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: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Too many people lost interest for them to be able to get enough money to go back. Too much of "Let's fix the problems on earth before we worry about space." To put a permanent base on the moon would cost probably in the Trillions of dollars. It's going to cost about $105B to get back to the moon on their first trip. They're looking at at least $500-800B to set up ANY kind of presence on the moon.


Actually according to this clip put out by NASA itself, they have a lot of homework to do before they even think of sending anybody to the moon, and until that homework is accomplished they aren't looking past 2020.

Check it out.

www.youtube.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>

www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ManaByte
His point about the Space Shuttle is completely stupid.

The Shuttle accidents happened due to how the craft is launched. Both Challenger and Columbia were caused by external elements from the SRBs and fuel tank.

Challenger was lost due to the o-ring on the SRB cracking.

Columbia was lost due to foam falling off the external fuel tank and damaging the orbiter.

The Saturn V rockets didn't have those problems, which is why NASA will NEVER develop a spacecraft again that can be damaged in liftoff by external fuel tanks or boosters.



I'll show you stupid....

We can take a primitive rocket to the moon but a high tech shuttle fails due to foam falling off.




Please....



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa

Originally posted by ManaByte
His point about the Space Shuttle is completely stupid.

The Shuttle accidents happened due to how the craft is launched. Both Challenger and Columbia were caused by external elements from the SRBs and fuel tank.

Challenger was lost due to the o-ring on the SRB cracking.

Columbia was lost due to foam falling off the external fuel tank and damaging the orbiter.

The Saturn V rockets didn't have those problems, which is why NASA will NEVER develop a spacecraft again that can be damaged in liftoff by external fuel tanks or boosters.



I'll show you stupid....

We can take a primitive rocket to the moon but a high tech shuttle fails due to foam falling off.




Please....


You didn't even read my post, did you?

The Saturn V's didn't have the same launch mechanism has the Shuttles, thus there was nothing to damage the crew vehicle.

Also the Shuttles aren't that more advanced than what we went to the moon with, they're reaching their 30 year mark now and were only ever designed to orbit the Earth. They're basically larger Mercury/Gemini capsules with a carcg bay.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
They're designing an entirely new space craft to go back. Their plan since about 2005 was to be back on the moon by 2025, but the Constellation program is several years behind schedule. They were supposed to launch an Ares 1-X this year from what I recall, but it's been slipped to 2011, and a manned mission sometime in 2014. There is no point in making plans to be back on the moon until they have the rocket farther along.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whaaa
 


I've seen planes come back with dents in them from RAIN hitting them. At the speed they were flying, foam would cause a huge hole. Do you have any idea of the temperature that the shuttle goes through on reentry?

The leading edges are around 2500+ degrees on reentry. The underside is around 1700 degrees. The shuttle is the only launch vehicle that uses an external fuel tank and booster design. There is no other orbital launch system that uses that. For the number of launches, over the number of years that they've been flying they have an outstanding safety record for the design.

I'd like to see you come up with a better design for that mission. The shuttle carries a bigger payload than any other rocket in use today.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They're designing an entirely new space craft to go back. Their plan since about 2005 was to be back on the moon by 2025, but the Constellation program is several years behind schedule. They were supposed to launch an Ares 1-X this year from what I recall, but it's been slipped to 2011, and a manned mission sometime in 2014. There is no point in making plans to be back on the moon until they have the rocket farther along.


Yeah, too bad they lost all the plans from their other knock out success vehicles. They have them in the Space Museum so you would think they could backtrack and figure it out.

Oh, well, the secrets of the universe lost by a careless file keeper.

tsk tsk tsk



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


You missed the point.
The Apollo craft did what they were supposed to do.
There is no reason to repeat the Apollo missions.
The Apollo craft were not capable of carrying out the missions planned for the future.


[edit on 3/21/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


What motivation do the original contractors have to keep every old file from apollo when they haven't received a dime for apollo in 40 years? NASA didn't build their own spacecraft, contractors did. Furthermore, the whole point of going again is to try to do it cheaper for a sustained presence and with modern technology, reusing as many shuttle parts as possible so that the current staff and infrastructure can be re-used. We're planning to keep astronauts on the moon for months at a time in the future, not just days. For that, they're going to need far better supply stores in the spacecraft, far better power supplies using solar energy, and radiation shielding for a long-term presence.

As a side note, when they land on the moon again, will you believe them this time or not? If not, will images from amateurs showing the spacecraft leaving earth and coming back do anything to convince you otherwise?

[edit on 21-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
This Sibrel dude is a crock.

Anyhow, I've had the thought for a while now that this whole Faked Moon Landing conspiracy would be a great way of keeping people off the idea that we can go farther than the moon.
Was it the CEO of Lockheed Martin that said we had the technology to travel amongst the stars but that it would take an act of god to let that technology out of the closet?

Nobody is going to expect us to be able to travel throughout the galaxy if they are arguing that we didn't even go to the moon.

I wonder why they don't allow that tech? Imagine if they did... I would save up and buy a craft once they became widely available and leave this rock. I'd search for a planet that is comparable to ours but is about 3,000 years behind us in advancement. Then I'd use my bic lighter to get them to name me king and I'd have thousands of concubines!



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Should be noted threads like this will attract the disinfo people...

Anyone that wants to expose the truth should not be attacked violently (as a poster gleefully expressed). If someone wants to write a thousand threads on the moon landing hoaxes that is about finding the truth should not be deterred because "it's already been done". BS!

Now I'd like to know exactly how they did get there with the technology they reported to having - weather it be the actual craft and how it was unaffected by the radiation belt, or the space suits and how again for those times were enough protection against the sun in (as they say) zero gravity?

I know we were on the moon way before these public propaganda exercises, and have been ever since. With ETs. After all it is an ET craft the moon, you did know that right?

The fact we DID go to the moon is not the question, but rather how, when, why, who else was and is there, what bases and ruins and artifacts are there, and why they have kept this all secret while spreading disinfo and misinfo campaigns since that conception of the 'race to the moon'.

How they stuffed it - and let's admit it the video and photos of the astronauts is bloody disgraceful , and very slack on their part (perhaps 'state of the art tech in those days though lol). Not all were fake! This is another misconception. there are real pics, there are fake pics. There are real landscapes, and fake ones. There are so many on either side that the line of what is real and what is fake is blurred.

NASA and the NSA are the same thing - mind kontrol is what these guys are about, and the astronauts themselves were controlled to the belief of what they did was beyond questioning - I mean you have seen what people can do under mind control (and not even know they are doing it)... so yeah they have a right to be angry if the implanted memory is questioned.

Always really pay close attention to ALL astronauts past and present - they have the same kind of bland almost unemotional and distant look on their faces - constantly. Also look at their families and how they could be variations of this type of control. It is a MASSIVE conspiracy that crosses over into other areas rather than just the moon.

You must get the big picture and not be stuck in a small box as the disinfo guys would have it , and want it that way. just nod at them - and do yourselves a huge favour - put them on ignore , so then you can get on to it without their distractions.

Old books on the moon (1800 - 1980) are a great resource, the lunar orbiter missions have some real good juice on our moon the space craft. These are becoming rare - but now I have my booty of them I'll tell you Amazon and Ebay have won me some beautiful orbiter photos.

When we officially go back I'd expect some different lie to be weaved. But then again in 4 years all this will be widely known amongst other things. Enjoy your time in finding the truth about our mysterious moon without the interruptions of the disinfos, and know that many like you are on to it. Two years ago I would have laughed at anything about the moon conspiracy in all its forms - today I openly discuss with people I know , and the thing is, they themselves are taking it 'mainstream' simply by questioning and finding out facts for themselves


wZn



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

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


You missed the point.
The Apollo craft did what they were supposed to do.
There is no reason to repeat the Apollo missions.
The Apollo craft were not capable of carrying out the missions planned for the future.


[edit on 3/21/2009 by Phage]


Oh, I see. The mission accomplished, so throw away the plans and if you ever want to go back again, tough luck. That's what you get for changing your mind?



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 

We do want to go back again. The Apollo craft allowed us to land 2 men for a few days. We don't want to do that again.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Oh, I see. The mission accomplished, so throw away the plans and if you ever want to go back again, tough luck. That's what you get for changing your mind?


With that attitude then nothing on earth would ever change. We'd be driving model T cars, and flying on biplanes, etc. The Apollo capsule was designed to get three men to the moon, for AT MOST 72 hours, and land two of those. The new program will take 4 to the moon, for up to 6 weeks, and land all four on the moon. It's apples and oranges. You can't just take the Apollo capsule, make it bigger, and expect it to work for the new mission.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I think it is telling that Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw over this stuff.

If he were actually lying, he would have slunk away with his head hung low. BUT, since he is a national hero and he IS NOT lying, he decided to fight back against the slanderous accusations.

Ask Sibrel what it feels like to be punched out by a man 40 years older than himself.


PS - Being a military man myself at one time, I would also like to add that the Astronauts, being military men, don't necessarily use standard measurements. Weapons are measured in millimeters and distances over land are measured in clicks or kilometers often.

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]

[edit on 21-3-2009 by Jay-in-AR]



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Because violence is a good thing...



wZn



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


Sibrel is a proven liar.
He harasses these people in order to bolster his claims to an audience of idiots.
I'm GLAD to see he was decked. He deserved more than he got.
You don't just walk around calling people cowards and liars, especially when you are a proven fraud.

Aldrin merely showed him he wasn't a coward at all.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow
 


So what YOU have done, since you're so enlightened, if this man had stalked you, was harassing everyone you used to work with, using false pretenses to get access to you and your friends, and finally lures you to a hotel under false pretenses, and demands that you swear on a bible that you really did accomplish what is the greatest feat of your life? And when you don't, calls you a liar, thief, and coward. Keeping in mind that he's younger than you, and much heavier than you are, and won't let you leave the area.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Bit over the top really .... Edger Mitchell (who has since come forward to expose NASA) at the end is a bit weird especially when his son asks his dad if they should get the CIA to wack them for filming.

I have the doco and suggest others watch it here video.google.com...


Google Video Link


Doesn't look either threatening or intimidating to me? Perhaps that's because I have nothing to hide?

wZn



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
[
So what YOU have done, since you're so enlightened, if this man had stalked you, was harassing everyone you used to work with, using false pretenses to get access to you and your friends, and finally lures you to a hotel under false pretenses, and demands that you swear on a bible that you really did accomplish what is the greatest feat of your life? And when you don't, calls you a liar, thief, and coward. Keeping in mind that he's younger than you, and much heavier than you are, and won't let you leave the area.


Excuse me, but when you are a public figure as Buzz Aldrin and the rest of the AstroNOTs are, you can expect to have filmmakers and journalists follow you around and ask you questions. If you have nothing to hide, you answer their questions. But if you are a guilty shmuck, like Buzz Aldrin is who has a drinking problem, and all of the astroNOTs are not seen on TV or anyplace are all hiding away like recluses, like the guilty dogs they are --

if you have nothing to hide you smile and are glad to recount your brave deeds when you risked your life to land on the moon in a spider legged contraption made of scotch tape and gold foil and roofing paper. If you really did that, you would be bragging, glad to have a chance to talk about the greatest moment in your life, not slug people who have questions, and want to know.

If I really went to the moon as these guys say, and somebody came to me with doubts, I'd not get angry. I'd be wanting to describe the amazing feelings and sights and sounds I felt there.

No, these guys slink around like cockroaches hiding under a rock. Buzz Aldrin is the only one who comes out in public, somewhat, and he's usually had a few.

No, this behavior was not befitting a space hero. Captain Kirk would not have done that.

These men are nothing but liars and thugs. They would as soon kill any of us as look at us. Edgar Mitchell is a complete sell-out working to promote the fake alien invasion.

They are all Freemasons, all wear aprons with the Jolly Roger. They are all pirates, bad guys. All of them.



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jay-in-AR
 


Someone that has such a belief in God would be more than happy to turn the other cheek and put his hand lovingly on the bible and admit I would have thought?

But then again if he wasn't one of the few that were actually in the know on the hoax that moon landing was, then perhaps his controlled mind kicked into defensive mode.

Either way if you suggest violence is a civil response and justified, you should have a good hard look at your self.

wZn




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join