don`t be disgruntled with myself!

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:13 PM
There will be no more posting to the poster.

Discuss the topic.

Thank you.

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:15 PM

Originally posted by Phage

By your reasoning Project Mercury should have gone to the planet Mercury and Project Gemini should have gone to the stars Castor and Pollux. I wouldn't put a whole lot of meaning into the names of the projects.

First of all, I loved Buckaroo Bonzi...Great avy.

On the names, I just find it weird. Nothing is done without reason. I also believe that in the vain of conspiracy, a certain truth must be presented to the public, only it is left to them (the public) to weed through the mess to find the reality. Every conspiracy is done right in front of you. 9/11 is a perfect example as Bush said, "We all saw the PICTURES of the planes flying into the buildings" which wasn't a lie, but neither was it the forthcoming of the entirety of the truth. If they were going to the moon, it wasn't just to go. Anything done in this world is for money and power and that must be remembered always when trying to find the truth of such matters.

As I had said, if the sun didn't work how it is presented to the public then, why wouldn't they go to the sun? It's not a matter of what we know, it's a matter of what they know.

Peace

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 09:25 PM

jiggy.....don't mince words! We can all see who you 'replied' to, and can see the avatar for ourselves.

Although, it IS a bit on a side-track....but I think it's OK, as long as we don't continue down this gully. (mixing metaphors, sorry)

Back to what I can see of the OP's title...we're focusing, thus far, on the Moon....and I've seen a LOT of alternative theories regarding that celestial body, here on ATS...but, I'm more of a Mars man, myself. Taurus, I am.

However, the Moon is virtually in our backyard...should be a first jumping-off point, unless we consider a huge lagrange point space station first....but, getting stuff, the raw materials out of Earth's gravity well is far more difficult than, say...the Moon's. So, mining on the Moon makes sense, even if it'll destroy ancient Native civilizations and their priceless artifacts (joking).

The dilemma is simple: Do we, or do we NOT have back-engineered ET tech? If we do, then Earth's gravity well is insignificant, and exploring the rest of the Solar System is a piece of cake.

On the other hand, if Human invention and Human ingenuity are all that we have....then it just takes a directed effort (and that means MONEY!) to accomplish our goals, of exploring space...with manned vehicles. And that entails 'baby-steps'. Well, when Apollo 'died', the baby died too....unless?

So, taking the human endeavour aspect first, let's tie up our bootstraps, and get on with it! It ain't smart to restrict ourselves to one planet....a large asteroid strike, which we can't prevent (yet) could either set us back to the stone age, or worse, cause our extinction.

And then, the Vulcans would have no one to be annoyed with 100 years from now!

EDIT....just saw MemoryShock's post.....oops. no more responses to a response....but sometimes one must, a little, just to set up the rest of the narrative? I mean, it's the way ideas flow, sometimes....OK, slap.

[edit on 9/11/0808 by weedwhacker]

posted on Sep, 11 2008 @ 10:53 PM
Yes there is lots of unexplained stuff on the moon but linking the neutral point distance to a higher gravitational force existing on the moon and therefore it has an atmosphere does not make sense.

What was the position of the other bodies in our solar system that may have had an effect on the measurement ?
The craft was in an elliptical orbit, was it measured at it's closest point or farthest point ?

The planets are not in a perfect circular orbit around the sun:

The basis for the modern understanding of orbits was first formulated by Johannes Kepler whose results are summarized in his three laws of planetary motion. First, he found that the orbits of the planets in our solar system are elliptical, not circular (or epicyclic), as had previously been believed, and that the sun is not located at the center of the orbits, but rather at one focus.[3] Second, he found that the orbital speed of each planet is not constant, as had previously been thought, but rather that the speed of the planet depends on the planet's distance from the sun. And third, Kepler found a universal relationship between the orbital properties of all the planets orbiting the sun. For each planet, the cube of the planet's distance from the sun, measured in astronomical units (AU), is equal to the square of the planet's orbital period, measured in Earth years. Jupiter, for example, is approximately 5.2 AU from the sun and its orbital period is 11.86 Earth years. So 5.2 cubed equals 11.86 squared, as predicted.

en.wikipedia.org...

So with all the changing distances from all the elliptical orbits and the pull from the sun and other bodies taken into account, I think the rocket scientist got it right. If not, how did the Voyagers make it so far without crashing into something ?

114