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.

 

How NASA has staged Apollo Moon Mission

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Having been in one of the lunar landing craft at the Smithsonian I would definitely have to say that thing could not have made it to the local 7-11.

Having lived in Hollywood California in the 1980’s I heard talk from real Hollywood insiders that the landings were filmed in a Pasadena Film Studio.

These are both suspicious but hardly conclusive but what is beyond suspicion is the fact that we have never been back to the moon since the early 1970’s.

Reasons abound none of them very good ones in my humble opinion.

I consider it a great mystery as far as to why we have never sent another manned expedition but remain divided between two possible explanations with no evidence to decide which to favor.

1. We go to the moon all the time and have a colony there and are real space program is entirely hidden from the public.
2. We aren’t allowed off this rock and are under planetary quarantine until we can stop killing everything that moves!

I can’t really decide, I will say if its number 1, the fact that the landings we saw were staged just means we didn’t want the soviets to see how the real technology worked. Or for them to know the extent and duration we were actually going and what all we were doing up there.

If it’s number 2 we might have had to stage the trip to avoid sharing with the public how we were denied access to the moon and by what.

I think there is just a whole lot that the government is not sharing with us about space the final frontier!




posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by social worker
Why didn't they find water back in 1969 on the moon or in any other subsequent mission? Come on.


The moon has a surface area of 37.8 million square km, man has only walked a few km and driven over 90km on the moon. The same as landing in a desert here and not finding any water... Anyway, the water was not pooled on the surface



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
I consider it a great mystery as far as to why we have never sent another manned expedition


Money and need. In the 1960's the first supersonic airliner was test flown, and since 2003 there are no supersonic airliners flying, with no concrete plans to build another.

So one could claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster told us to stop flying supersonic airliners with as much validity


jra

posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by social worker
OK, I do not believe that the US or any other country has landed on the moon. Why? The expense of the whole project. Remember, the Vietnam War was in full swing. The Cold War was at its peak in 1969.


Yeah it was expensive, which is kind of why it was cancelled earlier than originally planned. But it wasn't so expensive that it was completely unaffordable.


The landing on the moon was a Hollywood production whose aim it was to provide propagada films against the Soviet Union.


How do you fake 1/6th gravity while in a vacuum? There are too many issues with trying to fake a Moon landing on Earth. It would be harder to fake it here on Earth, than to actually go and do it.

The USSR was also trying to go to the Moon, but there N-1 Rocket wasn't working and it was cancelled. Why didn't the USSR try to fake it too then?


As of late it was discovered that water was found on the moon by sending a giant missile to conduct impact research for just that reason. Apparently, they found water. Why didn't they find water back in 1969 on the moon or in any other subsequent mission? Come on.


The first evidence for water on the Moon came from Clementine in '94 and the evidence has been slowly growing since then. The LCROSS impactor, or 'giant missile' as you call it, was not what confirmed the presence of water on the Moon. It was the NASA instrument on board the ISRO's Chandrayaan-1 that confirmed the presence of Hydrogen over large areas of the Lunar surface.

They weren't looking for signs of water during the Apollo missions. Although the samples that were brought back did contain trace amounts of water, but it was believed to be Earthly contamination at the time.

[edit on 3-1-2010 by jra]



posted on Jan, 3 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by social worker
Why didn't they find water back in 1969 on the moon or in any other subsequent mission? Come on.


The moon has a surface area of 37.8 million square km, man has only walked a few km and driven over 90km on the moon. The same as landing in a desert here and not finding any water... Anyway, the water was not pooled on the surface

Yes --

Specifically, the large amounts of water-ice (not including trace amounts) are located in perpetually dark craters at the Moon's South Pole, and the Apollo astronauts all landed near the equator due to the required trajectory of the Apollo spacecraft (limited by fuel).



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:12 AM
link   
We fly's countless hours of risky space shuttle missions like changing your hidden pink underwear. Yet the NASA budgets have annually increased over time, and how is it that we can not afford to go to moon if we had done so other wise previously? Wait ... did we really?

Thus yet there is no concrete film footage of the moon missions, other than several highly over played clips of the moon mission

A lot of people have been sold this side of the story, yet only now we are witnessing astronauts, employees of NASA, fighting for their inner morals by coming forward and critically judging and looking at the plausible angles of deception.

Some people, (however I will not speak for the majority here) are quick to jump on the band wagon and aim and perceive everything as the truth which is projected from a government body relating to the NASA.

Didn't NASA recently cancel a project of a future manned mission to Moon, but yet they are in competition with Russian to send a manned mission some where far more complex like MARS?

We need more moon missions therefore more manned hours training hours before attempting to travel to the MARS in the future, yet where is the money to fund all these fancy marvelous projects?

What people of this world need, is one unified space agency that will superficially be administrated in a Democratic institutional manner of the citizens and their ideas.

Essentially it is your tax payers money that is poured into the projects when you think about it, wouldn't you want a say in this contribution or a program to some extend (at least)?





[edit on 1/4/2010 by krystalice]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


You are correct! A robotic mission was sent to collect rocks, the first successful one was Luna 16. Launched by the Russians in 1970.

What's even more amazing (and ALL moon hoax believers will ignore this like the plague) is that the soil samples returned had a close resemblance to the soil samples brought back by Apollo 12.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
What's even more amazing (and ALL moon hoax believers will ignore this like the plague) is that the soil samples returned had a close resemblance to the soil samples brought back by Apollo 12.


That just means that the Russians used the same sound stage as NASA did for Apollo 12!



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by krystalice
...Yet the NASA budgets have annually increased over time, and how is it that we can not afford to go to moon if we had done so other wise previously?...

Wrong.

NASA's budget has decreased substantially since Apollo. In fact (correcting for inflation) NASA's annual budget during the Apollo design/testing years was OVER TWICE AS MUCH as it was throughout most of the 1990s and 2000s. The budget increased slightly towards the end of the 2000s because of the new Constellation program, but it is still only about 55% of the 1965 or 1966 budget.

-- NASA's 1966 budget was $32 Billion (5.5% of the total U.S. budget)
-- NASA's 2009 budget was $17 Billion (0.6% of the total U.S. budget)
(budgets are corrected for inflation)

The Apollo program took up a HUGE amount of our nation's resources back in the 1960s -- both monetary resources and human resources.

The Constellation program?...ummmm, not so much.



[edit on 1/4/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Well, being an amateur astronomer myself for the past 23 years, im left 50/50 now on wether or not we actually made it to the moon. Ive seen those supposed faked holllywood apollo missions, on youtube. All ic an say is, WE don even really know who or where those supopsed faked apollo missions came from. And after all these years, the surviving memebers of the actual apollo astronauts have never or are nOT coming forward, saying HEY it was a hoax! NASA bribed us, pentagon threatened us*
IT kiinda dos makes sense, by todays standards, it seems faked. Why do you ask? Last year, the LRO took those far away photos of some of the lftover apollo equipment and modules on moons surface...NASA insisted it was proof enough. ALL any of the pics showed, was a shiny dot on the surface, as any form of any real tangable evidence* that dosnt prove squat. The cameras i guess on LRO were not designed to zoom in so much, or they couldnt change the spacecrafts trajectory to get much much closer.
Nasa moon budgeting has shrunk. It seems from putting humans in suites on the moon, and ditching it in favor of small disposable satellites has its favortism. That to me suggests also, maybe we still to this day, do not have the capapbility of placing humans on the lunar surface at all.
Its taking a VERY VERY long time to do it again, and seems it keeps getting set back more, and/or canceled. That would msot DEF suggest, thier hiding something. I mean, suppose it came out tomorrow, NASA never landed humans on the moon, Niel armstrong is a fake* imagine what a blow politicaly that would be to the hisory books!Theyd have tobe totaly re written..IF anyone trusted our knowledge after that. It would totaly embarrass the governemnt and NASA as well.
It seems all NASA can do is send spacecraft, nothing more..otherwise wede already have been thier again. Of course, its brought up, the question of $$$ - funding. Well, if the FED can aboil9out foriegn enemys with our taxmoney, thier should be no reaon we cannot land a tin can with a human in it again as quickly as possible*



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
IF the US did not go to the moon and it was all staged, this would mean that the Russian's were 'in on it' ? I don't think so somehow ? For every query of we didn't go there is an answer to prove we did ! I have to say i still don't know with absolute certainty whether they did or didn't ! The thing i can't get out of my mind and everytime this issue pops up I immediately think of Armstrong ejecting from 'the flying bedstead' ! The next time he flew it he made virtually a copy book landing on the surface of the moon ? So i still have niggling doubts !


jra

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by krystalice
Yet the NASA budgets have annually increased over time, and how is it that we can not afford to go to moon if we had done so other wise previously?


NASA's budget peaked around 1965 and then slowly began to drop and continued to drop even more after the Apollo program ended. NASA's budget hasn't come close to what it was during the Apollo program.

NASA was also very different back then. A lot of its resources were dedicated to going to the Moon in the 60's, where as the NASA of today is all over the place. A lot of it's budget goes towards the Shuttle and ISS and the rest to other programs. Going back to the Moon is going to be a slower process with the way things are now.


Thus yet there is no concrete film footage of the moon missions, other than several highly over played clips of the moon mission


Just because you've only seen a few clips doesn't mean that's all there is. There are hours upon hours of live video as well as film footage from the DAC's. And a lot of that video and film footage contain things one can not do on Earth.

Here are some that you probably haven't seen.

Apollo 15: Digging a trench - Take note of how the Lunar soil flies in nice arcing trajectories. On Earth, the atmosphere would keep the finer grains of soil and dust suspended in the air for much longer.

Apollo 15: Mount Hadley - Here's an example of the 16mm DAC film footage. I don't have much to say about this one other than that I just like the footage. Although those flaps that bounce up in front of the rover probably wouldn't be doing that had there been any air resistance.

Apollo 14: SEQ Bay Pendulum analysis - Here's a video that does an analysis of the Apollo 14 pendulum. They show how it couldn't be faked on Earth.


Didn't NASA recently cancel a project of a future manned mission to Moon, but yet they are in competition with Russian to send a manned mission some where far more complex like MARS?


I don't think anything has been decided in regards to the future Moon missions as of yet. If anything it could become an international effort. And NASA isn't in competition with Russia. Where did you get this idea?



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperSlovak
You forgot to add how they came back with moon rocks...

The rocks collected from the Moon are measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands.


We have rocks from Mars too. Does that mean we have been there? Just curious what that should prove.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 09:52 AM
link   
I thought it's all fake until this came:

www.universetoday.com...

Now, it's clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon


on the left: selene simulation of Hight Data - right: nasa photo



[edit on 4-1-2010 by cushycrux]


jra

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
We have rocks from Mars too. Does that mean we have been there? Just curious what that should prove.


The rocks we have that are believed to be from Mars are clearly meteorites. They've experienced extreme temperatures from entering Earths atmosphere, as well as other weathering from having sat on Earth for tens of thousands of years.

The Lunar samples are not meteorites, that's the big difference right there. And not only do we have rocks, but soil and core samples as well. The Lunar samples are excellent evidence that we went to the Moon. Due to the condition and types of samples brought back, they're clearly not from meteorites. Nor are they from unmanned sample return missions, due to the amount and size of the samples.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


Apparently you did not read the post I have actually responded to. I get that you are all excited about bashing people who say we did not land on the moon but you need to tuck it in for a little while longer. It simply stated we had rocks from there so that meant we had been there. I guess you did not notice that you are participating in a thread where people claim that the proof we were there was obtained by russian robots. If you want to argue abot this, have fun. It is all yours. I was responding to the logic in the post, if you do not like that, see if you can get that first post I responded to changed instead of telling me things that do not actually apply.



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by cushycrux
I thought it's all fake until this came:

www.universetoday.com...

Now, it's clear, Apollo 15 was on the moon


on the left: selene simulation of Hight Data - right: nasa photo
[edit on 4-1-2010 by cushycrux]


Huh? A simulated photo based on a simulated moon landing photo without the simulated landing craft proves that we were actually on the moon.

Think about what you are saying a moment. The photo on the left is a computer generated simulation. Simulation being the key word, the photo on the right is suspected of being a simulation. We know for a fact that the photo on the left without the craft is a simulation.

One could just as easily argue that the same simulation is being used as opposed to a simulated picture makes a suspect picture real.

Strange logic to be sure.





[edit on 4/1/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Is that all they have is rocks.
That is an easy fakery cause they know in advance what will be the proof.
In other words the planers would not suggest anything they could not
produce and they are also the handlers.
As the bogus rock incident might indicate.

All the rest would probably have some skeptic's answer to the
generally under standing of events.

At the end of the rainbow Kennedy created was a pot of gold.
Weather done for real or not.

Von Braun, if the true space engineer that followed in the footsteps
of Tesla making the ether drive space ship, knew therefore space travel
could be possible must have put forth his dream but was rejected.
This was the beginning of the rainbow as he perfected the saucer by the
1950s. As Russia started putting up satellites Von Braun was elected
to do the same. Von Braun then renewed his dream with Disney and
would go to the Moon with rockets. Unfortunately space is very unsafe
for humans and was a big disappointment for Von Braun. Tesla had
a friend Jacob Astor the wrote space travel stories but Tesla never
mentioned space travel possible only his super aircraft even though
the ether pervades all outer space. This means Tesla being the wisest
man of Earth's environment also knew man would never go into outer
space. His Cosmic Ray discover put an end to space travel but his
aircraft will last till the end of time in our atmosphere.
So give it up we won't see space travel again even if we thought
we went to the Moon. Too many earth bound problems as the space gold
and rainbow are giving way to new hucksters with new rainbows to
to a pot of gold.


jra

posted on Jan, 4 2010 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Apparently you did not read the post I have actually responded to.


I did actually.


I get that you are all excited about bashing people who say we did not land on the moon...


No ones bashing anyone in this thread.


It simply stated we had rocks from there so that meant we had been there.


Which is why I tried to elaborate and explain what makes the Lunar samples such good evidence that we've been there.


I guess you did not notice that you are participating in a thread where people claim that the proof we were there was obtained by russian robots.


I did notice that. That's why I clearly stated that the Apollo samples could not have been brought back by unmanned sample return missions due to the size and the amount they brought back. The three Russian Lunar sample return missions (Luna 16, 20 and 24) brought back a total of 326g of soil samples. No rocks or core samples, just soil. The six Apollo missions brought back 382kg worth. Some of the rocks would have been much too large for an unmanned lander to collect and bring back. Plus, it would have taken an incredible amount of unmanned sample return missions to bring back 382kg worth. That wouldn't have gone on unnoticed.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


I get it, you have a bone to pick or something to prove. That is nice. Take it to the person you want to give it to instead. I was merely pointing out that having something from somewhere, does not mean we have been there. We have sea creatures from our own oceans at depths we have not yet been able to go to. We have not been there, but we have stuff from there. That was all. The post said we must have gone to the moon, cuz they had rocks. When did they Russians hang out on the moon, cuz they got some rocks too!

Got my drift yet?




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join