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.

 

where's the stars?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2009 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 

Plus, there is the extra cost.

The moon rover design that went to the Moon was chosen mainly because it fit onto the LEM that the astronauts landed in. Other larger rovers were designed but they all needed to be sent to the moon in a separate rocket launch -- hence much, much more cost.




posted on Jul, 10 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by peacejet
 


^This

Your avatar is win btw.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   


What about all the samples that were brought back? Especially the larger rocks that could not have been collected by an unmanned probe. I think the 800lbs of Lunar samples makes for some very solid evidence that we've been there.


I did wonder about this myself a while back but in the end came to the conclusion that this didnt prove anything at all. Bits of the moon have been hitting the earth from time to time since way before we showed up as a species. It would not have been impossible for NASA to collect ( or buy with all the billions they were given ) chunks of the moon and pass them off as evidence that they went there in the first place. In fact this would be one of the more obvious ways that this type of event could be faked.

Apparently half of it hasn't even been looked at. Its been put into storage for future use? Thats an awful lot of money to spend on an unused rock collection.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


Meteorites which originated on the moon go through changes upon entry into the atmosphere. They have what is called a fusion crust. The rocks returned from the Moon do not. If they did the thousands of scientists who have studied them would have been severely disappointed and called foul a long time ago.
www.meteorites.wustl.edu...

[edit on 7/11/2009 by Phage]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 



I did wonder about this myself a while back but in the end came to the conclusion that this didnt prove anything at all. Bits of the moon have been hitting the earth from time to time...



PLEASE do some research, and stop relying on your own 'thinking' and 'wondering' about it!!!

"Bits of the moon..."??? Hitting? You think they just drop in, like apples?

Firstly, the ONLY way 'bits of the moon' (or any other bits from other planets) will escape the gravity of the source is from a very large impact ON the source world...THEN whatever 'bits' swirl around and just happen to hit the Earth will be very, very, very few and far between.

Secondly, the types of impacts from meteoroids and the like just aren't happening....this bombardment stopped millions of years ago.

Thirdly, again anything from another World that lands on Earth will exhibit signs of the re-entry through the atmosphere...and the incredible heating that results. It will be OBVIOUS!!!

Lunar samples from Apollo show NONE of this!!!

Lastly, there are over 800 POUNDS of lunar samples!

Your 'thinking cap' seems to need an adjustment, mate.

Edit:

Darn it, Phage! You're always there, Johnny on the Spot!! You psychic?


[edit on 11 July 2009 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


You should chill out a bit m8. This is a forum for discussion. If everyone just came here and stated undeniable facts then there wouldn't be anything to talk about now would there?

Exactly what 'research' have you do to back up these facts you are talking about? you mean you have read about the subject in a book? So in other words they are you opinions based on info presented to you as a fact.


Thirdly, again anything from another World that lands on Earth will exhibit signs of the re-entry through the atmosphere...and the incredible heating that results. It will be OBVIOUS!!!

maybe this is why they have only examined half of the so called samples.


[edit on 11-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


YOU asked:


Exactly what 'research' have you do to back up these facts you are talking about?


BUT, then you state as "fact":


...maybe this is why they have only examined half of the so called samples.


Even IF you had a point (you don't) you're still talking about over 400 pounds...that you allege have never been looked at. THERE IS NOT that much material recovered from re-entry, from other planets!!

AND....the ONLY reason there are a few samples, is because they were found in places like Antarctica, where they show up easily, and there's little to no erosion.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


I discuss things at a forum to hear everyone's opinion. You obviously come here to try to force your opinions on other people.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by VitalOverdose
 


I obviously come here to help people see what are sometimes incorrect statements.

It's about 'denying ignorance'.

Having an incorrect understanding of a subject is the same as being ignorant of that subject.

An incorrect statement that includes words like 'alleged' samples, and an assertion that more than half have never been looked at demand corrections.

Some samples are investigated, examined, while other portions FROM THAT SAME BATCH are left alone, to act as "control" samples, just in case of accidental contamination, that is, exposure to Earth's environment.

In any event, this 'discussion' of the Lunar samples is the inevitable outgrowth of any talk about "where are the stars", as it just brings out the Moon "Hoax" theories in abundance. Unfortunately, that hoax nonsense won't die.....



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

An incorrect statement that includes words like 'alleged' samples, and an assertion that more than half have never been looked at demand corrections.


lol and what makes you think i dont read up on this stuff?


The geochemical evolution of the Moon

Interviewer: You remained a consultant for NASA for 20 years, didn’t you?

Yes, as what they called a principal investigator. NASA were very good about issuing lunar samples. They decided very early that the samples would be available to anybody in the world who was sufficiently qualified and applied to work on them. There were two or three hundred principal investigators at various times working on the samples – the distribution of them is almost a reflection of gross national product. NASA have about 800 lbs of samples from Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, and a lot of it even now has not been looked at. About half has been put into storage for future work and so on.


www.science.org.au...

And i only said 'half' like it says in the article ..'more than half' is an exaggeration on your part.



[edit on 11-7-2009 by VitalOverdose]



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitalOverdose
And i only said 'half' like it says in the article ..'more than half' is an exaggeration on your part.


Doesn't matter. Even assuming no scientist who put it in storage would have noticed whether or not there was fusion crust on the second half (which is insane anyway), where is the proof that they could have gotten an incredible 400lbs of moon rocks out of 6 "unmanned" lunar sample return missions? The best the soviets could do with 3 unmanned lunar sample return missions was 0.326 kg of dust. At that rate it would take 1,670 unmanned sample return missions just to equal half of what apollo returned. If they were going to do that, they'd still be launching the sample return missions to this day.




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join