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: 57
57
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by holywar666
reply to post by choos
 


Yet you think we dont have the technology to create a zero gravity environment. By the link i posted, obviously they do. Would they blatantly tell us they have a secret room where astronauts can operate in? Are you crazy? That would be the single most used evidence posted by conspiracy theorists!
edit on 15-4-2012 by holywar666 because: (no reason given)


what you dont understand is that, the footage is done live with less than 2 second delay.

which means in the 5 seconds free fall footage they can get from this chamber, they need to do 114 individually perfect takes. and to compress all of that into 2 seconds and show it live??

easier to create a time machine buddy.

edit on 15-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)


also a bit of homework for you, since i need to step out for a bit.

work out how far it needs to fall to replicate 9mins 30 seconds worth of footage, thats 570 seconds falling on earth at 9.81 m/s^2

also note the final velocity and how to safely slow the machine back down without killing the astronauts inside.
edit on 15-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 
How did we know that the footage was really being broadcast live with a 2 second delay? Because tptb told us it was? For all we knew,it could have been a 2 hour,or a 2 day delay...


edit on 15-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

also a bit of homework for you, since i need to step out for a bit.

work out how far it needs to fall to replicate 9mins 30 seconds worth of footage, thats 570 seconds falling on earth at 9.81 m/s^2



Your job is to disprove me. Do your own homework.

What about the Apollo 13 movie?


Howard went to great lengths to create a technically accurate movie, employing NASA's technical assistance in astronaut and flight controller training for his cast, and even obtaining permission to film scenes aboard a reduced gravity aircraft for realistic depiction of the "weightlessness" experienced by the astronauts in space.



Apollo 13

???? So they CAN film in zero-gravity locations on Earth! Very interesting....



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 

I recommend that you read up on how the transmissions were received and broadcast to TV.

Parks Observatory
When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64 metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26 metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64 metre dish at Parkes.

In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture.

A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast. For a comprehensive explanation of the TV reception of the Apollo 11 broadcast, see "The Television Broadcasts" from the report "On Eagles Wings".

On Monday, 31 October 2011, Google replaced its logo with a Google Doodle in honor of Parkes Observatory's 50th Anniversary.[4] It was only visible on Google in Australia.

Only those three radio telescopes were in position to receive and relay the pictures coming from the moon. Since nowhere else on the earth was in position to do so, where was the supposedly “fake” transmission being broadcast from?

They even made a movie about Parks part in the Apollo missions:
IMDB: The Dish



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 
In 2006,the apollo era slow scan tv and telemetry data tape reels were declared missing and in 2009,nasa revealed that the tapes were erased.How convenient and imagine the odds of them accidently erasing something so valuable and irreplaceable.They probaly erased them on purpose, because they wouldnt have stood up to close scrutiny using modern technology...



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 



Here is a trailer for the movie Apollo 13 w/ Tom Hanks. Hey didnt he just star in that 9/11 movie....?



1:07 and on, shows plenty Zero Gravity footage. Now i love Tom Hanks....but i dont think he was trained to be an astronaut and flown into space. How did they accomplish this if humans cant achieve anti-gravity on Earth, like you say?
edit on 15-4-2012 by holywar666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by blocula
 

The old tapes were only useful to NASA as their format was worthless to anyone else.
NASA converted them over, then reused the original magnetic tapes.
They didn't have the foresight to realize that 50 years later we would have High-Def TV and Blue ray.

Magnetic tape doesn't last for crap anyway. It's prone to “drop outs” and all sorts of problems with oxidization. That's why no one uses it anymore.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 

That was shot in the vomit comet, which simulates free fall for only a few seconds at a time. The plane climbs, dives, they shoot for 15-30 second, then they have to stop and climb the plane again. That would not work for a live broadcast.



posted on Apr, 15 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Besides seeing the rocket go up and come down, what proof do you have this "inside the space ship" footage is live?

Because its played on live television? The footage could have be doctored for months/years prior. If this is true, than it would coincide with Stanley Kubrick's filming for 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fancy that



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 
Stanley Kubrick was a master film maker and he directed,produced,co-adapted the screenplay and helped design some of the special effects for the ground breaking movie 2001-a space odyssey,over a 3 years period between 1965-68..

That movie shows us scenes of astronauts walking on and flying over the moons surface with great attention to detail.It was released around 15 months before astronauts supposedly walked on the moon and was filmed with a budget of 10 million dollars...

Just imagine the awesome science fiction movie that he would have been able to design and make with a budget of say 100 million dollars,or even a few billion and guess what,he very well may have and its called the apollo 11 moon mission...

I have heard that stanley kubrick was silenced and eliminated at 70 years old,because he was going to break his silence about his part in the moon mission hoax,despite having been well paid off for decades and threatened with death if he ever said anything...

edit on 16-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by holywar666

Originally posted by choos

also a bit of homework for you, since i need to step out for a bit.

work out how far it needs to fall to replicate 9mins 30 seconds worth of footage, thats 570 seconds falling on earth at 9.81 m/s^2



Your job is to disprove me. Do your own homework.

What about the Apollo 13 movie?


Howard went to great lengths to create a technically accurate movie, employing NASA's technical assistance in astronaut and flight controller training for his cast, and even obtaining permission to film scenes aboard a reduced gravity aircraft for realistic depiction of the "weightlessness" experienced by the astronauts in space.



Apollo 13

???? So they CAN film in zero-gravity locations on Earth! Very interesting....


i have done it, i just want you to realise your folly.

also in the apollo 13 movie, hav eyou noticed how long each continuous scene is.. its at or less than 23seconds.. do you know why? because it was filmed in a kc-135

heres some answers, that nasa facility is in a near vacuum itself so we have to assume that.

so:
a=9.81m/s^2
t=570 seconds
therefore distance should be about1,593,634m or about 1,593km

so NASA need to dig a hole several metres in diameter of reinforced steel to contain the vacuum, more than 1593 km deep if you take into account the deceleration without killing the astronauts.

burj khalifa is about 830m high cost about $1.5billion, this is above ground, underground will cost alot more btw.
this isnt accurate by any means only meant to give you an idea of the scale of what you are suggesting.

this zero-g mega shaft is now 1920 times taller than the tallest building above ground. 180 times taller than mt everest which stands at a mere 8.8km. 150 times deeper than the mariana trench at a mere 10.6km deep.

lets extrapolate the costs, 1.5 billion x 1920 (since this single shaft is 1920 times taller than the burj khalifa)
that is a paltry $2,880,000,000,000.

only a mere 2.9trillion dollars. should we put this to the NASA moon hoax film budget?
edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by holywar666
 

And where was it transmitted from to simulate it coming form a moving ship on the way to the moon?
Radio operators, including civilian ones, who could pick up the broadcast could determine its originating direction, distance, and even telemetry with the proper equipment:

Unified S Band
The voice and telemetry data to be transmitted from the spacecraft are modulated onto subcarriers, combined with the video ranging signals, and used to phase-modulate the down-link carrier frequency. The transponder transmitter can also be frequency- modulated for the transmission of television information or recorded data instead of ranging signals

This was intercepted by both the Russians and Civilians:


It is historically understood that the USSR did intercept the Apollo missions telemetry on the territory of the USSR, but no source in the former USSR military or intelligence services has come forth with any evidence of this happening. The USSR used different frequency bands for its own space missions, so by default its deep space network did not readily have equipment able to receive Apollo telemetry. Whether China or any other non-Western (or non-aligned) country at the time chose to intercept any of the Apollo telemetry is unclear. Amateur radio and affiliated telecommunications sector persons could listen to the Apollo telemetry the world over—provided they could afford the reception equipment.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by holywar666

Originally posted by choos

here on earth, we have something called gravity.


Here on Earth, we have NASA

Zero Gravity

Dont think an anti-gravity chamber cant happen....
edit on 15-4-2012 by holywar666 because: (no reason given)


do you know how that works? thanks for proving my point.. free fall distance of 132m

traditionally they used the kc-135 to replicate lowered gravity, but the problem persists.. how do they get 9mins 32seconds of freefall footage?
That low gravity simulator,operational since 1966,is the one we know about,because its the one we were allowed to know about.With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret zero gravity simulation chamber that we'll probably never know about,because they'll never tell us and surely they have developed secret technologies through the years on a regular basis,that are at least 20 years ahead of what tptb tell the mainstream public about...
edit on 16-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by holywar666

Originally posted by choos

here on earth, we have something called gravity.


Here on Earth, we have NASA

Zero Gravity

Dont think an anti-gravity chamber cant happen....
edit on 15-4-2012 by holywar666 because: (no reason given)


do you know how that works? thanks for proving my point.. free fall distance of 132m

traditionally they used the kc-135 to replicate lowered gravity, but the problem persists.. how do they get 9mins 32seconds of freefall footage?
That low gravity simulator,operational since 1966,is the one we know about,because its the one we were allowed to know about.With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret zero gravity simulation chamber that we'll probably never know about,because they'll never tell us and surely they have developed secret technologies through the years on a regular basis,that are at least 20 years ahead of what tell the mainstream public about...
edit on 16-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


refer to my above post.. and look at the numbers.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by holywar666

Originally posted by choos

also a bit of homework for you, since i need to step out for a bit.

work out how far it needs to fall to replicate 9mins 30 seconds worth of footage, thats 570 seconds falling on earth at 9.81 m/s^2



Your job is to disprove me. Do your own homework.

What about the Apollo 13 movie?


Howard went to great lengths to create a technically accurate movie, employing NASA's technical assistance in astronaut and flight controller training for his cast, and even obtaining permission to film scenes aboard a reduced gravity aircraft for realistic depiction of the "weightlessness" experienced by the astronauts in space.



Apollo 13

???? So they CAN film in zero-gravity locations on Earth! Very interesting....


lets extrapolate the costs, 1.5 billion x 1920 (since this single shaft is 1920 times taller than the burj khalifa)
that is a paltry $2,880,000,000,000.

only a mere 2.9trillion dollars. should we put this to the NASA moon hoax film budget?
edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
Which is almost exactly the amount that the irs extorts from us and accumulates for the government in gross revenue every year,after refunds are paid out.In 2007,the irs made $2,674,007,818,000 and that is utterly sickening > en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 16-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by holywar666

Originally posted by choos

also a bit of homework for you, since i need to step out for a bit.

work out how far it needs to fall to replicate 9mins 30 seconds worth of footage, thats 570 seconds falling on earth at 9.81 m/s^2



Your job is to disprove me. Do your own homework.

What about the Apollo 13 movie?


Howard went to great lengths to create a technically accurate movie, employing NASA's technical assistance in astronaut and flight controller training for his cast, and even obtaining permission to film scenes aboard a reduced gravity aircraft for realistic depiction of the "weightlessness" experienced by the astronauts in space.



Apollo 13

???? So they CAN film in zero-gravity locations on Earth! Very interesting....


lets extrapolate the costs, 1.5 billion x 1920 (since this single shaft is 1920 times taller than the burj khalifa)
that is a paltry $2,880,000,000,000.

only a mere 2.9trillion dollars. should we put this to the NASA moon hoax film budget?
edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)
Which is almost exactly the amount that the irs extorts from us and accumulates for the government in gross revenue every year,after refunds are paid out.In 2007,the irs made around 2,600,000,000 dollars...en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 16-4-2012 by blocula because: (no reason given)


sooo all that money goes into a production of a film? and only a small part of the film? how expensive was this film?? 3 trillion?? 5 trillion??

do they have any money left to build their bunkers?? to fund the vietnam war?

you should start saying they used time machines, its cheaper and more fundamentally sound than your arguments.
edit on 16-4-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret zero gravity simulation chamber that we'll probably never know about,

Nice cultish religious belief, now prove they have such a thing. Otherwise the following statements are just as likely and credible...

With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret planet-destroying death star that we'll probably never know about...

With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret genetically engineered flying Pegasus horse that we'll probably never know about...

With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret ring to rule them all that we'll probably never know about...

With multiple billions of dollars to work with, nasa and the american military surely could have developed and employed a top secret robot that acts like a human, and posts ridiculous conspiracy theories about all space programs in order to give conspiracy theorists a bad name, that we'll probably never know about...
edit on 16-4-2012 by ngchunter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


Theres 3 zeros missing from my post that you quoted from,but i fixed the numbers above.The whole point is that they have unlimited budgets to do anything they want,whenever they want,wherever they want and they dont have to tell us a thing,except give us more money,or else...



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by holywar666
reply to post by defcon5
 


Besides seeing the rocket go up and come down, what proof do you have this "inside the space ship" footage is live?

Guess what, people like me track the space station in our telescopes, we know for a fact it's there, we watched it being built, and we've even seen the astronauts performing EVAs on the station. Yes, they're up there, and yes, single shots are orders of magnitude too long to have been filmed on earth in a vomit comet, this conspiracy nonsense is just that, nonsense.



posted on Apr, 16 2012 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by blocula
reply to post by choos
 


Theres 3 zeros missing from my post that you quoted from,but i fixed the numbers above.The whole point is that they have unlimited budgets to do anything they want,whenever they want,wherever they want and they dont have to tell us a thing,except give us more money,or else...


regardless of how many zeros you missed.. we are talking several trillion to the making of a film, a small portion of the film.

so the film should cost in total maybe 3trillion 5 trillion thats 3,000,000,000,000 (btw this number is larger than yours) which leaves tptb with nothing to build their mega bunkers which also would cost several billion, funding the vietnam war which cost however much that cost. and to keep americas infrastructure from failing.

this seems quite elaborate and excessive to hoax a moon landing? it only cost maybe 0.01% of the cost of this underground mega zero gravity structure....

its miles cheaper to just goto the moon, bloc admit it, go with time machines or GOD. every answer from now just say "because time machine" or "because GOD"



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join