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: 573
377
<< 570  571  572    574  575  576 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
It was only 7 years from JFK's moon speech to the alleged Apollo 8 moon orbit with 3 astronauts.
Building and testing this "new" rocket will take twice as long.


NASA of the 60's was strongly focused on the Apollo program with a lot of its budget going towards it. NASA today has a smaller budget and it gets divided up between a lot of other projects and missions. Only a portion of NASA's budget is spent on the new rocket and capsule per year, so the development of the new hardware has to be spread out over many more years.


NASA today?
What about NASA in the mid to late 70's? 80's? 90's? Last 10 years?
All that time and we got wimpy probes and expensive shuttles.


yes.. and NOT one Lunar ROVER .. which wouldn't cost NEARLY as much as the Mars Rover did..

but........that would be to logical...and less expensive LOL


cuz' one Lurnar Rover .. would answer the questions ......ALL of them..but then .. meh .. NASA just air bush it all in ..




posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Would answer all questions? Questions by who? I don't see anyone of significance claiming that there has been foul play. Just cause some loons cry in the webs how saturn is occupied by flying green unicorns does not a new mission make.


jra

posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komodo
cuz' one Lurnar Rover .. would answer the questions ......ALL of them..but then .. meh .. NASA just air bush it all in ..


So you whine about NASA not sending robotic Lunar rovers to the Moon, because they would be all the proof you need. Then you do a 180 and claim that it would be all fake anyway. And all in the same sentence.

So basically what you're trying to say is that nothing will ever convince you. No matter what NASA does.



posted on Sep, 16 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   



The Vinny Eastwood Show - September 13 2011 with Jarrah White. PART 1
From: WhiteJarrah | Sep 15, 2011
An interview I gave a few days ago. And before anyone asks: yes, we discussed the recent LRO photographs.

Original download ink: www.americanfreedomradio.com...



JW sometimes gets so wrapped up in explaining the facts of the moon hoax, he misses when the host makes jokes. LOL. In the end the host does seem to be convinced that the moon landing was faked.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


The Vinny Eastwood Show - September 13 2011 with Jarrah White. PART 1
From: WhiteJarrah | Sep 15, 2011
An interview I gave a few days ago. And before anyone asks: yes, we discussed the recent LRO photographs.

Original download ink: www.americanfreedomradio.com...



JW sometimes gets so wrapped up in explaining the facts of the moon hoax, he misses when the host makes jokes. LOL. In the end the host does seem to be convinced that the moon landing was faked.




Great Interview with Jarrah White.
The host knows his stuff as well.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

IF it is in fact true that the United States is making no-fly zones above the Apollo sites, wouldn't there be a jurisdiction problem?

What about the Outer Space Treaty?

I'm sure there's a thread on here...

Moon To Have No-fly Zones By Month End
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17/9/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: added link to thread



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by FoosM
 

IF it is in fact true that the United States is making no-fly zones above the Apollo sites, wouldn't there be a jurisdiction problem?

What about the Outer Space Treaty?

I'm sure there's a thread on here...

Moon To Have No-fly Zones By Month End
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17/9/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: added link to thread


Either there is war going on the moon (what I normally attribute to "no fly zones"), NASA has something to hide (moon cities or apollo artifacts that dont exist), or its the beginning of breaking the Outer Space Treaty because the US is in the process of militarizing outer space.

The point is, the announcement of "no fly zones" (for one seems to be a bit premature) raises suspicions. Because it cant be enforced, and the US has no right to even to enforce such a directive if it tried.

Think about its, its akin to saying we cant go visit the locations, or camps, where the South Pole, North Pole, Mt Everest explorers trail-blazed. Thats LUNAcy.



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Either there is war going on the moon (what I normally attribute to "no fly zones"), NASA has something to hide (moon cities or apollo artifacts that dont exist), or its the beginning of breaking the Outer Space Treaty because the US is in the process of militarizing outer space.


What is your source for the phrase "no fly zone?" You have just built a huge argument around it, don't you think you should do a bit due diligence first?


jra

posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ConspiracyNut23
 


They're not really "no-fly zones". NASA is simply requesting that future explorers keep a distance from some of the landing sites. 75 meters away from Apollo 11 and 200 meters from Apollo 17. The sites for Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 will not have these buffer zones, although they would like their not to be any physical contact with the left over hardware. But future rovers will be able to go right up to them.

Again, this is a request by NASA, it isn't being made into a law.

www.nasaspaceflight.com...
edit on 17-9-2011 by jra because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2011 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Pretty sure I read that the US has requested a minimum height above the sites for fly overs..

That does amount to a no fly zone..

Though it's all nothing but a request from the US, not law..



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by backinblack
 



We can't call it a "no fly zone" but we can call it a "Keepout Zone"



“The approach path for the Descent/Landing (D/L) trajectory should be tangential to the D/L boundary in order to protect the site from off-nominal descent/landing situations,” the document noted. “The visiting vehicle should ensure no overflight of the heritage sites.”

The recommendations add additional emphasis for the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites, making reference to a “Keepout Zone”.

“While all the Apollo sites represent significant historical/heritage value in the material culture, the Apollo 11 and 17 landing sites carry special significance,” added the presentation.

“It is recommended that the sites for Apollo 11 and 17 be treated as unique by prohibiting visits to any part of the site (and) that all vehicles remain beyond the boundaries of the entire site.

“It is recommended that the entire site at Apollo 11 and 17 be restricted from close inspection by visiting robotic systems. The visiting vehicle mobility exclusion boundary will encompass all artifacts (hardware, footprints, etc) for this site.”

The exclusion zone for Apollo 11′s site will result in a keep-out zone of 75 meters from the lunar module descent stage, where as the zone will extend 200-225 meters from the Apollo 17 site.

However, for the Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16 sites, more access should be provided to individual components and artifacts, NASA added, allowing for future robotic missions to get within touching distance of Apollo hardware – as much as they won’t be allowed physical contact. Source nasaspaceflight.com www.nasaspaceflight.com...

edit on 9/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Since you admit that NASA wants to preserve the sites from damage by future missions, I will construe this as an admission that a) the sites exist and b) travel to the Moon is possible. Way to lose an argument. Sayonara, Sayonara.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Since you admit that NASA wants to preserve the sites from damage by future missions, I will construe this as an admission that a) the sites exist and b) travel to the Moon is possible. Way to lose an argument. Sayonara, Sayonara.



Not really, to me its a red herring, or it shows that only a small department of NASA know the true facts of Apollo.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Since you admit that NASA wants to preserve the sites from damage by future missions, I will construe this as an admission that a) the sites exist and b) travel to the Moon is possible. Way to lose an argument. Sayonara, Sayonara.



This material comes from nasaspaceflight.com not NASA.
It seems that nasaspaceflight.com requires a paid membership to "L2" in order to access the NASA presentation.

Why should I have to pay a non-NASA website to see a NASA presentation?

Where is the official NASA link to this NASA presentation?




The images also arrived shortly after an expansive internal NASA presentation – available on L2 - was debated at a NASA Staff Senior meeting in August, which discussed the protection of the heritage sites from future landers and robotic vehicles.

Such new arrivals in the near future include private robotic landers, such as those competing for the Google Lunar X PRIZE (GLXP) – as heavily referenced in the associated NASA presentation.

The GLXP has a prize fund of $30 million available to the first privately funded teams to safely land a robot on the surface of the Moon, have that robot travel 500 meters over the lunar surface, and send video, images and data back to the Earth.

There are currently 29 teams working on winning the GLXP, with $20 million on offer for the winner. The targeted landing sites for these teams are located all around the lunar surface.

According to the NASA presentation there is scientific interest in robotic visits to the Apollo sites, allowing for the collection of data on items such as dust transportations, Micrometeorite bombardment rates, sandblasting effects, the survival of microbes and Lunar Weathering.

“To characterize the effects on engineered materials following four decades of exposure to the lunar environment,” the presentation noted on the latter scientific item of interest.

However, there is a concern relating to the possible mechanisms of damage to the aforementioned “scientifically interesting data” as NASA worded it.

...

(Images: Via the NASA Presentation – available in L2, NASA images via the LRO photo release. The lunar landing site map is originally available here: evadot.com...)

(As the shuttle fleet retire, NSF and L2 are providing full transition level coverage, available no where else on the internet, from Orion and SLS to ISS and COTS/CRS/CCDEV, to European and Russian vehicles.

(Click here to join L2: www.nasaspaceflight.com... )


Jump to the link to find...


What does it cost?
For just a small subscription rate – used solely to support this site’s costs – you can be involved with the inner workings of your favourite subject.

2 Month subscription $19.99
6 Month Subscription $49.99
Annual Subscription $89.99



edit on 9/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Since you admit that NASA wants to preserve the sites from damage by future missions, I will construe this as an admission that a) the sites exist and b) travel to the Moon is possible. Way to lose an argument. Sayonara, Sayonara.



Not really, to me its a red herring, or it shows that only a small department of NASA know the true facts of Apollo.


Agreed. Red herring.


Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance.



The item of significance here is the mythology of the Apollo Propaganda Program.
The top secret 'elements' within NASA & DoD have a top secret mission: to 'protect' the myth of Apollo... These same 'elements' know that their time is running out with the Apollo Myth.

These are most certainly the same 'elements' that scripted the Apollo TV shows between 1968-1972 and then destroyed ALL Apollo telemetry tapes... they also scripted the perfect lunar landings and perfect splashdowns. These are the 'elements' who covered up the original moon rock inventories by publishing revised moon rock inventories several years later after Apollo was finally finished.

These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...


Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"


Apparently last August, NASA gave an internal presentation which was videotaped by a private commercial website known as nasaspaceflight.com which requires a paid subscription to access the presentation.
Source www.nasaspaceflight.com...



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
What are some of the dangers that could happen while flying a spaceship or while on the Moon?

Harlen Spence, principle CRaTER investigator mentions only one thing :

R A D I A T I O N




edit on 9/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Here is another report, this one not from August, but from July 2011, which provides further details of the NASA Keepout Zone.

www.parabolicarc.com...


NASA Drawing Up Guidelines to Protect Historic Lunar Sites
Posted by Doug Messier on July 21, 2011, at 4:17 pm

Some interesting news coming out of the NASA Lunar Science Forum today.

NASA officials are creating the first set of guidelines designed to protect historic sites on the moon, including the Apollo landing areas and the Surveyor landers.

The guidelines are designed to help preserve and protect sites as new rovers begin to explore the lunar surface. Officials said they expect Google Lunar X Prize team competitors to begin landing vehicles beginning in 2013.

Officials want to protect the historical artifacts from dust, debris and damage that visiting rovers might produce. They are also eager to use the capabilities of the rovers to study how the lunar environment has affected vehicles and equipment on the surface.

My notes follow after the break.


Guidelines Cover 3 Categories

Human missions — Apollo (6)
Unmanned landing sites (Surveyor)
Impact/crash sites (Saturn IVB boosters, Ranger spacecraft)
Specifics

Guidelines only focused on U.S. government assets on the moon
Only technical recommendations – no legal requirements
U.S. government legally owns all this flight hardware
A living document – plan to amend as they get more information about the sites and as rover capabilities evolve
Briefed the 28 Google Lunar X Prize teams during the recent team summit in Mountain View — awaiting feedback from the teams
Will incorporate feedback, finalize rules and announce the rules during a future press conference in Washington, DC
Guidelines Cover 3 Areas

Descent and landing
Mobility
Contamination
No-Fly Zones

Heritage Lander Sites (Apollo, Surveyor): no flights within 2 km radial distance
Impact/Crash Sites (Saturn IV-B, Ranger): no flights within 0.5 km radial distance
Each lunar spacecraft should have an onboard reference system to identify the physical location relative to boundaries.
No overflight associated with landing….trajectory should be tangential to the D/L boundary
Designed to protect vehicles from dust being kicked up and possible failures of landers
Landings should be targeted to no less than 2 km away
Puts the lander over the horizon to keep the descent out of the line of sight from the historic site
Deorbit braking stages should be targeted for impact points 2.0 km from landing sites and .5 km from crash/impact sites
No physical contacts with any U.S. lunar hardware
Apollo Sites

Apollo 11 and 17

Recommend that Apollos 11 and 17 are treated as unique with no visits
Apollo 11 – 75 radial meters away from descent stage
Apollo 17 – 225 radial meters away from descent stage
Protects all human activities at those sites
Apollo 12, 14, 15 and 16

Open for scientific investigation
Must stay 1 meter and 3 meters away from objects (depending upon type)
No restrictions on footprints and lunar rover tracks outside of specified areas
Laser ranging retro-reflectors (LRRRs) need to be carefully preserved because they are still being used for experiments today
Crash/Impact Sites

Surveyor – 1 meter buffer zone
Apollo 14 S-IVB – rovers can drive to rim of crater and observe. Entry into crater needs to be coordinated with NASA.
Rovers and Hoppers

Rovers – can drive within designated Apollo sites and around keep-out zones
Can’t stay overnight – if the rover dies, should be outside the exclusion zone
Landers of the hopper configuration are not allowed to land within the 2 km radius
Hoppers can do low altitude tangential flybys of lunar heritage sites.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
link   
NASA's Lunar Science Forum July 19-21 agendas included: lunarscience2011.arc.nasa.gov...

The Lunar Occultation Observer (LOCO) - A New Paradigm in Nuclear Astrophysics
The Dark Ages Radio Explorer (DARE): Theoretical Motivation
The Lunar Atmosphere: Recent Observations and Prospects for Future Missions
Robotic Anchored Lunar Deployment of the Lunar Laser Ranging Retroreflector for the 21st Century
The Enigma of Lunar Dust Transport

We will review the highly contrasting points of view regarding the ability of fine dust grains to become transported in the lunar environment. While Surveyor and Apollo camera images suggest the presence of a horizon glow that has been provocatively interpreted as levitated and/or lofted dust, there is contrasting geological evidence to indicate that surface regolith has not been moved in a substantial way.


And it looks like Brian O'Brien is still studying his Apollo moon dust collectors. Updated Review of Apollo Dust Measurements on the Moon - Brian O'Brien presents his "noise bits" hypothesis.



This review updates analyses of 3 Apollo experiments which measured dust on the lunar surface. Digital data update findings from Dust Detector Experiments (DDEs) on Apollo 11, 12, 14 and 15 of lunar dust movements caused by natural phenomena and by Lunar Module (LM) rocket exhausts and astronauts splashing dust onto experiments. Little-known Thermal Degradation Samples (TDS) experiment of Apollo 14 gives photographic proof of cohesive forces of lunar dust, but we apply the caveat that the experiment was contaminated, being inside the aura of outgassing of Alan Shepard’s spacesuit. Source lunarscience2011.arc.nasa.gov...




edit on 9/18/2011 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)


jra

posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...


Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"


If the Apollo sites don't really exist and they want to keep future explorers away, then why are the "Keepout zones" only for Apollo 11 and 17? And not for Apollo's 12 - 16? Why are the zones so small (75m for A11 and 200m for A17)? Any future rover (be it private or from another country) will still be able to see the hardware from those distances. Or be able to drive right up to them for the A12 - 16 sites.


Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
What are some of the dangers that could happen while flying a spaceship or while on the Moon?

Harlen Spence, principle CRaTER investigator mentions only one thing : R A D I A T I O N


Yes, radiation is a danger, but not a show stopper.



posted on Sep, 18 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
These are the 'elements' who would want to protect the mythological Apollo lunar landing sites because these landing sites don't really exist ... they are more likely to be crashed probe sites ...


Hence the terminology "Keepout Zone"



You are actually claiming that Nasa crashed probes that look precisely the same as we see in apollo photos and videos? Tell me how this magical probe then makes the footpaths, leaves the rover at exact place, plants a flag etc.? I really really wanna know this.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 570  571  572    574  575  576 >>

log in

join