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.

 

Bart Sibrel on Coast To Coast AM last night: Wow! Just... Wow!

page: 12
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

These probes crashed and burned and we could never even bring one back, not one.


Originally posted by Phage
A few crashed but most were successful. They soft landed and send their pictures back to Earth.



If they soft landed, why couldn't they lift off and get back to earth? I mean if they showed they could get a small 10 pound satellite to the moon, great. I doubt that also. But how about showing us they can also get it back? But they want to send men to the moon in that contraption we saw earlier in the thread, the spider legged tree house with gold foil and torn roofing paper and a hand drawn flag scotch taped, (which is not as shocking as that the lander ITSELF was ALSO scotch taped), -- all based on landing a lightweight satellite of some kind on hte moon?

And I don't believe they were even able to do that. That was a lie also.

Originally posted by Phage
Apollo 12 landed right next to Surveyor III. I know it won't mean much to you but here's a cool photo.



Yeah, we've seen a lot of cool photos. How about a decent picture of the moon from the piece of junk known as the Hubble telescope.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by king9072
Beyond the atmosphere, is this right next door to the moon? No.

So you retract your prior claims about all space missions being faked then?


And wait, did I not say before and after APOLLO MISSIONS? I think that would include 7 which is claimed to have orbited without landing.

8 orbited the moon, they worked their way up to landing.

obviously its not debated that we made it into space and earth orbit.

You wouldn't be the first to make that claim. Not by a long shot.

But what doesn't change is that BEFORE AND AFTER APOLLOS (yes that includes APOLLO 7) we never went those distances and thats the point I was trying to make.

It doesn't make sense energetically to go halfway there and turn around. The moon is quite handy for redirecting your trajectory back towards earth, hence the free return trajectory.


Whats my opinion on if we landed on the moon? I am not sure, but based on the fact that practically none of the "official stories" of any major event in American history add up and are undisputed, I am sure it didn't happen quite like they claim.

So because an event is disputed by someone somewhere it must not have happened as originally claimed? Amazing.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Yeah, we've seen a lot of cool photos. How about a decent picture of the moon from the piece of junk known as the Hubble telescope.

www.nasa-intelligence.com...
That "piece of junk" took a better photo of the moon than you or I ever could.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Yes, we see how easy it is to go to the moon and back, real simple. As long as you are flying in a Beverly Hillbillies contraption of roofing paper and gold foil known as the lunar lander, or driving around in a moon buggy with fenders duct taped onto it, or taking thousands of crystal clear pictures with a professional camera with lots of settings to adjust using ordinary film in the atmosphere of the moon in 300 degree heat.

Wouldn't it be great if things worked that easily here on earth?

But we also learn it is impossible to tip your head up to look at the stars.

We learn that the moon is blazing with reflected sun (and radiation) and about 300 degrees F (or is it centigrade?) really, really hot anyway -- and no atmosphere to shield, but supposedly they only got a tiny drop of radiation, nothing to worry about.

And the sun was blazing and the moon was so bright with reflection that they couldn't see the stars. But the radiation was just a tiny blip of nothing.

And they had cameras mounted everywhere to shoot the entire thing, thousands of crystal clear pictures they were able to take in the heat and radiation, live camera footage of even them lifting off in their roofing paper lunar lander, but they had a hand-drawn American flag and the words "United States" hand drawn on a couple pieces of poster board and scotch taped to the roofing paper on the lunar lander.

Lots of contrasts here, that's for sure. There's many more.



[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
LOL -- looks like the Zaphod58 star posse realized that they overplayed their phony enthusiasm and have backed off.

And thanks to the NASA moon hoax defenders who doth protest too much, they've propelled this thread to the front page of ATS!


I'm not sure which is worse. The fact that people decide there's a conspiracy to people clicking on stars, or that this is the best you could come up with as a rebuttal.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Wouldn't it be great if things worked that easily here on earth?

But we also learn it is impossible to tip your head up to look at the stars.

We learn that the moon is blazing with reflected sun (and radiation) and about 300 degrees F (or is it centigrade?) really, really hot anyway -- and no atmosphere to shield, but supposedly they only got a tiny drop of radiation, nothing to worry about.


And they had cameras mounted everywhere to shoot the entire thing, thousands of crystal clear pictures they were able to take in the heat and radiation...

Lots of contrasts here, that's for sure. There's many more.



[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



Ok point one: No it would be a pain in the behind to have to put on a thickened suit, capable of deflecting or absorbing radiation, keeping you warm in a cold snap and cool in the 300 degree heat, just to walk to your mailbox or pick up your milk from the step. That suggestion is just freakin stupid baiting. Stow it , bloody immature nonsense.

Point two: Well yeah if the suits neck is thick and unjointed, then looking up would be kind of difficult , and not recommended really since even a fall in the low gravity environs of the moon could result in injury , and clever as those suits were, they werent totaly damage proof.

Point three: The radiation and matters pertaining thereto have been explained to you many times already during the course of the thread, theres no need to reiterate what has gone before, and to be perfectly honest , to continue to rant on about it is jestering and therefore a waste of not just your time, but every person who reads your last post also.

Point four: Well lets think, if you were going to send cameras somewhere , that there was likely to be extremes of temperature then you being the oh so clever bugger that you arent would have neglected to sort out some heat shielding ...thankfully you arent in the space program so that problem got covered. What a relief! And as for effects on the film from heat and radiation, you may wish to note that most of the equipment they used up there photographic or otherwise was specificaly modified by much cleverer people than you , to operate effectively in that situation.

One more thing, try and find something to rant about that hasnt already been explained. Also, if you dont go learn some science, you may never understand how ridiculous your accusations are.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I never really thought about the moon landing being a hoax. But lately I have been examining more and more evidence of it being a hoax.

One of the best I think is this video:
www.youtube.com...

I mean look at the earth in this video, there's not a cloud above the ocean! I mean that is fake! Please explain that.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
And as for effects on the film from heat and radiation, you may wish to note that most of the equipment they used up there photographic or otherwise was specificaly modified by much cleverer people than you , to operate effectively in that situation.


Actually, the claim is that it was just a regular Haselblad and regular film, nothing special at all. And operated while wearing high pressure gloves that would make it virtually impossible to even move the fingers, let alone operate a camera. One more of thousands of anomalies ("anomalies" being a polite term for impossibilities.

But I'm just curious, but do you believe there is life on Mars, and do you expect aliens to be visiting us soon? I'm serious about that. Why is it so important to you to believe this happened, you being from England?

Can it be that the purpose for which this hoax was designed, to convince the populace of the possibility of interplantary travel, succeeded oh too well?

Are you a believer that there is life on Mars and that "they" are coming soon to save the planet?

Just asking. I'm serious and really curious to know what goes on in the minds of people willing to see past roofing paper and other illogical and crazy things to believe we went to the moon six times 50 years ago, especially knowing how our governments lie. (You guys had a 7/7 false flagger over there lately. Your royals are Illuminati. The seat of monetary power rests with the Federal Reserve, Bank of London and the Rothschilds. You know anything about this?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Whiteone
 


Well for a start those are two different recording and playback methods and in the video you posted there are claims that theres no clouds over the ocean but, at 2:47 you can clearly see relflection under the cloud cover, so that video pretty much debunks itself !



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
Well lets think, if you were going to send cameras somewhere , that there was likely to be extremes of temperature then you being the oh so clever bugger that you arent would have neglected to sort out some heat shielding ...thankfully you arent in the space program so that problem got covered. What a relief! And as for effects on the film from heat and radiation, you may wish to note that most of the equipment they used up there photographic or otherwise was specificaly modified by much cleverer people than you , to operate effectively in that situation.

Maybe you can tell us all about the specially-cooled Hasselblad cameras and the film that was somehow able to resist 300 degree F temperatures?

You've previously said if it were ever proven that the Apollo missions were faked, you'd have a nervous breakdown. Isn't becoming an official proponent of the moon landings the best alternative to retaining your sanity?

If knowing that the Apollo missions were faked would have such a negative effect on your emotional well-being, I'd strongly suggest that you don't look into 9/11 or the 7/7 London bombings.

As Col. Nathan Jessep (Jack Nicholson) said in A Few Good Men, "You want the truth? WELL, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
Youre telling me no one has reported Salt of the Earth yet for baiting and being ugly on this thread yet?


I'm not baiting about the belief in life on Mars. I know a lot of the space cadets here do believe in that, think the universe is teeming with intelligent life. And since NASA is the one out in front promoting life on Mars, and since these people are big supporters of NASA, I asked a serious question, a bit off topic perhaps but one of sincere interest to me -- if their zeal for NASA extends to belief in life on Mars and a possible future visit from some of its inhabitants.

And if you're mad at me for calling them astroNOTs, well, that is just a common thing to do for people like me who don't appreciate being scammed AGAIN.

I don't like the way our government lies and scams and provacateurs and stages events -- at all.

If you love the government, fine. I don't. I'm just calling it as I see it, and if you want to go crying to the mods, then go do it. It's 10 to 1 here on this forum, and that's not good enough for you? You got government bucks helping to promote your point of view, but that's not enough? Time to go cry to the mods?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Whiteone
 


Well for a start those are two different recording and playback methods and in the video you posted there are claims that theres no clouds over the ocean but, at 2:47 you can clearly see relflection under the cloud cover, so that video pretty much debunks itself !



I do not see any clouds over the ocean. In fact what part of earth are these land masses that are shown? Is it suppose to be South America?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Maybe you can tell us all about the specially-cooled Hasselblad cameras and the film that was somehow able to resist 300 degree F temperatures?


Since there is no air on the moon there is no air temperature. The high temperature values are for the surface of the moon. The Hasselblads used on the moon had polished stainless steel bodies which reflected most of the sunlight (and heat). They did not get hot.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whiteone
I never really thought about the moon landing being a hoax. But lately I have been examining more and more evidence of it being a hoax.

One of the best I think is this video:
www.youtube.com...

Here's another good one:



Small undisturbed pebbles under the LEM's rocket engine?

No dust on the gleaming gold landing struts?

No rover tracks?

Thousands of photo anomalies?

Don't worry, the NASA proponents have a ready explanation for everything!


[edit on 25-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Edited by me due to confusion.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by interestedalways]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Don't worry, the NASA proponents have a ready explanation for everything!


It's not too difficult, the claims that the moon landings are faked are based on incorrect assumptions and distortions.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Whiteone
 


Bottom right hand side of the clip at 2:47 you can clearly see a reflection from water, from UNDERNEATH the cloud cover. Thats not a continent you are looking at, or at least , not all of one. Theres sea under the cloud, and if you are looking for the cloud and cant see it , then I really really cant help you. Its pretty much obvious.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Don't worry, the NASA proponents have a ready explanation for everything!

It's not too difficult, the claims that the moon landings are faked are based on incorrect assumptions and distortions.

You neglected to quote the rest of my post:


Small undisturbed pebbles under the LEM's rocket engine?

No dust on the gleaming gold landing struts?

No rover tracks?

Thousands of photo anomalies?

I'm all ears. I hope it's better than your last explanation:


Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Maybe you can tell us all about the specially-cooled Hasselblad cameras and the film that was somehow able to resist 300 degree F temperatures?


Since there is no air on the moon there is no air temperature. The high temperature values are for the surface of the moon. The Hasselblads used on the moon had polished stainless steel bodies which reflected most of the sunlight (and heat). They did not get hot.



[edit on 25-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Right ... for a start, they arent MY bloody royals . Im a celt. We didnt have much by way of proper monarchy. Thats a roman ideal that I have nothing to do with.
Regard life on Mars... well I doubt Im in a position to comment,because my knowledge of bacterial life isnt adequate to make a supportable hypothesis. I would say that if there currently is life on mars , I doubt that its in the form of intelligent life, since there are no evidences for that from surface photos. I would also say that although I dont think theres anything recognisably complex there, I have high hopes for some of the iceworlds in our solar system , and I dont limit myself to thinking about just this system either. When you think about the sheer volume of space, it seems ludicrous that we could be the only things in it with the spark of life. I even wonder if the universe itself is alive, and we just paracites on one of its many organs




top topics



 
8
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join