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.
But before that you must look history/backwards first...
Originally posted by mpeake
...but I don't take it as gospel. I do however, look forward to your posts in the future though.
So because meteorite consisting from solid iron "pings" it must be hollow?
Originally posted by Shai
To date no one has been able to refute what is cited here...nor the fact that the moon indeed is prone to ring like a bell when struck, comprising only 60% of the density that it should for its size and being largely hollow [and hugely magnetic]
You remember it correctly.
Originally posted by Termite197
If I remember correctly when I signed on to ATS. One of the rules of posting is to supply links or evidence of you claims. So are harak/kangaxx breaking the rules?
Yep, that's currently most propable theory.
Originally posted by Shai
I'm aware the currently accepted theory of the moon is that it resulted from a piece of earth being torn off by impact with another celestial body..meaning it would be made of the same stuff earth is.
www.solarviews.com...
Scientists presented this result and other findings today in a series of papers at the 30th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas. Their data show that the lunar core contains less than four percent of the Moon's total mass, with the probable value being two percent or slightly less. This is very small when compared with the Earth, whose iron core contains approximately 30 percent of the planet's mass.
Similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a common origin. However, if they had simply formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's. A third theory suggests that the moon was captured fully intact by the Earth's gravity. Based on information first gathered during the Apollo era, scientists suggested that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body hit the Earth during its earliest history. "This impact occurred after the Earth's iron core had formed, ejecting rocky, iron-poor material from the outer shell into orbit," Binder explained. "It was this material that collected to form the Moon."
Originally posted by HARAK
Life has been teachting me, that most of the times, the Truth can be far more fantastic, than fiction.
Most space programs, have "other" agendas, far more interesting, than the titles spreaded in the mass media; like something, for instance, as:
"Probe sent to Mercury, in order to find traces of Ice".
...Please!!!
How can the ones, who rule this world think, even for a second that We are so ... distracted, to don't give attention to the cronoligic evolution of events?
In the 60's, they say that US Astronauts, stepped the Moon, for the first time, in all Mankind. Sorry... but no!
SOviet Union, actually got there first in the 50's, (two astronauts landed), and they went by a shocking experience.... err.... There was an ancient facility there, appeared at first glince abandoned, but... automatic sentrys were still active, and one astronaut, got killed. The other ran away...as fast as his suit let him, and could escape. He was very, very, lucky, because somehow, he could manage to be syncronized with the proper trajectory, to being brought back to Earth's Ionosphere.
All this was top-secret. Not anymore...sorry!!
[edit on 8/8/04 by HARAK]
Originally posted by Aether
Originally posted by HARAK
Life has been teachting me, that most of the times, the Truth can be far more fantastic, than fiction.
Most space programs, have "other" agendas, far more interesting, than the titles spreaded in the mass media; like something, for instance, as:
"Probe sent to Mercury, in order to find traces of Ice".
...Please!!!
How can the ones, who rule this world think, even for a second that We are so ... distracted, to don't give attention to the cronoligic evolution of events?
In the 60's, they say that US Astronauts, stepped the Moon, for the first time, in all Mankind. Sorry... but no!
SOviet Union, actually got there first in the 50's, (two astronauts landed), and they went by a shocking experience.... err.... There was an ancient facility there, appeared at first glince abandoned, but... automatic sentrys were still active, and one astronaut, got killed. The other ran away...as fast as his suit let him, and could escape. He was very, very, lucky, because somehow, he could manage to be syncronized with the proper trajectory, to being brought back to Earth's Ionosphere.
All this was top-secret. Not anymore...sorry!!
[edit on 8/8/04 by HARAK]
Wrong. Americans did land on the moon first it's history.
www.aerospaceweb.org...
Originally posted by E_T
Yep, that's currently most propable theory.
Originally posted by Shai
I'm aware the currently accepted theory of the moon is that it resulted from a piece of earth being torn off by impact with another celestial body..meaning it would be made of the same stuff earth is.
But I see you didn't read it so thoroughly, althought elements are same in general their distribution is very different... matter blown to orbit by impact would be composed from earth's crust and upper parts which are much lighter than inner iron/metal rich parts of our planet.
www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 5.515
www.solarviews.com...: Mean density (gm/cm^3) 3.34
You can find data form distribution of elements from here.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.windows.ucar.edu...=/earth/geology/crust_elements.html
Here's about geology of moon.
www.star.ucl.ac.uk...
www.solarviews.com...
Scientists presented this result and other findings today in a series of papers at the 30th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas. Their data show that the lunar core contains less than four percent of the Moon's total mass, with the probable value being two percent or slightly less. This is very small when compared with the Earth, whose iron core contains approximately 30 percent of the planet's mass.
Similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a common origin. However, if they had simply formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's. A third theory suggests that the moon was captured fully intact by the Earth's gravity. Based on information first gathered during the Apollo era, scientists suggested that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body hit the Earth during its earliest history. "This impact occurred after the Earth's iron core had formed, ejecting rocky, iron-poor material from the outer shell into orbit," Binder explained. "It was this material that collected to form the Moon."
There's nothing anomalous in "expansion" of moon's orbit.
Originally posted by Shai
anomalous density and orbit [it is moving away from us, did you know that?]
..and the cosmicapollo material..
ok?
Originally posted by Shai
moon illusion still not explained
Originally posted by E_T
There's nothing anomalous in "expansion" of moon's orbit.
Originally posted by Shai
anomalous density and orbit [it is moving away from us, did you know that?]
..and the cosmicapollo material..
ok?
curious.astro.cornell.edu...
Considering cosmicapollo... first prove those are original unedited pics, with todays PCs every crackpot (who has way too much free time) can edit photos.
Secondly there's much errors and ignoring facts which have been discussed to death in (many) other threads... which kinda makes site's credibility go down to -273.
Third, you can bet that Soviets monitored Apollo program extreme closely, like things that radio transmissions really came from moon. If they would have had any proofs that landing was faked they would have touted it to world in all medias for years, it would have been even bigger win for them than making own moon landing first. (or why didn't they fake own landing?)
www.badastronomy.com...
www.badastronomy.com...
www.lunaranomalies.com...
www.redzero.demon.co.uk...
www.business.uab.edu...
pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu...
Nasa faked the moon landing, No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space.
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum.NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. The water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space.
NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program
the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon
here is the link ,with alot more info, check it out
not claiming this is fact but logicaly it make good sense
www.hourofthetime.com...
Originally posted by harrisjohns
Nasa faked the moon landing, No man has ever ascended much higher than 300 miles, if that high, above the Earth's surface. At or under that altitude the astronauts are beneath the radiation of the Van Allen Belt and the Van Allen Belt shields them from the extreme radiation which permeates space.
Nonsense, Van Allen himself is still alive and has said on record that a human being would have to spend around four weeks within the Van Allen Belts to receive a fatal dose of radiation. It's been calculated that travelling at speed of the apollo crew through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild. Outside rthe belts, the dangers would have been much reduced.
The tremendous radiation encountered in the Van Allen Belt, solar radiation, cosmic radiation, Solar flares, temperature control, and many other problems connected with space travel prevent living organisms leaving our atmosphere with our known level of technology.
Not true - for the short amount of time that the astronauts were on the moon and travelling to and from it, the space suits would have provided adequate protection from everything but a solar flare. In the event of a flare striking the moon whilst the astronauts were on there, the lander's engines and fuel tanks would have provided adequate cover.
24.73.239.154:8081...
If you doubt this please explain how the astronauts walked upon the moons surface enclosed in a space suit in full sunlight absorbing a minimum of 265 degrees of heat surrounded by a vacuum.NASA claims the spacesuits were cooled by a water system which was piped around the body, then through a system of coils sheltered from the sun in the backpack. The water was sprayed on the coils causing a coating of ice to form. The ice then supposedly absorbed the tremendous heat collected in the water and evaporated into space.
NASA has since claimed that they found ice in moon craters. NASA claims that ice sheltered from the direct rays of the sun will NOT evaporate destroying their own bogus "air conditioning" explanation.
You have got mixed up between temperature and heat.
Temperature is how fast atoms are moving within a material and heat is how much total energy those atoms have.
You can stick your hand in a 400-degree oven without injury, but touch any solid object in the oven and you'll burn.
So it may be plus 200 degrees in the lunar sunlight and minus 200 in the shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat.
It doesn't take much insulation to protect an astronaut in a vacuum.
Also, it won't be 200 degrees in the sunlight. The sun would strike an astronaut no more fiercely than on earth. The only reason the lunar surface gets hot is that it gets continuous daylight for two weeks at a time and there's no atmosphere to conduct the heat away. In short, the surface would take a while to heat up and cool down.
And on earth, geologists wearing gloves regularly handle desert rocks with temps of over 200.
The Soviet Union scrapped their Man On The Moon program
The moon landings were independently tracked by hundreds of radio telescopes across the world, including within the USSR. If the USSR suspected that the US had faked the trip, they would have given this huge publicity.
the pictures also show different light sources, check the directions of the shadows ,which sugest this was filmed in a studio not on the moon
This proves nothing. Shadows from a single light source do not always travel in the same direction - here on earth or on the moon. Terrain can alter the direction of shadow travel considerably and the light reflected by the lunar surface would also have had a bearing on this.
here is the link ,with alot more info, check it out
not claiming this is fact but logicaly it make good sense
www.hourofthetime.com...
The usual junk.
Here's a bit more debunking:
Conspiracy theorists - No stars visible in NASA photos.
Answer: No camera in existence then or now has the capability to capture stars on film at the same time as the lunar surface because the brightness of the surface would have totally eclipsed them. Even with the eye you'd have difficulty seeing stars from the daytime lunar surface unless you stood in a shadow and shielded yourself from any light reflected from the ground.
Conspiracy theorists - detail is clearly seen in the shadowed areas of some photos which should be 'black'.
Answer: Light reflected from the lunar surface would have been more than enough to have 'lit' the subjects in question.
Conspiracy theorists - photo cross hairs obliterated by objects, indicating that the images have been manipulated.
Answer: This only occurs in very light objects. The brightness from the object effectively 'swamps' the image of the cross hair.
Conspiracy theorists - how come the photos are so good considering restricted movement of astronauts.
Answer: The Hasselbad cameras were designed for the mission and included special controls to allow easily manipulation. The astronauts also had months of practice with them as they were encouraged to take them home and use them as often as possible.
Conspiracy theorists - you can see a prop identifier letter 'C' on one of the rocks.
Answer: It's not on the rock, it's a small hair on a negative.
Conspiracy theorists - the lunar lander should have made a big crater.
Answer: The lunar lander reduced its power considerably as it came in to land and it also drifted down on a very gentle gradient which would have prevented significant crater formation. Also, there's not a great deal of easily mobilised dust on the surface of the moon.
Conspiracy theorists - the flag flaps when it is put in the ground, indicating that there was a breeze.
Answer: No, the flag was suspended on two aluminium poles and 'flapped' when it was physically moved due to low gravity/inertia. On earth, air resistance would have prevented this from occurring.
In summary, for all great achievements there will be naysayers and disbelievers. It's a shame that such a massive achievement as the moon landings is constantly hijacked by foaming-at-the-mouth conspiracy theorists. Luckily, few people with any degree of intelligence take them serioulsy.
Some info in this post was abridged from here:
www.uwgb.edu...
Originally posted by Shai
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE FILM?
That camera , along with the astronaut was moving between light and shadow..And that would mean.\ this film had to withstand temperature variations of 200 degrees and maybe 400 degrees, without spoiling the film..or without condensation forming inside the camera housing and spoiling the film...or was the camera vacuum sealed?
The film ALLEGEDLY used on the moon was not and never has been shown to be able to withstand anything like that amount of temperature variation and deliver even one usable image..so how do you explain the phenomenal quality of the pictures taken with that hasselblad?