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: 3
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


jra, admit you were wrong while you're not too far behind.

Lillydale is correct that the rocks prove absolutely nothing.

The pictures and videos recorded are not congruent with the equipment that was allegedly used nor are they in line with the conditions we have been told exist on the moon.

Either we were lied to about the conditions on the moon and the equipment used on the missions, or all of the footage and pictures are fake.

There aren't any other alternatives.

[edit on 1/5/2010 by JPhish]




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You have totally missed the point of my post.

Russia returned soil samples.
These soil samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.

So if the moon landings were faked and NASA faked the composite of their soil samples, how on earth did Russia collect almost identical samples themselves?

Did they fake them too? If so, they must have been in on it with USA right?

Let me remind you that the 70's was the time of a very serious space race and smack bang in the middle of the cold war, you know the one where USA and Russia nearly destroyed each other and the world with nukes?

Was all that a ruse to help cover up their intricate cover up of the moon landings along with the USA?

To summarize, the methods of collection isn't the issue here. It is the fact that two opposing nations returned almost identical soil samples from the moon.

There is no way that USA AND Russia could have faked their samples.

Deal with it.





[edit on 5/1/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by Lillydale
 


You have totally missed the point of my post.

Russia returned soil samples.
These soil samples were almost identical to the samples returned by Apollo 12.

So if the moon landings were faked and NASA faked the composite of their soil samples, how on earth did Russia collect almost identical samples themselves?

Did they fake them too? If so, they must have been in on it with USA right?


Actually, I think you missed the point of your post. If the Russians can get their hands on it without going there, then what does having it prove for America other than we could do what the Russians could do?


Let me remind you that the 70's was the time of a very serious space race and smack bang in the middle of the cold war, you know the one where USA and Russia nearly destroyed each other and the world with nukes?


This is a history thread now?


Was all that a ruse to help cover up their intricate cover up of the moon landings along with the USA?

To summarize, the methods of collection isn't the issue here. It is the fact that two opposing nations returned almost identical soil samples from the moon.

There is no way that USA AND Russia could have faked their samples.

Deal with it.


Exactly, DEAL WITH IT. I get that you think you have some nut here you can argue about how we went to the moon with. Sorry, wrong person. I am pointing out that having them does not mean we went there. You just reinforced that by reminding us, again, the these samples were pretty obtainable without sending a man to the moon. You tell me, if having those samples is proof, then how did the Russians turn up the exact same thing without landing there?

See my point? Having rocks does not prove anything. That is it. You all seem to be waiting, salivating for some argument as to the validity of the moon landings. Wait a little longer. The only argument I have here is that having the rocks means JACK$%*# and you just pointed that out in your own post, again. Now please take all your other moon arguments to someone attempting to engage in such.


jra

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I was merely pointing out that having something from somewhere, does not mean we have been there.


No, but it's fairly compelling evidence that we did.


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!


And I was merely trying to explain why the rocks are such good evidence that we've been there. As I said earlier, the Russian's don't have any Lunar rocks, just a very small amount of soil samples, because those unmanned landers are unable to pick up rocks.


Got my drift yet?


Yes, I have from the beginning, but you don't seem to be getting mine...


Originally posted by JPhish
Lillydale is correct that the rocks prove absolutely nothing.


I never said they 'prove' anything. I said they were good evidence of having been to the Moon.


The pictures and videos recorded are not congruent with the equipment that was allegedly used nor are they in line with the conditions we have been told exist on the moon.


In what way do the photos and video not match that of the equipment used? And what that has to do with the conditions on the Moon. Could you explain this in further detail? That would be great, thank you.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
Actually, I think you missed the point of your post. If the Russians can get their hands on it without going there, then what does having it prove for America other than we could do what the Russians could do?


Your argument falls short because there is no evidence of NASA sending an unmanned probe to the moon, landing it, taking samples and returning it to earth. Russia had many setbacks in the race to the moon, unreliable rockets, death of key scientists, mis-spending of funds and the list goes on.



This is a history thread now?


Considering the moon landings occurred over 40 years ago everything we are discussing is history.



Exactly, DEAL WITH IT. I get that you think you have some nut here you can argue about how we went to the moon with. Sorry, wrong person. I am pointing out that having them does not mean we went there. You just reinforced that by reminding us, again, the these samples were pretty obtainable without sending a man to the moon. You tell me, if having those samples is proof, then how did the Russians turn up the exact same thing without landing there?

See my point? Having rocks does not prove anything. That is it. You all seem to be waiting, salivating for some argument as to the validity of the moon landings. Wait a little longer. The only argument I have here is that having the rocks means JACK$%*# and you just pointed that out in your own post, again. Now please take all your other moon arguments to someone attempting to engage in such.


I'm not here to argue, I'm here to debate. Clearly, you're not here to debate right? Since you think telling me to take my moon arguments someone else is the way to go.

I'll just remind you that we're in a thread about the moon landings in the Space exploration forum. And you're telling ME to take the arguments up with someone else?

Why are you here if you don't want to discuss the moon landings?

Just felt like spreading your moon hoax dogma around?

Why don't you do a bit of research as to why Russia couldn't send a man to the moon and why the USA had to.

Yeah a history lesson...a much needed one it seems.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


If I did a run using photographic data analysis with some common fuzzy, classification or even some genetic algorithms used in data mining, than it would not take one very long to establish some form of indisputable correlation between those two pictures, key word simulated.

That is all I dare to say; I don't want NSA knocking on my door, so I will not do the home work for the curious one


[edit on 1/5/2010 by krystalice]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Good thread, yet more evidence people never walked on the moon.
S&F



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
Your argument falls short because there is no evidence of NASA sending an unmanned probe to the moon, landing it, taking samples and returning it to earth. Russia had many setbacks in the race to the moon, unreliable rockets, death of key scientists, mis-spending of funds and the list goes on.


Actually, yours falls short and now you have sucked me in. If the premise is that NASA faked the moon missions, then how far fetched would it be to presume they did not announce unmanned missions to obtain samples? Maybe neither Russia not the U.S. was willing to try to call the other one's bluff.

You forget that you are using NASA as evidence that NASA did what NASA said they did. See the problem there? Anyway, all I care about is that having rocks from the moon does not prove we went there. That is all there is to it. You can say there was no record of such an event to which I counter that there is a record of them walking on the moon that seems to be the dispute of this very thread. That would mean these records are rather useless in the argument that - having rocks does not mean we went there. It is really a very simple point. You must want to teach people things. I have no need for any of that. If you cannot just dispel my simple point without going into some diatribe about factors completely unrelated, then why bother trying? You want to argue about going to the moon. That is not the argument I was trying to have. Good luck though.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:27 AM
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


WTH? This is a 100% proof, sorry.

OK Again. The left picture is made with hight data of selene. the right picture is a photo from Nasa. The left is from japan - the right is from usa. now where this exactly illogic?

And for you one more from appollo 17:





And at least real photos of the landers:





Please try to stay open brained - they was there.
[edit on 4-1-2010 by cushycrux]


[edit on 5-1-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
What is a Hightmap?

en.wikipedia.org...

More about pro hightmap (Digital Elevation Model)

www.answers.com...

Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings!

en.wikipedia.org...

And again, I thought It is all fake - but the fact's say me - I was wrong.

And please tell me how strong is the probability that japan fakes pictures for NASA?

kaguya photo on the left side - DED Data on rigt side:



[edit on 5-1-2010 by cushycrux]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:31 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.



'Moon rock' given to Holland by Neil Armstrong is fake



Curators at Amsterdam's Rijksmuseum, where the rock has attracted tens of thousands of visitors each year, discovered that the "lunar rock", valued at £308,000, was in fact petrified wood.

Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation, said the museum would continue to keep the stone as a curiosity. "It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it."

The rock was given to Willem Drees, a former Dutch leader, during a global tour by Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin following their moon mission 50 years ago.

J. William Middendorf, the former American ambassador to the Netherlands, made the presentation to Mr Drees and the rock was then donated to the Rijksmuseum after his death in 1988.

"I do remember that Drees was very interested in the little piece of stone. But that it's not real, I don't know anything about that," Mr Middendorf said.

Nasa gave moon rocks to more than 100 countries following lunar missions in 1969 and the 1970s.

The United States Embassy in The Hague is carrying out an investigation into the affair.

Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests.

"It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.






There is no further info on the investigation into this affair.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:04 AM
link   
This is getting retarded. Unless height-of-the-cold-war Russia and USA teamed together, put all the communism/capitalism stuff behind them for a while, and set about to hoax soil samples, then we went to the moon.

It's that simple. There are no red flags, no smoking guns. It all makes perfect sense.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Lillydale
 

But that would mean that NASA had robots with the ability to carry 1000 times more weight back to Earth than Russia did, and with the ability to pick up large rocks that Russia could not.

If NASA's robotic technology was that far ahead of the Russians, you would think they would be able to send humans to the Moon.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Mythtified
 

Regarding that Dutch fake Moon rock...that just goes to show how easy it is to spot a fake Moon rock just by seeing it.

For NASA to create a bunch of fake Moon rocks that would fool geologists who are closely investigating and testing those rocks would be an almost impossible feat.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 09:06 AM
link   
I am more inclined to have my money's worth on an geologist expert; and a statement like this pretty much sums it up. Thank you for that article.


Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests. "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.


BTW, I don't mean rub salt into eyes, but wasn't water ridiculed for years and years, until our Indian research water discovery.


[edit on 1/5/2010 by krystalice]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by krystalice
I am more inclined to have my money's worth on an geologist expert; and a statement like this pretty much sums it up. Thank you for that article.


Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests. "It's a nondescript, pretty-much-worthless stone," said Frank Beunk, a geologist involved in the investigation.

The fact that the rock is so different than other Moon rocks is not a "Moon Hoax" issue -- it's more of a diplomatic issue.

There could be several reasons for the confusion over this rock:
-- The Prime Minister misunderstood the gift he was being presented with.
-- The Prime Minister accidentally or purposefully embellished the story of the rock sometime after it was present to him.
-- Aldrin mistakenly told him it was a Moon rock.
-- The rock was switched sometime after Aldrin presented it.

There was some sort of misunderstanding or hoax involved -- but it is not the "Moon Hoax".


BTW, I don't mean rub salt into eyes, but wasn't water ridiculed for years and years, until our Indian research water discovery.


There was no ridicule. At least not after NASA first found good evidence of water on the Moon back in 1994. NASA originally discovered the water in the South Pole crater over 15 years ago. It just wasn't until now that the discovery was positively confirmed.

NASA announced back in 1994 that the Clementine Spacecraft potentially found water ice in perpetually dark craters in the Moon's South Pole, but could not positively confirm it. In 1998, NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft also found evidence of water in the South Pole crater. NASA crashed the Lunar Prospector into the Moon back in 1999 in hopes of detecting water in the plume (similar to LCROSS), but did not find conclusive evidence of water.

Even without the conclusive evidence, NASA obviously thought the water was there, because they designed the LCROSS mission to look in the exact same place in which Clementine and Lunar Prospector found signs of water 15 years earlier.

By the way, the piece of equipment on the Indian probe that found the water was a NASA instrument -- NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (or "M3") -- not an Indian instrument. The instrument was controlled by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the findings were made by NASA's lead "M3" investigator (who is a Brown University Professor).


[edit on 1/5/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Apollo moon missions were faked so USA could get an uper hand in the cold war. Nasa still does not know how to go back to the moon to this day, I wonder why.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


Did you read this thread? Russia would have to have been complicit in the conspiracy, so 'getting ahead in the cold war' could not have been a planned outcome.

Get a grip!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
Apollo moon missions were faked so USA could get an uper hand in the cold war. Nasa still does not know how to go back to the moon to this day, I wonder why.


Why do you ALL ignore my posts with proof?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
The instrument was controlled by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the findings were made by NASA's lead "M3" investigator.


That statement just spilled the beans for me, but that is OK because I will clean up this mess.

Firstly and primarily I will state that NASA has falsely taken credit for the water on the moon findings, and it is a fact that Indian research team have been the official one's to disclose this theory to the public in the first place.

Secondly, I will state with ignorance that moon water discovery was previously theorized and this can be backed up by Paul Spudis PI from experiment Chandrayaan-1 mission asserting that


"NASA didn't "discover" water on the Moon with LCROSS but neither did Chandryaan. " he further states "water ice was first reported at the south pole of the Moon back in 1996 from the Clementine bistatic experiment"



Despite the instrument being of NASA in the first place without any doubt, thus it is poor exercise and misleading yet ignorant to claim without crediting the true informants.

And out of the blue, yet some what expected, NASA was so quick to jump the ship and acclaim the credit before you could spell India.

It is this very statement below that has sent shivers through my spine by Michael Wargo, chief lunar scientist at NASA who has flexed his paws in dominance and literally berrying the existence of the true validation over an Indian (ISRO) agency discovery, in stating:


"We're unlocking the mysteries of our nearest neighbor and by extension the solar system. It turns out the moon harbors many secrets, and LCROSS has added a new layer to our understanding".



Source:Indian, no wait NASA's official history water discovery



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join