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.

 

Moon Landing Hoax - The Space Suit

page: 29
65
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
wow. education has failed us. or some of us at least




posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
(Their rip off version of the Russian Space Shuttle the Buran, had only one unmanned flight with most of the internal electronics yet to be installed).


It's not fair to call it a rip-off, despite the obvious similarities of the airframe.

List of key differences

As you can see, the Buran was more advanced in a couple of areas.

I heard from people who designed the thermal shield for Buran (my father knew some of them) that the composition of the tiles (or strips) was different from one used on the Shuttle. I actually used to have a piece of Buran's thermal shield, I lost it when moving. Which I'm unhappy about



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
page 28

or

hoaxers take an epic beating, lol


What do you have to add here on topic?
The thread has collected 58 flags.
that is more than 1 per page
Does ignorance of space suits keep you from posting about them??
Do you know how they HANDLE the poop in the space diapers????
uuggh ljb


they normally wait til they are back in the shuttle to do number 2, which is generally dried and compressed than removed once back on earth. doing a poop in the diapers was only for just in case.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



SO WHAT is all you got.


Is that all you got? I assume you're "plannin' on a bannin'"



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   

edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: learning experience



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
page 28

or

hoaxers take an epic beating, lol


What do you have to add here on topic?
The thread has collected 58 flags.
that is more than 1 per page
Does ignorance of space suits keep you from posting about them??
Do you know how they HANDLE the poop in the space diapers????
uuggh ljb


What do YOU have to add here on topic?
Of all the pages you have posted, I have not seen one coherent argument from you.

I'm not even sure what your position is.
Your posting style kind of creeps me out to be honest.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: learning experience


I know some things like Rocket Science come naturally but some things need to be learned.

FRESHMAN FORUM Hope it helps.



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



Well I would like to compare NASA's risk assessment for both programs.
You made the rebuttle now back it up. DATA please!!
You do know where to get the RISK ASSESSEMENTS from don't you???


Apparently, you don't. Why not start here?

adsabs.harvard.edu...

hey DJ
Since when did harvard launch the Apollo 11 moon mission???
Are you saying NASA itself was to dumb to do a complete risk assement before sending three men to the moon for the very very first time???
sad linky dink
ljb



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by longjohnbritches

edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: learning experience


I know some things like Rocket Science come naturally but some things need to be learned.

FRESHMAN FORUM Hope it helps.


Sweet deny,
What I am having trouble with is bracketing parts of quotes and inserting replys like all you cool dudes do. I did a quick check on the link and didn't see any help. But I was brief.
I'll muddle through sorry for the sloppiness.
thanks again ljb
PS also the preview thing don't work and I loose all my work. grrr
edit on 4/11/2012 by longjohnbritches because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 


You display the fact you haven't read any links yet, you also haven't provided any to support your opinions. Alexei Leonov stated plainly that; "We were years from achieving a manned landing on the moon...We would never have done it".

As I said all along, Russia still has not demonstrated powered landing of a manned spacecraft anywhere, to date.

Our retired Space Shuttle has 134 examples outside of Apollo's 6 that we had that capability since July of 1969!

(Their rip off version of the Russian Space Shuttle the Buran, had only one unmanned flight with most of the internal electronics yet to be installed). Look it up.

That particular one was destroyed in a storage collapse. They have another stripped down real version displayed at Gorky Park next to the river, you can see it on Google Maps. Look for the ferris wheel, it's close to that.
edit on 11-4-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)



Honestly ILLustronic
Your post are so overburdened with alot of needless banter.

Although I will give you praise for the tracking data you posted above that I did miss. really it's good and i did miss it.

Now I will cut to the chase.
The USSR backed off cause they had death in thier program.
They have had little death since Komorov that I am aware of.
The stupid Low Earth Orbit program alone has killed what 14 some?
Tell me the worth?? The worth of first. The worth of negligent death??
The Russians today know all the secrets of space that the US does.
So by virtue of death alone .
WHO is on FIRST???
God bless America ljb



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




The stupid Low Earth Orbit program alone has killed what 14 some?
Tell me the worth??
The worth of first. The worth of negligent death??


Are you still crapping on about this?

Explorers risk their lives.

There are nearly 100 bodies lying on Mt Everest from failed attempts to climb/ascend to/from the summit.

Did someone force these people to risk their lives?

How many have died on shipping accidents in the last 100 years?

Surely, if the risks are known - by your logic - no one would consider getting on to a ship.

Just because you lack the gonads to go out and explore......doesn't mean that everyone else is as scared of death as you seem to be.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 


The mountain Annapurna has a death rate of 66%. Statistically, for every 10 people that attempt the summit, only 3 or 4 ever come down alive. Doesn't stop people trying every year, though.
edit on 12-4-2012 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



hey DJ
Since when did harvard launch the Apollo 11 moon mission???
Are you saying NASA itself was to dumb to do a complete risk assement before sending three men to the moon for the very very first time???
sad linky dink


Did you notice those numbers that followed certain statements all through the paper? They match up with the titles of papers listed at the end. They are called "footnotes." Many of these papers are from NASA or their contractors. Are you so committed to the character you are playing that you actually want people to believe that I had to explain that to you?



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamAssassin
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 




The stupid Low Earth Orbit program alone has killed what 14 some?
Tell me the worth??
The worth of first. The worth of negligent death??


Are you still crapping on about this?
Explorers risk their lives.


Indeed. I lost 7 friends over the years while mountaineering. That's already half the number quoted by our enlightened interlocutor. And that's just me, a humble lowly ex-climber.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 09:58 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



The rest was edited out.
Can we find that article????

I have given you the article. What was edited out? Why have you abandoned this avenue in your pursuit of the truth? Did you find page 2 of the article and realize that your source is a stake through the heart of this aspect of your argument?



The USSR could only track with a teloscope. duh

A more ridiculous statement could not be made.You've been given an education worth paying for by the knowledgeable members of this forum on this matter.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Sheeple
Well it seems you all have collectively made my point.
Thank you. I have no desire to bash the brave, the honest decent people of any country.

Unfortunately you are a pack of acceptors of what others tell you.
If you see a photo you say oh yeah, that's real.
If you see a movie on TV you say oh yeah that's real.
NASA or their contractors told me so.

Now here is the point I have been getting at from the beginning.
The one you-all made for me.

Unlike all the deaths on the mountains and the seas blab bla that are in the wonderful posts above. And on the planet Earth.

You want me to think that twelve men flew to the moon where they crapped in their pants, played golf,
amplified their rock collections and flew back unscathed.
No Way Jose. NO way in HELL.

The odds and percentages are TO ASTRONOMICALLY against a mission of such complexity in 1969. One soft bolt or unzipped fly could nix the entire mission.

No one with even a tiny brain would put that on live TV.

Keep trying to convince yourself's. I will leave you-all for something of worth.
ljb

PS eeerrr thanks for the edumakasun.
edit on 4/12/2012 by longjohnbritches because: eeerrr



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by longjohnbritches
 



You want me to think that twelve men flew to the moon where they crapped in their pants, played golf,
amplified their rock collections and flew back unscathed.
No Way Jose. NO way in HELL.


No, we want you to stop insulting people, calling them names, refusing to open your eyes or do your own research. Feel free to believe anything you want, but if you're going to try to convince others of it, please present some actual evidence rather than ignorant rhetoric, and do it in a civil fashion if you really want anyone to listen to what you say. Again, if you want to believe that humanity is so stupid that it cannot accomplish anything extraordinary, go ahead. I'd just hate to live in your narrow world, though.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter

An article about Soviet tracking:
www.novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru...

manonmoon.ru...



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Originally posted by bokonon2010
www.abovetopsecret.com...




One of the cornerstones of the Apollo hoaxers tales:
"Soviets were able to track and watch it" is demolished.
It is nothing but the conspiracy tale spinning;
so "до свидания, пропагадисты" as Jarrah said.



posted on Apr, 12 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyingfish
There is no doubt they would love to disprove the moon landings, but it's not be and now they have proof.

The 6th image in the gallery and its annotations clearly show details of Apollo 11 landing module with a size of 2 pixels, coordinates of the landing module, trace of lunar rover, zoomed-in figure of lunar rover route.
Link


Originally posted by Ove38
So, Apollo 11 had a unmanned lunar rover.

with 10m wide tracks



new topics

top topics



 
65
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join