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: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by welldownbluehighway
We didn't expect you to know the Masons were behind it all.

I actually prefer the theories that we did go to the moon but it's a secret base for the ultra rich and powerful to hide on when TSHTFAWKI, Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. (The #### Hits the Fan As We Know It)


No, when TSHTF NASA will be underground with the rest of the orgs.




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece to a Space Cadet

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?


While you're at it, how about also telling us how they pulled off all the video footage, which filming 10 straight days at a clip would have been a lot of film to all come out crystal clear, no melting, no damage. That would be a feat even for shooting on the earth, let alone the moon. But supposedly every detail of the voyages were all shot by the remote cameras mounted everywhere, ready to pop out and start shooting at the exact right moment. How extremely high tech. Those remote cameras even shot the take-off of the tree house (aka lunar lander) back up to the mother ship. Did they have specially made video tape that wouldn't melt also? Or were they spraying water on it from the frozen water in the shadows of the moon that NASA says they also used to cool the astroNOTs? Since they didn't have digital cameras back then, that is a whole lot of film to shoot. Was it also self-loading film? How did the film know how to follow the astroNOTs all around? We hear the stories about the astroNOTs shooting stills from the Hasselblad, while their fingers were encased in high pressure thick gloves -- ha, yeah, sure they did. But what about the videos?

Do they have any pictures of the special cameras that were able to continuously shoot all the footage without melting the film, not one inch of it?





[edit on 26-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

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.


Excuse me? Nothing gets hot on the moon except for the moon rocks and the sand, er, moon dust? Interesting. I'm so glad I've got such smart people to straighten me out from my poor education in physics.

So why are the astroNOTs wearing cooling packs and all the rest of the paraphernalia to stay cool if only the surface of the moon gets hot?



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by whaaa
 


Yeah, you guys are absolutely right. It's a conspiracy that people give me stars. And I get paid millions a year to post things on here to try to distract people.


I wonder what kind of conspiracy it is when people give posts dozens of stars in a few minutes and it has already been ripped apart.


Not millions, but any amount is too much. We don't need our tax dollars used to pay for people to come on the Internet and feed us BS and lies from a cheat sheet and probably make more money than the rest of us do, with pensions and the whole bit and get to go hide in the DUMBs when TSHTF.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But the biggest exposure by FAR to the astronauts were Alpha and Beta particles. Gamma particles won't kill you instantly unless you're exposed to a HUGE dose. That's why all those x-rays you had for years that didn't have a lead shield haven't killed you yet.

It would take 5,000+ Rems to kill you within 48-72 hours. 400-600 Rems has a 60% fatality rate after 30 days. The astronauts on Apollo were exposed to less than 5 Rems, which is the yearly dose that a worker that handles radioactive material averages.

As for the eye protection, that gold visor does nicely. That gold lining is also used on fighter cockpits to help protect the pilots in the event of a nuclear flash.

whizzospace.com...


Sounds like the moon is a nicer place to live than the Bahamas. No radiation, the heat only hits the surface of the moon -- you can take miles and miles of camera footage without a hitch, and all your Hasselblad pics turn out perfect, thousands of them, even if you can't get your hands around the camera, let alone adjust the settings.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The camera was built into the landing leg. Armstrong pulled a lanyard on his way out, and it deployed the camera to take his picture.

Did he pull lanyards for all the other camera footage? Was it a robot camera that somehow knew where to aim itself? I know there was a portable camera hooked up to the moon buggy, as they say, but what about all the other footage? Seems to be just like any other camera shots that you'd get from having a cameraman there shooting. It's not like it's one camera shooting from one angle 100 percent of the time. The angles change, the distance changes, all like a professional cameraman would do. You're going to say this was all by a lanyard?





Wouldn't the massive amounts of radiation cause the astronauts that walked on the moon to age prematurely, or cause cancer?


Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's why so many of the early astronauts have cataracts, cancer, and other illnesses. It took a long time for it to affect them, because they received a fairly low dose. It wasn't enough to affect them immediately, but it HAS affected them.


Right. It's called become a recluse and drink a lot and burst into tears when you have to make public speeches, and generally go crazy. BTW, did you tell NASA they have nothing to worry about concerning radiation on the moon? I think maybe they haven't figured that out yet, but you could let them in on your insightful understanding of the almost complete lack of radiation on the moon.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:04 AM
link   
That guy Sibrel and others like him are un-informed numptys. No wonder Buzz Aldrin chinned him, I want to chin him too. What a twit.

To suggest the moonlandings were hoaxed is beyond ridiculous. I think that turkey actually believes all the rubbish he spouts.

One great example of how this kind of nonsense persists is the fact that the flag (the one that shouldnt have been waving because of no wind) had a mechanism on it to make it wave, because they figured out of course, that it wouldnt wave on the moon. So they put a wee motor on it. Thats why it waves. If the fools that put so much effort into shouting about fakery did some research they would find these kind of things out.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   




This early post is excellent, and reenforces what has been said to date.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth

Originally posted by OKCBtard

Could you start bringing fourth some evidence that the moon landings were actually faked instead of sitting there trying to discredit the brave people who pretty much flew to the moon in a shanty P.O.S. while not knowing what exactly to expect?


Oh, like this?
nasascam.bravehost.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>



Great link............Wow.......going to be reading that stuff all night but yea def gives some credibility to the faked landing theory and in good detail too.



Yep, this site nails it. It has several pages. I don't see how anybody who reads this site could still be a believer in NASA's scam. Aulis used several of these photos on their own website, perhaps their book also. This guy has collected all this stuff.

Good thing I kept this site in my bookmarks, because now with all the paid NASA debunking sites cluttering up the search engines you can't find anything anymore.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Too bad the person who posted the video at the beginning offering it as proof of the moon landings decided to take it off. I spent a lot of time going through this thread trying to find it again. I was going to repost it.

It was great proof of the astroNOTs being on wires and of the dirt that got kicked moving exactly the way it would on earth, all the while the astroNOT was floating around like Peter Pan.

And this was offered as proof of the moon landing.

Please put it back up?

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:59 AM
link   
Delete.


Common sense prevailed. (albeit slightly delayed)

Apologies.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by angus1745
That guy Sibrel and others like him are un-informed numptys. No wonder Buzz Aldrin chinned him, I want to chin him too. What a twit.

To suggest the moonlandings were hoaxed is beyond ridiculous. I think that turkey actually believes all the rubbish he spouts.

One great example of how this kind of nonsense persists is the fact that the flag (the one that shouldnt have been waving because of no wind) had a mechanism on it to make it wave, because they figured out of course, that it wouldnt wave on the moon. So they put a wee motor on it. Thats why it waves. If the fools that put so much effort into shouting about fakery did some research they would find these kind of things out.



A wave motor in the flag. Now I've heard it all. Too bad they didn't think to get some decals made for their tree house moon lander and had to have the secretary use magic markers to draw a flag and "United States" on poster board and scotch tape it to the lunar lander.

But they were able to find a wave motor for the flag?

ha ha ha ha ha ha .....

Hilarious.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
"Chadwickus" deserves a mod warning for incivility and personal attacks.


Originally posted by angus1745
One great example of how this kind of nonsense persists is the fact that the flag (the one that shouldnt have been waving because of no wind) had a mechanism on it to make it wave, because they figured out of course, that it wouldnt wave on the moon. So they put a wee motor on it. Thats why it waves. If the fools that put so much effort into shouting about fakery did some research they would find these kind of things out.

Care to reference your wee motorized flag-waving research?


Still haven't had any credible explanations to this video besides "those don't look like pebbles to me."



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 



Will you shut up.

we don't need a running commentary of your thoughts every five minutes.




It's not a running commentary. I am responding to some earlier posts that I missed, and it's taking me a long time.

It's not nice to tell posters to shut up. Do I tell you to shut up? Have I said one thing about you needing to cut your nails? No.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece


Still haven't had any credible explanations to this video besides "those don't look like pebbles to me."


And they don't look like jagged moon rocks as we've heard all the rocks on the moon are jagged and "special."

They look like regular rocks in the sand to me, just like here on earth, no different at all. The only thing different about the moon that I notice is that there aren't any stars or anything else in the sky either for that matter. The only thing they showed us on the moon was a motorized flag and a tree house moon lander and some guys dressed up in space suits floating around on wires and bouncing around in a moon buggy. They didn't need to go to the moon to show us that. Why couldn't they have shown us something different and awesome? The moon is just a place like earth, a big beach with lots of round rocks and gently sloping hills.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:51 AM
link   
Here's irrefutable proof that the Apollo 11 lunar landing was faked:


NASA really screwed up when they accidentally released this footage.

This 10 minute documentary excerpt also explains why no direct TV feeds were allowed and why those 13,000 original tapes were "lost."



[edit on 26-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Excuse me? Nothing gets hot on the moon except for the moon rocks and the sand, er, moon dust? Interesting. I'm so glad I've got such smart people to straighten me out from my poor education in physics.

If not for us you'd still believe that weightlessness on the shuttle is caused by its distance from the earth. That "common sense" of yours didn't do you much good.


So why are the astroNOTs wearing cooling packs and all the rest of the paraphernalia to stay cool if only the surface of the moon gets hot?

It takes days for the surface of the moon to get hot. The cameras were not left out in the heat for days on end. Furthermore, astronauts generate their own heat so they need extra cooling, whereas a camera generally does not. The cameras were wrapped in reflective insulating garments just like the astronauts to reduce radiative heating, which is the ONLY heating they could get on the moon - no atmosphere, no conductive heating.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
They look like regular rocks in the sand to me, just like here on earth,

Funny, geologists don't think they look like rocks in the sand... and I'll take their opinion over yours any day of the week. We've seen where your "common sense" has gotten you so far.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by interestedalways
 


This is familiar territory, that video that GF just brought up is a thread killer.

Can't view youtube videos at the moment, perhaps you could make the argument and points yourself instead?

[edit on 26-3-2009 by ngchunter]




top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join