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: 511
377
<< 508  509  510    512  513  514 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


that would depend on the composition of the regolith it was hovering over wouldnt it ?




posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

I don't see how the two things you listed would help to keep the craft more stable.


You don't think being in zero atmosphere would allow the craft to move about more??

Atmospheric pressure IMO would hold the craft more steady, why do you think it wouldn't??


Stick your arm out and wave it about. How much did the air "steady" it (resist the motion of the "wobble") ? Now stick your hand out the car window at 60 mph (or perhaps ~100 kph in your case). Feel much resistance now ?

For slow speed motions, like the wobbling of a descent craft, the air provides very little resistance. Increase the speed, or the density of the fluid (compare water to air), and the picture changes. But that isn't the case for the craft being discussed.

What is important is the moment of inertia and how far "off center" the forces correcting the attitude are. For the later, think about how little force is needed to turn a stubborn nut when the lever arm is long.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   

One Camera, two camera, three camera, four.... How many cameras were left on the lunar floor?



Some long time followers of this thread might remember that I made a post asking the question... 'How many Hasselblad cameras that were used on the moon were returned back to Earth?'

www.abovetopsecret.com...
&
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Most people have believe that all the cameras were left on the Moon, as a matter of fact, so does Hasselblad. Well I revealed that contrary to popular belief, there was a Hasselblad camera returned to Earth.

www.thomasoneil.com...
Kansas Cosmosphere 2005: Hasselblad camera used on the lunar surface during Apollo 14, Kansas Cosmosphere, Hutchinson. [#874]

Now guess what?

NASA sues astronaut over Apollo 14 camera



Now wait-a-minute! I thought this camera was in the Museum?
Whats NASA talking about?? Do they read ATS and this thread?


Donald Jacobson, Mitchell's lawyer, told Reuters: "Objects from the lunar trips to the moon were ultimately mounted and then presented to the astronauts as a gift after they had helped NASA on a mission."
However, NASA is saying that as it has no written record of the transfer of ownership, it should have it back.

But but its here!
www.thomasoneil.com...

Isnt it? Or did Mitchell bring back a second camera?


Indeed, the Palm Beach Post says the government is being remarkably insistent in its filing. It quotes the papers as saying: "Defendant Edgar Mitchell is a former NASA employee who is exercising improper dominion and control over a NASA Data Acquisition Camera."


A FILM camera, as in making movies, was brought back too!? What!?




6-millimeter Maurer Data Acquisition Camera (DAC). Apollo 14 carried three Maurer Data Acquisition Cameras (DAC), one in the CM and two in the LM. The cameras were used for recording engineering data, continuous-sequence terrain photography, and lunar surface photography. The CM camera had lenses of 5-millimeter, 10-millimeter, 18-millimeter, and 75-millimeter focal lengths. One of the LM cameras was fitted with a 10-millimeter wide-angle lens, and one contained a battery power pack using a 5-millimeter lens. Accessories included a right-angled mirror, a power cable, a sextant adapter, and a CM boresight window bracket. The Mauer cameras weighed 2.8 pounds each, with a 140-foot film magazine attached. They had frame rates of 1, 6, and 12 frames per second automatic and 24 frames per second semiautomatic at all lens focal lengths, and shutter speeds of 1/60, 1/125, 1/500, and 1/1000 seconds, also at all lens focal lengths.



The camera was expected to fetch somewhere between $60,000 to $80,000, which doesn't seem a vast enough amount for NASA to toss a conniption.
Still, it is now up to a Miami court to suddenly decide who enjoys rightful ownership.


You would think these astronauts would want to leave this stuff behind for their grandkids and not just sell it all off and make a quick buck. I mean, dont they have some personal attachment to them?


Mitchell himself told the Palm Beach Post that astronauts took dozens of items with them after a mission. He said the lunar module that he piloted was actually blown up, once it returned to Houston. He believes that the camera and other items in his possession--like a hand controller--are nothing more than "government junk."


He means that fantastic technology that took him to the "moon"
And what does he mean they 'blew-up' the LM... I thought it crashed?
Wait... once it returned to Houston?


He did admit to the Post that NASA had, in the past, asked for the camera back. He believed the matter had been laid to rest.

To the untrained, non-legal eye, this case might seem a little mean-spirited. Mitchell served his nation in an honorable manner. Why turn around after 40 years and claim he stole a camera?

Might it be something to do with the fact that Mitchell has expressed views that some regard as eccentric, such as claiming that aliens have better technology than humans?




WHAT!??


And there are those of us, and I include astronaut Dr. Edgar Mitchell amongst our august number, who can attest than humans are, in psychological and technological terms, worms.


But, but Apollo??


Dr. Mitchell, who was possessed of the gumption to set foot on Apollo 14 after the disaster of the previous mission, had the even greater gumption to reveal the truth about alien life to Kerrang Radio this week.
But he was swift to announce that presence by announcing that aliens are "little people who look strange to us."



The terrible, or perhaps great, news for techies is that Dr. Mitchell also revealed that our technology, and I believe he was including both Google and Facebook in this, is "not nearly as sophisticated" as that of aliens.



He added that the relief for all of us stuck here on this round, water-dominated wasteland is that aliens are generally a peaceable bunch, not the sort to invade foreign lands, mutilate the inhabitants and take advantage of their natural resources. Like Dan Rather, Kim Kardashian and Starbucks.

Strangely, Dr. Mitchell also claimed that governments over the last 60 years had covered up the aliens' visitations and their obvious technological superiority.


So the US government can keep secrets for a long time? He just officially outed them after 60 years?
2011 - 60 = 1951 was that around the time of Roswell?


But not before he himself was "privileged enough to be in on the fact that we've been visited on this planet and the UFO phenomena is real".

"I've been in military and intelligence circles, who know that beneath the surface of what has been public knowledge, yes, we have been visited," he told Nick Margerrison, the Kerrang presenter.




Is he cracking? Or smoking it?

news.cnet.com...



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
No one has said NASA couldn't get equipment to the moon, just man..


Sorry for going back a few pages but I'm curious. Is the above an admission that NASA did put equipment on the Moon back in the Apollo timeframe ? And if so, why would it have been impossible to do manned landings ? Or if not impossible, why would NASA have decided not to send people when they had the capability ?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



He means that fantastic technology that took him to the "moon"
And what does he mean they 'blew-up' the LM... I thought it crashed?
Wait... once it returned to Houston?


FoosM, you really need to start checking primary sources instead of relying on secondary ones. This is what the original article says:


Had they not brought them back, they would have been destroyed, he said. After astronauts climbed back into the command module for the roughly 250,000-mile trip home, engineers in Houston blew up the lunar module, he said.

Palm Beach Post

It also says:


Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean, who was also a commander of Skylab 3 in 1973, said the rules changed, perhaps after Mitchell retired in 1972.

At some point, he estimated about 35 years ago, he and others were ordered to return anything they got in connection with their NASA duties. He recalled that he was forced to return a dagger and his wife to hand over a bracelet they received as gifts in Morocco when he and other astronauts took part in a worldwide goodwill tour.

"I gave all of my stuff back," he said. "I didn't have anything as good as a camera."


And concludes:

"It's just a tempest in a teapot," he said.


I agree.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   


So DJ, do you agree with this famous astronaut. A person whose testimony to landing on the moon you agree with, that the US government is aware of alien visitation?



Strangely, Dr. Mitchell also claimed that governments over the last 60 years had covered up the aliens' visitations and their obvious technological superiority.





Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



He means that fantastic technology that took him to the "moon"
And what does he mean they 'blew-up' the LM... I thought it crashed?
Wait... once it returned to Houston?


FoosM, you really need to start checking primary sources instead of relying on secondary ones. This is what the original article says:


Had they not brought them back, they would have been destroyed, he said. After astronauts climbed back into the command module for the roughly 250,000-mile trip home, engineers in Houston blew up the lunar module, he said.

Palm Beach Post


Now DJ, how did the engineers at NASA blow up the LM? Where there explosives onboard?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Originally posted by backinblack
No one has said NASA couldn't get equipment to the moon, just man..


Sorry for going back a few pages but I'm curious. Is the above an admission that NASA did put equipment on the Moon back in the Apollo timeframe ? And if so, why would it have been impossible to do manned landings ? Or if not impossible, why would NASA have decided not to send people when they had the capability ?



Well we've seen a few pics that appear to have a few pixels of something on them so maybe equipment got there..

Not sure why you even ask the difference between manned v's unmanned missions..
Machines can function in vastly more hostile conditions than man..



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



So DJ, do you agree with this famous astronaut. A person whose testimony to landing on the moon you agree with, that the US government is aware of alien visitation?


Not particularly. I can honestly say I don't share his opinion


Now DJ, how did the engineers at NASA blow up the LM? Where there explosives onboard?


Obviously, the reporter is misquoting what Mitchell actually said.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Obviously, the reporter is misquoting what Mitchell actually said.


true, the report I read said he said they blew it when they got back to earth..



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
All the Command modules are accounted for, NONE have been "blown up."

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

All of the Apollo Lunar Modules, (LM's) were purposely crashed into the moon for seismic experimental reasons.

Phil



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



So DJ, do you agree with this famous astronaut. A person whose testimony to landing on the moon you agree with, that the US government is aware of alien visitation?


Not particularly. I can honestly say I don't share his opinion


Its not his opinion.





Now DJ, how did the engineers at NASA blow up the LM? Where there explosives onboard?


Obviously, the reporter is misquoting what Mitchell actually said.



So why did you use it as a factual statement?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philthy53
All the Command modules are accounted for, NONE have been "blown up."

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

All of the Apollo Lunar Modules, (LM's) were purposely crashed into the moon for seismic experimental reasons.

Phil


Well who are you going to believe, an astronaut's testimony or some document you found on the internet?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
I'm going to go where the actual, real evidence points. Which so happens to be the link I posted.

Phil



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Well we've seen a few pics that appear to have a few pixels of something on them so maybe equipment got there..

Not sure why you even ask the difference between manned v's unmanned missions..
Machines can function in vastly more hostile conditions than man..


Sure machines can but that doesn't mean man can't operate in the Moon's environment. I ask because I'm curious as to why it's so hard to believe that NASA can't put people on the Moon while at the same time believing that they could put equipment there. The former is an incremental step from the later, especially when you also consider that man can operate in the vacuum of space when properly equipped. It would seem to me that given spacecraft in LEO, spacewalks, and equipment on the Moon that it would be reasonable to believe in manned Moon landings ... short of some really, really, really good reason not to.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Philthy53
All the Command modules are accounted for, NONE have been "blown up."

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

All of the Apollo Lunar Modules, (LM's) were purposely crashed into the moon for seismic experimental reasons.

Phil


How can you account for something that doesnt exist? Whether the blew it up or crash landed it. Its gone.
But assuming you follow the line that it was crash landed on the moon. Has NASA ever released any photos of the crash sites as evidence?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacTheKnife

Well we've seen a few pics that appear to have a few pixels of something on them so maybe equipment got there..

Not sure why you even ask the difference between manned v's unmanned missions..
Machines can function in vastly more hostile conditions than man..


Sure machines can but that doesn't mean man can't operate in the Moon's environment. I ask because I'm curious as to why it's so hard to believe that NASA can't put people on the Moon while at the same time believing that they could put equipment there.


Well lets simplify this.
Can NASA put men on MARS or VENUS?
Both planets supposedly had probes sent to them as well.

What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Well lets simplify this.
Can NASA put men on MARS or VENUS?
Both planets supposedly had probes sent to them as well.

What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?


Mars.. yes, given time and $$s. Venus...no, not with known technology.

What's taking so long is the lack of any public support to spend the $$s needed to accomplish the mission.



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

How can you account for something that doesnt exist? Whether the blew it up or crash landed it. Its gone.


You "account for it" by saying "here's how we disposed of it", and by noting the results of the seismic experiments such as here - apollo 12 passive seismic experiment

Or do you mean somethign else by "account"?



But assuming you follow the line that it was crash landed on the moon. Has NASA ever released any photos of the crash sites as evidence?


why would they, and what do you think they would take such photos with??


And would you trust any photos from NASA anyway??



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 10:21 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


What is it that that you apparently think doesn't exist?

That actual real proof that, YES, the Apollo moon landings really, and truely happened? That the Apollo moon landings are, in fact, an real historical fact?

There are mountians of documents, miles of video, thousands of pictures. ALL, without a doubt, are proof of Apollo.

Or, is it that there are devious individuals that ply on ignorance and fear to foist off a conspiracy where none exsists?

What makes you think that any of Apollo is, or even could be faked? I've read this thread, there is nothing here that hasn't been debunked/explained for decades.

Phil



posted on Jul, 6 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Well lets simplify this.
Can NASA put men on MARS or VENUS?
Both planets supposedly had probes sent to them as well.

What in your opinion is taking so long for a Mars mission?


Yes, man could go to Mars, not to Veuns, the atmosphere is too hostile. Even robotic landers have lots of problems with Venus. The 800F+ tempertures on Venus have a lot to do with that.

There is no "supposdly," there have been landings on both planets. Viking was the first to soft land on Mars, a US lander. Venera 3 was a Soviet lander that crash landed in 1966. Venus's very high tempertures make exploring this planet very probmatic.

And finally, the major reason for no timeline for a manned mission to Mars is the same for everything else that's not done, that should be.

That would be money. There is a lack of money to get going to Mars.

These are all very basic facts.

Phil



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 508  509  510    512  513  514 >>

log in

join