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.

 

Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

page: 119
57
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by paradox
 
Omg,different threads contain different theories and sometimes they are interconnected and sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother...




posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


But if you have 50 theories, and they all contradict each other then that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. The way science works is to find one theory, and then prove it. Not have 4 or 5 theories that contradict each other and argue that every one of them is right.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by paradox
 
Omg,different threads contain different theories and sometimes they are interconnected and sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother...



Therefore they can't all be true.
Everybody else here can see the problem.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


actually that isnt eaxactly how science works.
you start with the facts and build a theory that is supported by these facts, then as more facts emerge you change your theory to include these new facts.
so, actually it makes sense to have more than one theory on the go (as long as they include the proven facts and only differ on the predicted applications of the theory)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by DaveNorris
 


Yeah, I know, but I was trying to put it in a way that didn't get too technical. Every other attempt didn't seem to work, so maybe that would.



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaveNorris
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


actually that isnt eaxactly how science works.
you start with the facts and build a theory that is supported by these facts, then as more facts emerge you change your theory to include these new facts.
so, actually it makes sense to have more than one theory on the go (as long as they include the proven facts and only differ on the predicted applications of the theory)
A big problem is that bloc's theories generally fly in the face of established scientific facts.

I will use his giant contact lens shaped Earth theory as an example.
edit on 29-6-2012 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by paradox
 
Omg,different threads contain different theories and sometimes they are interconnected and sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother...


But bloc it was you who brought the multiple contradictory theories into this one thread.

ETA: Can you explain explain why penguins don't fall off the Antarctic ring?
edit on 29-6-2012 by DenyObfuscation because: ETA



posted on Jun, 29 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by paradox
 
Omg,different threads contain different theories and sometimes they are interconnected and sometimes they have nothing to do with eachother...



And all of them make zero sense and can not even be called a theory because theories are based on known facts, not the imaginations of the mentally ill.
edit on 6-29-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by blocula
 


But if you have 50 theories, and they all contradict each other then that doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. The way science works is to find one theory, and then prove it. Not have 4 or 5 theories that contradict each other and argue that every one of them is right.


With the Moon there are 5 theories that compete. Look what they fancy scientist has to say "If anything," he said, "it just opens up more cool problems to work on."


Five Serious Theories

Five serious theories have been proposed for the formation of the Moon (not counting the one involving green cheese):
The Fission Theory: The Moon was once part of the Earth and somehow separated from the Earth early in the history of the Solar System. The present Pacific Ocean basin is the most popular site for the part of the Earth from which the Moon came.
The Capture Theory: The Moon was formed somewhere else, and was later captured by the gravitational field of the Earth.
The Condensation Theory: The Moon and the Earth condensed together from the original nebula that formed the Solar System.
The Colliding Planetesimals Theory: The interaction of earth-orbiting and Sun-orbiting planetesimals (very large chunks of rocks like asteroids) early in the history of the Solar System led to their breakup. The Moon condensed from this debris.
The Ejected Ring Theory: A planetesimal the size of Mars struck the earth, ejecting large volumes of matter. A disk of orbiting material was formed, and this matter eventually condensed to form the Moon in orbit around the Earth. Source csep10.phys.utk.edu...


Also, there is a Spaceship Moon Theory,

The Spaceship Moon Theory, also known as the Vasin-Shcherbakov Theory, is a theory that claims the Earth's moon may actually be an alien spacecraft. The theory was put forth by two members of the then Soviet Academy of Sciences, Michael Vasin and Alexander Shcherbakov, in a July 1970 article entitled "Is the Moon the Creation of Alien Intelligence?" Source en.wikipedia.org...


Finally, there is a Two Moon Theory,

The new theory isn't without its problems, however. For example, it doesn't explain why the lumpy far side of our moon shows a high concentration of aluminum, Taylor said. However, this problem could be resolved by future lunar studies, Taylor said, and it's not a serious enough reason to dismiss the theory.

"If anything," he said, "it just opens up more cool problems to work on." Source news.nationalgeographic.com...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Your point being? There are a lot of things out there that we haven't figured out yet. As more evidence comes in they'll narrow it down, and figure out how the moon came to be.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Your point being? There are a lot of things out there that we haven't figured out yet. As more evidence comes in they'll narrow it down, and figure out how the moon came to be.


My point is we sent astronauts, probes, satellites, took pictures, movies and brought back moon rocks, and that science still maintains 5 or 6 serious moon theories as of 2012.

There is no consensus in science in regard to the Moon. All these scientists can't be right. That means ... many, times these highly quotable scientific authorities, are dead wrong when they are talking about the moon, or space, or glob al warming.

Well, Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17. He firmly believes in a giant impact theory. Here is a typical rebuttal to Astronaut and ex-Senator Schmitt's theory.
www.mtholyoke.edu...


Although his discussion of lunar history is certainly very comprehensive and detailed, he
does dismiss two theories that have turned out to be right and were widely accepted in 1991.
The first of these is the giant impact hypothesis of lunar formation. Schmitt (1991) objects to
this theory on the grounds that the source material for the orange glass beads that he found
during the Apollo 17 mission was too rich in volatiles and parentless Pb to be explained by the
giant impact hypothesis. This argument is somewhat absurd. Schmitt is using inferences about
the parent material of one very rare sample to object to a theory that Hartmann (1986) built on
overall volatile depletion, overall iron depletion, angular momentum conservation, oxygen
isotope similarity between the Earth and the Moon, and several other lines of evidence. While it
is true that Schmitt et al. (1991) does state that it is only using the Apollo evidence, it is
somewhat tacky to object to a popular theory without engaging the main thrust of the argument.


Harrison Schmitt, the Apollo hand picked C I A geologist, also says "Moon Landing Not A Hoax, Global Warming Is!"

Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission, declared in 2008:

"The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society's activities."


So what we have is a "political"geologist, a CIA Apollo astronaut scientist, who supports one theory and denies another theories on the basis of his well known pro-Republican, pro-Business, anti-communists, anti-environmentalist beliefs.

Should we believe him because he flew on Apollo? Should we ignore him because he's an anti-communist who thinks global warming is a hoax? Is the Apollo program be a cover up for something else? How do we judge a scientist that speaks in political tongues?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Again, your point being? There are hundreds of scientists here on earth that STILL find things that shock everyone, or that they can't figure out about the earth. They've been studying how life was formed, and evolution for ages, and STILL can't agree how they occurred. They're trying to figure out how the moon was formed from a relatively small number of rocks that came back.

As for saying global warming is false, there are hundreds of scientists that say that man made global warming is false, and hundreds that say that it's true. That's something they'll be arguing about for years to come. Just because someone went to the moon doesn't give them more or less credibility than someone that didn't.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 


Again, your point being? There are hundreds of scientists here on earth that STILL find things that shock everyone, or that they can't figure out about the earth. They've been studying how life was formed, and evolution for ages, and STILL can't agree how they occurred. They're trying to figure out how the moon was formed from a relatively small number of rocks that came back.

As for saying global warming is false, there are hundreds of scientists that say that man made global warming is false, and hundreds that say that it's true. That's something they'll be arguing about for years to come. Just because someone went to the moon doesn't give them more or less credibility than someone that didn't.


Actually I think that you'll find that thousands of scientists know that man-made global warming is happening and l a hundred or so idiots who are being paid by oil companies say that it isn't. But then this isn't the thread to discuss this.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

My point is we sent astronauts, probes, satellites, took pictures, movies and brought back moon rocks, and that science still maintains 5 or 6 serious moon theories as of 2012.


Thanx for admitting we went to the moon...took you long enough.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program (scroll 1/3 down the link page) > www.apfn.org...



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
Deaths of key people involved with the Apollo program (scroll 1/3 down the link page) > www.apfn.org...

This is very sad bloc, repeating this nonsense. Why do you suppose the nazi rocket scientists you say literally landed us on the Moon didn't make the list?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DenyObfuscation
 
Several nazi mass murderers were exempt from punishment,as long as the usa could procure their rocket technology to use against the russians during a cold war that didnt even exist and send astronauts to the moon where they never even went...

Wow...Dont you see?

Its all about money and power...

Its all about domination and control...

Its all about lies and deceptions...

Nasa/Nazi/Nato...Hmmmm?

edit on 30-6-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 



Several nazi mass murderers were exempt from punishment,as long as the usa could procure their rocket technology to use against the russians during a cold war that didnt even exist and send astronauts to the moon where they never even went...

That doesn't even make sense. You said they literally landed us on the Moon. You're a walking contradiction.
Besides, that's a moral issue irrelevant to whether or not space travel is even possible. There's no reason to have to explain that to an adult.



Its all about lies and deceptions...

You can't possibly discern lies and deceptions, being so clueless as to what the truth is.



Nasa/Nazi/Nato...Hmmmm?

Adjust your meds.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by blocula
 



Several nazi mass murderers were exempt from punishment,as long as the usa could procure their rocket technology to use against the russians during a cold war that didnt even exist and send astronauts to the moon where they never even went...

That doesn't even make sense. You said they literally landed us on the Moon. You're a walking contradiction.
Besides, that's a moral issue irrelevant to whether or not space travel is even possible. There's no reason to have to explain that to an adult.



Its all about lies and deceptions...

You can't possibly discern lies and deceptions, being so clueless as to what the truth is.



Nasa/Nazi/Nato...Hmmmm?

Adjust your meds.
Within another thread,about some other theory,i said the nazis sent us to the moon,so i havent contradicted anything and could you please leave the drug addict accusations out of this discussion?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 





Within another thread,about some other theory,i said the nazis sent us to the moon,so i havent contradicted anything

Yes you have. You can't believe that they both did AND couldn't do it !!!



and could you please leave the drug addict accusations out of this discussion?

I accused no one of drug addiction.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 116  117  118    120  121  122 >>

log in

join