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.

 

Alien Moon Base Captured By Chang'e-2 Orbiter 2012

page: 27
135
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


Because, in the Apollo era, there IS NO OTHER VOICE on CAPCOM!! The only time a different Astronaut would man CAPCOM is when the other one was sleeping.

It is obvious you did not read my link to the reality of how NASA and the CAPCOM worked:


Capsule Communicator (CAPCOM)

Generally, only the Capsule Communicator communicates directly with the crew of a manned space flight. During much of the U.S. manned space program, NASA felt it important for all communication with the astronauts in space to pass through a single individual in the Mission Control Center. That role was designated the Capsule Communicator or CAPCOM and was filled by another astronaut, often one of the backup- or support-crew members. NASA believes that an astronaut is most able to understand the situation in the spacecraft and pass information in the clearest way.

For long-duration missions there is more than one CAPCOM, each assigned to a different shift team. After control of U.S. spaceflights moved to the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in the early 1960s, each CAPCOM used the radio call-sign Houston. When non-astronauts are communicating directly with the spacecraft, CAPCOM acts as the communications controller.

As of 2011, non-astronauts from the Space Flight Training branch also function as CAPCOM during ISS missions, while the role was filled solely by astronauts for shuttle missions.


Now.....maybe you will finally READ and LEARN.

That Spanish-language "FAKEumentary" is a friggin' joke.

Deal with it.





edit on Fri 24 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


This is a flat-out LIE:


Guess what, NASA source claim that the Apollo 11 astronauts spent 3 and a half hours on Moon's surface, Oops! And guess what, not every info on Wiki is correct....


There is no NASA source that says Apollo 11 EVA was "3 and a half hours".

This is not true, and YOU know it. Stop it.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


I know with 100% certainty that that Spanish-language "FAKE"umentary on YouTube is a hoax.

And, YOU would too if you would care to research using the many resources I've provided. The voices of the men, in the FAKEumentary, do not even match Armstrong, Aldrin nor the Astronaut working CAPCOM that day.....Charlie Duke.


.... Charlie Duke was CAPCOM for Apollo 10's lunar landing rehearsal, and then Apollo 11's most famous moment. He went on to serve as backup Lunar Module Pilot for Apollo 13, and was later prime LMP for Apollo 16, with a record lunar stay of 71 hours 41 minutes along with commander John Young.


Just in case you don't know what function the CapCom (or CAPCOM) served:

CAPCOM



edit on Thu 23 February 2012 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)


I think the clue for the function is in the name CAPCOM=CAPSULE COMMUNICATION......
2nd... (correct me if I'm wrong by all means)

EDIT:- just to add you beat me to the punch at the top of the page PROUDBIRD with your offsite content, heading was CAPSULE COMMUNICATOR...
edit on 24-2-2012 by DARREN1976 because: update..



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
You all do realize that you are cluttering up the thread with topics that are off topic from the original OP (which is about buildings that are suppose to be on the moon), and that your ensuing arguments are causing posts that both debunk and shown that the video in the OP was a hoax to be lost in the clutter, as many people posting have also shown that they can not be bothered to read through 27 pages, and it also makes the moderators job harder to see the posts that are there to either debunk or confirm.

I realize that it's hard NOT to respond to topics that pop up in a thread that are off topic from the OP, but doing so does make the post meander quite a bit, and makes it a "hot topic" simply from having so many pages.

It would be better to discuss these other issues in a new thread that is specifically for these arguments.

Mods: if, for some strange reason, you feel that the thread itself has not been debunked and proven to be a hoax (which I'm still waiting on a reply as to what the requirements for that are, when it's been shown many times over that the video in the OP is NOT using pictures that it's claims, and the very fact that in my last post on Page 26, I've shown everyone on this whole forum that you don't NEED pictures from NASA or China, but can use your very own eyes and a telescope, since the area in question is fully visible to the Earth), could you at the very least split the thread into separate threads for the topics that are not related to the OP.
edit on 24-2-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-2-2012 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

If these are manmade I'll eat my own hat.

The structure looks like it was designed by either a complete crack whore or an insanely drunk architect. Of course, the believers will debunk this by saying something along the lines of "If it was a conventional design it would be easily recognised." True, however we have to follow conventional design methods because we know they work.

This to me is just a massive, stinky pile'o cow dung.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
This is a flat-out LIE:

Guess what, NASA source claim that the Apollo 11 astronauts spent 3 and a half hours on Moon's surface, Oops! And guess what, not every info on Wiki is correct....

There is no NASA source that says Apollo 11 EVA was "3 and a half hours". This is not true, and YOU know it. Stop it.

You do know that you EXPOSE yourself as a LIAR when you make such false claim, right? YOU KNOW I REPLIED TO YOU ON PAGE 25 (reply posted on 23-2-2012 @ 04:26 PM by Anunaki10)

www.nasa.gov...


Under the initial effort, Lowry restored 15 scenes representing the most significant moments of the THREE and a HALF hours that Armstrong and Aldrin SPENT ON THE LUNAR SURFACE. NASA released the video Thursday at a news conference at the Newseum in Washington.

You better stop your "there is no NASA source mentioning 3 and a half hours" nonsense, yes i am talking to you Private 'ProudBird", and let me repeat it to you RIGHT IN YOUR FACE, PRIVATE "PROUDBIRD" !!! : you do know that you EXPOSE yourself as a LIAR when you show such lie, right? YOU KNOW I REPLIED TO YOU ON PAGE 25 (reply posted on 23-2-2012 @ 04:26 PM by Anunaki10) that the SOURCE about these THREE and a HALF hours that Armstrong and Aldrin SPENT ON THE LUNAR SURFACE comes RIGHT FROM NASA...
edit on 24-2-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TrixXxtaR
 




post by TrixXxtaR
If these are manmade I'll eat my own hat.

How would you like that served , with or without salt

It is man made , not on the Moon but on a computer .... see page 3

Or just check THIS
edit on 24-2-2012 by gortex because: Edit to add



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrixXxtaR
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 

If these are manmade I'll eat my own hat.

The structure looks like it was designed by either a complete crack whore or an insanely drunk architect. Of course, the believers will debunk this by saying something along the lines of "If it was a conventional design it would be easily recognised." True, however we have to follow conventional design methods because we know they work.

This to me is just a massive, stinky pile'o cow dung.


The real reason is because the physics is the same in every part of this universe. The are designs that work and other don't.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 



Let repeat it to you, LIAR, YOU KNOW I REPLIED TO YOU ON PAGE 25 (reply posted on 23-2-2012 @ 04:26 PM by Anunaki10) that the SOURCE about these THREE and a HALF hours that Armstrong and Aldrin SPENT ON THE LUNAR SURFACE comes RIGHT FROM NASA...


Calm down. Whoever wrote that press release made a mistake. Millions of people watched the whole thing live. It was 2 1/2 hours.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The "structures" look like they were dug out of the existing landscape. Makes scence actually. Why carry building materials there? Just bring you're Acme Regulith/rock laser, find a good cliff face and have at it. Right angles don't occur in nature a lot. Interesting picture, wounder why it took them so long to get something back there? Ohh, that's right..it was the Chinese.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by NervousNJerky
 




post by NervousNJerky
Interesting picture,

I guess so , if by Interesting you mean nice Photoshop job




Ohh, that's right..it was the Japanese

Chinese actually ....only its not , its from NASA really

Isn't it time this thread went to visit Billy



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 


"put there or built"?

You aren't serious....the Moon is just as old as the Earth.

Confusing the effect (stable life on Earth) with the coincidence of the Moon-Earth system. Or, in other words, it is possible that had the Moon never formed along with the Earth, ~5 Billion years ago, then we Humans might not have evolved in the first place, to be guessing (now, all these Billions of years later) that "someone" "put it there", just for lil' ole us.


i cant prove my belief, its impossible without time travel, but at the same time since no one has discovered a born on date for the moon, its just a theory that the moon is old as the earth, i tend to look at probability's and the probability of the moon being were it is and doing what it does for us and it naturally just happening are odds i wouldn't gamble with, but at the same time i understand the vastness of the universe and that it is entirely possible that the moon is a natural coincidence that just so happened to create life. One thing i do know(without proof) is there are other beings besides us that have there own motivations and ideas, what they are, i don't know. so given the fact that there is someone out there besides us with technology and understanding way higher than ours i think the moon was intelligently placed or guided or built were it is today, way better odds in my book.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by DocHolidaze
 


The Moon may have helped shape the life on earth into us humans, but that doesn't mean that another intelligent creature (different than humans) would not have developed if the Moon was different or not there at all.

Saying that life on Earth today owes something to the Moon is not the same as saying that there would be no life without the Moon.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
Whoever wrote that press release made a mistake.

Are you sure it was a mistake? Other sources also mention THREE and a HALF hours, like these sources:

www.universetoday.com...
www.cosmosmagazine.com...
www.astrobio.net...
www.moondaily.com...
www.collectspace.com...
www.metro.co.uk...
www.redorbit.com...

There are other sources that also mention the Apollo 11 astronauts spending THREE and a HALF hours on Lunar surface, but let's stick with NASA's own source and these 7 other sources for now.

We have 3 options:

1) It was not a mistake. The info about these THREE and a HALF hours is TRUE.

2) NASA LIED ABOUT THE THREE AND A HALF HOURS, because NASA have lied before, like for example about the U-2 spyplane program


This photo was taken at the NASA Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, California on 6 May 1960 as part of an elaborate effort by the CIA to cover-up the true nature of the U-2 spy plane program. On 1 May 1960 CIA pilot Francis Gary Powers was shot down over the Soviet Union during a spy flight. Cooperating with the CIA, NASA issued a press release with a cover story about a U-2 conducting weather research that may have strayed off course after the pilot "reported difficulties with his oxygen equipment." This photo shows a U-2 that was quickly painted in NASA markings, with a fictitious NASA serial number, and put on display for the news media at the Edwards NASA facility.

In reality, up to that time no U-2 was ever used by NASA. Unfortunately, Powers was captured by the Soviet Union and espionage equipment was recovered from the wreckage. Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev exposed the cover-up and made much propaganda use of the American deception.

and NASA have lied about many other things.

3) It was a mistake.
edit on 24-2-2012 by Anunaki10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 


Every one of those sources worded it the EXACT same way:


"15 scenes representing the most significant moments of the three-and-a-half hours that Armstrong and Aldrin spent on the lunar surface"

Considering the wording is the same, verbatim, I think it's obvious the articles you linked all came from a single source (which was mistaken, obviously, because millions of people remember seeing a 2 1/2 hour EVA live on TV).

The articles you posted don't represent multiple independent sources confirming that it was 3 1/2 hours. Rather it is a bunch of different outlets repeating the same single mistaken source over and over.

I think you just offered up proof that the "3 1/2 hours" idea all came from one source. Thanks.


edit on 2/24/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by Anunaki10
 

Every one of those sources worded it the EXACT same way:

"15 scenes representing the most significant moments of the three-and-a-half hours that Armstrong and Aldrin spent on the lunar surface"

Considering the wording is the same, verbatim, I think it's obvious the articles you linked all came from a single source (which was mistaken, obviously, because millions of people remember seeing a 2 1/2 hour EVA live on TV).
The articles you posted don't represent multiple independent sources confirming that it was 3 1/2 hours. Rather it is a bunch of different outlets repeating the same single mistaken source over and over.
I think you just offered up proof that the "3 1/2 hours" idea all came from one source. Thanks.

NASA can't even figure out how many hours their own astronauts allegedly spent time on Lunar surface, NASA looks like a stupid big question, were NASA employees ask themselves >>Let me see, was it 3.5 hours? Or was it 2.5 hours? Sorry, we NASA employees can't help it, we really are stupid, we don't even know if the astronauts really walked on the Moon



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anunaki10
 



are these NASA images really real images? There could be a good chance that NASA may be using a new "Airbrushing" technique.


I have to commend you on (almost) bringing up the only possible argument that is on topic with this thread and that can't be proven one way or the other.

However, the airbrushing technique would have been a very old one, rather than a new one, as the NASA image is from 1967. I have a NASA publication, SP-200, "The Moon as viewed by Lunar Orbiter" from 1970. I took a look at the LO-3085 image in the book this morning (page 56) just to be sure there was no question. There is no moon base on the image in the publication.

"If" someone at NASA doctored the image, it would have been prior to 1970.

edit on 24-2-2012 by Zarniwoop because: added the page number in SP-200



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
I can't believe that people are still trying to debunk this thread.
Even if the example given is skeptical, no one can prove that man-made or alien-made structures do not exist on the moon. There are several accounts by astronauts that describe structures on the moon as well as inhabitants.
This is ATS! why are people so hell bent on constantly disproving everything that is talked about here?
We are just speculating about.... ABOVE TOP SECRET information. This means that you will get very little help or confirmation.
I really am starting to believe that the likes of Proudbird and idiotronic are most likely government agents or nervous employees of the Vatican.

People want to site "scientific research" and claim that life couldn't have evolved to an advanced level billions of years ago... There is no prof of that either!

All we can really study is major geological events and whatever fossils we can find from the past.
There is nothing in the "scientific/Illuminati/mainstream academic world" that would give real evidence that advanced civilizations could not have gone to the moon and beyond in our Earth's past.


edit on 24-2-2012 by TimesUp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 05:59 PM
link   
And NASA?
NASA was designed specifically to make us feel like we are making tiny steps of progress and to take our eyes off of the real space program that the Navy is running.
NASA is here to dis-inform and at the same time mesmerize us every now and then.
Total cover up program designed to keep the cover up covering.



posted on Feb, 24 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TimesUp
 



no one can prove that man-made or alien-made structures do not exist on the moon.


Ah... but that was not the premise of this thread. The thread was intended to fool people into thinking that the image in the video was somehow from Chang'e 2, which has been thoroughly debunkitized.

If the video forgot all about Chang'e 2 and proposed that the moon base was found in a never-before-seen version of LO-3085, and that NASA had released a doctored image to the public, then that would be something worth some discussion. However, there is no way to prove this unless there is something better than a youtube video of a most-likely Photoshopped version of LO-3085.

I'd love to see some good proof of NASA doctoring moon images, but this one aint it.



new topics

top topics



 
135
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join