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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

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]


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.

Either way it's hokem. Those last films somebody put up were really obvious with them being held up by wires, and kicking dirt when they'd land hard and the dirt would fly off at regular speed. Those films were with the wires. Just so obvious.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
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....



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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!


It makes no difference when the movies and TV shows came out. They are a constant barrage of propaganda that has convinced people that aliens are out there and that they probably can cruise around the galaxies and visit us.

There were space programs on TV before the moon landings, lots of them. I can't remember a time when there weren't space programs on television. I can't remember their names, but they were a constant. Also comic books and lots and lots of paperback sci fi novels. Enough so people were primed to believe we were definitely going off to the moon like it was a piece of cake, and we could watch the whole thing on film while it happened, and nobody questioned anything. Because WHO WOULD DREAM OUR GOVERNMENT WOULD BE THAT SNEAKY AND ROTTEN TO LIE TO US LIKE THAT!

Well, now that we know our government is a bunch of Freemasons and Luciferians working for the British Zionists, it all makes perfect sense, and anybody who trusts any part of the goverment, any person in it, any goal or intent they make known to us as being for our benefit or for any reason that they tell us -- is beyond gullible and naive.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   

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....


You could say the same thing for the whole thing, A to Z, which is all hokem.

They think we are stupid and that we will believe anything they tell us, even that 110 foot buildings made of steel and concrete will fall SPLAT at the speed of gravity because of some small fires nearly out in the upper floors, nad that one, Building 7, fell without anything hitting it, and the owner Larry Slverstein confessed on the Discovery Channel (easy to Google up the clip) that he had Building 7 "pulled" which is jargon for controlled demolition, which it takes weeks to set somethign like that up and can't be done spur of the moment.

They think we're really, really STUUUUPID.

Watch the videos that were put up on this thread. Those astroNOTs are on WIRES. It's plain as day.

You can look at hundreds of pics on the NASA site and see that contraption. 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. Somebody said they brought the dust back. There are pictures on NASA scam showing that the cats really loved whatever the dust was they used for the stage set and it was real easy for them to dig in and do their business.




[edit on 24-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:40 PM
link   

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.

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...
(if you want to do real research for yourself, the star at the top left in the left image is the star BD -10 4490 and the time is 21:23:15 PST - with that information you can confirm that apollo was right where it was said to be on a trajectory that would bring it to reenter the earth's atmosphere on december 29th.)

Complete side note, you keep referring to them as "astroNOTs" - apollo was not the first spaceflight for most of the astronauts who went, plus you yourself suggest that they just orbited the earth, which still counts for astronaut status. Until you said that I assumed you thought manned spaceflight was a hoax in general. Words have meaning, even fake words.


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.

Wrong and wrong. 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...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

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.

Wrong. Apparently you don't even know the basics of radiation but you pretend to be an expert. Cardboard or other fibrous material (like the insulation of the command module) can block certain forms of radiation like protons, and even thin sheets of aluminum can block beta particles (electrons). Protons and electrons constitute the radiation found in the van allen belts. Lead is worse for shielding against beta particles than aluminum because the amount of secondary backscatter Bremsstrahlung radiation is directly proportional to the atomic number of the shielding material.


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.

Also explained on mythbusters:
www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

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.


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. But oh well, they flew to the moon with them, so they say, and then, darn, they had to go and lose the plans so now we have to wait until 2020 to go back, so they say.

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. I guess they lost all the data from their first six voyages? Imagine spending all your time on the moon collecting rocks and getting your picture taken in front of a hokey American flag and missing out on things like radiation and stars.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:07 PM
link   

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?

It's fooled you, ngchunter and many others, so I guess photos don't really matter.

There's even photos of undisturbed soil under the LM. Even THAT doesn't matter to the brainwashed and gullible believers:




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

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...


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.


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...


The dirt just splays out the same way it would on earth. But the astroNOTs are floating around on their wires. Why is the dirt flying fast but the astroNOTs look like Mary Martin in the play Peter Pan?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

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.

As I explained, that's a model to show how it attached to the LEM. I don't see "roofing paper" though...


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.

It doesn't take much 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...


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.

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.

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.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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 picture I gave you just now proves otherwise. They were photographed MUCH farther from the earth than 100 miles, that picture is the proof. It's too bad you're too close minded to see it.


The dirt just splays out the same way it would on earth.

Wrong. On earth it would billow and float due to our atmosphere.

Why is the dirt flying fast but the astroNOTs look like Mary Martin in the play Peter Pan?

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.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Oh right, "undisturbed dust." That's funny, doesn't look undisturbed to me, in fact, it left radial grooves in the rock beneath it:
history.nasa.gov...

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   

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...

Wow. To thnk we could go to the moon and back with a gigapet or tomagotchi on a keychain. Imagine that!
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 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.


Talk is cheap. These people are a big bunch of pikers, Freemasons and Nazis. But if you want to listen to their fairy tales of what they say are their big future plans to do this or that, designed to give the people waiting for a visit from Mars a thrill, be my guest. Just a small amount of radiation? Yet you say the moon was so bright they could not see stars it was one big glow -- that is sunlight with NO ATMOSPHERE TO SHIELD THE RAYS. Oh, well, I'm sure they had some high tech substitute for lead packed in their spacesuits along with the -- I won't say.


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.


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 and God knows what else, all taped together, in spacesuits that they had to poop in that I can see why they forgot to look up at the stars.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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!

More insults, no proof that the computer couldn't do what it did. I just handed you the proof on a silver platter. Anyone with an open mind can run the actual software for themselves.


Talk is cheap.

Says the person who makes claims about apollo's computer without any proof... Why am I not surprised that when confronted with the truth you resort to meaningless appeals to incredulity.


Oh, well, I'm sure they had some high tech substitute for lead packed in their spacesuits along with the -- I won't say.

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.


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.

Shuttle astronauts are free floating in zero g, they aren't stuck on the ground of the moon. They can turn to face out in deep space with no direct or indirect lighting pretty easily. Apples and oranges my friend.


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

You seem awfully pissed about american ingenuity...

[edit on 24-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:36 PM
link   

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.


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. No different. But the astroNOT is floating around, even leaning way forward not worrying about falling over. Why? Because he IS ON WIRES.

If NASA was smart they would take down their website, burn all the pictures, and stop answering questions about the moon voyages.

The more they lie, the more they try to cover up, the sillier and more pathetic they look.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Yeah, right. Why am I not convinced?

Because you're close minded?


The more energy you put out the slower you move? It's not just lanading slower, it's moving FASTER.

Laterally, because it has less mass, but not vertically.


It is moving the same speed you would see it move if you were on earth and somebody kicked it.

Wrong, on earth it would billow and float in our atmosphere.


But the astroNOT is floating around, even leaning way forward not worrying about falling over.

Why would he fall over, he still has some sense of balance. I can lean over in earth's greater gravity and not fall over.


If NASA was smart they would take down their website, burn all the pictures, and stop answering questions about the moon voyages.

Like I said, pissed about american ingenuity. Disturbing really.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


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.


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.


[edit on 24-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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.




Good question!


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

en.wikipedia.org...

You do know what that 'tinfoil' is don't you?

One as switched on as yourself would know it's Aluminized Kapton.

Resists high temperatures
Light weight
Deflects radiation and X-rays


Perfect for a trip to the moon!




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

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?

Like I said, take a course in radiation. You're thoroughly displaying ignorance in the subject. X-ray radiation is EM radiation. Electromagnetic Radiation is NOT trapped or blocked by the van allen belts but is only blocked by our atomsphere (hence the ionosphere). If X-rays were a problem for the apollo astronauts they'd be just as big a problem for the shuttle astronauts. Last I checked they weren't using lead shielding on the shuttle.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   

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.

Well, they "lost" all 13,000 original tapes from every Apollo mission!



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join