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.

 

All the "Moon Landing" theories. What is your opinion and why?

page: 3
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
We went to the moon. We haven't sent manned missions back to the moon recently because of the cost and risk. All the astronauts who went to the moon(or orbited around it) were brave and lucky to have survived. The possibility of a fatal accident with '60's technology was extremely high, Apollo 13 for example. Now we have better technology without the budget or popular support to go back.

There were UFO* sightings, no smoking guns that point toward alien life, just many recorded and documented UFO sightings.

Here is one example on Apollo 11 with Buzz speaking out about a UFO sighting.

*UFO- Unidentified Flying Object(NOT proof of an ET craft)


edit on 10-3-2012 by jrod because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 10 2012 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jrod
 


In that video about the Apollo 11 incident,understanding the point in the mission when the "thing" was observed is important.

First, the S-IVB had already done its job, and they had performed the LOI burn

Table 7.1 of this PDF shows the LOI burn at mission elapsed time of 02:44:16 (Two hours, 44 minutes, 16 seconds).

The S-IVB and CSM were separated at 03:17:04. The LM was docked, and extracted from the SLA (Spacecraft/Lunar Module Adapter) starting at 03:24:03.

At 04:16:59, after been already docked with the LM, they performed the "spacecraft ejection". This separated the LM from the SLA.


This is the Apollo Flight Journal, with transcripts and audio files. It ties in with the PDF linked above.


I'm searching through the Journal, above, to find the point in the video that Buzz is talking about. It is definitely after the S-IVB separation, because they are told the third stage is 6,000 NM away. I suggest (and Buzz said this on Larry King) it was the SLA that they saw. That was their "UFO".....



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




Then why are you calling me names, rather than considering my opinion?


Because you labelled me with this little gem of a pathetic comment



Your bias is obvious.


If you had not been so rude and actually acknowledged what the thread was about none of the above would happened. Bad on your part. You were the one who started with the wrongful "Biased" opinion. I am far from biased towards any issue on the subject



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
reply to post by phatpackage
 



Because you labelled me with this little gem of a pathetic comment


I did not "label" you, I pointed out that you misrepresented at least one of the positions you outlined. This may have been unintentional, in which case I hope that you will reflect upon what I pointed out. If you truly wish to be unbiased, you must attempt to understand how people who subscribe to various points of view actually think. Please try to be genuinely open minded; you have yet to acknowledge that you mis-stated the "pro-Apollo" position by making a broad, biased generalization.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
We went to the moon. We haven't sent manned missions back to the moon recently because of the cost and risk.


This is a weak and lazy argument. research son.

They have been sending probes to many planets. They dont need to send a man to the moon. There are no operational rovers or probes on the moon now. People are curious why they stopped all together and now countries are planning and hoping to reach the moon again but they are finding it much more difficult than Apollo made it seem.

I Hate lazy thinkers.



posted on Mar, 12 2012 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



There are no operational rovers or probes on the moon now.


What would you expect a lunar rover to accomplish? The Apollo astronauts returned core samples, which allow us to understand the structure of the regolith. Rock samples have revealed the Moon's basic composition. Remote sensing by Clementine has charted the distribution of minerals on the surface. The LRO and automated probes from several nations have mapped the Moon's topography in great detail. The questions scientists now want to answer concern what lies beneath the surface. By crash landing probes, scientist have been able to churn up material in order to examine it. The Grail constellation is mapping the deep structure of the Moon. What would be the scientific benefit of landing a rover on the Moon?
edit on 12-3-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




top topics
 
6
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join