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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 219
377
<< 216  217  218    220  221  222 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


That video is a load of fakery. Just look at it, clearly recorded in some sort of studio at groom lake. Did you know that the day that event allegedly happened an episode of hit US TV Show 'Glee' was being made? Clearly the director was in on the whole affair. If you look closely in the background in one shot you can see his shoe...
Not only that just look at Jarrah's mannerisms, he look nervous like he has something to hide and we all know what that is! He isn't really there, it's all done using green screen techniques in his garage. The newspaper's fake as well, the Russians made up the whole fake page site to smear the US Government, but I can see through it. Do you want to know how I know for sure? Some guy smoking a cigarette standing the shadows told me, true story but sadly I can't name my source. It's true though.
Anyone that doesn't believe me is a poor dumb sheep, baa baa:


Look at Jarrah


Poor guilty Jarrah, hiding something clear as day.

Did I mention this?



Look how fake it is! Laughable, the biggest give away is THERE WAS NO NASA IN 1902

Just asking, just checking..... *click* brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


And that ladies and gentleman, is what reading a typical HB post is like




posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
Hi, In JW's video it is proposed the astronauts were loaded into a command module and dropped into the ocean out the back of a plane.


starts at 9.10

Considering the Apollo 17 crew were supposedly in space for about 2 weeks, don't you think their arms would look a little less tanned?


This photo was taken during the recovery dinner on board the U.S.S. Ticonderoga.

This could add to the theory that the capsule was dropped into the ocean by a plane and that they might not have even been in low earth orbit.

source: history.nasa.gov...



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Rock&Roll





I would like to explore further the lunar rocks and dust samples
that NASA said were collected by 6 teams of two individuals on various
areas on the surface of the moon some 40 years ago.
40 years ago.
4 decades.
Going on half a century.


The Apollo specimens are America's Crown Jewels and are doled out in ultra-small samples to scientists who can demonstrate that nothing else will do for high-value experiments.


Though I wonder if the prices were slashed once:


it was realized that impact events on the lunar surface eject material into space that falls to Earth as meteorites. Dozens of lunar meteorites have now been found. These are essentially free planetary samples, because nature has delivered them to Earth, without the cost of a spacecraft mission... These are invaluable samples, because they represent a much broader region of the lunar surface. Indeed, they are launched from all areas of the Moon, including the far side of the Moon, which lies hidden from our view


Awwww... poor tax payers who paid billions into collecting rocks and sand when they could have gotten it cheaper right here at home

Could you imagine pitching Apollo to taxpayers if they knew there were moon rocks here on Earth? It would singlehandedly make a good portion of the Apollo mission irrelevant.


The Claim:


There are hundreds of pounds of moondust at the Lunar Sample Lab in Houston.


What? How much?


During the six Apollo surface excursions, 2,415 samples weighing 382 kg (842 lb) were collected, the majority by Apollo 15, 16, and 17.




So they brought back the proverbial 800 pound gorilla.

A typical sandbag weighs about 50 pounds.






Apollo 11 22 kilograms of material, including 50 rocks - 1 sandbag
Apollo 12 34 kilograms of samples, including 45 rocks - 1.5 sandbags
Apollo 14 42 kilograms of rocks and soil (almost 100 pounds) - 2 sandbags
Apollo 15 77 kilograms of samples, including 370 individual rock and soil samples - 3 sandbags
Apollo 16 96 kilograms of material, including 731 individual rock and soil samples (over 200 pounds) - 4 sandbags
Apollo 17 111 kilograms of material, including 741 individual rock and soil samples - about 5 sandbags!

Remember, its not like they had extra help on Apollo 15, 16 and 17 to collect and carry.
There were only two beings on the moon right?


Now think about that 800 pound gorrilla as we go through this:


The Collectors:




Houston asks Apollo 16 astronaut Charlie Duke to pick up a big moon rock. Duke later named it 'Big Muley'. The other astronaut, John Young, walks casually through the background on his way to the lunar rover.
Duke says the rock is the size of a football. Of course he means an American football. A Rugby football is much larger than this.Duke originally estimates the weight to be about 40lb. However, due to lunar gravity, he revises that to 20lb.




Nick-named "Big Muley," this 11.7 kg (25 pounds) Moon rock was the largest returned to Earth by Apollo astronauts. One side of Big Muley was peppered with meteoroid "zap pits."


So Duke originally estimates the rock at 40, then does his his 1/6th gravity conversion and estimates it at 20?
Why did he change his mind?




Jack Schmitt falls while trying to pick up a lunar collection kit.
In his defense, the lunar EVA suit was top heavy and it was quite difficult to bend down to pick something up from the ground.
(Imagine being inside of a puffed up balloon at 4psi and trying to move at all!)

And as you can see, collecting wasn't necessarily a piece of cake.


The Tools:




Tongs were used to pick up rock samples.



Oh dear..


Scoops were used to collect soil samples.





Rakes were used to collect small pebbles.





Hammers were used to break small chips off large rocks




Core tubes were used to obtain samples from below the Moon's surface. These tubes were either 2 or 4 centimeters in diameter and were pounded into the surface with a hammer. Such core tubes reached a maximum depth of about 70 centimeters, requiring about 50 hammer blows.




Toothpick legs

Did that astronaut's shadow just cut off?


Where is he going?


Where is he going?


To obtain material from greater depths, an electric drill was used on Apollos 15, 16, and 17.
This drill collected a core that was 2 centimeters in diameter and up to 3 meters deep






Yeah get rid of that worthless... ooops


The perfect set of tools for collecting

SMALL

samples of lunar rocks and regolith.



The Storage:
So where did they all put it?


Individual samples were stored in small sample bags.







Individual sample bags were collected into larger sample collection bags for transport back to the lunar module.
These large bags could be attached to an astronaut's backpack (as shown here) or to the lunar rover.




Oh my.... you wonder why he doesnt take that bag and just scoop in mounds of regolith with his gloves.

So ok... they umm.. put all these non weathered rocks into plastic bags they had to put them in something stronger I suppose.


For return to Earth, the samples were stowed in storage boxes




and


The gloved hand gives an indication of size. This box also contained the Solar Wind Composition experiment (not shown) and two core tubes for subsurface samples (not shown).


So these boxes weren't necessarily filled to the rim with sand and rocks.


Containers such as this one were made to store and transport moonrocks upon return to Earth. They were made of stainless steel which would not contaminate the precious specimens that they contained... and they were made strong, heavy, and secured, to keep the specimens from contaminating the Earth with possible alien pathogens.



I have no doubt "Big Muley" would fit right in there.




Dr. Grant Heikan examines lunar material in sieve from sample container



Ok... now your on the lunar surface, you just collected 100 pounds worth of lunar dust and rocks.
Divide that amongst your mate, your carrying 50 pounds. But luckily your on the moon, so it feels like 8.
However, its still bulky material to work with. So how do you get it into the Ascent stage of the LM?


The Transportation:

LM ascent stage-




In effect, the cabin was just barely big enough to hold two suited astronauts. When the LM crewmen were getting ready to go outside and had their suits pressurized and were wearing their backpacks, even turning in place required careful coordination.






The lunar samples were stored inside the ascent stage of the lunar module for the trip back to lunar orbit.
A conveyor system, shown here, was available but the astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder
.


Great so lets so those photo and videos of the astronauts climbing up the ladder into the LM while carrying all those samples.





Ok so now after storing all those samples into the LM, they would have to transfer it into the CM
Where did they put 100 to 200 pounds worth of lunar samples?
Basically a boxing bag worth of material.


CM:





Needless to say, space inside the cabin was extremely limited, especially when the astronauts were wearing their bulky spacesuits.




Apollo 16 Stowage Locations


B-5 & B-6 are the Rock boxes.

Thats only TWO rock boxes.
Which look about the size of a sandbag.



The Apollo Lunar Sample Return Container (ALSRC) was an aluminum box with a triple seal manufactured by the Nuclear Division of Union Carbide. It was used on Apollo lunar landing missions to preserve a lunar-like vacuum around the samples and protect them from the shock environment of the return flight to earth. An aluminum mesh liner helped absorb impacts. Prior to flight, each box was loaded with sample container bags and other sample containment devices. The "rock box" was then closed under vacuum so that it would not contain pressure greater than the lunar ambient pressure. On the moon, while samples were being loaded, the seals were protected by a Teflon film and a cloth cover which were removed just prior to closing the box.

Two ALSRC's were used on each mission.



Remember:
Apollo 15 77 kilograms of samples, including 370 individual rock and soil samples - 3 sandbags
Apollo 16 96 kilograms of material, including 731 individual rock and soil samples (over 200 pounds) - 4 sandbags
Apollo 17 111 kilograms of material, including 741 individual rock and soil samples - about 5 sandbags!


Sorry people, but the amount of samples returned is dubious at the least.
Remember, only very small amounts are ever offered to scientists or given out as gifts.



As far as I know, no indepedendent third party has had verified the entire amount.
Its like nobody knows how much gold there is in Fort Knox, or has done an audit on the Federal Reserve.
But what takes the cake is that the storage capabilities for all missions were the same, yet somehow
the amount stored and brought back went from 22 kilos to a staggering 111 kilos. Basically an extra body... body builder for the matter.

www.ehartwell.com...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
www.hq.nasa.gov...
science.nasa.gov...
www.lpi.usra.edu...
science.nasa.gov...
www.physorg.com...


edit on 16-10-2010 by FoosM because: labelling



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
....

I've clipped out the stuff that wasn't ignorant pointless drivel.

Apollo went to the Moon as advertised.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I'm not interested in your videos Foos, I'm interested in talking about Jarrah's fake video he made in his garage on the Moon with the Director of Glee where he pretends to talk to Buzz Aldrin who was in this case is clearly an animatronic replica created by the Jim Henson creature shop.
PROVE IT WASN'T FOOS.
It's CLEAR that in the video Jarrah has something to hide, also he looks pasty and pale yet claims to live in sunny Australia? I think not. He clearly lives on the MOON and beams back his videos on a NASA DSN backbone link, heavily encrypted of course to avoid detection.
All you have posted so far as 'evidence' of this chat is a video, which is clearly fake and a newspaper link which is clearly invalid as the media cannot be trusted.
Where is the evidence? I don't even believe Australia exists now you mention it, I've never seen it so where is the evidence? Sure I've seen videos and photos and stuff but they can be faked.
I think it's blatantly clear that Jarrah is actually the man in the Moon, the only reason he sends these videos out is to try and put people off going there to find out his secret. Prove me wrong, I dare you. Show me some evidence that I'm wrong. Bet you can't !



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by CHRLZ

Originally posted by FoosM
....

I've clipped out the stuff that wasn't ignorant pointless drivel.

Apollo went to the Moon as advertised.



Actually, from his post I can make a quantifiable observation:

The amount of time Foos runs away and hides from questions he cannot answer is directly proportional to the length and irrelevance of his next post.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



Considering the Apollo 17 crew were supposedly in space for about 2 weeks, don't you think their arms would look a little less tanned?


How terribly sad it is that you actually post something like this and think your intelligent for doing so. Now the only thing you can post is questions about the astronauts tan lines? :shk:

How pathetic of the Apollo Hoax community to resort to saying skin color should be different tones, obviously showing the the Apollo missions were hoaxed.

Seriously ppk55 skin color now? :shk:



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Foosm I have only this to remind you of in this thread, Its 220 pages and some 4500 posts. Everything you asked in your last post about Apollo I can surmise in one simple statement.

It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered. It has been answered.

The fact remains either you cannot read or your simple do not care, but never the less it has been answered more than once.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

Finally, you quote some numbers. Sadly, they are expressed in "sandbags," which seems to be a bit misleading. In order to get a better idea of the samples, let's use a different measurement: a "shoebox." The average shoebox will have a volume of about 6,750 cubic centimeters. (30x15x15 cm) Assuming that lunar rock has the same density as basalt, 3g/cm3, each "shoebox" can contain 20.25 kilograms of rock.

Using your own table:

Apollo 11, 22 kilograms = 1 shoebox
Apollo 12, 34 kilograms = 1.7 shoeboxes
Apollo 14, 42 kilograms = 2.1 shoeboxes
Apollo 15, 77 kilograms = 3.8 shoeboxes
Apollo 16, 96 kilograms = 4.74 shoeboxes
Apollo 17, 111 kilograms = 5.48 shoeboxes

Now tell me FoosM, do you think it might be possible to store six shoe boxes under an average sized bed? How about a "triple wide," as they would be stored in the CM?


However, its still bulky material to work with. So how do you get it into the Ascent stage of the LM?


Meet my little friend, the Lunar Equipment Conveyor:



This is how it works:



And since you like videos:


Almost forgot the reference!

edit on 16-10-2010 by DJW001 because: Edit to add link.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


By the way, since you yourself mention that each mission brought two ALSRCs, let's look at the specifications:



Dimensions:
Overall: 8 in. tall x 1 ft. 7 in. wide x 11 3/4 in. deep, 19.4 lb. (20.3 x 48.3 x 29.8cm, 8.8kg)


Somewhat larger than an actual shoe box. More like an overnight bag. You could easily stow it in the overhead luggage compartment of a commercial jet. What is the volume of each? 20.3x48.3x29.8 = 29,218 cm3. Multiply that by 3g/cm3 and you can see that each overnight bag can hold 87.654 kilograms of rock, for a potential total of 175.3 kilos per mission. Of course, they probably wasted a lot of space on baggies and aluminum tubes, which is why even Apollo 17 could only bring back 111 kilos. Seriously now, FoosM, do you see anything here that doesn't check out... perfectly?



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Seriously now, FoosM, do you see anything here that doesn't check out... perfectly?


Wait, is that a trick question???



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
i posted a while back about the radiation on the surface of the moon
and i think that people should think about that

and think about the amount of fuel

what some people will have you think is that
when we engaged in the translunar injection
from the rocketdyne J-2
rocket

we had the 2 minutes blast give us enough force to make it to the moon
you know
no gravity in deep space
anyway

and we had enough SPACE FOR THIS FUEL
and the computer(do you remember the size of computers in the 60's)
and the bulky spacemen

and we made it there
landed and went back up to the orbiter SIX TIMES
and then had enough fuel to make it home

out of the gravity on the moon which is one sixth that of the earth
and then make it back
enough fuel

the moon landings were such a crock of poo
they were the second best "reality" tv show of all time
911 being the other



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001


However, its still bulky material to work with. So how do you get it into the Ascent stage of the LM?


Meet my little friend, the Lunar Equipment Conveyor:



Ahhh... finally someone at least attempts to begin the discussion on this.
We can always count on DJ to at least make the effort.

The other usual suspects have just wasted their posts on off topic subjects.

and to get stars on posts like these:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

takes away the credibility of supporters for the "official" USGOV accounts of the Apollo moon landing.

Back to DJ's response:

The Conveyor
Congratulations, you found a video (might I add of very poor quality) showing Apollo astronauts using the conveyor. That one I missed to add in the tools section of my post.

However, what I was asking was Apollo astronauts climbing back up the LM with their materials in hand.
me:


Great so lets so those photo and videos of the astronauts climbing up the ladder into the LM while carrying all those samples.


They might exist, but I haven't seen them. In particular video, because photos can be easier faked.
And:


A conveyor system, shown here, was available

but

the astronauts generally found it easier to carry the rock boxes up the lunar module's ladder

Which brought me to that question in the first place.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 




we had the 2 minutes blast give us enough force to make it to the moon
you know
no gravity in deep space
anyway


HAHA no gravity in deep space my my my.


Maybe this is such things as the wrong questions or personal opinions.

Hey man, you need to get out some basic Astronomy books and re-read the gravity section then say that no gravity in deep space thing again, I bet you won't because your so wrong for saying that.

Shessh. No gravity in deep space I have heard it all in this thread now.

edit on 16-10-2010 by theability because: mistype



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Ahhh... finally someone at least attempts to begin the discussion on this.
We can always count on DJ to at least make the effort.


Give me a break Foosm we have tried to discuss things with you, but you refuse to listen, or even care for that matter.

All you are concerned about is being part of an ongoing fraud so that you can raise money for The Grandson of the Apollo Moon Hoax. BY means of lies and Fraud.....

BTW I bet some one calls you government and tell them about the scam to fraud people of money and they start investigating you guys over it. Sheesh who says they aren't already I mean fraud is still illegal.

I mean Buzz wasn't to happy with you pathetic pal JW and he's got a lot more pull in the world than you realize.

So again you haven't tried to discuss anything so stop acting like you do, its all an act and we can see right through it.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by Josephus23
 




we had the 2 minutes blast give us enough force to make it to the moon
you know
no gravity in deep space
anyway


HAHA no gravity in deep space my my my.


Maybe this is such things as the wrong questions or personal opinions.

Hey man, you need to get out some basic Astronomy books and re-read the gravity section the ask say that no gravity in deep space thing again, I bet you won't because your so wrong for saying that.

Shessh. No gravity in deep space I have heard it all in this thread now.


i think that maybe

you can't recognize sarcasm when you see it
the whole point of planting
my tongue in my cheek

when i talked about the gravity issue
in deep space

is to say that some sort of fuel would be needed
for a navigation system

so where did NASA put it all
edit on 10/16/2010 by Josephus23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Josephus23i posted a while back about the radiation on the surface of the moon
and i think that people should think about that

WHY? This has been covered in some detail. You brought it up again, like FoosM, with meaningless ignorant HANDWAVING. Answer these questions:
WHAT TYPE OF RADIATION?
HOW MUCH IS THERE?
HOW DANGEROUS IS IT?

Or admit you haven't the first clue on what you claim.


and think about the amount of fuel

Do your arms get tired when you wave them around continuously???
THE FUEL AMOUNTS AND FULL CALCULATIONS ARE READILY AVAILABLE. By ignoring them and posting more garbage, you are misleading this forum and showing complete ignorance of the topic.

Do SOME FREAKING RESEARCH instead of proving you are at the same level as foo and ppk.


what some people will have you think is that
when we engaged in the translunar injection
from the rocketdyne J-2
rocket

But YOU are the one who brought this up - no-one WHO UNDERSTANDS BASIC ORBITAL PHYSICS has a problem with the TLI's, how they are documented, and how much fuel was used.


we had the 2 minutes blast give us enough force to make it to the moon

MORE HANDWAVING, Henny Penny? Give us your corrected calculations, or just keep this IGNORANCE out of the thread.


you know
no gravity in deep space
anyway

As pointed out, where was your smiley for this 'joke'? You can't turn around afterwards and say you knew there was gravity and this was tongue in cheek, after your complete ignorance is exposed.

It is particularly damning that these numbers are readily available, there are even simple simulators that allow you to plug in those numbers and run your own simulation so you can better understand how it all works. That process, Josephus, is called 'learning' - perhaps it is something you should investigate.


and we had enough SPACE FOR THIS FUEL

WHEN you provide your calculations for how much fuel is required, and how much space it would take up, we can compare that to the published figures.

So, I CHALLENGE YOU. DO THAT. Calculate the fuel required for the manoeuvres, and then give us your figures.

IF YOU CAN'T DO THAT, YOU ADMIT IGNORANCE and the WORST FORM OF HANDWAVING. Deliberately attempting to mislead the forum. SHAME ON YOU.


and the computer(do you remember the size of computers in the 60's) and the bulky spacemen

Does the handwaving ignorance ever stop??? The 'computer's specifications are readily available. You can build one for yourself, and see exactly how big it is, and then you can run every single calculation that was used during the Apollo mission, and understand how the more complex calculations were done by Nasa - it's all documented and verifiable. But it also has to be said, that orbital calculations are not that difficult - yes, they are well beyond Josephus, foos and ppk, but that is a given. The astronauts could have done the work manually, and had contingency plans for exactly that..


and we made it there
landed and went back up to the orbiter SIX TIMES
and then had enough fuel to make it home

I'm sorry, in which mission did they return to the orbiter six times? If that's not what you meant, why bring it up, other than to emphasise the fact that they were using excellent, reliable equipment.


out of the gravity on the moon which is one sixth that of the earth

Yes, and that means you need less fuel for the ascent/descent. Do include that in your calculations when you come on back...


Now, because I am SICK TO DEATH of the trolling, the handwaving, the ignorance and lack of research done by posters such as this, I am not providing (repeating) any links (many of which can be found on this thread) to help the incompetent (or deliberate troll) to prove their claims.

I'm happy to be challenged to provide them, but... AFTER I PROVIDE THEM, I SHALL BE POINTING OUT THAT THE PERSON WHO ASKS FOR THEM IS CLEARLY COMPLETELY UNABLE TO DO EVEN THE MOST BASIC RESEARCH, and is therefore:
- lacking in competence to make claims
- deliberately misleading the forum
- trolling
or a combination of the above.



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by CHRLZ
 


No rocket will reach the moon save by a miraculous discovery of an explosive far more energetic than any known. And even if the requisite fuel were produced, it would still have to be shown that the rocket machine would operate at 459 degrees below zero—the temperature of interplanetary space.

— Nikola Tesla, November 1928.

link

Landing and moving around the moon offers so many serious problems for human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them.

— Science Digest, August 1948.

link

With our present knowledge, we can respond to the challenge of stellar space flight solely with intellectual concepts and purely hypothetical analysis. Hardware solutions are still entirely beyond our reach and far, far away.

— Wernher von Braun, 'Can We Ever Go to the Stars?' Popular Science magazine, July 1963.

link

The odds are now that the United States will not be able to honour the 1970 manned-lunar-landing data set by Mr. Kennedy.

— New Scientist, 30 April 1964.

link

I picked these quotes specifically from a webpage that purports that we went to the moon

It seems funny to me that we accomplished this feet some 40 plus years ago

But even right up to the launch no one thought that it could be done

And for some reason we go a very few times

Do some great PR

that includes giving a dutch museum a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock

And then we never go back

And neither does another country with our 1960's tech

I think that it was Cicero who said something like
He who employs emotion is unable to employ reason



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Josephus23
 


No rocket will reach the moon save by a miraculous discovery of an explosive far more energetic than any known. And even if the requisite fuel were produced, it would still have to be shown that the rocket machine would operate at 459 degrees below zero—the temperature of interplanetary space.

— Nikola Tesla, November 1928.


So you are as uneducated as you portray yourself to be. First the comment about no gravity then quoting someone from 1928 saying that traveling to the moon is impossible.
Your kidding me right?

BTW black body radiation level for this area of space, 93 million miles from the sun, space is not at absolute zero. Its +250f in sunlight and -200f in Shadow. Might want to invest in that astronomy book like I had said.


Landing and moving around the moon offers so many serious problems for human beings that it may take science another 200 years to lick them.

— Science Digest, August 1948.


I have something for you to think about its call invention.

With our present knowledge, we can respond to the challenge of stellar space flight solely with intellectual concepts and purely hypothetical analysis. Hardware solutions are still entirely beyond our reach and far, far away.

— Wernher von Braun, 'Can We Ever Go to the Stars?' Popular Science magazine, July 1963.


Again the word invention comes to mind....

The odds are now that the United States will not be able to honour the 1970 manned-lunar-landing data set by Mr. Kennedy.

— New Scientist, 30 April 1964.


Do you have a point yet?


I picked these quotes specifically from a webpage that purports that we went to the moon

It seems funny to me that we accomplished this feet some 40 plus years ago

But even right up to the launch no one thought that it could be done

And for some reason we go a very few times

Do some great PR

that includes giving a dutch museum a piece of petrified wood as a moon rock


The stupid dutch rock HOAX again, :shk:
This has been covered like everything else in the thread if you would have read it, which you haven't.

The Apollo Astronauts NEVER EVER GAVE ROCKS AWAY DURING THE MISSIONS.

I am sick of trolls coming in here to claim they have something new to add to the Hoax discussion, READ THE DARN THREAD FIRST!



posted on Oct, 16 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by theability
 


your emotion clouds your judgment

i notice how you conveniently overlooked my statement about sarcasm
and deep space gravity

as i said

several prominent scientists said that moon travel was impossible right up to when we did it

and now we haven't gone back
and neither has anyone else
with our 1960's tech

what were you saying about innovation or invention or something

i guess that is only reserved for america

USA!USA!USA!USA!

you forgot my best quote by cicero
"those who employ emotion lack the ability to reason"

i would ask you to please stop the ad hominem attacks
they only show your desperation



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 216  217  218    220  221  222 >>

log in

join