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.

 

china to expose americas moon walk

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by expatwhite
 


WOW

My post: "Before 1969, and since 1969 the farthest a human has ever travelled into the space was within a few hundred Kilometers from earth."

Agreed, my grammar was off - and my dates, but I tried to correct it in a later post. But its quite clear that my point was proper. Maybe I need to simplify it for you? The farthest humans have travelled (outside of the apollo missions) was no farther then a few hundred KM, YET during the apollo missions, humans traveled 1000 times that distance, then back again. Make sense of that.

Is that easy enough?

EDIT: And also for clarification of the "BEFORE" point I made, which you guys bounced back with "WELL STUPID THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON BEFORE HAHAH LOLER~~" Does it not seem odd to putter around in space but never going farther than a couple hundred KM, then one day just decide to go 1000 times that distance, then back? Come on, what ever happened to baby steps? They could have at least tried 100 times that distance?... no..? Ah well, good night.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by king9072]




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
May be the dust may be of a material of higher density, what do you think?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:04 AM
link   
There are several very real issues with the 'lunar landings'.

For example.. NASA has an alleged Lunar Lander on display in a museum.. the tinfoil crappy construction we all know and love.

But.. when asked to reproduce the accomplishments supposedly made in the late '60's and early 70's, they can not , even with this historic model they got on display.

Shadows falling from several angles, several lightsources reflected in the helmets on several pictures, video footage of astronauts jumping around with clearly reflected wires, running above their heads as if they are suspended..

video of astronauts on the shadow side of objects, showing them as if they are in full daylight, rocks in pictures that have letters carved in them, with the same letter carved near the base where they lay..

camera's, which supposedly where used in the extreme temperatures of the moon which where neither shielded for radiation nor for cold. put simply, under the alleged circumstances on the moon, those films would have been a) severaly compromised by radiation, and b) would have frozen solid and broken up.

Then, the footage of 'astronauts' supposedly in deep space, when you can clearly see outside there is a blue sky (which can only occur inside an atmosphere)

Then, there's the fact that the Russians where lightyears ahead (no pun intended) of the Americans when it came to space exploration. Yet, they didn't even come close to 'going to the moon'.

Did you ever hear about an old black and white mute movie called 'frau in monde' ? if you watch what really happened on the moon you could see the simularitys between this piece of fiction, and the one written by NASA..

An other docu I saw showed how the space inside the alleged Lunar Lander was too cramped to hold 2 people ànd open the door, let alone be able to carry the Rover vehicle.

I heard a guy say how 'we' would have 'skirted' the Van Allen Belt.. which would be impossible, given that the Van Allen Belt is a blanket around the entire Earth.. and that's not even accounting for the risk of solar flares which would have been a real threat to these alleged missions.

Imho 'we went there' with just one point in mind. Forget exploration, forget breaking boundarys, imho it was all a case of propping up national pride .

I remember when I was little, there where scientific publications about how we would begin space exploration by building a base on the Moon. From there, ships would be kind of shot into deep space using a railgun or some such. these same railguns would be used to deliver mined resources from the Moon back to earth.

Even if they decided space exploration would be impossible, the military would have absolutely loved to get a base on the Moon.. I mean, a base on the Moon that can't be hit itself, but can hit any place on the Earth would have been too good a chance to pass up.

And what do we have now ? A lot of flabbergasted scientists unable to piece together how it was supposedly done in the 70's, a lot of questionable footage, and a lot of deluded people who still feel pride swelling when thinking about 'their' accomplishments..



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by expatwhite
 


WOW

My post: "Before 1969, and since 1969 the farthest a human has ever travelled into the space was within a few hundred Kilometers from earth."

Agreed, my grammar was off - and my dates, but I tried to correct it in a later post. But its quite clear that my point was proper. Maybe I need to simplify it for you? The farthest humans have travelled (outside of the apollo missions) was no farther then a few hundred KM, YET during the apollo missions, humans traveled 1000 times that distance, then back again. Make sense of that.

Is that easy enough?

EDIT: And also for clarification of the "BEFORE" point I made, which you guys bounced back with "WELL STUPID THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON BEFORE HAHAH LOLER~~" Does it not seem odd to putter around in space but never going farther than a couple hundred KM, then one day just decide to go 1000 times that distance, then back? Come on, what ever happened to baby steps? They could have at least tried 100 times that distance?... no..? Ah well, good night.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by king9072]


# SIGH #

Look, learn the history of the space race first. They didnt "putter" about in space, the mercury and gemini programmes were designed to lead up to one goal, landing on the moon. They didnt need to wander out anywhere else, they needed to learn to launch, spacewalk, dock and return men alive before they did anything. All that could be done in earth orbit and was done earth orbit. And please please please dont try and be sarcastic when all you do is highlight your lack of knowledge. It degrades the site and make you look a fool. I refer of course to your comment "putter about" , "one day decide to go 1000 times the distance" and the classic "they could have gone 100 times the distance first"


Tell you what, toddle off and watch apollo 13-now when they were closer to the earth than the moon and they had a problem, what did they do? They STILL went round the moon to get back. Its to do with trajectories, fuel consumption and gravitational forces.

Now with your "good night" , i assume your 12 years old and its your bedtime so no hard feelings, ask teacher tomorrow in class if you can learn about Americas space program and the brave men who took part in it.. Good night



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:37 AM
link   
duplicate.ATS needs flood control


[edit on 6-10-2008 by expatwhite]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Here is absolute proof we went to the moon there called lunar retroeflectors and they were placed on the moon by the astronauts. There still in use today and has been in constant use since they were placed there so to say we didnt go to the moon is silly.

Heres an article


What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon

Oh and to answer a question i read you can avoid a large part of radiation from van allen belt. The the radiation from the van allen belt occurs mostly on the side of the earth the sun is shinning since it is caused by solar wind. So in effect it can be avoided , this radiation is not produced by the earth but charged particles hitting the atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat
 
Why do I even argue with you knuckle heads.

The soviets light years ahead? please if you knew anything about the history of the soviet space program, youd realize they were lucky to get anyone back alive.

Their first multiple manned capsule was so poorely designed that there wasnt eough room in the capsule for the cosmonauts to wear pressure suits.
And by the way they all died on re entry, when a miss wired servo opend an external vent during rentry, and the cosomonauts were cooked.
Oh yah and there were the several cosomnauts that died in orbit or were cast into interplanetary space, their unheard calls for help were recorded
by a pair of of Italian brothers who were amatuer radio buffs.

And then there was the soyuz that the parachutes didnt open on and the soviet premier got to watch the capsule hit the ground at reentry speeds, all on board were killed, it bounced like a tennis ball.

And they would have beat us to the moon by a couple of months if not for the N1's failure on the first two launches in 1969.

NASA was informed of these events and moved up the apollo mission schedule to try to beat the soviets.

Then there was the launch pad explosion of some missle during fueling,
which in and of itself would have been just a bad accident, were it not for the arrogant commander of the strategic rocket forces.
The idot, in in order to make a rediculous show of his power,
ordered a chair to brought to the launch pad, were he sat just 20' from the fueling rocket, AND SMOKED A CIGARETTE, BOOOOOM was the result and several hundred people were killed.
The films of this event are spectacular and terrifying.
So please save the light years ahead drivel.

Almost all of the apollo command modules are on display in various museums around the country, if your in US id suggest that that you look up the list on wikki, and visting one of the museums and see it for your self.



.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
still.. by the time Russian engineers had made breakthroughs with the first sattelite,(sputnik) the first space probe (lunik III), the first manned succesfull flights, AND the first spacewalk (voshkod II)the US was still holding their proverbials in their hands, incapable of producing the same outcome.. and even after the US allegedly sent men to the moon, it was still the Russians who built the first permanent space station.

How is the US in any respects superior at that time to the Russian space program ?

I'd very much like a link to the incident you mention about the cigarette, by the way.. clearly a case of stupidity, not bad engineering..
The Space Race was marked with incidents and accidents, which cost lives to more people then we'll ever know, and yes, maybe most people died in the USSR compared to the USA, but the USA had the advantage they could analyze the USSR's mistakes.. and they had a vastly superior budget.

and you have failed to adress any of the points I summed up.

Except that one point which I can easily refute..

Russian design wàs superior. just make the comparison:

Russians
a round capsule, better designed to withstand pressure.
rockets being transported on the ground in a horizontal fashion, only erected when on the launch pad.

So please.. if you want to shout 'USA! USA! USA! by all means , go ahead, but first, pull the friggin' blinders from your eyes..



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by expatwhite
 


King9072
posted on 6-10-2008 @ 03:28 AM ...

Yup im 12, and I just made it to bed for my 6pm bedtime. I hope you dont learn all your history from movies, I can't believe you suggested I go study Apollo 13... lol, hey wait, is anyone ever gonna talk about the fact that its still 1000 times the distance?

"i assume your 12 years old and its your bedtime so no hard feelings, ask teacher tomorrow in class if you can learn about Americas space program and the brave men who took part in it.. Good night"

Hah looks like we got another liberty from freedom trader, yay I LOVE AMERICA! I love America so much, that the government would never lie to me to push its agenda, ever... cause I love them.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by king9072]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 


The thousand times the distance argument has been answered. I do not believe that the poster was telling you to study the movie 'apollo 13' but the actual event that took place and how those brave men got back to earth.

Would would you honestly expect the history of space flight to go that slowly? Once they had figured out launch, space walk, and re-entry there would be nothing to learn by going only a fraction of the distance further to the moon and then back to earth. Then another fraction of the distance again and repeat. In fact what they did was go to the moon, orbit, then land. So they were taking baby steps just not silly ones like going a tenth of the distance at a time.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phatcat
still.. by the time Russian engineers had made breakthroughs with the first sattelite,(sputnik) the first space probe (lunik III), the first manned succesfull flights, AND the first spacewalk (voshkod II)the US was still holding their proverbials in their hands, incapable of producing the same outcome.. and even after the US allegedly sent men to the moon, it was still the Russians who built the first permanent space station.

How is the US in any respects superior at that time to the Russian space program ?

I'd very much like a link to the incident you mention about the cigarette, by the way.. clearly a case of stupidity, not bad engineering..
The Space Race was marked with incidents and accidents, which cost lives to more people then we'll ever know, and yes, maybe most people died in the USSR compared to the USA, but the USA had the advantage they could analyze the USSR's mistakes.. and they had a vastly superior budget.

and you have failed to adress any of the points I summed up.

Except that one point which I can easily refute..

Russian design wàs superior. just make the comparison:

Russians
a round capsule, better designed to withstand pressure.
rockets being transported on the ground in a horizontal fashion, only erected when on the launch pad.

So please.. if you want to shout 'USA! USA! USA! by all means , go ahead, but first, pull the friggin' blinders from your eyes..


The Russians had an early lead in the space race, ironically because parts of their sciences were behind the US's. Their electronics and guidance systems for ICBMs were far inferior, so they focused on launching larger yield nuclear weapons to ensure they'd hit their targets, which meant larger rockets. Since launching a satellite or person into space isn't a whole lot different from launching a MIRV payload into space, they were able to quickly achieve the (probably more meaningful than landing on the moon) distinctions of having put the first satellite and man into orbit.

In other respects, though, they were behind. Their rockets advanced very little during the time period. Both the R7 and Vostok were directly adapted ICBM launchers, not purpose-designed spacecraft. Voskhod was just a slightly updated Vostok rocket The N-1 was a terrible design, with a 100% failure rate, due to it's huge banks of small engines, which were only ever tested independently.

The USSR did do a much better job than the US at building and maintaining space stations.

Mostly, the USSR didn't put a man on the moon first because of budgetary reasons; the N1's terrible design was chosen because it was cheaper than developing new huge engines like the F-1 engines on the Saturn 5

Also: the round capsule was obviously not that superior of a design, since there's never been a hull breech of the pressurized segment of the more teardrop shaped American capsules, and there's no inherent advantage in moving rockets around horizontally, except in convenience.

Spherical capsules offer more volume per material used, but also make the capsule more awkwardly shaped for being placed on the rocket; requiring extra sheathing around it for launch. the teardrop shaped capsules are somewhat better shaped for holding people, too; as sitting people are more of an L or triangle shape than something that'd fit nicely in a sphere.

Still, to this day, I'd rather ride to space by Soyuz than the space shuttle.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by expatwhite
 


WOW

My post: "Before 1969, and since 1969 the farthest a human has ever travelled into the space was within a few hundred Kilometers from earth."

Agreed, my grammar was off - and my dates, but I tried to correct it in a later post. But its quite clear that my point was proper. Maybe I need to simplify it for you? The farthest humans have travelled (outside of the apollo missions) was no farther then a few hundred KM, YET during the apollo missions, humans traveled 1000 times that distance, then back again. Make sense of that.

Is that easy enough?

EDIT: And also for clarification of the "BEFORE" point I made, which you guys bounced back with "WELL STUPID THEY NEVER WENT TO THE MOON BEFORE HAHAH LOLER~~" Does it not seem odd to putter around in space but never going farther than a couple hundred KM, then one day just decide to go 1000 times that distance, then back? Come on, what ever happened to baby steps? They could have at least tried 100 times that distance?... no..? Ah well, good night.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by king9072]


To sum it up: NO. There's nowhere to go partway between the earth an the moon. It's EASIER to go to the moon and back than it is to go halfway and come back. It takes less fuel to be captured in lunar orbit and escape it back towards earth than it does to escape earth's orbit, then it does to REVERSE YOUR FRIGGIN' ESCAPE VELOCITY WITH THE SHEER POWER OF YOUR ENGINES, REQUIRING SOMETHING LIKE 14 MILES A SECOND OF DELTA-V: THE EQUIVALENT OF LAUNCHING A ROCKET CAPABLE OF LAUNCHING OFF OF EARTH AND BREAKING OUT OF EARTH ORBIT, COMING BACK DOWN, AND THEN GOING UP AND BREAKING ORBIT AGAIN ALL WITHOUT REFUELING.

Space travel is largely a question of your capability to change your velocity. With chemical rockets clocking in at about 300 second impulse; you're not capable of doing a lot. The only really possible way is to use transfer orbits, which means that the closest place we can go besides earth's orbit is the moon's orbit, and the next closest is mars. The only other option is to fly off into deep space never to be seen again, which isn't really an option for manned spaceflight.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhatcatFor example. NASA has an alleged Lunar Lander on display in a museum. when asked to reproduce the accomplishments supposedly made in the late '60's and early 70's, they can not


Yes the apollo craft were very dangerous vehicles to travel to the moon in but they worked. The reason they don't rebuild them is because we have better methods of getting into space. NASA would not even commission a new space shuttle as that is nearly obsolete.


Shadows falling from several angles, several lightsources reflected in the helmets on several pictures, video footage of astronauts jumping around with clearly reflected wires, running above their heads as if they are suspended..

video of astronauts on the shadow side of objects, showing them as if they are in full daylight, rocks in pictures that have letters carved in them, with the same letter carved near the base where they lay


All of that nonsense has been fully debunked.


camera's, which supposedly where used in the extreme temperatures of the moon which where neither shielded for radiation nor for cold. put simply, under the alleged circumstances on the moon, those films would have been a) severaly compromised by radiation, and b) would have frozen solid and broken up.


The film was kept in canisters that protected it and the astronauts did their work and landed when the sun was low and the temperatures quite moderate. The film was never exposed to the intense temperatures. There is a very funny story about one astronaut freezing his glove to a rock inside the lunar module!


Then, the footage of 'astronauts' supposedly in deep space, when you can clearly see outside there is a blue sky (which can only occur inside an atmosphere)


That footage has been dubunked so many times it is not even worth it.


Then, there's the fact that the Russians where lightyears ahead (no pun intended) of the Americans when it came to space exploration. Yet, they didn't even come close to 'going to the moon'.


Seeing as how they killed lots of their guys I would say their tech was actually inferior.


An other docu I saw showed how the space inside the alleged Lunar Lander was too cramped to hold 2 people ànd open the door, let alone be able to carry the Rover vehicle.


really? interior


I heard a guy say how 'we' would have 'skirted' the Van Allen Belt.. which would be impossible, given that the Van Allen Belt is a blanket around the entire Earth.. and that's not even accounting for the risk of solar flares which would have been a real threat to these alleged missions.


You do not know anything about the Van Allen belts yet alone its shape, its toroidal. Even Van Allen has said that the astronauts would be perfectly safe for short periods in the less dense areas.


Imho 'we went there' with just one point in mind. Forget exploration, forget breaking boundarys, imho it was all a case of propping up national pride


IMHO opinion pride was a huge factor but hardly proves a fraud.


Even if they decided space exploration would be impossible, the military would have absolutely loved to get a base on the Moon.. I mean, a base on the Moon that can't be hit itself, but can hit any place on the Earth would have been too good a chance to pass up.


Well thats an easy one. Space treaty


And what do we have now ? A lot of flabbergasted scientists unable to piece together how it was supposedly done in the 70's, a lot of questionable footage, and a lot of deluded people who still feel pride swelling when thinking about 'their' accomplishments..


No. We have a bunch of CTers recycling the same tired BS mixed with ignorance.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Well, when asking the techs who made the camera's, they said the astronauts had to get into the module to switch films. There is footage showing one switching a roll of film on the surface.. must be some pretty nifty shielding, for sure..

And when you say 'that's been debunked' , it does not prove anything from where I'm standing.

prove your allegations, and I will be open to discussion. just saying 'nah, you're wrong, trust me on this' just won't do for me..

I thank the other poster for his post about the technology, well spoken and not using the 'trust me' line..

I'm not ever confident I know 'the Thruth' , it's just that I saw much evidence pointing to the opposite of what the official story would have us believe. And this material didn't amount up to a guy on youtube saying 'nah, the official theory has been debunked, trust me on that one'

I'm allways open to expanding my knowledge, so go ahead..



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Phatcat
 


You get all uppity when I state, "thats been debunked before" but then you go ahead and say you have footage of the astronauts changing film on the surface? Nice one!

How about this I have debunked those stupid shadow lines, numbers on the rocks, multiple light sources, and the ridiculous video with the British voice over so many times that I will only do it again if you show me the footage of the film being changed on the surface first, deal?

Why do you get in my face for not wanting to rehash two of his points when he didn't provide a single piece of evidence for his conspiracy? Double standard?

I have to provide proof of everything I say but you and the other CTers just get to make statements? Come on now, respond with your footage and we will go from there or I get to put you on ignore.
Canisters



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Saying things have been debunked is not the same as actually debunking them. I am still failing to find where you successfully debunked anything. I see where you think you did.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Biscuit
 



I heard a guy say how 'we' would have 'skirted' the Van Allen Belt.. which would be impossible, given that the Van Allen Belt is a blanket around the entire Earth.. and that's not even accounting for the risk of solar flares which would have been a real threat to these alleged missions.



You do not know anything about the Van Allen belts yet alone its shape, its toroidal. Even Van Allen has said that the astronauts would be perfectly safe for short periods in the less dense areas.


Really, care to show us the statements where Van Allen said they would be perfectly safe all the way to the moon and back with 1/8th inch aluminum?

Start with anything on that list you like, I am particularly interested in this one here.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Really, care to show us the statements where Van Allen said they would be perfectly safe all the way to the moon and back with 1/8th inch aluminum?

Start with anything on that list you like, I am particularly interested in this one here.



Heres your quote it was from an interview on fox news

The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Now for solar flares your correct a side hit on the capsule would have been fatal however the nasa plan was if alerted of a solar flare by the way we do get advanced warning the astronauts would maneuver the craft to put the engine towards the sun. Heavier metal and also places liquid fuel between them and radiation. Now we could argue if this would be effective but with what they knew than thought it would be adequate and who knows might have been right I just don't think any body wants to test of the engineers were right. Any thing else you would like debunked?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by MorningStar8741
reply to post by Biscuit
 


Really, care to show us the statements where Van Allen said they would be perfectly safe all the way to the moon and back with 1/8th inch aluminum?

Start with anything on that list you like, I am particularly interested in this one here.



Heres your quote it was from an interview on fox news

The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Now for solar flares your correct a side hit on the capsule would have been fatal however the nasa plan was if alerted of a solar flare by the way we do get advanced warning the astronauts would maneuver the craft to put the engine towards the sun. Heavier metal and also places liquid fuel between them and radiation. Now we could argue if this would be effective but with what they knew than thought it would be adequate and who knows might have been right I just don't think any body wants to test of the engineers were right. Any thing else you would like debunked?


Yeah I have seen this quote before. There are two major problems with it. There is no science in it and it was said on FOX NEWS! Look, I could care less what he says on Fox news without the actual measurments of radiation and exposure to it for the length of time they were. Our astronauts in the shuttle are effected by the radiation in Earth orbit, through the much better shielded shuttle and through their shielded suits. I asked for a quote and I got it. Too bad it is really pretty empty.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


actually I would like the entire film "What really happend on the moon" or "a funny thing happend on the way to the moon" debunked. The shots of the astronauts that show the shadows changing in size by two fold when walking a few feet away toward the camera. The faked footage of being far out when really in earth's orbit. The rooster tails. The rover/rover compartment measurments. The complete lack of any evidence of 1/6th gravity on any of the footage.

I will finish the list when you take care of those.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join