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: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
weed quit being a sore loser. i've never heard of bart before today, ihaven't watched the video in the OP and i haven't gone to the stupid website. i couldn't care less who he is and what he says.

i'm interested in what's happening in this thread. just because you got spanked on your first three tries doesn't make you have to try and derail this thread by going off topic.

you've obviously said your piece now let the big boys play for a while ok?

chad, you bring up a good point but again it doesn't disprove what i'm saying and it doesn't prove what you're saying.

if nasa has no need to send rocks back to the earth with current technology that does not prove that they couldn't have done it in the late 60's.




posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


No paper maché!







posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
The instruments on the Phoenix are pretty limited. They can only give basic data, and they would be able to get a lot more with the rocks in a lab back here on earth.


MECA characterizes the soil of Mars much like a gardener would test the soil in his or her yard. By dissolving small amounts of soil in water, the wet chemistry lab (WCL) determines the pH, the abundance of minerals such as magnesium and sodium cations or chloride, bromide and sulfate anions, as well as the conductivity and redox potential. Looking through a microscope, MECA examines the soil grains to help determine their origin and mineralogy. Needles stuck into the soil determine the water and ice content, and the ability of both heat and water vapor to penetrate the soil.



The RAC is attached to the Robotic Arm (RA) just above the scoop. The instrument provides close-up, full-color images of (1) the martian surface in the vicinity of the lander, (2) prospective soil and water ice samples in the trench dug by the RA, (3) verification of collected samples in the scoop prior to analysis by the MECA and TEGA instruments, and (4) the floor and side-walls of the trench to examine fine-scale texturing and layering.



SSI will serve as Phoenix's "eyes" for the mission, providing high-resolution, stereo, panoramic images of the martian arctic. Using an advanced optical system, SSI will survey the arctic landing site for geological context, provide range maps in support of digging operations, and make atmospheric dust and cloud measurements.



TEGA is a combination high-temperature furnace and mass spectrometer instrument that scientists will use to analyze martian ice and soil samples. The robotic arm will deliver samples to a hopper designed to feed a small amount of soil and ice into eight tiny ovens about the size of an ink cartridge in a ballpoint pen. Each of these ovens will be used only once to analyze eight unique ice and soil samples.

Once a sample is successfully received and sealed in an oven, the temperature is slowly increased at a constant rate, and the power required for heating is carefully and continuously monitored. This process, called scanning calorimetry, shows the transitions from solid to liquid to gas of the different materials in the sample: important information needed by scientists to understand the chemical character of the soil and ice.



Throughout the course of Phoenix surface operations, MET will record the daily weather of the martian northern plains using temperature and pressure sensors, as well as a light detection and ranging (LIDAR) instrument. With these instruments, MET will play an important role by providing information on the current state of the polar atmosphere and how water is cycled between the solid and gas phases in the martian arctic.

The MET's lidar is an instrument that operates on the same basic principle as RADAR, using powerful laser light pulses rather than radio waves. The lidar transmits light vertically into the atmosphere, which is reflected off dust and ice particles. These reflected light pulses and their time of return to the lidar instrument are analyzed, revealing information about the size of atmospheric particles and their location.

phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu...

By having rocks back in a earth lab, they could examine them in great detail, cutting into them going layer by layer, examining any oddities in the layers, or in the rock etc. The Phoenix has returned a lot of interesting data, but not NEARLY as much as could be learned by having rocks in your lab.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
interesting. very good actually. however, nasa could upgrade the next unmanned craft to have better testing abilities instead of hauling the rocks back to earth. seems perfectly reasonable to me.

also, you didn't really bother to give details to the other side of your coin. of course i wont' hold htat against you because this is just a thread and it's not worth the effort. and also because it's probably really easy to do.

even still, i'm sure nasa could come up with a better unmanned space lab to test rocks, don't you? why would they need to ship them back to earth?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


Because just to get those instruments up to Mars cost them $420 million. The weather station alone was $37 million. Add to that the more instruments you put on, the more weight you have. The more weight you have the higher the costs. A sample return mission is looking at running $3 billion, to return 15-20 rocks. If you wanted to add all the instruments you have back here on earth, the costs would probably run a lot more than that.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


well i see what you're saying but it's not very convincing. especially with the big fat "probably" at the end. i'm sure there are lots of tests that we have on earth that would be irrelevant to testing rocks on mars. surely we wouldn't need every single possible test available just to feel good about mars' geological nature?



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


No, we don't. But having them here would make it a lot easier to do further tests if they find something unexpected. If they're on Mars, and you find something unusual you can't do further tests without getting more instruments up there. Down here, if you dig into a rock, and find some odd microbes, you have more to sample, and you have more instruments to determine what they are, when they're from etc.

As for determining costs, I used probably because until you know what instruments are going, how much they weigh, and all the other factors there is no way that you could figure out the cost. But going from the fact that Phoenix cost $420 million, then you can extrapolate that you're looking at $1 billion + for an improved instrument package like you're talking about.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   


WE'VE BEEN TO THE GO**DAMN MOON!!!!



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
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.....

That most certainly is NOT a mock-up. That is photo AS11-40-5922 from the Apollo Image Gallery showing the Apollo 11 lunar module on the "moon".

Here's another REAL photo of undisturbed soil under the Apollo 11 LM:



And thanks for your invitation to visit the Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC but I've already seen it. I've also visited the JSC in Houston.

Except none of it was real. Just like the official story of 9/11, I'm sorry that you were taken in an obvious hoax and Big Lie.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


i think you've made the best case so far zaphod, thanks for replying with some sort of common sense. i'd say you've made the case lean towards the "moon rocks prove we went to the moon" theory but all in all you haven't struck gold. if you know what i mean.

there's still lots of questions to be had in understanding nasa's reasoning for not bringing mars rocks back to earth. whether it's a tech issue fitting tests into a craft or a cost analysis problem hasn't been resolved. but i'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt because you at least came up with a probable reason, which i like to hear.

---



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by MajesticJax
 


That's very funny, JAX.....

I happen to be a big fan of 'Little Britain', and their show on American TV (cable) 'Little Britain: USA'

Or, "Little Britain in America"....close enough, it is funny regardless....

Speaking of comedy, the BS put out by Bart Sibrel is equally funny, just in a different way.

Bart Sibrel is, in fact, a buffoon who has no understanding of science or physics....but has learned a way to make a living based on OTHER's ignorances......



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


just what are you saying fleece? is this (in your words) indisputable proof that the moon landing was a hoax?

i've heard something about the undisturbed dirt before. yeah let's get into that for a bit.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Golden....NOW you present the full photo....in your original post you cropped, which I think was on purpose.

I would still like to hear your evidence, GF....you say you've been to the Air&Space Museum and the JSC....yet you STILL are not convinced???

Well....I just feel sorry for you.....I have nothing else to say.

EDIT.....this is a constant claim by 'de-bunkers'.....

"Where is the Blast Crater????"

BS!!! The regolith on the Moon was basically hard dirt ( to compare to earth) with some soil above it. the depth of the 'soil' isn't what you'd expect in Earth farms, for instance!!!

We are talking, maybe...a few centimeters deep....and this will vary depending on where you are on the Moon.

The 'soil' on the Moon is not 'dust'....it is more 'sand-like'.

As to the Lander, the thrust from the LEM's descent engine.....come on, use your brains!!!!

The Lander had two-meter-long probes (about six feet) to indicate 'Contact'....the vehicle was designed to shut down the main descent engine, at 'Contact', and land in the last few feet.

The engien was 'throttled down' prior to landing.

Really, try to learn, instead of seeing shlock Hollywood movies to color your opinions!!!!











[edit on 3/24/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Mozzy
 


That's an easy one. There's even an example of it on earth I can use. Have you ever seen an AV-8B make a vertical landing? If they landed at full thrust, they'd bounce right back up into the air. Same with the lander. They were throttling down as their speed decreased. When they landed, the engine was producing about 3000 pounds of thrust, as opposed to the 10,000 pounds it was capable of producing.

Going back to the Mars return mission, they haven't had the capability to bring anything back until the last few years. There is a sample return mission planned for 2011 that will bring some rocks back.

ETA: The dust under the lander WAS disturbed, they just didn't leave a crater, which is one of the things Sibrel claims SHOULD have happened. Of course, he's also claiming that they landed at full power on the engine.

[edit on 3/24/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
i hope golden ignores the heat. i really wanna know what he's got to say. sounds like it could be something juicy.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


i don't understand what you mean about the av-88. was that in reference to something i said? furthermore how can you be certain that they can't send rocks back from an unmanned craft? i provided a reasonable example from just 30secs of thinking about it. seriously, that wouldn't be very hard to do.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 

Sorry Captain Weedwacker, those are both actual Apollo 11 photos. Any cropping was done by ATS, not me.

First you accuse me of posting a photo of a mock-up, then you accuse me of "cropping", as if that would make these ridiculous photos any less realistic. How about an apology?

If you're gullible enough to believe a lunar module that's made of tin foil and gold duct tape landed on the moon without disturbing the soil beneath it or that NASA "lost" all 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission, that's your problem.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
EDIT.....this is a constant claim by 'de-bunkers'.....

"Where is the Blast Crater????"

BS!!! The regolith on the Moon was basically hard dirt ( to compare to earth) with some soil above it. the depth of the 'soil' isn't what you'd expect in Earth farms, for instance!!!

Is that why there's a two inch-thick boot print in the soil next to the LM?


[edit on 24-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



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


Very sorry, GF.....didn't mean to accuse you of anything....

OK? Truce?

As to the rest, what say you?


(hint....many of us are interrupted during posts....we make mistakes)



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


The AV-8B is an example of what the LEM was doing when it landed. They were throttling down, so that they didn't bounce back up off the surface. If the LEM landed at full power, it never would have set down and stayed down, if it even touched down. A Harrier with a high power setting will never touch down, until the engine shuts down.

If the LEM had been able to land at full power, it would have left a crater like Sibrel claims should have happened. It didn't land at anything NEAR full power however, which is why there was no crater, and the dust appeared to be undisturbed.



posted on Mar, 24 2009 @ 02:27 PM
link   
well to be fair, weed's point was that the thrusters would've been turned low enough so that they wouldn't have moved the dust.

i think that's the issue to be debated here. i think i see where this is going but i'm in anyway.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join