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.

 

People, we went to the moon and you KNOW IT!

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer

Originally posted by Gliese581
the Americans landed, helped by the Grey. The small Moon module did not have the fuel and power to lift off the Moon, unless helped by futuristic tech, or unless the moon is not a solid body with expected gravity.


Here we go with this, again. What makes you think that the ascent stage of the Lunar Excursion Module didn't have sufficient thrust to return to lunar orbit? Would you, perchance, like to back that up with some math? I'll settle for a citation from a website, if you don't have the training to do the calculations.




Here is Bob Dean's extremely rich video presentation, with authentic Apollo 13 photos bought by the Japanese and released that way, showing clearly miles long alien ships traveling next to Apollo.


========================================


Sorry I am not specialist in the quotes techniques. Here follows my response to yours:

1.
Do you really believe that the small "Eagle" is anywhere near to the gigantic Saturn 5 rocket? Could you provide formulas please to prove Eagle had enough fuel to overcome Moon gravity, the official moon gravity?





2. Bob Dean and all the other insiders working for NSA, CIA, or former NASA, is indeed another big topic, that many of you guys prefer to sideline as nonexistent. sorry. Bob Dean shows authentic Apollo 13 photos bought by the Japanese. Have you ever watched that video in unbiased mood?
It is not a bad idea to browse the former NASA employee Hoagland's website - many more inconvenient truths you will find there.
enterprisemission.com...

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Gliese581]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Gliese581]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Gliese581]




posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Truth... your whole argument regarding the Germans is based on 1) rocket propulsion technology available at the time, and 2) visual evidence of afore-mentioned rocket launches.

Think bigger, dude.



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 03:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


I think its part of the sick joy some get in disbelieving something. We've all had it one way or another (at least most on ATS will have) - that feeling of smug superiority when you believe your opinion or stance on something is infallible.

For instance someone might say: "911 was awful, I can't believe those terrorists killed all those people"

To which some smug conspiracy theorist might reply: "You sheep! The government did 911 EVERYONE knows that."

This gives the conspiracy theorist a feeling of being smarter, more awakened, or just plain better than the so called "sheeple" even when their opinion isn't evidence based (more commonly based on BS peddled as evidence).

It has also become sort of trendy to believe the opposite of the mainstream and to distrust anything unless it is filtered through fringe sources. Many come to ATS for just this reason, wanting the MSM stories to be filtered through the open minds of ATS before digesting them (in many ways this can be a positive thing). This can also be seen in the extreme distrust of NASA and all mainstream science we see.

The evidence that we went to the moon is beyond reproach and any arguments by the hoaxers have been disproved time and time again - yet they continue to peddle their faith that it was a hoax with the same zealotry as religious believers.

So that we get situations like this:

Person number 1: "Its cool that we went to the moon but its been like forty years, we should have made it to mars by now."

Person number 2: "You honestly believe we went to the moon? You sheep! Even a five year old could tell it was a fake!"

A five year old, I've actually heard that statement before... a five year old, but not every scientific mind on the planet - probably because it takes the faith of a child to believe such utter bunk.



[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

[edit on 20-6-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Hello Moonies, here is a book well worth the read, 'the anti-gravity handbook, revised third edition' particularly from page 97 to page 108, seems, according to the book, that the moon is heavier than first thought, could be hollow, but with a heavy dense crust, and, as many people have said, where is the descent engine blast crater? for those who want a new angle on the moon landings, it really is worth a read.
the anti-gravity handbook revised third edition,
edited by David Hatcher Childress,
Adventures Unlimited Press,
One adventure place,
Kempton,
Illinois,
60946,
USA
ISBN1-931882-17-7



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


Sounds like someone is channeling John Lear (again)...

For the record, this is bunk:


according to the book, that the moon is heavier than first thought...



Perhaps this is the same source John Lear used when HE made the same (inept claims?? He argued entirely based on a (flawed) math calculation of what HE thought (or this book's authors thought) was the point during TLI flight where the CSM went from being mostly influenced by the pull of Earth's gravity, to becoming more into the Lunar 'gravity well" influence.

But, in any case...IF the Moon had "more mass", as claimed....THEN none of the subsequent Lunar spacecraft sent there would have been successful!!!

I mean, this is so blatantly obvious, even a fifth-grader should get it.



...could be hollow, but with a heavy dense crust...



"could" is a very imprecise word, eh? I "could" be the leader of the Solar System. However, (alas), I am not. A "hollow" planet is a logical fallacy...it is nonsense.

BUT, this bit, if it comes from the same book, shows that they (that books authors) really do NOT have the slightest clue about anything --- seems they're just re-hashing same old tired claims and assumptions, long shown to be incorrect.



...and, as many people have said, where is the descent engine blast crater?


IF you have to ask that question, and you cannot reason it out, through study and research, for yourself, then NOBODY is going to be able to help you.



... for those who want a new angle on the moon landings, it really is worth a read.


Yes, perhaps...as a comedy!!



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gliese581

Sorry I am not specialist in the quotes techniques. Here follows my response to yours:

1.
Do you really believe that the small "Eagle" is anywhere near to the gigantic Saturn 5 rocket? Could you provide formulas please to prove Eagle had enough fuel to overcome Moon gravity, the official moon gravity?






I'll try to help with the quotes.
The Eagle's engines didn't *have* to be anywhere near as powerful as the Saturn V's. This is a common misconception among folks who don't believe we could have gone to the moon. If you think carefully about the situations the two sets of engines faced, you'll see why the Eagle could have *much* less powerful engines.

The Saturn V's engines had to lift themselves, their fuel, the upper stages and their fuel, the Command / Service module, and the Lunar Excursion Module, and they had to do it against the 9.8m/sec/sec acceleration of Earth's gravity. That required a *staggering* amount of thrust (in excess of 7 million lbs), and *that* required five of the most powerful rocket motors ever built.

Compare that to the job the Eagle's thrusters had to perform. All they had to do was (in the case of the descent stage) provide enough delta-V to leave orbit and brake the descent, while carrying fuel, and the ascent stage. Not only is that several thousand tons less weight, and a much lower delta-V requirement, but it was working against 1/6 of Earth's gravity. The ascent stage engine could be (and was) smaller still, since it only had to lift the weight of the ascent stage (again, working against a much lower gravity than the Saturn V) into a much lower orbit.

If you want actual numbers, the LEM ascent stage tipped the scales at around 10,000 lbs, and the ascent stage engine generated about 3,500 lbs of thrust...which gave it roughly a 2:1 thrust to weight ratio in lunar gravity. Anything better than 1:1 would have been enough to allow a return to lunar orbit, and rendezvous with the Command / Service module for the return to Earth.

Quick and dirty source for numbers:
Lunar Excursion Module specs




2. Bob Dean and all the other insiders working for NSA, CIA, or former NASA, is indeed another big topic, that many of you guys prefer to sideline as nonexistent. sorry. Bob Dean shows authentic Apollo 13 photos bought by the Japanese. Have you ever watched that video in unbiased mood?
It is not a bad idea to browse the former NASA employee Hoagland's website - many more inconvenient truths you will find there.
enterprisemission.com...


My rather scathing comments about Mr. Dean's presentation don't represent bias, they represent the fact that anyone with an Earth-Shatteringly Important Message (tm) doesn't normally waste 1/3 of his total presentation with bovine excrement. If you want me (or anyone else who doesn't have all day to sit through a really bad speech) to discuss his remarkable photos, please, for the love of God and civil discourse, post a link to the photos, and / or give a synopsis of his points (assuming he has any).



As for the Enterprise Mission, I've been to the site, I've read the material, and frankly, it strikes me as a lot of selective data parsing. There are a lot of pretty pictures there showing how features line up in perfect, significant patterns...at least they do as long as we measure from the corners of some features, from the centers of other features, and simply ignore other features that don't fit the theory-of-the-day. If anything, I'd think that Hoagland's being a former NASA employee would *undermine* his credibility....after all, isn't it an article of faith that NASA and its employees are constitutionally unable to tell the truth?



posted on Jun, 20 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
We have had tens of thousands of true scientists figure out how to get to the moon. The Soviets had tens of thousands of true scientists who would have loved to have proven us false. They did not even try, because they recognized that we really did what we said we did.

We have had a "few" pseudo-scientists who, decades later, claim bizarre scientific facts that would only be available IF we HAD gone to the moon.

"The moon is heavier than we first thought." This conclusion could only be truly proven by scientific evidence developed by the very space program they claim did NOT do what they said they did.

THIS IS CRAZY!!!!!

I have had conversation with four of the men who walked on the moon, and two others, from Apollo 13, who circled the moon. I trust these men FAR MORE than any nut-cases that claim otherwise!

It amazes me that this conversation continues, in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 12:55 AM
link   
S&F

We went and we saw this there.

I just brought this to light in a thread here
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Overtime
 


AND keep in mind, it has been determined, by now, in your thread here, that you're touting, just what was actually seen in the images.

Equipment placed there, by the Astronauts, eariler in the EVA.


The film "For All Mankind" is not edited together in perfect chronological order...it includes footage from archive sources, from various missions, and jumps around between them, in between cuts.

This cause confusion, and miscomprehension, among those not well familiar with the various Apollo missions.

A bit of research will assist in providing people the tools to put the film in proper perspective, on a scene-by-scene basis.



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   
edit to edit my ignorance on the lunar landings



[edit on 22-6-2010 by woodwardjnr]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 



Like the cameras were already attached to the Lunar module, would be the most logical.


Yes...camera (one)...was mounted in a compartment on the descent module. A panel on the side was hinged, and was released by Armstrong to the open position. 'Buzz', inside, was in charge of pushing in the circuit breaker, then...and Mission Control verified the picture, and informed the crew...the rest is history.


For each lunar landing mission, a camera was also placed inside the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA) in Quad 4 of the Lunar Module (LM) Descent Stage, so it was capable of broadcasting the first steps of the astronauts as they climbed down the ladder of the LM at the start of the first moonwalk/EVA.


en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 22 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:08 PM
link   
One of the most important things is to recognize the truth for what it is. That way you can tell when something is NOT the truth. We developed amazing technologies, performed amazing deeds, and landed on the moon with six astronaut crews.

Disallowing the moon landing is as foolish as the whole 9/11 conspiracy business - and it is a business for the people who promote it full time. They are promoting a lie for the purpose of self-gain, which I find dispicable.

Even with the millions of eyewitnesses, including thousands of trained specialists in the police and firefighters, the whole claim of 9/11 being different from what the people of New York saw, and what the thousands of military personnel involved with events of that terrible day, claiming that the Government orchestrated the event does nothing but to support the enemies of this country.

Again, why do people buy into false rumors, when real conspiracies are all around us?



posted on Jun, 22 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 


After reading Hoaglands "Dark Mission' I believe the US did go.

BUT, it's what they found AND have kept darkly SECRET for all these years that P***es me off.

See my signature below...........nuff said



posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   
Ataboy, Aussie!

You actually understand what I'm talking about. There are so many REAL, important conspircacies, that most people on this site are having fun, but not really dealing with things that are actually important.

For those of us who are truly serious about these real conspiracies, we need to focus our attention, and I can guarantee people that by the end of this year, if we build a strong enough foundation of FACTS, we can be discussing some topics that will literally make the news reports around the world.

However, these aren't the kind of pieces of information you make public without first establishing a firm reputation, and a supportable basis of TRUTH beforehand!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I'm sure that the US went to the Moon, I'm guessing all that fake footage was made as a backup if anything went wrong and it has been very useful to NASA nowadays as a means of deflecting curiosity regarding WHAT THEY FOUND when they got there.
We're arguing over whether we landed there or not while the real secret, "what they found" is ignored or buried.
It seems that there were people already up there watching them land etc Just imagine the extraterrestrials watching in amazement as these primitives from Earth arrive in this TIN CAN.
It would have been a mixture of laughter and deep respect for the bravery and determination of these Earth people managing to get to the moon in a tin can with nothing more than a Commodore 64 computer as its nerve centre.
It's similar to our amazement at the Polynesians getting across the Pacific from South America on those rafts made of logs tied together with rope and huts of banana leaves perched on top, very brave men!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
I always say we went, but with better technology that they do not tell you people.

Also i think we went there before 69.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Truth1000
 

They went to the moon. 911 wasn't a terrorist attack it was a PLANNED DEMOLITION not by the government but by rogue compartments within the government assisted by outside intelligence people, that's what we all saw and what the trained firefighters saw so why attempt to use a truth, the moon landing, as support for a lie, the official 911 story. The two are totally unconnected.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Why don't they attach a tiny rocket motor to the International Space Station and send it on a nice slow cruise to the moon and back?

It's a 5 star hotel with 2 bathrooms and much more extravagant than the Apollo Capsules. It's already in orbit and does not require any heavy lift rocket.

Surely they could click on a tiny rocket and send it on a nice slow cruise to the moon and back to prove to the world that man can leave Lower Earth Orbit?

Imagine if we did fake the Apollo Missions. Can you imagine how many Trillions of dollars we would have to hand Japan, India, Russia, and China to keep quiet about it if their Lunar Satellites sent back photo's proving no American hardware is up there??

TRILLIONS upon TRILLIONS would be blackmailed from us. Maybe that's why Barry O' had to make the big trip to India and buy them off before they released their Lunar Photo's?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



Why don't they attach a tiny rocket motor to the International Space Station and send it on a nice slow cruise to the moon and back?


??????

Get out your slide rule, and pen and paper, and get right on the engineering design for that, why don'tcha??

What? Aren't qualified to design such a thing? Well, then you could start by researching the science of space flight, propulsion systems, orbital mechanics, trajectories, forces involved, accelerations, stresses on structures that undergo accelerations they weren't originally designed for, etc, etc.

Come back when you have all the answers, and drawings and technical specifics. Let's see, college-level and graduate-level type stuff to learn...see you in about 10 years.......



posted on Nov, 19 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
What about the pendulum test? It confirms we were there. Any hoaxers have to say something about that?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join