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: 41
57
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by Gibborium
 
In two of the photos you posted above,the 2nd and 3rd,i can clearly and obviously see where the mockup lunar surface meets,joins and trys to blend into the painted to (almost) look the same background, just like so many hollywood movies use to do that were filmed on sound stages in the past...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


Perhaps this will shed some light on your supposed painted backdrop theroy:

Apollo 17 Surface Panorama

What you are calling a division between the foreground and the "painted to (almost) look the same background" is actually the rolling surface of the moon. The background is far enough away that it loses definition or clarity.

Here is a youtube video of Apollo 16's traverse to station 10 on the rover. Notice the camera is pointing at the same mountain in the background almost all the time and then notice the length of the video. This is not a sound stage. There is only one light source throughout the entire video, the sun.





posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Nonchalant
 



The whole notion of going to the moon with our technology that we had in the '60s is nothing short of ludicrous..


It would be as ridiculous as someone crossing the Atlantic Ocean with the technology they had in 1492. How did Columbus cross the ocean without diesel engines, radiotelephones and GPS navigation? Impossible, right?
Sailing a ship across open water is many worlds away from trying to fly a ship through the void of outer space,especially 40 years ago,not that it was ever done back then,because it was'nt...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 
Hundreds of millions of people thinking and believing that no one went to the moon is not a "wild exaggeration"...

Around 20% of americans think the moon landings were a hoax and so with an american population of about 300 million,thats about 60 million people...

In russia about 25% of people think that the moon landings were a hoax and so with a russain popualtion of around 140 million,thats about 35 million more people...

Then if i extrapolate those figures out across the entire world,theres easily many 100's of millions, perhaps even a billion people who think and believe the same thing...

Although its not politically correct or socially acceptable to go against the mainstream,those numbers are staggering...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by Illustronic
 


So, in summery, in saying that the evidence is conflicting because it is, I have done all the research for and against and it is very much conflicting so I want to be clear.

Here is what we are proposing as more possible.

In 1969 while they were still listening to records we sent a spacecraft beyond Earths orbit and landed on the moon with no complications, the men that went there took hundreds of perfect photos, planted a flag, had a field day among countless anomalies that have pointed out by thousands of people. No problem, landed, took off, no hitch all on the first try with tech that couldn't power a modern day simple dollar store calculator in hand stitched uniforms.

Ok fine, that said. The reason they haven't been back is it is too expensive now? No reason to go back? We already did it, why would we do it again?

Nasa and the government claiming its too expensive to return humans to the moon,as a valiid reason why they never went back,is laughable in the extreme and shows just how stupid they think we actually are,they have had 40 years to try and go back and surely during all that time,they could have started a new moon landing savings account comprised of our extorted tax billions,or just used the interest garnered from their fabricated wars budget...



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula
 


[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]
I dont think any humans walked on the moon and as far as what do i think is on the moon,i'm not sure what you mean? nasa has probably fired un-manned rockets that crashed onto the moon and they may have even sent un-manned rockets there that then parachuted robotic objects down onto the moons surface,but no humans flew to the moon,walked upon its surface or flew back in 1969-72...

I think the moon is an annunaki death star,a space battleship and perhaps its even what we call noahs ark,built in orbit around mars,as that planets biosphere was dying off and its atmosphere was fading away and the craters and surface scars on the moon may have been the result of some ancient interstellar war fought long ago,which is now all but forgotten and that ancient war may have even destroyed an entire planet or moon,remnants of which we call the asteroid belt...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


didnt you state it is too cold to get to the moon.. you expect something at a freezing temperature which makes things super brittle, to be able to land on the moon intact?

also i dont know about you, but i have no idea what purpose parachutes have on the moon. do you even know how parachutes work?
Would an unassisted vehicle,meaning with no rockets to slow its descent down,just be thrown upon the moons surface,or just be crashed onto it? no it would destroy it and so an unmanned vehicle trying to land on the moon,the only variety that might have ever done so,would have to be preprogrammed to or remotely able to,turn itself around and make a gentle landing? theres no way our current technology is going to be able to make that happen?
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



you havent explained your parachute theory on the moon though, your original post suggests landing objects on the moon is impossible, yet here you are saying they can. so have they been landing things on the moon or not?

Also have you ever considered how they are able to dock to the ISS. they have little nozzle around the craft to control its direction and orientation in space, if they want to turn the craft 180 degrees it is not that difficult, only controlling the rate and minimising fuel burn is the tougher job.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Gibborium
 
Different lunar mockups were filmed within different sized hangers,some scenes were filmed in relatively small hangers with painted backdrops relatively close to the movie cameras,a few hundred feet away perhaps and some scenes were filmed within huge panoramic hangers,with painted backdrops far off in the distance that seem almost totally realistic,perhaps a couple of thousand feet away from the movie cameras...

7 awe inspiring aircraft hangers and these are the ones we know about,not the huge secret hangers built on secret locations > www.cheapflightsfinder.com...


edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by denver22
reply to post by blocula
 


[bloc ill ask you a question ...wot do you personally think is on the moon ? ]
I dont think any humans walked on the moon and as far as what do i think is on the moon,i'm not sure what you mean? nasa has probably fired un-manned rockets that crashed onto the moon and they may have even sent un-manned rockets there that then parachuted robotic objects down onto the moons surface,but no humans flew to the moon,walked upon its surface or flew back in 1969-72...

I think the moon is an annunaki death star,a space battleship and perhaps its even what we call noahs ark,built in orbit around mars,as that planets biosphere was dying off and its atmosphere was fading away and the craters and surface scars on the moon may have been the result of some ancient interstellar war fought long ago,which is now all but forgotten and that ancient war may have even destroyed an entire planet or moon,remnants of which we call the asteroid belt...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)
The moon controlls the tide the sea theyve been there done that and bought moon rock t shirt now why go waste billions of more dollars fly back to the moon when the united states economy could benefit more from not going back there spend all that money to play in the dirt. .the moon is threre for earths purpose to controll the sea .makes more sense than a starwars death star.them craters are impact craters not not some starwars thing you claim.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 





Would an unassisted vehicle,meaning with no rockets to slow its descent down,just be thrown upon the moons surface,or just be crashed onto it? no it would destroy it and so an unmanned vehicle trying to land on the moon,the only variety that might have ever done so,would have to be preprogrammed to or remotely able to,turn itself around and make a gentle landing? theres no way our current technology is going to be able to make that happen?


You're joking right? First the crafts do have rockets, and yes they work in space, exactly the same way they work in atmosphere. You don't need pre programed though they had that capability before 1960. The moon is only 1.5 light seconds away, that is just twice a human reaction time slamming on breaks in a car when they see something at most.

Mars is between 3 and 22 light minutes distant from earth, yet Curiosity is going to do this all by itself.


If you knew a little bit about rocket science what should amaze you more than powered landings is directing a trajectory of a drifting spacecraft through space for lets say 1.67 billion (with a b) miles to Saturn and then jump moon to moon around its system, like Cassini did.. Saturn is so far away that the furthest it is to earth is just 1.2 billion miles away, over 7 times the distance to the sun from earth. Not no silly powered landings.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


[Its charlatans like david icke and co that makes people like blocular trapped in the realms of denial]

1 we went

2 we saw

3 we brought the moon rock t shirt



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by DJW001
 
Hundreds of millions of people thinking and believing that no one went to the moon is not a "wild exaggeration"...

Around 20% of americans think the moon landings were a hoax and so with an american population of about 300 million,thats about 60 million people...

In russia about 25% of people think that the moon landings were a hoax and so with a russain popualtion of around 140 million,thats about 35 million more people...

Then if i extrapolate those figures out across the entire world,theres easily many 100's of millions, perhaps even a billion people who think and believe the same thing...

Although its not politically correct or socially acceptable to go against the mainstream,those numbers are staggering...

blocular so because the people have spoken in there view does that in your eyes think that can be used as proof..? all that is is just an opinion factor and not the proof you seek that man has not set foot on the moon etc



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 
The descent stage of the supposed real lunar module weighed around 23,000 lbs and so why didnt all that weight just fall out of the lunar sky and crash onto the moons surface from high above while trying to land? and realizing that theres supposedly no available air surrounding the moon to inflate a parachute,i'm expected to believe that the modules 12 ton weight was held suspended,then gradually and softly lowered and landed using only small powered,guiding and maneuvering rockets? Or maybe the lunar module was able to gracefully descend like magic? Once again,no way? It didnt really happen...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 



The descent stage of the supposed real lunar module weighed around 23,000 lbs and so why didnt all that weight just fall out of the lunar sky and crash onto the moons surface from high above while trying to land?


It's called thrusters and the moon's weak gravity.


and realizing that theres supposedly no available air surrounding the moon to inflate a parachute,i'm expected to believe that the modules 12 ton weight was held suspended,then gradually and softly lowered and landed using only small powered,guiding and maneuvering rockets?


Wow, I didn't realize you were a rocket scientist. What happened, did you get fired by NASA and now you're making this stuff up to try and hurt them? Oh, and there's no atmosphere...and just because the air is motionless, doesn't mean a parachute can't catch it.


Or maybe the lunar module was able to gracefully descend like magic? Once again,no way? It didnt really happen...


Or maybe you don't know what you're talking about. That one sounds about right.
edit on CWednesdaypm131300f00America/Chicago04 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by choos
 
The descent stage of the supposed real lunar module weighed around 23,000 lbs and so why didnt all that weight just fall out of the lunar sky and crash onto the moons surface from high above while trying to land? and realizing that theres supposedly no available air surrounding the moon to inflate a parachute,i'm expected to believe that the modules 12 ton weight was held suspended,then gradually and softly lowered and landed using only small powered,guiding and maneuvering rockets? Or maybe the lunar module was able to gracefully descend like magic? Once again,no way? It didnt really happen...
edit on 4-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


What does 23,000 pounds weigh in zero gravity? Essentially nothing (or feels like nothing) Weightlessness. The gravity of the moon is essentially 1/4th earths gravity correct? Now take 1/4 of 23,000 pounds and divide it to get the weight diffrence then subtract from 23,000 weighs on the moon is 17,250 lbs. There is no air in space and the moon lander did not have a parachute deployed in the footage of ots decent to the surface. It used the rocket motor to control its descent. You know similiar to jet pack pilots do.The lander had a main engine below it and was not small by the way. Still there is no use talking to you because you are so confused its making alot of us LOL. I am just enjoying the ride.I appreciate your humorous assertions and reasoning. Please go on.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   
DID NOBODY EVER READ MOONGATE . OR WHO BUILT THE MOON OR READ REPORTS FROM ASTRONOMERS FROM THE 1700S ONWARDS ABOUT CLOUD FORMATIONS ON THE MOON BRIGHT LIGHTS ETC ETC



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Helious
 



Here is what is hard to "figure out". our president said we would go to the moon by the end of the decade even though every scientific mind on Earth said....... "um no".


Simply wrong. Scientists had worked out the basic principles nearly a hundred years earlier. (Google Konstantin Tsiolkovskii.) Everyone acknowledged that a lunar mission was theoretically possible. All it took was some brilliant engineering and a lot of money to make it happen.


That aside, we went to the Moon didn't we? We did so in the very height of the cold war, in the very face of our enemy and in fact, the whole world.


Precisely. It was the Cold War that provided the impetus to spend the money. The space program provided a pretext for developing technology and infrastructure that could also have military applications. If the US could build a Saturn V, they could use it to send men to the Moon... or loft a permanent manned space platform loaded with warheads. The demonstration of one held the implicit threat of the other. It was vital that the capacity be real. Period.


We went to the Moon.................. We launched people from the Earth, landed them on the moon, allowed them to enjoy a time share, bounce around take hundreds of pictures, collect moon rocks, revel in our glory and all was just fine. We did all of that, no problem, piece of cake, absolutely no problem, this is witnessed by all of our stellar photographs, videos, live communications and memories. American Pie.

How come we have an ISS? How come if it was child's play as evidenced by our first attempt we don't have a moon base? We know there is water right? We know we can go and come back in tinfoil craft with hand stitched suites, should be a joke to to do these days right? How come we aren't all set up launching missions from there now? How come? Too expensive? Wrong......... So why?


No one has ever said it was child's play; in fact, the whole point to doing it was that it was a supreme technological challenge. It was also not without mishap; three astronauts died in a flash fire on the pad, Apollo 11 nearly cracked up on an unexpected field of boulders, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning and Apollo 13 had a sudden fuel cell depressurization and nearly didn't make it back. You might want to read up on just how difficult it really was:

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...

www.astronautix.com...

As for it being "too expensive," you decide:

www.thespacereview.com...




All of you that are claiming science as your basis for fact are robbing yourself of the most basic facts, what tends to be the simplest solution is probably correct. Instead of trying to figure out all of the above, perhaps you should consider that the most viable answer is that we were never there in the first place.


And those of you who are claiming "gut feelings" are robbing yourself not only of critical thinking, but of what is undoubtedly the greatest human technological achievement of all time. The simplest answer is that all that engineering, industrial infrastructure, managerial skill and sheer guts took humanity to another world. Those who deny it are driven by irrational concerns or devious agenda.
edit on 4-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-4-2012 by DJW001 because: Edits to polish style.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
It could be international base, just like the ISS.

Sure, they could call it anything, but when you control access to a place, you pretty much own it.

Originally posted by Illustronic
I don't see what kind of a threat a lunar base poses to anything.

Well, I'm sure one of the first things they'd stock the base with would be bombs of some sort. Once the base is manned and supplied, it's vastly easier and cheaper to attack the Earth from the moon than the other way around.
Hell, they could just launch big chunks of rock at our gravity well. Something the size of a semi, or a house, would make a big damn bang when it hit.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by geobro
 



DID NOBODY EVER READ MOONGATE


Has nobody ever learned basic science or proper historical methodology?


OR WHO BUILT THE MOON


A book that relies on data from Apollo to support its more outrageous pseudo-scientific claims?


OR READ REPORTS FROM ASTRONOMERS FROM THE 1700S ONWARDS ABOUT CLOUD FORMATIONS ON THE MOON BRIGHT LIGHTS ETC ETC


I participated in a project to observe "Transient Lunar Phenomena." Never saw one, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. What does that have to do with whether people have actually landed on the Moon or not?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 



Well, I'm sure one of the first things they'd stock the base with would be bombs of some sort. Once the base is manned and supplied, it's vastly easier and cheaper to attack the Earth from the moon than the other way around.
Hell, they could just launch big chunks of rock at our gravity well. Something the size of a semi, or a house, would make a big damn bang when it hit.


The problem is, it would take three days to reach its target; plenty of time to be intercepted and destroyed. If putting weapons on the Moon had any military advantage, it would have been done already. In fact, there is no advantage to putting nuclear weapons in orbit; they would have an extremely narrow "launch window." There are reasons why nuclear missiles are increasingly sea based.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by subject x
 

Are you trying to take Blocula's title for painfully flawed logic? How would a missile attack from the moon be better than using ICBM's? It's not exactly easy or cost effective to launch anything from the moon towards Earth and it takes way too long to get here to be anywhere near effective. As for firing chunks of rock into earth's gravity well . . . ignoring your blatant ignorance of the laws of physics and orbital mechanics, how does one aim a chunk of rock?



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 


So you are still having trouble grasping the concept of rockets? I mean, it's not rocket science, oh wait, it in fact IS!



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join