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 and all Apollo Moon hoax debunked here!

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:09 AM
link   
well i've never heard of bart before today. and by the outcome of this thread i wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into your scientific knowledge.

your comments about trolling are absurd. you just can't take the heat. it's against T&C to attack someone personally and insult that person. you've made it plainly obvious that you're not willing to accept anything other than a manned spaceflight to the moon.

that's fine weed, no one cares. you can believe whatever you want and it might even be true. but guess what, you don't have the knowledge or imagination to back up what you're saying.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
You would think that if NASA could send an unmanned craft to the moon, land it, collect soil and rocks, relaunch and land back at earth that they should, by now be able to send a similar mission to Mars.

Not a huge leap to think that is there?

So why haven't they sent such a mission to Mars?



[edit on 24-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
You would think that if NASA could send an unmanned craft to the moon, land it, collect soil and rocks, relaunch and land back at earth that they should, by now be able to send a similar mission to Mars.

Not a huge leap to think that is there?

So why didn't they send such a mission to Mars?



Not to mention that half the probes to Mars have failed to even get there



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The moon is bad enough, trying to control the info leaks and the testimonies of the astronauts, as its not unused, and therefore contains far too much info than they wish us to have.

Mars is a whole different cup of tea. Its a storehouse of evidence of past, and present civilization. And they already know this.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
that's a good point. maybe they don't want mars rocks. maybe the delay is more of a factor when it's 10x the distance. maybe nasa knows it's pointless to go around collecting rocks and they're spending their money doing other things.

the point i'm making is that an unmanned flight would have advantages that could equalize or even surpass the disadvantages of having humans on board to troubleshoot should anything go wrong.

if your "spaceship" only had to secure equipment from damage the design could be much more simple and much more rugged. the lack of wiring alone would circumvent hundreds of possible problems.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by krusty6
Bart Sibrel and all his and others Apollo Moon Hoax claims
are completely factually debunked here at: www.clavius.org

Clavius.org -- LOL! Why not just ask NASA themselves what they think?!

Does anyone really think astronauts went to the moon in this second-grade papier maché project?




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
any reason why that's not possible? paper mache or not maybe it worked just fine. the first submarine was retarted looking and the first bicycles were stupid too.

so what, that doesn't prove anything at all.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
that's a good point. maybe they don't want mars rocks. maybe the delay is more of a factor when it's 10x the distance. maybe nasa knows it's pointless to go around collecting rocks and they're spending their money doing other things.


The Phoenix Lander collects soil and tests on site, so finding what's in rocks and whats in the soil is very high in importance to NASA.

It is also remotely controlled so the distance isn't an issue it seems.



the point i'm making is that an unmanned flight would have advantages that could equalize or even surpass the disadvantages of having humans on board to troubleshoot should anything go wrong.
if your "spaceship" only had to secure equipment from damage the design could be much more simple and much more rugged. the lack of wiring alone would circumvent hundreds of possible problems.


Which is why there have been so many unmanned missions to Mars, which proves my point, if they could send a craft there and back, they would.

Currently, they can't.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


wait, the pheonix lander collects rocks and is unmanned? that must be a moon based landing collecter then? i dont' get what you're saying.

i don't have a problem with nasa not collecting from mars. maybe the can maybe they can't i don't know.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


GF.....you are looking at a photo of a MOCK-UP!!!!!

Why not come visit Washington, DC, come to the 'Air and Space Museum', and see a REAL LEM....that is on display, because it never flew. It was built, never flew, because Apollo was cancelled after 17.

Also, go to Florida....see a complete Saturn V, on its side....again, built, never flew.

(maybe the problem is a generational thing....perhaps it's about kids who just didn't get a good science education???)

This is something I've been noticing, lately.....



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mozzy
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


wait, the pheonix lander collects rocks and is unmanned? that must be a moon based landing collecter then? i dont' get what you're saying.

i don't have a problem with nasa not collecting from mars. maybe the can maybe they can't i don't know.


Not rocks. Soil samples.


The Mars Polar Lander was to touch down on the southern polar layered terrain, between 73°S and 76°S in a region called Planum Australe, less than 1000 km from the south pole, near the edge of the carbon dioxide ice cap in Mars' late southern spring. The terrain appears to be composed of alternating layers of clean and dust-laden ice, and may represent a long-term record of the climate, as well as an important volatile reservoir. The mission had as its primary science objectives to: 1. record local meteorological conditions near the martian south pole, including temperature, pressure, humidity, wind, surface frost, ground ice evolution, ice fogs, haze, and suspended dust 2. analyze samples of the polar deposits for volatiles, particularly water and carbon dioxide 3. dig trenches and image the interior to look for seasonal layers and analyze soil samples for water, ice, hydrates, and other aqueously deposited minerals 4. image the regional and immediate landing site surroundings for evidence of climate changes and seasonal cycles 5. obtain multi-spectral images of local regolith to determine soil types and composition.

Source


The point I'm trying to make here is if NASA had the ability to return an unmanned craft with rock/soil/dust samples to earth in 1969.

They should be able to do the same today, to Mars.

But they can't. Which is a good indicator that they couldn't back then either.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


i'm still not following you. you said the pheonix lander did just taht? was that a typing error or what? it seems to contradict a statement that i didn't understand to begin with so i'm at a total loss as to what you mean.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


I'm not sure I can make it any simpler for you...

You were claiming it would be easy to send an unmanned craft to the moon and back to pick up samples.

I am saying it couldn't be done THEN because it can't be done NOW.



[edit on 24-3-2009 by Chadwickus]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


Phoenix collects soil samples from around the landing site. It analyzes the samples using internal sample devices and returns the DATA to Earth. It doesn't collect rocks, or return any physical samples to Earth.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chad....please check your U2U....



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
much better thanks.

so how does this prove that nasa can't collect rocks? it doesn't.

it only proves that we now have the technology to not HAVE to send rocks back to earth. why wouold we waste the time and effort if they can be tested directly on site to begin with.

since we already have moon rocks to prove that we've been to the moon why would it be necessary to do it again? especially since evil people like myself don't believe it, right?

so all in all that doesn't prove anything.

oh and chad, the sarcasm wasn't necessary.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


If they could send an unmanned craft that could come back with samples to Mars or the moon they would.

Don't you think if they could they would also send missions to Venus and Mercury?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


There's nothing here on my end mate.

Resend?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I would say, hear and now, that there seems to be a comprehensive strategy of Bart Sibrel 'supporters' coming forth.

It is obvious, and disengenuous to the extreme.

The tactics vary little....they are clear to anyone with intelligence.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 


Chadw....I have a U2U on the way....it shows in my 'outbox'.....cheers!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join