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: 8
114
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

What kind of "extraordinary feats" are you looking for? Jumping high? They did that. Armstrong jumped up from the ground to the third step of the LM ladder. That's about 5 to 6 feet.

Oh? Any vids for proof of them doing that? They say what NASA tells them to say!


Also, astronauts weighed more than 180lbs. With a fully loaded space suit they were about 300lbs which is about 50lbs on the Moon.

Oh, again!!
The space suit weighed about 120 lbs? Says who? Where did you get that info from? NASA handouts?? Well, of course!



The fact that the dust returned to the ground shows that there is indeed no atmosphere (or not enough of one) to affect the particles of dust. If there were an atmosphere, the dust would have remained suspended in it, like it would on Earth.

That depends upon the composition of the dust particles. And dust returning to the surface after raising only a few feet means there's more gravity than we've been told!


You can clearly see that the rover is bouncing.

Exactly! Bouncing too hard and fast for comfort! The culprit is - gravity!


When you say the outside temperature is already at the boiling point of water. What are you referring to exactly? Were you referring to the surface temperature Moon? If so, how does surface effect the water cooled suits?

The mean surface temperature on the Moon during day is 107°C. Nuff said! Never mind. Read on…


The water cooled suits worked by sublimation. The water in the suit is allowed to seep through a pourus metal plate into the vacuum of space, where it freezes onto some coils of tubing. Water that's pumped through the coils is cooled by the ice and the ice sublimates (going directly from a solid to a gas) into the vacuum of space, taking the heat away with it.

This whole concept hinges on the assumption that it is cold enough outside to instantly freeze water on a nickel plate that is partially exposed outside the suit. But we know the moon CANNOT be freezing outside the suit, because the sun's rays are beating down on it in a so called atmosphereless vacuum!

Heading for the bar now! Cheers!




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:09 AM
link   
wow!! i have only been a member here for a short time but this is the best thread i have seen by a long shot! Just fantastic! I have even sent a link to my debunking friends.

Keep up the good work.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Ah! I'm back from the bar! So here's more...

Dust haze on the Moon.


Courtesy:Thelivingmoon


J. J. Rennilson1 and D. R. Criswell2
(1) Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., USA
(2) The Lunar Science Institute, Houston, Tex., USA

Received: 13 August 1973
Abstract Each of the Surveyor 7, 6, and 5 spacecraft observed a line of light along its western lunar horizon following local sunset. It has been suggested that this horizon-glow (HG) is sunlight, which is forward-scattered by dust grains (~ 10µ in diam, ~ 50 grains cm–2) present in a tenuous cloud formed temporarily (lap 3 h duration) just above sharp sunlight/shadow boundaries in the terminator zone.

Electrically charged grains could be levitated into the cloud by intense electrostatic fields (> 500 V cm–1) extending across the sunlight/shadow boundaries. Detailed analysis of the HG absolute luminance, temporal decay, and morphology confirm the cloud model. The levitation mechanism must eject 107 more particles per unit time into the cloud than could micro meteorites. Electrostatic transport is probably the dominant local transport mechanism of lunar surface fines.


This work was supported in part by the California Institute of Technology under Grant NGR 05-002-158, and in part by the Lunar Science Institute, which is operated by the Universities Space Research Association under Contract No. NSR-09-051-001 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This paper is Lunar Science Institute Contribution No. 163.

Hey! But the Moon is dead, what?

Cheers!


www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:03 AM
link   


Footprint=moisture=atmosphere!

QED!

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


If there was moisture and atmosphere, wouldn't there be wind? If there was wind, wouldn't all the footprints and tire tracks get covered with moon dust? I am asking because I really don't know. thanks.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
If there was moisture and atmosphere, wouldn't there be wind? If there was wind, wouldn't all the footprints and tire tracks get covered with moon dust? I am asking because I really don't know. thanks.


Yep! Eventually!!

Cheers!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Hmm all this just makes me believe even more that it was done in a studio, on earth. Cranes on the moon? Wires on the moon to lift up the astronauts?? All done in a studio if you ask me!!!



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:02 AM
link   

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.

Unless the video was faked in which case no conclusions can be drawn since:

a) Faked to con the public since we did not go to the moon
or
b) Faked to cover up the reason why we went to the moon.

Impossible to say which.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh

Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
The Moon has no atmosphere. There is no wind, no weather. It can be easily seen by the lack of erosion on the surface of the Moon.


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!


A clearly faked picture in which the foreground and background are not from the same location ! It's sooooo obvious it beggars belief how anyone can think different. Almost every Apollo17 picture shows a distinct line between foreground and background. They even, stupidly used, the same background for different locations DUH!

So yet again fake pictures from which you cannot determine whether we went to the moon or not and if so why the need to cover up with fake images?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Hey whadda ya know! I hadn't seen that before. Yep there is wind on the moon, an ion wind.
The universe is electric man, but where's the plug?



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:40 AM
link   
great thread mike

heres a question i have for those who think the moon cannot have an atmosphere (or that its not possible)

if the moon has enough gravity to collect millions of tons of rocks, why would it not have enough gravity to collect a little bit of gas ?

i mean even a extremely small gravity field would certainly attract a small floating gas particle to it - its just common sense


so your telling me the Moon has enough gravity to pull in Meteorites, but on the Other Hand - not enough gravity to pull in a hydrogen atom? wtf lol


[edit on 12-9-2008 by muzzleflash]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mikesingh
 


Busted on Mythbusters...

J/K!! Actually I did see the moon landing episode of Mythbusters, and it did counter a lot of the arguments against what we know or think we know about the moon landing ( assuming one is attempting to refute it), such as the use of wires and slowing of footage.

Another thing that kept bugging me:

I'm not 100% sure about this, but i can say that i am very confident... haven't physicists proven that our conventional knowledge of gravity was incorrect?

In continuation:

If I recall correctly, then Newton wasn't necessarily proven wrong, but aspects of his theory were proven to be wrong by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Furthermore, after seeing programs such as The Elegant Universe (which I very happily own
), and doing a little bit of research using the web, it is very possible that Einstein was also wrong.

here's a clip from The Elegant Universe:



The clip shows how Einstein's Theory of Relativity provides a different look at gravity.

Also, I highly recommend viewing the entire program. Later in the program, gravity is explained through an attempt at a theory of everything, as well as other forces we experience in our universe.





posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
great thread mike

heres a question i have for those who think the moon cannot have an atmosphere (or that its not possible)

if the moon has enough gravity to collect millions of tons of rocks, why would it not have enough gravity to collect a little bit of gas ?

i mean even a extremely small gravity field would certainly attract a small floating gas particle to it - its just common sense


so your telling me the Moon has enough gravity to pull in Meteorites, but on the Other Hand - not enough gravity to pull in a hydrogen atom? wtf lol


[edit on 12-9-2008 by muzzleflash]


This is an excellent example of logic at work. From a fellow Texan, no less.


Consider as well any tidal forces the Earth may enact upon any atmosphere the moon may have. Further, don't just consider gravity, but the greater magnetosphere as well.

Which brings us to the point that I believe Squiz was making righting above you.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:24 AM
link   
It's easy to tell if the Moon has an atmosphere - just watch it occlude a star.

Simply test, anyone can do it, proves without any doubt that the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of


(Unless you're John Lear who, on my pointing this out to him, proceeded to claim only the 'dark side' of the Moon has an atmosphere!
)



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


"
if the moon has enough gravity to collect millions of tons of rocks, why would it not have enough gravity to collect a little bit of gas ?
"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What! I say again, WHAT! The moon didn't collect millions of tons of rocks. . . They are the moon! The moon was created by particles, maybe even by matter expelled from the earth in the aftermath of an early meteor impact, which rotated through space forming the moon. You make it sound like the moonrocks and stones where floating through space and were attracted to the moon by its gravity. This is clearly nonsense.
As for it having an atmosphere. Mike might be right, I agree with him on most things, but on this I have my doubts. However there have been scores of sightings of clouds on the moon and they cannot form in a vacuum.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh


Footprint=moisture=atmosphere!

QED!

Cheers!


i'm sorry, but i fail to see how a footprint in the dust on the surface of the moon could in anyway justify your case of moisture/atmosphere on the moon. if there is an atmosphere, wouldnt the footprint be a little weathered? maybe the edges softened, not as sharp? you do give alot of good evidence, but some of it is lacking in some areas.

and dont ask me for sources or proof it is all my opinion, my speculations, and me trying to see your point of view on the matter



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by malcr
a) Faked to con the public since we did not go to the moon
or
b) Faked to cover up the reason why we went to the moon.

Impossible to say which.


impossible to say it is not both! maybe it was initially "a" and then it became "b"?
The "a" then "b" scenario has seemed quite plausible to me for some time now.



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
great thread mike

heres a question i have for those who think the moon cannot have an atmosphere (or that its not possible)

if the moon has enough gravity to collect millions of tons of rocks, why would it not have enough gravity to collect a little bit of gas ?

i mean even a extremely small gravity field would certainly attract a small floating gas particle to it - its just common sense


so your telling me the Moon has enough gravity to pull in Meteorites, but on the Other Hand - not enough gravity to pull in a hydrogen atom? wtf lol


[edit on 12-9-2008 by muzzleflash]


well to answer your question, use the concept of physics.....larger objects has more mass. and more mass means more gravity. einsteins theory of relativity states that every object that has mass has a gravitational influence on other objects around it. take saturn and jupiter, they are hundreds of times larger than earth, and they have a larger gravitational pull and feild that what earth does. so to answer your question, solid meteorites have larger mass than gas particles, so they are more easily influenced by gravity



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
without any doubt the Moon has no atmosphere to speak of


(Unless you're John Lear who, on my pointing this out to him, proceeded to claim only the 'dark side' of the Moon has an atmosphere!
)


Well, he may be right, you know?


JAXA announced a new finding of a gravity anomaly for both the near side and far side of the Moon by using 4-way Doppler observation data from the RSTAR (OKINA) with the main orbiter, the KAGUYA.

Until now, the gravity anomaly of the far side of the Moon has not been understood well. The gravity anomaly, which was obscure before, has been clearly revealed through observations by the Kaguya mission.

For instance, the gravity anomaly of a basin on the far side is found to be characterized by a negative anomaly in a ring like the Apollo basin. On the other hand, the gravity anomaly of the basin on the near side is uniformly positive over the region such as with the Mare Serenitatis.

Thus, the clear difference in gravity anomaly on the near side and the far side has been newly discovered and this fact brings a different story about the structure of the underground and the history of the evolution of the far side and near side of the Moon.


So let's not jump to conclusions just yet! Text book science is all set to change sooner than later!

Cheers!


www.jaxa.jp...



[edit on 12-9-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mikesingh
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


We're talking about the buggy in deep space with zero pressure. And the wheels of the buggy aren't solid wire mesh. They're inflated with Nitrogen. But yes, they have a covering of a flexible mesh shown below:





What is shown here is a wire mesh tire. It is not filled with anything, not air, not nitrogen, nada. The spring action of the wire mesh tire is its only support and has no need to be inflated.

What you can see here is the wire mesh, the strips of metal riveted to the outside of the wire mesh tire for traction and you can see the metal ribs that are on the inside of the tire which are for additional support of the vehicle. You can see through the wire mesh to note the strips inside the tire in much the same way you could see through a wire mesh tea strainer.

During the time of the Apollo Missions, NASA went to many schools, high schools, colleges and museums with exhibits, artifacts, equipment, Astronauts and scientists. In Chicago, they brought the rover, among other things, or at least a replica of the rover and had it on display, I remember it well, I got to see it, feel it, touch it, etc and ask questions about it.

Eagan



new topics

top topics



 
114
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join