Caution: They know much more!!

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   



Give up?

See below.....














Catalog Date: 22 April 1969
Film Type: 35mm
NASA image: S69-32247




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Shai, first of all, you don't know anything about my age, background, career, or indeed any personal information about me. And on a forum such as this, anonymity is just the way I like it. Needless to say, my user name on here is certainly not my real name. Not all of us have egos that need to be constantly stroked by publishing long articles about our 'glorious' careers on personal websites.

Secondly, it is you and not me who is the one arguing from the perspective of the FOX TV Network, and its totally ludicrous documentary suggesting that the moon landings were faked. It is you that use the presposterous aulis.com and cosmicapollo sites (who are just there to sell books and videos to the naive) to provide 'evidence' for your claims.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the moon landings were faked. Your strange and usually incoherent obsession with the minutae of film types and alleged inconsistencies in the recollections of the astronauts is bizarre and pointless - even if all these things were true, they would still offer NO evidence that the moon landings were faked.

Regarding your picture of the rover and the dust, so what? Of course dust would have been thrown up as the rover moved across the lunar landscape. The properties of this dust once it had been thrown up on the lunar surface have already been explained at length ... several times ... and there's nothing in this photo to suggest that this was filmed anywhere else but on the moon.

Now to the various photos of the 'practice missions' on earth that you keep posting. Again, so what? Would you really expect NASA to spend $40bn on these missions and not practice exhaustively beforehand?

There is no doubt in my mind that the lunar landings were genuine and the photographs provide an accurate record of the missions. The weight of evidence for this is overwhelming.

However, this doesn't mean that I automatically believe everything that all governments say.

In fact, for you to suggest this is highly disingenuous - it yet again shows another example of the typical conspiracy theorist tactic of using a false dichotomy, i.e, you are stating: "because harrisjohns believes that the moon landings are genuine, he must automatically believe everything that he is told by the government".

Try to think in shades of grey rather than always in black or white. At the moment, your level of argument is knee-jerk and childish.










[edit on 6-2-2005 by harrisjohns]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns
Shai, first of all, you don't know anything about my age, background, career, or indeed any personal information about me. And on a forum such as this, anonymity is just the way I like it. Needless to say, my user name on here is certainly not my real name. Not all of us have egos that need to be constantly stroked by publishing long articles about our 'glorious' careers on personal websites.

Secondly, it is you and not me who is the one arguing from the perspective of the FOX TV Network, and its totally ludicrous documentary suggesting that the moon landings were faked. It is you that use the presposterous aulis.com and cosmicapollo sites (who are just there to sell books and videos to the naive) to provide 'evidence' for your claims.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the moon landings were faked. Your strange and usually incoherent obsession with the minutae of film types and alleged inconsistencies in the recollections of the astronauts is bizarre and pointless - even if all these things were true, they would still offer NO evidence that the moon landings were faked.

Regarding your picture of the rover and the dust, so what? Of course dust would have been thrown up as the rover moved across the lunar landscape. The properties of this dust once it had been thrown up on the lunar surface have already been explained at length ... several times ... and there's nothing in this photo to suggest that this was filmed anywhere else but on the moon.

Now to the various photos of the 'practice missions' on earth that you keep posting. Again, so what? Would you really expect NASA to spend $40bn on these missions and not practice exhaustively beforehand?

There is no doubt in my mind that the lunar landings were genuine and the photographs provide an accurate record of the missions. The weight of evidence for this is overwhelming.

However, this doesn't mean that I automatically believe everything that all governments say.

In fact, for you to suggest this is highly disingenuous - it yet again shows another example of the typical conspiracy theorist tactic of using a false dichotomy, i.e, you are stating: "because harrisjohns believes that the moon landings are genuine, he must automatically believe everything that he is told by the government".

Try to think in shades of grey rather than always in black or white. At the moment, your level of argument is knee-jerk and childish.










[edit on 6-2-2005 by harrisjohns]


HARRIS ..the whole discussion of the dust and the footprints on this thread revolved around no air between the molecules meaning anything that pressed on them would bind them tightly togethr..vastly limiting the amount of dust that would be kicked up. Armstrong said it surpised him there was no dust ..and to explain no dust on the lunar lift-off it is said the dust was fine and blown everywhere thinly falling immediately..as dust would in a non-air enviornment.
The lunar rover should have been compacting the dust very strongly..and what dust was brought up should be falling dead behind the wheel..but it isn't it is billowing up behind the front wheel and hanging in the air for several feet right up to the back wheel in fact.
The fron t wheel is also blurred by diust at its front edge..meaning either the treads are scooping find dust along with them..or the air caused by the rotation of the wheels is picking dust up in the draft and carrying it around the wheel well to the front where it is being blown down and back.
For all the talk of vacuums and dust behavior on the moon this sure does look like an earthly off-road pic and not a lunar shot.
But let me guess.you don't see the dust ior if you do its irrrelevant.

Y ou still don't comment on the horizon line in the helmets..no matter which shot you pic the one 'genuine' astronaut everyone agrees upon in the visor reflection [page 11] is midway between the astronaut being photographed and the horizon behind him...and far is behind the astronaut in the phot is the horizon? If that is to be explained by the curvature of the moon..as it is according to neil Armstrong in the snippet of the official NASA document I posted here about what suprised him most on the moon.."the short horizon line' then how ddoes one account for the long range pics of the mountains[above] in which the horizon is much wider and the curvature is indistinct?
One doesn't..at east you don't..for you it doesn't register.

Now..I have said several times [and much in the way that Hoagland surmises] that I believe the astronauts may have made it there and back, but that the official records of the Apollo mission have been obscured due to what was actually found there...I also believe that a lot of what we saw about the Apollo 11 mission was intended for purely propaganda purposes.

If you didn't live the Cold War you can't imagine.
bUT YOU ARE RIGHT..i KNOW NOTHING ABOUT YOU BECUASE YOU WON'T SAY... not your age, your education..your great achievements..the things that should make me take you seriously or at least aware of the way things really work in the real world..and when you go to sleep at night.

I know enough about governments and militaries..and from the inside... to know how many secrets are kept about so terribly many things..simply so some pain the rear civilian doesn't get the idea that it is any of their business and go raising a fuss about things or crying foul.
If you had even half a notion about the dishonorable things done in your name just to make sure there is coffe on the table and gas in the tank...what lies were sold and are still being sold to you by people you never elected and whom you cannot hold accountable..you'd be less certain in your views that all is kosher with the Apollo story.

Now you either see dust coming off the lunar lander just like it would on earth or you don't/ I see nothing here that indicates the rover is actually in an other earthly enviornment with other than earthly rules,or that silicate dust is behaving the way dust would in a vacuum of 1/6g.

Other than the fact that NASA claims this was shot on the moon what is your evidence..because it sure ain't in this photo, Harris.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 01:42 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...

Here is a site where you can watch the lunar rover on the moon video....pay attention to the dust kicked up, especially in the last 5 seconds of the clip..how it arcs...and before that how the dust kicks up as he bounces....just like a dune buggy on a salt flat.

There may be no air on the moon, but there is sure a lot of it where this film was shot.
And if you look carefully at the still photo I posted you will notice a gap behind the front [right] wheel down at ground level..and the dust being BLOWN behind it in a curve as soon as it falls below the mud flap/molding around the wheel.
That gap shouldn't be there under any theory compatible with lunar physics.
The dust shouldn't be blown anywhere..thrown up from the ground by the wheels, but not blown backwards.

Now if you don't see it in the still pic, watch the movie.

And what do the rest of you think..not about the argument..but the dust and this lunar lander?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Shai, I think you need to go read some real science on all these claims. I have heard of all these before (about lighting, dust, footprints, etc...) and so forth, all of it has been explained and answered very thouroughy by scientists.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shai

The lunar rover should have been compacting the dust very strongly..and what dust was brought up should be falling dead behind the wheel..but it isn't it is billowing up behind the front wheel and hanging in the air for several feet right up to the back wheel in fact.



Shai, check a basic science primer before you post this junk.

Look up Newton's various laws about unbalanced forces and gravitational forces. The dust in this pic and video is acting in exactly the right way for a lunar environment. On earth, it would have remained suspended in the air for much longer (depending, of course, on the consistency of the dust and the prevailing atmospheric forces).




You still don't comment on the horizon line in the helmets..


Already answered in depth.

You cannot adequately convey the distance of the horizon in a two-dimensional or even a stereoscopic photograph (on earth or on the moon), and even less can you rely on the reflected image of a concave helmet.

Again, the parallax noted in all the longer range 'landscape' photography is totally consistent with the lunar environment.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   
www.enterprisemission.com... [read all 4 pages]

community.netidea.com...

www.weirdload.com...

www.space.com...

Quote from Richard Hoagland:
"Yes, the video from the Moon should have been better. Yes, it is bizarre that the FBI destroyed all the blueprints of the Saturn rockets and Apollo spacecraft. Yes, it is unbelievable that NASA ordered Ken Johnston to destroy all the duplicate sets of Apollo photography, essentially trying to confine the control of the visual record to one set of prints.. that NASA could manipulate. But it wasn't to cover up that we never went! It was to cover up what we found when we got there!"

I give up on you Harris....

Don't bother to write back because I'm away for awhile...and since you don't read the sites I send, won't comment on evidence that goes against your position and think you are even smarter than the official NASA employees like Johnston who ADMIT there is a huge probvle with'the evidence' ..well I might as well be talking to a wall.

Good day to you and enjoy your smug, self-satisfied, and perhaps permanent ignorance.

-Sincerely
-Shai



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:14 AM
link   
Subject: Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges
Source: NewMax.com
38.201.154.103.../2/11/00539

Apollo Astronaut Was Murdered, Son Charges

Christopher Ruddy
February 11, 1999

Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, the astronaut slated to be the first man to walk on the moon, was murdered, his son has charged in the Feb. 16 edition of Star magazine.

In another stunning development, a lead NASA investigator has charged that the agency engaged in a cover-up of the true cause of the catastrophe that killed Grissom and two other astronauts.

The tabloid exclusive by Steve Herz reports that Scott Grissom, 48, has gone public with the family’s long-held belief that their father was purposefully killed during Apollo I.

The Jan. 27, 1967, Apollo I mission was a simulated launch in preparation for an actual lunar flight.

NASA concluded that the Apollo I deaths of Grissom, as well as astronauts Edward H. White and Roger Chafee, were the result of an explosive fire that burst from the pure oxygen atmosphere of the space capsule. NASA investigators could not identify what caused the spark, but wrote the catastrophe off as an accident.

"My father’s death was no accident. He was murdered," Grissom, a commercial pilot, told Star.

Grissom said he recently was granted access to the charred capsule and discovered a "fabricated" metal plate located behind a control panel switch. The switch controlled the capsules’ electrical power source from an outside source to the ship’s batteries. Grissom argues that the placement of the metal plate was an act of sabotage. When one of the astronauts toggled the switch to transfer power to the ship’s batteries, a spark was created that ignited a fireball.

Clark Mac Donald, a McDonnell-Douglas engineer hired by NASA to investigate the fire, offered corroborating evidence. Breaking more than three decades of silence, Mac Donald says he determined that an electrical short caused by the changeover to battery power had sparked the fire.

He says that NASA destroyed his report and interview tapes in an effort to stem public criticism of the space program.

"I have agonized for 31 years about revealing the truth, but I didn’t want to hurt NASA’s image or cause trouble," Mac Donald told the paper. "But I can’t let one more day go by without the truth being known."

Grissom’s widow, Betty, now 71, told Star she agrees with her son’s claim that her husband had been murdered.

"I believe Scott has found the key piece of evidence to prove NASA knew all along what really happened but covered up to protect funding for the race to the moon."

Scott Grissom told Star that the motive for his father’s killing may have been related to NASA’s desire not have his father be the first man to walk on the moon because of criticism leveled at Grissom in 1961 after his Mercury capsule, Liberty 7, sunk in the Atlantic.

Critics of Grissom, including novelist Tom Wolfe, have claimed the astronaut panicked when his space capsule landed in the ocean, and he prematurely pulled an explosive charge to open the ship’s hatch, causing it to sink.

Fellow astronauts, however, gave Grissom the benefit of the doubt for several reasons. Grissom was a decorated Korean War pilot who had flown nearly 100 combat missions. He was a courageous man not known to panic.

There was also evidence that the explosive device on the hatch could accidentally blow without being pulled—a fact that led NASA to remove such devices from future spacecraft.

Also, had Grissom pulled the explosive release on the hatch, his hand or arm should have had powder and bruise marks. Neither were found.

Grissom, one of the original Mercury seven, was the senior astronaut when the Apollo missions began.

Among the astronauts, Grissom was the most critical of the problem-plagued Apollo program, and the main Apollo contractor, North American Aviation.

Shortly before his death, Grissom had taken a large lemon and hung it around the space capsule as the press looked on. He had suggested publicly that the project could never be accomplished on time.

The Associated Press reported, "‘Pretty slim’ was the way [Grissom] put his Apollo’s chances of meeting its mission requirements."

The Grissom family had reason to doubt the official NASA ruling from the beginning. Even before Apollo I, Grissom had received death threats which his family believed emanated from within the space program.

The threats were serious enough that he was put under Secret Service protection and had been moved from his home to a secure safehouse.

According to his wife, Grissom had warned her that "if there is ever a serious accident in the space program, it’s likely to be me."

The Apollo I disaster led to a series of congressional hearings into the incident and NASA. During the hearings, one launch pad inspector, Thomas Baron, sharply criticized NASA’s handling of the incident and testified that the astronauts attempted to escape the capsule earlier than officially claimed.

Baron was fired soon after giving the testimony, and died, along with his wife, when his car was struck by a train. Authorities ruled the deaths as suicide.

During the congressional hearings, Sen. Walter Mondale questioned the efficacy of manned space programs. Manned space flights were opposed by many of the leading space scientists at the time, including Drs. James Van Allen and Thomas Gold.

c 1998, NewsMax.com



***NOT FOR PROFIT*** Posted for Research and Discussion Purposes Only.

UPDATE:
A documentary film director is seeking people who knew astronaut Gus Grissom and participated in America's race to the moon in the 1960s. Scott Grissom, son of Gus Grissom and co-producer of a film simply entitled Gus, said from his Houston home, "I hope those who lived and worked on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo space programs will contact us and share with the world their stories about my Dad and the space program."

Director Mark Estabrook will be in Florida during January and February of 2005 to collect interviews from retired NASA and contractor personnel: "To my knowledge, Gus Grissom has never been accurately portrayed in the media. I am especially interested in hearing from people who participated in the space program who can share direct knowledge of Gus and the space race."

Scott Grissom spent a number of years researching his father's death in the fire of Apollo 1. On January 27, 1967, tragedy struck the Apollo program when a flash fire occurred in Command Module 012 during a launch pad test of the Apollo/Saturn space vehicle being prepared for the first piloted Apollo mission. Three astronauts, including Lt. Col. Virgil I. Grissom, a veteran of Mercury and Gemini missions, died in the tragic incident.

Scott Grissom is hopeful that former NASA and North American Aviation employees working on Pad 34 on January 27, 1967, will contact Estabrook at 901-382-9040 to schedule an interview: "All of the early space pioneers are older and I want to get their oral history recorded before it's too late." Stories and anecdotes about Gus in the Mercury and Gemini programs are also welcome.

Contact:

Mark Estabrook
PO Box 1021
Cordova TN 38088
Office 901.382.9040
Email: gusgrissom@earthlink.net

And now a flashback to something I read a long time ago...no doubt before Harris Johns was even born..

October, 1968

TELL US THE TRUTH, UNCLE SAM!

By John Barron, Reader's Digest

"Federal agencies and bureaucrats are increasingly engaged in a self-serving policy of official deceit-a shabby practice that debases the quality and character of our democratic process....

In recent years the government has tampered with the truth so frequently that the phrase "credibility gap" has gained common acceptance. Like most slogans, it is not always used fairly. Official pronouncements which turn out to be wrong sometimes are the consequence of bad judgment instead of dishonesty . . . Yet even after the most charitable allowances are made, the public record remains littered with official lies which no amount of explanation can erase or mitigate.

This war on truth is waged for fundamental purposes:

To Cover Incompetence.

By deceit, bureaucracies seek to hide bungling that would justify the censure or dismissal of their administrators. Consider what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) tried to foist off on the public last year (1967).

NASA spends $11,500,000 of the taxpayers' money annually and employs 300 press agents to glorify itself. It initially enjoyed immunity from independent scrutiny and criticism.

On the night of January 27, 1967, fire erupted in an Apollo space capsule at Cape Kennedy. Three brilliant young astronauts were suffocated, and our whole program to put a man on the moon was set back a year. NASA attempted to depict the tragedy as simply a bad-luck accident which could not possibly have been avoided.

Death was "instantaneous," it announced. "There was a flash and that was it." "We always have adhered to the highest standards of safety," intoned a space boss. "And yet, in spite of meticulous attention to the smallest detail, this tragedy has occurred."

Soon, these reassurances were shattered. New York Times and Washington Evening Star reporters learned from engineers who had heard tape recordings that the three deaths had been far from "instantaneous." The astronauts pleaded for help and, as the Times disclosed, up to the very end "they were scrambling, clawing and pounding to open the sealed hatch."

Rep. William F. Ryan (D., N.Y.) Unearthed proof out of NASA's own files that, as a result of previous blazes, it had been warned repeatedly of the danger of fire in the capsule. Yet it made no provision for emergency escape.

Next, several Senators asked NASA officials if Maj. Gen. Samuel A. Phillips had not submitted a report devastatingly critical of the Apollo program. "I know of no unusual General Phillips report," replied George E. Mueller, an associate administrator of NASA. The agency admitted that General Phillips had made some "notes." But it belittled their importance, and NASA boss James E. Webb refused to let investigating committees see them."


For background on the curious cirumstances of the Apollo 1 fire go read this;www.advweb.com...

Here is just a brief portion of what's on there:
"Gus Grissom died in the Apollo 1 fire with two other
astronauts in one of the most outrageously stupid events
ever in an alleged scientific endeavour.

Grissom was getting shaky about the command module (not
even just the LM, which was another problem). Grissom
hung a lemon on the module they were playing with. He was
going to take it to the press. All this hardware was being
constructed and put on line and built by the low bidder.

Grissom, White, and Chaffee were ordered to take a test,
a plugs-in test, which means all the circuits are live.
When you throw a switch, when you look at a switchplate,
in a darkened room, totally dark, you throw it and you see
a spark jump. Everytime you throw a switch, whether it is
high-voltage or low-voltage, a spark flies, unless it has
capacitors, and unless you make it explosion-proof.
Electrical induction causes the spark....
"... NASA did all kinds of
tests in pure oxygen environments. NASA found out there
was a safe oxygen partial pressure limit for breathing
between 2.9 and 6.7 psi. Breathing outside these limits
would cause severe if not permanent damage.

They put these men in a pressure chamber, the command
capsule, and they began testing switches and all kinds of
nonsense. Somebody decided to also pressure test that
vehicle. They ran it up to 16.7 psi, according to Collins,
or to 20.2 psi, according to Borman who chaired the committee.

Grissom, Chaffee, and White were strapped into a capsule
for a hot test on top of a rocket at the Cape. The hatch was
shut, with a hatch that took about three minutes to open...

"...The man in charge gave the order to pump pressure into
that capsule when they knew that anything past 6.7 psi was
deadly and they kept right on going to 16.7 psi (according
to Collins) or 20.2 psi (according to Borman).

With 100 percent pure oxygen at 14.7 psi, steel wool will
burn from the heat of the match, it explodes. People who
should know better were cranking in more and more pure
oxygen.

The next strange thing, coincidence let's call it, is
that there were fire extinguishers always before in that
test vehicle. In this time they were all absent. They
also used the fire-resistant teflon sheets over the cushions,
over the wiring harnesses, because wire has insulation
which is a burnable. They were all absent. Here they are
doing a plugs-down test, that means everything's live. They
are throwing these switches, and again, after (knowing that)
every one of their tests, with (high or pure percentage)
oxygen in living quarters, etc., turned fatal or nasty....

"...In one of the pretests, at 7 psi oxygen, they tried to
change a lightbulb. There is a little spark that happens
when you screw bulbs in and out. The whole thing started
burning, the guy's arm, not his clothes now, his flesh was
burning. They grabbed an asbestos cloth. They threw it,
wrapped the arm in it. The asbestos started burning.
These are NASA's own tests.

They take three guys, and put them in this capsule, crank
in oxygen to 16-plus psi, and wait for a spark to go off.

Grissom wanted to have the leader in the capsule with them.
With 24 hours of time available, NASA did not put an extra
cable into the capsule to allow the leader to have a headset
circuit....

"....Government agents, in rapid action, raided Gus Grissom's
and White's homes before anyone knew about the fire. They
removed Grissom's personal papers and his diary. They did
not bring his diary or any other paper with the word 'Apollo'
on it back when they returned some of his papers to his home.
Murder begins at 6.7 psi pure oxygen.

In 1967 Thomas Ronald Baron was allegedly run over by a
train, after he went to Washington (to testify before the
Apollo 1 Congressional investigating committee). He kept
records of Apollo. (Baron was an inspector on Pad 34.)
The day after he testified, his car in Florida with his wife
and stepdaughter was run over by a train. They took the
body away really quickly, and contrary to Florida law, there
was no autopsy. The bodies were instantly cremated.

Astronaut White's widow allegedly committed suicide a few
(three) years later. She was not known to be suicidal and
people were surprised"...


From the Gus Grissom biography:
"Although they did not have a hand in the basic design process, Grissom and his crew were able to exert some influence on Spacecraft 012 which was scheduled for an October 1966 launch. "He and Ed White and Roger Chaffee, along with their supporting staff of engineers and technicians, participated directly in the progressive design and manufacturing reviews and inspections as Spacecraft 012 neared completion. Some of the things Gus saw he did not like."

As the pressure mounted and dissatisfaction grew, Grissom, for the first time, began to bring his work problems home. "When he was home he normally did not want to be with the space program. He would rather be just messing around with the kids. But now he was uptight about it."

The arrival of Spacecraft 012 to the Cape only brought more problems. It soon became obvious that many designated engineering changes were incomplete. The environmental control unit leaked like a sieve and needed to be removed from the module. As a result, the launch schedule was delayed by several weeks. The Apollo simulator which was used for training purposes had its own set of problems and was not in any better shape than the actual spacecraft itself. According to Astronaut Walter Cunningham, "We knew that the spacecraft was, you know, in poor shape relative to what it ought to be. We felt like we could fly it, but let's face it, it just wasn't as good as it should have been for the job of flying the first manned Apollo mission."


Now add to this the fact that Ken Johnston at NASA, the chief of the photographic dep't at NASA and under contract by the agency to be the curator of the archives was ordered to destroy all 2nd copy [back-up] negatives and vast amounts of other relevant material; that the FBI ordered all plans of the Apollo 11's Saturn rocket, the LM, even the rover destroyed...that since then Apollo astronauts have given varying accounts of their lunar experience,... that hundreds of pounds of lunar evidence and artifact has been reported stolen [and curioulsy only after the hoax accusations prompted internal reviews] ...that Richard Hoagland and KEN JOHNSTON, both of whom served NASA and neither of whom has had their integrity impeached by any source..two men who have had unprecedented access to the materials, including 1, 000 pics that Johnston DID NOT destroy..given that they are crying foul and fraud and believe NASA is not telling us all they know...I REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL "MOON" STORY.

PERIOD.

When I return I hope to move on to other subjects than Apollo...something more germane to the origianl theme and post of this thread..that the gov't knows more than they are saying about UFO's and all kinds of things zipping in and out of our own space. Do they come from the moon? Another dimension...you decide.
www.topsecrettestimony.com...

In the meantime harris, I do hope you grow up enough to let us know your age, occupation...perhaps you'd like to list your degrees in applied or theoretical science?

It would make your posts so much easier to bear if you had anything to back up your sarcastic tone beyond the usual [and usually repetitve] 'This has all been covered before...."speech..as if that makes all the above disappear.


-Sincerely [& hasta la vista]
-Shai



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Perhaps you need to grow up a little and actually do some real research. I have also read everything about how a bunch of people involved on the project supposedly died, yada yada yada....it's all been explained. Do some real work.



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Real work meaning saying "scientists" have explained it all before? ;-)


E_T

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nairod
Real work meaning saying "scientists" have explained it all before? ;-)
No, but learning how to think, evaluate and process information scientifically. (not forgetting basic education)
In brief: Learning to bite before swallowing.

It's no wonder that internet is so full of spam, frauds, phishing and god know what because lot of people are ready to jump to front of the train if some self-proclaimed, maybe religious, (and detectable as liar with logical thinking) "prophet" tells them to do it.



We can glean a deeper cause of this problem in another statistic: 70 percent of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as comprehending probability, the experimental method and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53 percent of Americans with a high level of science education understand the scientific process, compared with 38 percent of those with a middle-level science education and 17 percent with a low level.


To attenuate these paranormal belief statistics, we need to teach that science is not a database of unconnected factoids but a set of methods designed to describe and interpret phenomena, past or present, aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation.

For those lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are.
www.sciam.com...



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 08:26 AM
link   


SMART-1 sending back imagery of Apollo sites:



A European spacecraft now orbiting the moon could turn out to be a time machine of sorts as it photographs old landing sites of Soviet robotic probes and the areas where American Apollo crews set down and explored.

New imagery of old Apollo touchdown spots, from the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 probe, might put to rest conspiratorial thoughts that U.S. astronauts didn’t go the distance and scuff up the lunar landscape. NASA carried out six piloted landings on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

Fringe theorists have said images of the waving flag — on a moon with no atmosphere — and other oddities show that NASA never really went to the moon. No serious scientist or spaceflight historian doubts the success of the Apollo program, however.

"We are observing some of the landing sites for calibration and ground truth purposes," said Bernard Foing, chief scientist of the ESA science program.

www.msnbc.msn.com...


I imagine that those who don't beleive we landed on the moon will just say that NASA are just going to "doctor" these photos as well huh?


DC1

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by HARAK
»» To All :

Not here, not anywhere, I will post images, documents, book transcriptions, website links, or any other form of supporting my small comments. Why? Very simple:

Because the moment I started to show images, documents, and links, (and even books), you would immediately start to sharp your teeth, and would fall on top of me, saying… that after your deep analisys, everything was…. False!


I'm still reading this thread, but this originally lengthy post of yours triggered in me the urge to reply.

Most members of ATS are highly perceptive and have a vivid imagination to start with (or they wouldn't be here at all), and the obvious thirst for linked evidence of any sort is a demonstration of wanting to keep an 'elastic', open mind regarding subjects such as the ones you have put forth with the possibility to tie them with even the tiniest bit of fact.

Unfortunately, too many wild posts with non-proved statements create the need to dig into new views/experiences with a little backing references.

I personally don't think that if you posted what you did with a couple of links to 'lean' onto would have gotten you torn apart and judged as 'false', as you state. Personally, if I saw your original message put in a different way (eg, I found this - link - and this - link - and both have given me ground to assemble my following theory...) I would have stopped and thought and read in depth, discussing and helping your theory gain value - and most of all, you would have had my complete attention.

Instead, yes you gain a reply from another member, but I hope you would have wished it to be regarding your statements themselves, not the way your statements were put.

Said all that, this is only my point of view


DC1

posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
This is an off topic apology.

Never will I reply to a thread again before reading it in its entirety. My first reply, and now this one too, jump out amidst a debate between two members and disrupts. I'm very sorry -

DC1



posted on Oct, 2 2005 @ 04:21 AM
link   
Shai , if you are still there I would like to continue this discussion. So notify me plz if you ever come back.
thanks



posted on Dec, 6 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrisjohns

Originally posted by Shai




It was HJP (“Douglas”) Arnold, who was the Assistant to the Managing Director of Kodak Ltd. He was also the representative Kodak appointed to answer our questions back in 1997. Arnold clearly stated that essentially the film used for the lunar photography was ordinary high speed Ektachrome emulsion, 160 ASA (as it was then), on a thin base. You might ask: “was HJP Arnold misinformed?” Because if his recollection is correct, then the claimants for the use on the Moon of this special XRC film must surely be incorrect. But if this XRC film was used on the Moon without the knowledge of those at Kodak charged with the promotion of Apollo in the UK, as HJP Arnold was, then he must have been given erroneous information. And in turn the public must have been unwittingly misinformed through Kodak’s publicity machine.



I don't regard this website as in any way authoritative or credible and I cannot find independent verification of what Arnold is supposed to have said on this occasion.

However, he is on the record as stating that any suggestion that the moon landings were fake is preposterous and demeans the achievement.

This is all a bit of a red herring, though, because if you read my earlier posts, you'll see that coping with the lunar environment would have been quite within the operational paramaters of a normal Ektachrome film used in this type of camera.

Personally, however, I don't doubt that XRC was developed and used for this mission.





www.hamrick.com...
This is a link listing all known emulsion based films as produced by every major manufactuer.



These are all commercially available films and so are unlikely to include those produced under special contract from Nasa.




don't you find it odd that not one, upon hearing that Kodak used special film on the moon ever tried to make some of their own similar emulsions..or that no one approached NASA to say we'd like to bid on the contract for supplying film for your projects?



No, I don't find it odd. A competitor would be unlikely to invest in developing such a film without a space agency contract to make it worth their while. Kodak worked with NASA long before the moon landings and for a long time afterwards (and still do).




Or how about this....don't you find it odd that NO mention of special film is made until almost a decade after the 'moon-landings'?



Again no, because the conspiracy theory didn't really gather momentum until after the 1978 release of Capricorn One, about 10 years after the landings.



And isn't it strange that we are now told that Mr. Vimilslik knows all about that film in 2005, when the assistent director of Kodak and special liason to the NASA project claimed it was Echtachrome in 1969.

or do you go about your business by blithely quoting from self-serving websites posting information decades AFTER the fact to explain the inconsistencies or anomalies regarding the official story of the time?



But this is exactly what you have done but with straight lifts from the unreliable aulius website.

I look at the evidence and base my opinions on these.

Unlike you, I base my research on credible scientific sources, rather than the mumbo jumbo spouted by cranky conspiracy theorist websites.





here is a link to the Kodak site listing all their [current] senior executives in all dept's..do you see Mr. Vimilslik's name anywhere on THIS list?

So how senior a source can he be? How credible?



So what? Kodak's a huge company. Just because he's not on the board, doesn't mean that he is an unreliable source. He is currently employed by Kodak and has the authority to speak publicly on their behalf - hardly a job that you'd entrust to the janitor. I have no reason to doubt his word or believe him to be anything else but a credible source. What evidence do you have to suggest that he is not?





Furhtermore..to date, other than blamket staements affirming the existence of such a film..no single piece of XRC film matching the psecs as quoted has vever been submitted for testing..nor has any patent for said film been registered at the US Patent office by Kodak or NASA



Why should it be? It was a piece of technology commissioned for a specific purpose.



So what do we have as evidence to support the claim that there was indeed a special film used on the moon in 1969?
Nothing..zip..nada..bupkiss


We have an on the record statement from Kodak, which made the film. Also your fellow conspiracy theorist (although he doesn't dispute the moon landings), Richard Hoagland, has also said on the record that he had access to the film and has used it on many occasions.



I have one, and only question for MR VIMILSLIK..when did he start working for Kodak and what post, if any did he hold in the company in 1969?
Frankly, I believe he is the chosen spokesman for the party line and had nothing at all to do with the original Apollo mission.


Errr, well ask him then. I've provided you with his contact details.





posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raphael
Glass tubes on mars



In recent months there have been several anomalies discovered on the Martian surface! Certainly, one of the most remarkable and striking photos from the Mars Global Surveyor are the "glass tubes" discovered by the team of "Enterprise Mission," non-NASA researchers who analyzed over 20,000 MGS photos released May 2000 to the public. Seemingly "non-natural" tubular structures located in the Martian deserts (MOC frame M04-00291), give the appearance of being "translucent," quite cylindrical, and supported by somewhat regular intervals by "ribs."
The pictures show what appears to be "glassy tubes," estimated to be up to 600 ft in diameter, and a bright reflection, apparently from the sun. Some researchers have theorized that these tubes are "non-natural" may be water pipes or an environmentally protected underground rapid transit system.
"On Mars the cities are all underground and are connected together by huge oval metal tubes from three to five hundred feet in diameter. There are monorail cars ... which glide silently and very swiftly from one city to another. Because of the great distances between the cities, these tubes have been built only partially submerged.





[edit on 12-8-2004 by Raphael]


I originally saw and actually made a drawing of the subway system along with statues on Mars back in 2000. The subway system that I saw was from a raw photograph not on the net. The significance is that the subway tube type system had a transporter capsule similar to what you would see in China today. The subway tube system is in the shape of the number 5 leaving and entering a great glass like pyramid. Rik Riley



posted on Mar, 18 2008 @ 08:53 AM
link   
[post removed]

www.abovetopsecret.com...

1h.) Spamming: You will not post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums.


[edit on 18-3-2008 by 12m8keall2c]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11   >>

log in

join