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.
Originally posted by welldownbluehighway
It was a pretty complex and well done hoax then. It put food on my families' table fr ten years while I was a boy. I visited the ALSEP lab and saw things being built by my dad. I have a folder full of pictures of his work right here. I witnessed it all first hand and ate the freakin' groceries.
[edit on 23-3-2009 by welldownbluehighway]
Originally posted by malcr
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
See, you inundate them with space movies, Star Trek, Star Wars, ET, 2001 Space Odyssy, on and on and on, and then you pull off a hokey moon landing caper and voila, the people will be ready to receive the demons and chimeras as saviors (and/or enemies for which earth must unite in a NWO) and embrace the Dark Side in unison, kill off the rest who won't go along.
[edit on 21-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]
Except for the fact that all of the movies you quoted (except 2001) occurred AFTER the moon landings. 2001 was way ahead for its time and all other sci-fi movies were still wedded to the 50's ideas.......cheap monster B movie basically. Not exactly the material to influence us.
We won't have long to wait to find out how much of the material in the early 70's was fake. The chinese will get to the moon and find.........???? Watch this space!
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
Do you actually believe they would allow those photos to be released if it was really made of tinfoil and scotch tape?
Or is it more likely that the 'tinfoil' is actually there for a reason?
www.myspacemuseum.com...
hmmmm....
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
When people are compartmentalized they do their job and do not see the big picture. There was lots of building and launching going on, no doubt about it. But to the moon? No way. The astroNOTs were just orbiting earth while the caper was proceeding.
Look at the films. It is so, so OBVIOUS they are on wires.
Sometimes they are on wires and other times the film is just slowed down to slow motion speed.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Even if it was made of some kind of indestructible steel or lead (which it shold be to keep the radiation out, which is another reason why we know it's a hoax because the astroNOTs could not withstand the radiation. The helmet shields were glass or plastic, not able to filter out radiation, which you need LEAD for that, and THICK lead.
I wonder what the special composition of the moon dust was that allowed it to clump together as though it were moist, when the heat on the moon was close to 300 degrees F.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Does someone have to be posted 24 hrs a day outside the space station for Nasa TV to have a new live exterior view? No. Similarly, there was a camera stored in the LEM's MESA experiment package in the quad 4 equipment bay in the descent stage. All armstrong had to do was pull a cable as he came out and the bay rotated open like a drawbrige to deploy the camera as seen in this model:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
How did the rover get there?
Are there any photos showing how the Rover was attached to the lander?
Originally posted by ngchunter
It folded into a descent stage equipment bay much the same way that the MESA package did. Again, the astronauts just had to access and pull some cables to release it. You can see video of them practicing deploying and unfolding a practice rover from a model LEM in the Spacecraft Films Apollo 17 DVD set.
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
Do you actually believe they would allow those photos to be released if it was really made of tinfoil and scotch tape?
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
When people are compartmentalized they do their job and do not see the big picture. There was lots of building and launching going on, no doubt about it. But to the moon? No way. The astroNOTs were just orbiting earth while the caper was proceeding.
Originally posted by ngchunter
If that were true, this independant photo taken on the ground of the astronaut's ship returning to earth from the moon wouldn't exist.
www.astr.ua.edu...
Originally posted by ngchunter
Wrong and wrong [that it is so, so OBVIOUS they are on wires.
Sometimes they are on wires and other times the film is just slowed down to slow motion speed. . The dirt does not billow and reaches much higher than it would on earth, both proof that they filmed on the moon.]
www.youtube.com...
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Yeah, it was really high tech. It's obvious how high tech it was from the picture of the lunar lander and the roofing paper. Ha ha ha ha ha.
The moon buggy looks real high tech too. Especially the picture that has the duct tape holding the fender on. Imagine folding all that junk up (or I guess they left the moon buggy behind, right? along with the spider legs?) and then lifting off to rejoin the mother ship that has been patiently circling the moon for as much as 72 hours. The computers they had back then were these big monsters that had no memory and couldn't do much.
And of course NASA says they are doing lots of studies to see what kind of radiation problems there are with going to the moon.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Come on. All the landings were photographed and filmed. They were orbiting the earth and had to come down eventually. But they never got farther than 100 miles up.
The dirt just splays out the same way it would on earth.
Why is the dirt flying fast but the astroNOTs look like Mary Martin in the play Peter Pan?
Originally posted by ngchunter
It doesn't take much (computer power) when you're running streamlined software that is only designed to carry out a few specific tasks. Funny you should mention, you can now run the actual apollo guidance computer software on an emulation of the actual hardware and see if it's capable of doing what they claim it did. I have, and yes, it worked.
sourceforge.net...
Originally posted by ngchunter
The fact you keep convienently omitting because it debunks you, is that they're going back to stay on the surface for far longer than they ever have before. Radiation exposure is cumulative.
Originally posted by ngchunter
The stars issue has been explained time and time again. I dare you to produce a picture of stars with a basic SLR camera set to ISO 200 (being really generous here) with a 1/250th second exposure, because that's the kind of exposures they were using.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Originally posted by ngchunter
sourceforge.net...
Wow. To thnk we could go to the moon and back with a gigapet or tomagotchi on a keychain. Imagine that!
Talk is cheap.
Oh, well, I'm sure they had some high tech substitute for lead packed in their spacesuits along with the -- I won't say.
Picture? Hey, they said they could not SEE ANY STARS. We sure have heard the "stars issue" explained time and again -- pretty lame explanations about how the poor astroNOTs can't bend back enough to look up at the sky. The shuttle people have lots to say about the stars and how they look, apparently breathtaking.
Oh, well, these astroNOTs were so busy climbing up and down the stairs in a lunar lander on spider legs made of torn roofing paper
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
The dirt just splays out the same way it would on earth.
Originally posted by ngchunter
Wrong. On earth it would billow and float due to our atmosphere.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Why is the dirt flying fast but the astroNOTs look like Mary Martin in the play Peter Pan?
Originally posted by ngchunter
The dirt lands slightly faster because it doesn't go as high and only received part of the energy the astronaut spent on his jump.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Yeah, right. Why am I not convinced?
The more energy you put out the slower you move? It's not just lanading slower, it's moving FASTER.
It is moving the same speed you would see it move if you were on earth and somebody kicked it.
But the astroNOT is floating around, even leaning way forward not worrying about falling over.
If NASA was smart they would take down their website, burn all the pictures, and stop answering questions about the moon voyages.
Take a course on radiation shielding and then maybe you won't sound so ignorant about it. Lead is no substitute for aluminum. Furthermore, you've done nothing to prove that the radiation in cislunar space is instantly lethal.
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
If aluminum works better, why do the x-ray people insist on using those outdated lead aprons and run out of hte room? You mean we could have been protected better by aluminum?
And the astroNOTs had aluminum foil to shield them?
Now we've got some REAL TIN FOIL HATTERS.
I knew I'd hear about some real ones someday, instead of all the hypothesis that they existed.
Kapton is also commonly used as a material for windows of all kinds at x-ray sources (synchrotron beam-lines and x-ray tubes) and x-ray detectors. Its high mechanical and thermal stability as well as its high transmittance to x-rays make it the preferred material. It also does not suffer from radiation damage
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
reply to post by ngchunter
If aluminum works better, why do the x-ray people insist on using those outdated lead aprons and run out of hte room? You mean we could have been protected better by aluminum?
Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
If NASA was smart they would take down their website, burn all the pictures, and stop answering questions about the moon voyages.