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: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

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!


Yes, and all the plans on how they built their scientific wonders that could go to the moon and back, even lift off the lunar lander and hook up to the mother ship. We'll never know the secrets to how those spider legs were so strong, that roofing paper and gold foil worked so well, and how they were able to squeeze those luner rovers and luner lander into the module (which I saw in the Space Museum myself and it looked so tiny) --

We'll just never know because the plans are all lost, along with all the original tapes of the missions.

I'd be interested in seeing the plans for those spacesuits myself to see how they were able to stay cool. I heard NASA claims there was ice on the moon that they were able to commandeer to help cool the astroNOTs.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Anybody check out the NASASCAM website? All the pages? Pretty interesting stuff there, yes?

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



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:21 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If aluminum works better, why do the x-ray people insist on using those outdated lead aprons and run out of hte room?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.


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


I strongly suggest that you do what the others said and learn about radiation.

You're trying to compare two or three different types of radiation and claim that they're all the same when they're not. Radiation is VERY different in their properties.

Alpha radiation can be stopped by almost any material that you want, including something as thin as paper, or even human skin. It's by far the weakest penetrator of the different types. It's a very heavy particle.

Beta radiation is a "medium" radiation and can be stopped by slightly thicker materials, such as clothing. Some radiation will get through the clothing, but it will stop a lot. Beta radiation will get through skin to the layer where new cells are produced.

Gamma radiation is what is used in x-ray machines. It's a very active particle and will penetrate most materials. This is what will kill you from radioactive fallout. Gamma rays require a very dense material to block them, like lead.

What's in the Van Allen belts are mostly protons and alpha particles, with some beta particles, but no gamma particles. The only one that you would need dense protection from would be gamma particles.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Well, they "lost" all 13,000 original tapes from every Apollo mission!

Again with the lies... As I explained to you, the vast majority of those tapes are telemetry and experimental data (some of which has been recovered), and they're all related to apollo 11.
www.cosmosmagazine.com...
I guess you figure if you repeat a lie often and loud enough it will be accepted as truth. Copies of the "tapes" of all the other apollo missions can be had by anyone who wants them. Apollo 11 was the only lunar landing mission to use the slow scan television system for broadcasting images from the surface. They improved the techniques so conversion wasn't even necessary for later missions:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
how they were able to squeeze those luner rovers and luner lander into the module (which I saw in the Space Museum myself and it looked so tiny) --

It folded up quite nicely. Video of it being unpacked can be seen in the Apollo 17 DVD set. If you want the truth, check it out.


We'll just never know because the plans are all lost, along with all the original tapes of the missions.

Exaggeration and lies again.


I'd be interested in seeing the plans for those spacesuits myself to see how they were able to stay cool.

The same way the space station astronauts stay cool on EVAs - white suits, water tubing, etc. Space is a great insulator (they use vacuum insulation in your thermos) and it takes objects a long time to heat or cool in space.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 03:59 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....




Thanks for the great link. Amazing. Handmade signs that say United States, and a paper flag scotch taped to the lander.

I guess they had to save money to buy more gold foil and roofing paper?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Theres nothing wrong with a little skepticism every now and again, but what you are doing here is ignoring scientificaly supportable data about the radiation levels that you skeppies think is such a big deal, and rather than straight up admit that in actual fact you have no credibility or particular knowlege in that field, you change tack to something else you dont particularly like about the subject of the moon landing.
I will tell you one thing I dont like about the moon landing. It didnt do what it could have done. It didnt bring our world together , it didnt by example lead to a more intelligent world population, instead theres been an exponential increase in ignorant , sour minded curmudgeons.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Oh , just another thing to throw in. The radiation problems for future missions to the moon and Mars will be lessened by a new device that is currently in testing.The device will deploy a magnetic sheild similar to the magnetosphere of earth , except it will be localised around the craft its attatched to. The technology has been proven to work , and as far as I am aware its now a matter of powering it, and making it fit in amongst the other techno-sourcery that has to be crammed into a manned vehicle in order to service the crew, and the science needs of any given mission.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 



I'm glad you ignored the explanation for the 'tinfoil'

Goes to show you don't care about any other argument besides your own.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
I would have enjoyed that show. I love Bart Sibrel, although I disagree with him as to why the moon hoax caper was pulled off. Bart says it was to win the Cold War. I disagree. I agree with William Cooper instead who said it was done to convince gullible people like the OP that interplanetary travel is possible.


It's not? Voyagers, Vikings, Mariner 9, Huygens probe, etc.?

Are they all hoaxes as well?




posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I strongly suggest that you do what the others said and learn about radiation.

You're trying to compare two or three different types of radiation and claim that they're all the same when they're not. Radiation is VERY different in their properties.

Evidently, even NASA doesn't understand radiation:


Study: Radiation Would Kill Astronauts Before They Got to Mars
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
By Charles Q. Choi

Dangerous levels of radiation in space could bar astronauts from a mission to Mars and limit prolonged activity on the moon, experts now caution.

However, more research could reveal ways to handle the risks that radiation poses to space missions.

The magnetic field of Earth protects humanity from radiation in space that can damage or kill cells. Once beyond this shield, people become far more vulnerable.

Astronauts have long seen white flashes while in space due to cosmic rays, or extremely high-energy particles, passing through their heads.

A return to the moon or a mission to Mars that NASA and other space agencies are planning would place astronauts at continued risk from cosmic rays or dangerous bursts of solar radiation.

And what's this? 40 years after the Apollo missions and a GAO report from last year says NASA can't even re-create the Apollo heat shield and "nearly every segment of Ares I and Orion faces knowledge gaps in the development of required hardware and technology."

Oh, is that all? I wonder if GM would have difficulty with knowledge gaps in every segment of hardware and technology to recreate a 1969 Corvair?


Currently, nearly every major segment of Ares I and Orion faces knowledge gaps in the development of required hardware and technology and many are being affected by uncertainty in requirements. For example, computer modeling is showing that thrust oscillation within the first stage of the Ares I could cause excessive vibration throughout the Ares I and Orion. Resolving this issue could require redesigns to both the Ares I and Orion vehicles that could ultimately impact cost, schedule, and performance. Furthermore, the addition of a fifth segment to the Ares I first stage has the potential to impact qualification efforts for the first stage and could result in costly requalification and redesign efforts.

Additionally, the J-2X engine represents a new engine development effort that, both NASA and Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne recognize, is likely to experience failures during development. Addressing these failures is likely to lead to design changes that could impact the project's cost and schedule. With regard to the Orion project, there is currently no industry capability for producing a thermal protection system of the size required by the Orion. NASA has yet to develop a solution for this gap, and given
the size of the vehicle and the tight development schedule, a feasible thermal protection system may not be available for initial operational capability to the space station.

[snip]

...according to the Orion program executive the Orion project originally intended to use the heat shield from the Apollo program as a fallback technology for the Orion thermal protection system, but was unable to recreate the Apollo material.

Simply pathetic. How can anyone seriously believe that NASA landed on the moon in 1969 if they can't even recreate 40-year old materials and technology?



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


And once again, you're comparing apples to oranges. Apollo 11 lasted a total of 8 days and a handful of hours. Apollo 17 lasted 12 days and a handful of hours. A mission to Mars would take 214 days. Apollo was designed for short term exposure to radiation, which wasn't immediately fatal, but still has caused an increase in health problems for the astronauts.

You're also trying to compare the heat shield for a much smaller space craft. You don't take a Corvair, and just make it bigger to put more people in it. You would have to make changes to the design for the extra people. The heat shield that worked perfectly for the Apollo won't work for the new craft.

The Apollo was designed to carrry three astronauts, and supplies for a short term stay on the moon. Orion is designed to carry as many as 6 astronauts to the space station, and four to the moon, where they may eventually stay up to 6 weeks.

To use your example, if you took that 1969 Corvair and stretched it for 8 people, you would need to redesign the frame, put a bigger engine in it, etc. The same for Orion.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
To use your example, if you took that 1969 Corvair and stretched it for 8 people, you would need to redesign the frame, put a bigger engine in it, etc. The same for Orion.

Except it has nothing to do with size:


...according to the Orion program executive, the Orion project originally intended to use the heat shield from the Apollo program as a fallback technology for the Orion thermal protection system, but was unable to recreate the Apollo material.

Say what? They were unable to recreate the Apollo heat shield material? This is like GM saying, "we just couldn't recreate a Corvair radiator."

And I still haven't received a satisfactory explanation of how NASA could've "lost" over 13,000 original tapes or 3,250 hours of EVERY Apollo mission. Un.. friggin'.. believable. I love the justification from one of your colleagues -- "the only difference between the original tapes and the conversions is the quality."


Believing that the Apollo missions were faked is kinda like believing that 9/11 was an inside job -- seemingly ridiculous until you personally spend some time investigating the hundreds of inexplicable anomalies.

Our TrueBrit friend says proof that the Apollo missions were hoaxed would lead to a nervous breakdown. I think elaborate justifications and self-deception is a much more palatable option.

[edit] I just thought of something -- IIRC, the Corvair was air-cooled and didn't have a radiator! But the analogy is valid.


[edit on 25-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 



NASA scientists developing the next generation of exploration vehicles and heat shields for NASA's Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle experienced "Christmas in July" when they uncrated the heat shields used on the Apollo missions some 35 years ago. These shields now are being analyzed to help with the development and engineering process.

Teams of NASA scientists and engineers working on the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle Thermal Protection System Advanced Development Project went to the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum Garber Facility in Suitland, Md., July 31 through Aug. 1, 2008. The Garber Facility curators and conservators collect, preserve and restore all things air and space. This includes airplanes, spacecraft, and spacesuits.

The Orion teams included members from both NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

"We started working together at the end of June to track down any Apollo-era heat shields that they had in storage," said Elizabeth (Betsy) Pugel of the Detector Systems Branch at NASA Goddard. "We located one and opened it. It was like a nerd Christmas for us!"

The Orion team was interested in the archived heat shield material because it included an Apollo heat shield that flew into Low Earth Orbit and returned to Earth on August 26, 1966.

www.sciencedaily.com...


To protect Orion and its crew from such severe conditions, NASA's Constellation Program is developing a new thermal protection system, an effort led by NASA's Ames Research Center at Moffett Field, Calif.

"In concept, we're doing something very similar to Apollo," said Jeff Jones, Thermal Protection Systems project manager at NASA's Langley Research Center, in Hampton, Va., one of the centers partnering with Ames. "It looks much like it, but once you get past the basic concept, it's very different. With this much larger spacecraft, the challenge is also much greater."

www.nasa.gov...


With a new formulation that removes certain chemicals, banned by the US government's Environmental Protection Agency since Apollo, Muirhead said ongoing testing at NASA Ames Research Center demonstrated good Avcoat performance and showed that the new version was lighter than the original material.

www.flightglobal.com...

I notice that you didn't bother to source your quote for that. NASA and LM have always known how to make AVCOAT, but they've had to change the formula due to some of the materials being banned. One of the two materials that was being considered for Orion was an updated version of the exact same material that was used on Apollo.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

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


Theres nothing wrong with a little skepticism every now and again, but what you are doing here is ignoring scientificaly supportable data about the radiation levels that you skeppies think is such a big deal, and rather than straight up admit that in actual fact you have no credibility or particular knowlege in that field, you change tack to something else you dont particularly like about the subject of the moon landing.


What are the credentials of the people who claim to know so much? Far as I'm concerned you are all paid by the government to post here. The way it looks to me they are just rattling off a bunch of oftentimes lame excuses and rationales for the anomalies from your fact sheet. I don't care if some of these rationales are correct or not because it is blatantly obvious to me that we never went to the moon and the film footage of the astroNOTs shows

wires

, the lunar lander alone is reason enough to know we never went there. It was a staged event and very poorly staged. This may explain the fact that many people who watched this "event" as it was happening on their televisions were bored, because instinctively we knew it was government propaganda and a lie, a lot of hoopla about a flag, astroNOTs acting blase about something they should have been excited and awestruck about. Sometimes you just know things in your gut.


Originally posted by TrueBrit
I will tell you one thing I dont like about the moon landing. It didnt do what it could have done. It didnt bring our world together , it didnt by example lead to a more intelligent world population, instead theres been an exponential increase in ignorant , sour minded curmudgeons.


Sour-minded curmudgeons who don't think we can fly to the moon in a tiny moon mondule, pack up a lunar lander made of roofing paper, scotch tape and spider legs and foot pads, all wrapped in gold foil -- and just go buzz up to the moon and land on terrain we haven't got a clue in a thing like that lunar lander while the "mother ship" orbits the earth until the magic moment when that contraption lifts off to join up at a precise place and time 60. Hey, I just plain don't believe it. Even if I hadn't seen Bart Sibrel's footage of the fakery I would still know, just from the lunar lander alone, that we never went. That's all the proof I need. And I mean ALL.



In addition the NASA Scam website has lots of pictures of the studios and cheap tricks that NASA used to dupe the "curmudgeons" as you call us.

Another cheap hoax, almost as transparent as the 9/11 inside job that murdered 3,000 people so the government could destroy the republic and start WWIII.

The people in NASA who run the thing are EVIL. It is a Nazi occultic organization whose purpose is to get people to believe in interplanetary travel with their fake photos and false voyages that never happened. Meantime, they are kidnapping little kids, growing babies in test tubes, using their Nazi "scientists" (aka Dr. Frankensteins) to create abominations of genetic blends of human, animal, plant, bug, fish and reptile because it plansa to pass these creatures off as aliens coming to Earth for a visit, probably from Mars the way the pikers at NASA have lately been pushing the life on Mars crap.

The huge number of moon hoax debunking sites on the Internet is also proof that the government is scared, desperate, and spending a lot of money to put up a smokescreen and bury the moon hoax sites.

The problem NASA has with their moon landing hoax is they should have hired better screenwriters and better special effects people to pull it off. And they should have given the astroNOTs something to do after their phony flights, got some multiple personalities, people capable of going around the talk show circuit to answer questions and put on a good show of having actually gone to the moon. Hired some science fiction writers to come up with some books describing the experience that would ring somewhat true.

Not that I want to give these devil worshipping murderers any ideas.

[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 @ 08:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Simply pathetic. How can anyone seriously believe that NASA landed on the moon in 1969 if they can't even recreate 40-year old materials and technology?

Like I said before, the contractors who actually built this stuff haven't received a dime to retain their old plans and materials. They were last paid for their efforts in apollo 40 years ago, so what motivation do they have to spend more money on digitizing and retaining all the old engineering information when no one is paying them for it, assuming the company itself is even in business anymore?

Take for instance the J-2 engine you yourself used as an example - we KNOW it worked before because millions of people saw it work with their own eyes. Rocketdyne, the company that first built the J-2, has changed hands multiple times since then. Parts of it now remain with different companies. By your logic though, the expectation of trouble with the J-2X means no one ever built a real J-2 engine. Clearly this logic is deeply flawed.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
I would have enjoyed that show. I love Bart Sibrel, although I disagree with him as to why the moon hoax caper was pulled off. Bart says it was to win the Cold War. I disagree. I agree with William Cooper instead who said it was done to convince gullible people like the OP that interplanetary travel is possible.


It's not? Voyagers, Vikings, Mariner 9, Huygens probe, etc.?

Are they all hoaxes as well?



Probably so. But the moon landings most definitely are hoaxes. The Hubbel is a piece of junk, can't even give us a decent picture of the moon and all its "stunning" photos are just computer creations based on so-called "scientific" input put in.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
What are the credentials of the people who claim to know so much? Far as I'm concerned you are all paid by the government to post here.

And this is where you lose any shred of credibility... I KNOW I'm not being paid by the government to post here, so I know you're dead wrong. Yay.

I don't care if some of these rationales are correct or not

You fully admit you're close minded. Thanks for being honest.


because it is blatantly obvious to me that we never went to the moon and the film footage of the astroNOTs shows

wires

,

Actually it shows a reflection off the backpack's antenna. Since when do hollywood harnesses use reflective wires?


the lunar lander alone is reason enough to know we never went there.

Yet you've utterly failed to provide a shred of proof that the lunar lander was somehow incapable of landing. Just your own ignorant expectations...


Sour-minded curmudgeons who don't think we can fly to the moon in a tiny moon mondule, pack up a lunar lander made of roofing paper,

How many times do I have say it? You can watch how the rover was packed on the apollo 17 dvd! It actually worked!


scotch tape and spider legs and foot pads,

Ever hear of shock absorbers and crunch zones?


all wrapped in gold foil

For thermal protection, that's all it was there for...


-- and just go buzz up to the moon and land on terrain we haven't got a clue in a thing like that lunar lander

It wasn't the first thing we landed on the moon successfully with spider legs and foot pads.
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...


while the "mother ship" orbits the earth until the magic moment when that contraption lifts off to join up at a precise place and time 60. Hey, I just plain don't believe it.

Too bad it's proven to work with simple orbital mechanics math that you just refuse to understand:
nassp.sourceforge.net...



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

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.


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


I strongly suggest that you do what the others said and learn about radiation.

You're trying to compare two or three different types of radiation and claim that they're all the same when they're not. Radiation is VERY different in their properties.

Alpha radiation can be stopped by almost any material that you want, including something as thin as paper, or even human skin. It's by far the weakest penetrator of the different types. It's a very heavy particle.

Beta radiation is a "medium" radiation and can be stopped by slightly thicker materials, such as clothing. Some radiation will get through the clothing, but it will stop a lot. Beta radiation will get through skin to the layer where new cells are produced.

Gamma radiation is what is used in x-ray machines. It's a very active particle and will penetrate most materials. This is what will kill you from radioactive fallout. Gamma rays require a very dense material to block them, like lead.

What's in the Van Allen belts are mostly protons and alpha particles, with some beta particles, but no gamma particles. The only one that you would need dense protection from would be gamma particles.


There's no gamma rays in space you say?

I do know that the atmosphere of earth filters out harmful rays from the sun. I also know that once past the atmosphere, all this filtering protection is gone. The moon has little to no atmosphere and we keep hearing how the sun was blazing, the temp close to 300F, the reflection from the moon so great the astroNOTs couldn't see the stars because of the strong reflection -- but what kind of magical, high-tech substance was used in the astroNOTs' face shields to protect the astroNOTs?

If you have an answer to this, great, and it will be amusing and of some interest to hear it. But nothing will ever explain away the wires or the lunar lander and its roofing paper and scotch tape and spider legs.

Also, why are the rocks on the moon all rounded if there is no water, no flood on the moon? The landscape on the moon looks no different than what one would see on earth. No different at all. Looks like a sandy area with regular rocks. I can see dust floating down to the moon from space, but the rounded rocks? Where did they come from? Don't rocks become rounded by turbulence and being smacked around and by friction from wind and rain?

None of these exist on the moon.

This just occurred to me in my sour curmudgeonly way.

I probably won't believe what you say, as I don't believe the explanations for the dirt traveling as you would see it on earth but the astronauts are floating around like Peter Pan on wires. In fact I don't trust much, if anything, any of you debunkers say because I figure you are mostly all probably on the payroll of NASA.



posted on Mar, 25 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
There's no gamma rays in space you say?

No, as has been clearly stated to you, if gamma rays were a problem for apollo they'd be just as much of a problem for the shuttle and even worse for the ISS. Neither of those use lead shielding and they're just fine.


I do know that the atmosphere of earth filters out harmful rays from the sun. I also know that once past the atmosphere, all this filtering protection is gone.

Then by your logic you must admit you think the shuttle and ISS are hoaxes.


The moon has little to no atmosphere and we keep hearing how the sun was blazing, the temp close to 300F,

Without atmospheric convection, just how is that hot surface supposed to transfer heat to your space suit? The answer is, slowly through radiative heating and direct contact through a well-insulated boot. On a nice hot day in florida the black asphalt can get to be 200F, yet no one dies the moment they set foot on it.


the reflection from the moon so great the astroNOTs couldn't see the stars because of the strong reflection -- but what kind of magical, high-tech substance was used in the astroNOTs' face shields to protect the astroNOTs?

Ever own a pair of sunglasses? It's called UV coatings, and their helmet had just such a shield which they used almost the entire time. Once again, this is no different from shuttle and ISS astronauts.

But nothing will ever explain away the wires or the lunar lander and its roofing paper and scotch tape and spider legs.

Actually it's been explained to you over and over, you're just plugging your ears.


Also, why are the rocks on the moon all rounded if there is no water, no flood on the moon?

They're not, they're quite jagged in fact. You've apparently never studied a moon rock up close.


The landscape on the moon looks no different than what one would see on earth. No different at all. Looks like a sandy area with regular rocks.

I guess you're blind because it looks nothing like earth.


I probably won't believe what you say...In fact I don't trust much, if anything, any of you debunkers say because I figure you are mostly all probably on the payroll of NASA.

Amazingly paranoid and close minded. What more could you ask for? Why are you even posting if you think we're all NASA agents out to get you?

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join