Apollo 11 Armrstrong “These babies were huge, sir!”

page: 6
173
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Magnetosphere? Does the moon have a magnetosphere?

2nd line


Cheers!!!!




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jools
 


It wasn't edited and pulled from the internet. It is from the Library of Congress. It was entered into the record the day it was given.

[edit on 3/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


From what I understand the Moon like any other planetary body has some sort of magnetosphere. Whether that magnetic field is strong or weak would probably depend on the core.

From what I understand also the moon has an iron core much like other planets. The possible only difference is the moon's core is solidified while earth's core is molten.

A magnetic force probably would still appear on the moon even if the core was solid.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Whisper67
 


I love this story, one of the classic moon base conspiracies.
I just wish we had something to go by to know that the transmission was real, like them admitting it now.
Well, Buzz does at least:

Too bad he mentions nothing about the saucers on the moon, only the one following him.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


I am not going to go here anymore...get your facts right




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Odessy
 


Yeah he's so open and 'matter of fact' about the whole thing...but I guess it could have been past 'space junk' from other missions...Pity we will never know...



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jools
 


I know about Mitchell's hearsay stories.

The Aldrin interview is heavily edited (surprise). The object he is talking about is an SLA adapter.

In Armstrong's mind today, there is still no doubt that what they all saw was a detached part of their own spacecraft. "We did watch a slow blinking light some substantial distance away from us. Mission Control eventually concluded, and I agree, that it was one of the Saturn LM adapter panels. These panels were enormous and would have been given a rotation in the process of their ejection from the S-IVB. The reflection from these panels would, therefore, be similar to blinking. I do not know why we did not see the three other panels, but I suspect that the one that was directly down from the Sun from us would have provided the brightest reflection."

www.amazon.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


Doing quick seraches on several edu sites, they all seem to vary on opinion about the Moon's core, but most seem to conclude that the core is quite tiny, solid and would only produce a very miniscule magnetic field.

Question would be then regarding this "music" heard by Apollo 10 on the backside, is why was this "music" only heard on the backside and not all the way around the Moon during orbit.

Another issue would be to find some sort of measurement and scale it to see what level or intensity the magnetic field would need to be to produce this "music"...if that is the source of it.

The transcripts note this music as "humming" or "whistle" like, perhaps a resonance upon the vehicle itself causing it to vibrate and produce this "music". Again there needs to be more specifics and data on the theory of a magnetic field being the cause.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by se7en30
reply to post by pieman
 


Now this is just a shot-in-the-dark here, but perhaps they are not trying to hide and observe. Maybe, just maybe, they are "garishly" exposing themselves to alert us to their presence...sort of a hey guys, you're not alone type thing.



Finally. Congratulations for pondering one of the very likely causes for the Spacebrothers increasing airshows.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Hey Peeps

You might find this one interesting

www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jay-in-AR
reply to post by nydsdan
 


"yet not one telescope is able to see it?"

Our telescopes aren't near powerful enough to see a presence on the moon.


I hear this a lot but it doesn't seem right to me. You mean I can go to google and see my house and car from a "telescope" that fits on a satellite we dont have anything in a giant observatory that can see close up details of the moon?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
 


The image of your house is probably an aerial photo taken from an airplane. I know the one of my house is.

Satellite images are made from an altitude of 200 to 300 miles. The moon is 250,000 miles away.


[edit on 3/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ziltoid_the_Omniscient
 


www.nasa.gov...

Hubble has shots of the moon...Hubble can see the far reaches of the universe...so why can't it get up close and personal on the moons surface????

If someone can explain this one to me I would be grateful



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by se7en30
 


possibly, but wouldn't a TV broadcast be easier?

reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


just to be clear, i'm just speculating, not arguing.
there isn't anything special about earth that means that gold is any more plentiful here than elsewhere. even if it was, there's nothing special about gold besides the fact that it looks pretty and doesn't tarnish, as far as i'm aware. it's difficult to imagine a use for the stuff outside ornamentation.

i can't see mining as an issue. given the level of tech required to come here from outside our system and transportation of any mined material back to where ever they come from, mining has to be fairly low on the scale as regards feasability of the journey.



Nothing special on Earth? I disagree. The whole Earth is special. If only it could be saved in time.
Allmost makes you think about that Tibetan monk that a few years ago predicted that Extraterrestials would "save the Earth from Humans". Pretty cryptic, huh?



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Jools
 


The HST cannot resolve tiny objects. Anything less than .03 arc seconds (0.0000084º) is not identifiable.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.

hubblesite.org...

[edit on 3/19/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Thanks...I suspected it might be something technical.

Pity though...would be nice to resolve some of the mysteries!





posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Excellent thread and one that needs to be rolled out regularly
I've been reading about astronaut sightings for years and read most of the links in the thread many times. The Internet is awash with accounts, 'transcripts' and recollections by people who knew astronauts.

On the surface, it creates a compelling picture that our immediate environment is busy with visiting ET. Maybe it is? My imagination easily accepts the concept of explorers studying our solar system. It can also stretch to long term 'field studies' that encompass millenia. Ancient lunar bases? Great. If a disclosure occurred tomorrow that explained such things as fact, it wouldn't be a challenge to accept the facts. If I lost any sleep, it would be through excitement alone


Despite this, references to UFOs and the implication that there is some remnant technology on the moon, alongside 'high water marks' and current alien presence is unsubstantiated. Musgrave, Aldrin, Armstrong, Mitchell and other astronauts haven't offered definitive statements that they witnessed alien tech in space. Cooper and Mitchell have referred to conversations and third hand accounts.

Musgrave is often cited as claiming ET are teeming in space, but in context he is less controversial...


You see satellites. I've seen Mir go by within 28 miles; other satellites and you don't know what they are, but maybe just space debris. All kinds of debris come off space ships, especially at the back end after the main engines shut down and you open the doors: ice chips, oxygen or hydrogen, stuff dumped from the engines. On two flights I've seen and photographed what I call "the snake," like a seven-foot eel swimming out there. It may be an uncritical rubber seal from the main engines. In zero g it's totally free to maneuver, and it has its own internal waves like it's swimming. All this debris is white, reflecting sunlight, or you don't see it. Cruising along with you at your velocity, it's still got its own rotation. At zero g, things have an incredible freedom. It's an extraordinary ballet.
Musgrave interview

Out of context, Musgrave is describing a "...a seven-foot eel swimming out there...it has it's own internal waves like it's swimming..."

It's easy to accept the idea of ETs throughout our solar system, but these transcripts don't represent evidence. They remain hearsay and conflicting interpretations.

Over 500 men and women have spent around 90+ years in space. If they only knew 20 family and friends we're looking at 10, 000 people they could have shared the knowledge of aliens with. Add to that small figure the sum total of people that have worked for various international space agencies since the 'Space Race' began. Add the families and friends again. We're looking at a modest figure of tens of thousands of people since the mid-60s.

That's a lot of people keeping a secret



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jools
 


The LRO, launching later this year (hopefully) should be able to get some shots of the larger stuff left behind.



posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


And interestingly enough the 'sightings' of UFO's has increased dramatically in the last few years when we have been in space much more.

The more Space Debris=The more mistaken UFO sighting????




posted on Mar, 19 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


AWESOME





new topics
top topics
 
173
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join