It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Moon Rising - The truth about the moon revealed

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:25 AM
I for one would like only the highest quality posts to be found here.

One can only hope.

Nevertheless, on the subject of good sources, bad sources,sources held above and tainted sources, I would like to say that we all need to be our own investigators these days. Educate ourselves, question everything.

But whatever we do, we must not throw out sources at all. A scientist must always be open to new information and to question and test known beliefs.

My brother, a stern conventionalist, informs me we must discard all that is gathered from the internet. We all know why he said this but is this the right thing to do?

We are forced fed MSM which can not be trusted when they are controlled now by parties with selfish agendas. What does that leave?

I believe youtube may be the last free speech and we should cherish, strengthen and vigorously protect it and the internet carrier that bears it.

Newspapers are on their last gasp, precisely because they also skirt and ignore what is right and just for meaningless fodder and parroting of the MSM viewpoint. (and it's super slomo)

So if a website allows multiple views and we know for a fact that some views are proven garbage, then that does not neccessarily negate all future topics.

We must now be our own judge.

I also believe that we have peer review in the form of forums such as this.

I personally am interested in the video as well as wary. The topic is of interest precisely because their are questions about our space program, it's history and it's basic private military nature.

I am seeking knowledge and prefer to judge for myself with the help of feedback from boards such as ATS.

Be here to educate yourself, not to attack sources. If you don't agree and don't want to share your reasons, move along and play where you do want to contribute.

Bring it!


posted on May, 9 2009 @ 09:46 AM
Originally posted by weedwhacker

(First person to capture such images, and prove them real, would be wealthy and famous nearly overnight!).

Or, would turn up missing or deceased, with the material immediately published in the Weekly World News.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:09 AM
I find this area of exploration crazy. The Russians were watching us in the most intimate matter. They had spooks at our launch pads, at the Cape, not to mention their own ability to radio track any thing larger then a spit ball. What value it would have been to them to prove a hoax on our part.

I spoke to a retired GRU officer who said and I quote: :"I would have given my left nut to prove it was bogus. Who ever figured that one out would have been able to retire" The US space program showed us warts and all. I would have hoped we had the gutts to just tell the truth".

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 10:43 AM

Originally posted by nasacarl
Is phage a dis-information agent sent out to destroy everything we think we know about UFO's and Aliens?

Here we go again. Can it get any more predictable than this?

This kind of presupposition, innuendo, marginalization and name calling has to STOP! If it's OK to call someone who disagrees with a conspiracy theory a dis-information agent, (see T&C for personal attacks and name calling) then it must be OK to call believers 'whack-jobs', loonies and idiots. Yeah?

Next time you (plural 'you') call someone a dis-info agent, think about what type of ignorant generalizations you would despise being aimed in your direction. You can't have your cake and eat it!

People... please think before you speak!

IMHO, management need to take a good hard look at this issue and meter out punishment accordingly to both sides of the fence.

Just my 2 Pennies!


posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:13 PM

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by daddio

The full LM had a mass of about 33,000 lbs (that's Earth mass. In Lunar gravity it'd be 5,500 lbs). How, exactly, would that be such a difficult spacecraft to navigate?

The beauty of space is that the calculations are very stable. The math is predictable. Orbital mechanics are not variable. You mention temperature variances - a vacuum is an excellent insulator. Ever seen a Thermos bottle??

Solar Wind?? pffft, a fly's wings in a hurricane. Van Allen Belts, not lethal for short times of transit.

Apologize for off subject matter.
Apology for not getting back to you weedwhacker. The weight of the LM has inertia even in space. So at 33,000 lbs. plus the main capsule is still a very large amount of weight to slow down and land. What I was implying was that if you figure the weight of the LM and main capsule and the distance they had to travel on an arced path to approach the moon from the back side, this would be like catching the moon so as not to overshoot it, the size of the engine needed to slow it down as it would be traveling at 3500 mph for a 3 day trip and 5300 mph for a 2 day trip, would be huge. Being the vacuum of space, void of any substance or matter to "push" off of to slow down and enter the 1/6th gravity orbit, that would be a difficult task to undertake in 1967/68/69 to figure all this out. The computers back then were very crude to say the least.

Conversing with a former employee of the Saturn 5 rocket program and an Astrophysicist over dinner we had discussed the math in general and there are many questions. We also talked about the harsh environment on the surface of the Moon, temp extremes (+250 degrees to -250 degrees) and the Solar wind which is made up of radioactive isotopes that are quite deadly if exposed for ANY length of time. The suits they were wearing back then could not have protected them enough.

Why has no other country EVER attempted to go there? Again, the Soviet Union spent 500 times more time in space than we did. I believe they knew exactly what the consequences would be trying to get there. If you were off in your calculations by just the absolute smallest number it would be see you later. Would the government take that chance and look like fools? What about all the NASA video slated and dated for the time Armstrong was supposed to be on the moon and they were actually in earth orbit? That documentary "A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon" was pretty interesting. There is some pretty incriminating evidence there.

I especially like the photo of the LM foot. Likes like it was gently placed there and the foot pad pushed out just a bit. I guess no hard landing there.

[edit on 9-5-2009 by daddio]

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 04:47 PM

Originally posted by daddio
Why has no other country EVER attempted to go there?

Why should they? What for? Why send a man on the moon if you can send a machine instead?

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 05:52 PM
reply to post by arbiture

Yes, if it was a hoax the russians wouldn't have hesitated a second to expose it to the world but how well could they monitor the US apollo program, on earth and on the moon?

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by daddio

daddio, rather than pollute this thread, I put a video on another one. Look for 'Orbital Mechanics 101' by jkrog08.

Some answers there, for you.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:29 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

I have to agree with that.
Without the likes of Phage & others who introduce a more measured approach to assessing the "evidence" presented in threads such as this, this forum will descend into an unreadable mess of threads about reptilians & space rods & the like.

posted on May, 9 2009 @ 07:33 PM
Thanks for the plug Weedwhacker.....Thats why I made that and other informational threads in the space exploration forum, so that all members can grasp an understanding of the basics all things related to UFOs/aliens(ie;orbital mechanics, ftl travel, astronomy, parallel universe, and coming soon celestial mechanics)

I feel it is a MUST to know the basics before anyone can seriously start a debate or argument on such topics

Also very commendable of you not derailing and referring members to a related thread.

Thats why even with you as a more skeptical member you are my friend.

Here is the link...........Orbital Mechanics 101

[edit on 5/9/2009 by jkrog08]

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:18 AM
reply to post by TortoiseKweek

um...not really, but hence my blog. Why spend all your energy into finding out from someone else, when we could go and find out for ourselves? Thanks for the welcome!

posted on May, 10 2009 @ 06:23 AM
reply to post by yzzyUK

You should join me yzzyUK.......i have no idea on what's needed, but let's not put it in the too hard box....i'm sure with a few books a lil this n that and a HUGE public profile, people would lend us a hand........

posted on May, 12 2009 @ 08:20 AM
Good post! I like Mr. Escamilla's take that what we are seeing may be biological entities in space also on Earth "Rods' The blue discs all over the moon do look like some sort of beings (at least the possibility exists) when I look at the NASA tether video and what looks like a giant Petrie dish (spelling incorrect) full of microbes etc. it makes me think that we may have all kinds of critters hanging out in space. There's the NASA video of the separating fuel tanks which are shown falling to Earth with what's referred to as wisps: the spidery looking white thing following one of the tanks. It just seems possible that these are all creatures that inhabit space. There just seems to be so much stuff in our low Earth orbit. I often laugh when I hear the flight controllers hesitating in they're transmissions to shuttles. I know they're wondering what hell is that? or where's the MIr station (hard to find because of some many things floating around and blinking). The low Earth orbit videos from NASA reveal allot. I'm sure NASA's not very happy with allot of the videos that are available to the public. Peace

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 11:57 AM
I found this video.. 8-)

The Greatest Story Ever Denied Part 2 Moon Rising Trailer Debunked

[edit on 15-5-2009 by omarr play]

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 12:00 PM

[edit on 15-5-2009 by tim1989]

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM
ATS members need to see this film. Before you start debunking it. I happen to be a subscriber of Jose's and have been in contact with him and his partner about this movie. I purchased the DVD and have to admit I was skeptical at first, but after viewing it, I saw things I had never seen or heard about before. I thought this was going to be just another re-hash of moon and apollo stuff i'd already seen, but there is more to it than what you think and what I thought. I don't know why there is so much hatred toward this man. I feel he is a great filmmaker delivering the truth. Believe me, there is no other film out there that compares to this film and what it brings. I've been reading ATS for a few years now and felt I should write about this film. I was compelled after viewing the movie to say what I am now reporting. This is the first time I have seen a film about the moon that finally tells us how we've been led to believe the moon is lifeless and that we are still in the dark ages where it comes to technology. This film shows us all how we have been treated as "brain stems" as Jose calls certain types of people.

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:15 PM
So is it up on youtube yet?

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:49 PM
I'm just wondering has Escamilla accepted the conclusive findings that "rods" are just insects motion blurred on video? has he apologized for selling videos of this stuff without investigating it thoroughly enough to determine what it really was?

[edit on 17-5-2009 by Longchenpa]

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:18 AM

Originally posted by reugen
Yes, if it was a hoax the russians wouldn't have hesitated a second to expose it to the world but how well could they monitor the US apollo program, on earth and on the moon?

Unless, of course, the whole 'Cold War" was a ruse and the Russians were in on it from the beginning...

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by Phage

Am I to believe that there are no stars visible when there is no sunlight? What you have there is the exact excuse intended when they changed the photos... (Oh, the crosses are black and so is the sky, see, no sun, no light, no crosses!) Not only should there be stars, but it should be the best damn light show we've ever seen.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in