Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Our Entire Space Program Is A Hoax And A Massive Deception

page: 121
57
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by TimmyL
 


Well see that's the problem. They could do that. But there would likely by now be nothing there after so many years. Also china made a telescope this was like 10 years ago already that could look at the moon very close up. So they would easily be able to see if there's any evidence. So you never hear a peep about if they seen anything. They likely didn't even look as they knew they'd find nothing there.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by AstronautHeinyBusters
 



Of course it would not hold up in a court of law, nor would it in a in a court of public opinion.


You were afraid to debate it in a structured debate. Goodbye.



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by denver22
 


so 40 years on and we still have to look at the old grainy images of the moon ...until the moon is mapped much like earth is, i can't really buy into Believing anything NASA has to say on the subject ..we have the know how..we have the tools to do it in space now...Im sure everyone on the planet would love to take a virtual tour in high definition around the moon ...was so disappointed with Google's moon maps .. im not buying into the fact that there is nothing of interest on the moon ..NASA are hiding something

i don't have to quote some one on the internet to know that....



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Yes, it would appear they were astro-nots.


reply to post by blocula
 



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 

You shouldn't have to justify your spelling to anyone! Just another bully hiding behind the anonymity offered by the keyboard!



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
This has probably been mentioned but if it's impossible for even a ship to go into space as you claim, then how did NASA's reflectors get on the moon, and why can any amateur with a decent telescope see the space station?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by BoosterBooster
 



This confirms a point some others have made


You mean this confirms what you wrote as "decisively," Dr. Tea.


Ever wonder why Neil Armstrong walks off camera to collect the Apollo 11 landing contingency sample? Read this from David Harland's book, "The First Men On The Moon";


“The contingency sample is in the pocket,” Armstrong informed Houston, to the relief of the scientists. In fact, they would have preferred the sample taken well away from Eagle because the exhaust plume had disturbed the fine material in the immediate vicinity and potentially contaminated that which remained. In addition, the oxidiser pressure had been relieved soon after landing by venting, and some of the nitrogen tetroxide might have coated the surface. But Armstrong had been told to remain close to the vehicle.




Harland, David M. (2006-10-01). The First Men on the Moon: The Story of Apollo 11 (Springer Praxis Books / Space Exploration).

So if scientists see Neil collect the rocks right there, they know what to expect contamination wise. They can't fake that, so he walks away, collects the contingency sample and now the contamination issue has been made ambiguous. The scientists can't expect anything when they examine the rocks on earth.


But Armstrong was on camera when he collected the contingency sample, remember?



www.abovetopsecret.com...


The other thing is Neil takes photos before collecting the rocks. The photos must include rocks that would appear regardless of Neil's collection. That is, they are phony pictures. If Armstrong collected the rocks first, the rocks would have STILL APPEARED in the photos. They were never picked up to begin with. This is the explanation for the funny order, photos before contingency sample collection.


It is this sort of illogical reasoning that gives you away every time.



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceStu
reply to post by Bodhi7
 


Reflectors were landed on the moon by the Russians. Finding hardware on the moon, or evidence of hardware does not necessarily mean one has found evidence for a human hand's having placed the hardware there.

I read today that Neil Armstrong witnessed the American signing of the 1967 outer space treaty. UNBELIEVABLE. THE RAT. Talk about theater. These guys are planting weapons in space, figuratively speaking of course, and Armstrong has the nerve to pretend like he is interested in this treaty which was supposed to safeguard space from twits just like him. It is hard to get any more cynical after reading that. That ditz is the biggest low life jerk on the planet, Armstrong is.


Proof? Anything?



posted on Jul, 27 2012 @ 06:47 PM
link   
edit on 12-8-2012 by alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mblahnikluver
 


Thanks for a very nice launch snap, starred.

"What's to worry? 250,000 moving parts, all
made by the lowest bidder.." Steve Buscemi, "Armageddon"
--- one of my favorite engineer-type skeptics LOL

Of greater concern to me is how much MORE they've
stuck up there that nobody's allowed to talk about.



posted on Jul, 28 2012 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by PeterPaM
 



Believe us , we are flattered, but there is only one Patrick. BoosterBooster's aka Claudia's point is not that Armstrong pretended to collect the rock samples off screen. He was of course videoed. Claudia's point was that the specimen was not collected right next to the lander. Presumably, were the rocks collected right there, despite the rather "inert" status of N2, CO2 and H2O, the rock samples would have been EXPECTED TO BE CONTAMINATED with these substances. With the collection done somewhat away from the LM, all bets were off on the phony collection. That is not to say scientists may not have expected some contamination. But collecting the rocks right next to the lander , they would have expect WATER on the rocks and so forth. Claudia is better at this than I am. I'll give her the next crack. But the group here gets the general idea. How did I do Claudia ?


So why not just add the appropriate amount of water to the fake rocks?



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DoctorTea
 



Presumably they did add the "right amount" of water to the rocks, if they thought that was needed. The point about the contingency sample has to do with collecting the sample right next to the lander. Should the rocks then be COVERED with water ? CO2 ? N2 ? Guesses anyone ?


No need to guess:

adsabs.harvard.edu...






top topics



 
57
<< 118  119  120    122  123  124 >>

log in

join