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.

 

Neil Armstrong Recalls Hair-Raising Apollo Moon Landing

page: 6
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gridrebel


Agree!!!!! They can photograph a universe in the making a millions of light years away yet we can't get good clear photos of the moon or the mysterious places on Mars. Go figure.







You think that because they can photograph something several billion miles across the should be able to photograph a +/-3 foot flag? You're not in the same ballpark with that comparison, heck, you're not even on the same planet.




posted on May, 28 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Havick007
 


Someone mentioned the photographs from the moon not having blemishes and then several others tried to debunk the no blemish theory by saying there are photographs of distant stars, galaxies, etc. That is to say, they believe satellites and deep space telescopes, which do not store images in film, debunk the no blemish theory.

I don't think it does but I'm still open to opinions.

eta: the no blemish theory(i think I just coined that phrase) is basically saying that because the photographs from the moon do not have radiation exposure or any blemishes then the photos could not have came from the moon.

edit on 28-5-2012 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Plenty... Enough to question the validity of NASA. Im not saying it is impossible that they went there, it is just extremely unlikely. There are too many issues that are not adressed with validty IMO.

Again, you can choose to believe what you want. Im okay with that. I choose to believe that its extremely unlikely that they went for many many many factors



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by paradox

Originally posted by Nspekta

First fact, from van allen himself.. There is DEADLY radiation that would kill humans passing through the belts. Start with that friend...


Oh that's a fact is it? Because....

For whatever reason, Van Allen changed his tune about radiation, previously he was adament about the dangers and the risks it imposed on space travel outside low earth orbit. This is obviously something we are not going to agree on, so lets move on



Check out how they were abke to get their film back unscathed, using 1960's tech, then check out what lengths the shuttle had to go throug to protect its film... Which, i might add, never went through the belts.. .???


What are you talking about? And what does "1960s tech" have to do with anything? Were they cavemen or something? My god....you aren't using facts, you are using your own uneducated opinion.

No I am not using my 'uneducated opinion' and way to jump past the issue without using any of your 'facts'... First off, the amount of pictures taken on the 'first moon landing' was impossible. The amount they took and the time it would take to take them and switch film ontop of the experiments they supposedly did was not possible. They didnt have enough time. Take a look at what they were supposedly to have done on the moon within the time frame they had. yeah..

ALSO, when i say 1960's tech, I am comparing the differences between then and now (well really in the 90's and early 00's regarding the shuttle missions. They apollo missions supposedly took their film up to the moon and back without and when it was developed, there were little to no blemishes caused my radiation, how is that possible when the shuttle missions (soomething like 20-30 years later right?) had to use water shielding like crazy to protect the film from getting damaged as radiation particles pass through the film and create blemishes and damage.

Speaking of photo's should we get into the inconsistencies of the lighting? haha no, because you'll come back saying something like, "well Nasa said so, so it must be true"



Or, how about the protection of astronauts on a radioactive moon surface due to no atmosphere..


Yes, there is radiation on the moon...the suits only stop part of it, but there are long terms effects. There have been quite a few studies done on the radiation exposure of astronauts and the long term effects on their health. No one said being an astronaut isn't a risky job.


So they walked around for days on a completely radioactive surface without any suffering any health effects at all? short term or long term? If thats the case, why arent we recreating the spacesuits used in apollo and shipping them over to Fukushima for them to use to clean everything up? Oh right... because it was all a load of bs!
Seriously though, IF those suits were sooo protective that they allowed them to march across a barren radioactive surface thats been battered by radioactive particles for millions of years, then why arent we using the same tech to have people go through Fukushima. Should be completely safe right?!!



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


Oh ok, yeah the blemishes theory.. I have seen and heard about that. There is a good Lunar Cognita doco on that


That's a little bit different to the Apollo topic though..



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


What makes you think tey didn't go?

What was it that convinced you of that..? I could not believe that without 100% proof.

There is more proof they went to the Moon than just a theory that they didn't...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


Well IMO, its obvious that you are a product of the brain-washed cold war era, and thats unfortunate. I have read books about the subject... and i still question the facts. And I'm all for you believing what you want. Its sometimes really scary to question the truth because its scary to find out that maybe what you've been made to believe your whole life is a lie, most people could not handle that reality, and i understand.

Again, there is no way i will ever change your mind, and same goes for you trying to change mine. I pray that the hoax is exposed before you pass on, not to shatter your world (cause obviously it would) but for Americans and the world to wake up and realize that there is still an opportunity for a human on this planet to be the first to actual walk on the moon. Although, since the technology doesnt exist (and never did) for us to go there, im afraid that it most likely wont be seen within your lifetime

edit on 5/28/2012 by Nspekta because: terrible spelling ugh



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Nspekta
 


What makes you think tey didn't go?

What was it that convinced you of that..? I could not believe that without 100% proof.

There is more proof they went to the Moon than just a theory that they didn't...


and this is why freedom of opion is awesome! IMO, there is more proof that they didnt go! lol

As i've said earlier, to me one of the main reasons was the radiation. You'll probably throw some van allen stuff claiming that his original research was flawed and everything is hunky-dorey going through the belts, so i guess we can agree to disagree.

No film damage from radiation along with little to no protection, whereas the shuttle missions went to great lengths to protect the film and they never went outside lower earth orbit (which means they didnt pass through the belts, and yet they were more concerned about the film being damaged by radiation, they used water, and lots of it to protect the film, whereas the apollo missions did not and SOMEHOW, their film was not damaged.)

Also, and i know this has been beaten to death, the lighting in the pictures from the moon. There is no way you can convince me otherise, that may be stubborn but the only evidence i've seen contrary from NASA is just them saying its not true. They don't offer explanations to why, they just state that people questioning the lighting are wrong.

Shall i go on?

Ok, I will

The flag flapping, the 'wires' that can be seen, the lack of dust when the landers 'landed', the lack of dust when they took off, the camera that somehow moved when the landers took off and filmed it like there was someone still on the moon to do it, the fact that apollo 13 capsule was freezing cold (Think of it, the capsule was in direct exposure to the sun except when it went behind the moon. The capsule does not have an atmosphere like a planet to protect from heat right? So how was it that they were 'freezing' in the capsule when at least one side of the capsule was in direct , unfiltered sunlight? This would mean that one side was cold, due to unexposure, the other side would have been extremely hot due to exposure. AND thats if they were not rotating at all throughout the trip. If they were, then basically the capsule would be rotating through extreme heat and cold, that should have essentially cancelled eachother out)

Ok, i could go on but I'll stop so you can have time to 'debunk' everything and call me a moron for questioning the official story



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Not everything is a conspiracy...



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Havick007
reply to post by Nspekta
 


Not everything is a conspiracy...



I don't believe i said that everything was a conspiracy, did I?

So you ask a question about why I don't believe it, I answer, give you many reasons why, and give you the opportunity to debunk or correct me using your facts and all you have to saythat not everything is a conspiracy?!! Really dude? Is it cause you are lazy and don't want to have to check into everything i said or is it that you truly have no evidence to the contrary?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Nspekta
 


who many apollo astronauts have cataracts ? at an early age ?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta

For whatever reason, Van Allen changed his tune about radiation, previously he was adament about the dangers and the risks it imposed on space travel outside low earth orbit. This is obviously something we are not going to agree on, so lets move on


Lies.





No I am not using my 'uneducated opinion' and way to jump past the issue without using any of your 'facts'...


Yes, you are


First off, the amount of pictures taken on the 'first moon landing' was impossible. The amount they took and the time it would take to take them and switch film ontop of the experiments they supposedly did was not possible. They didnt have enough time. Take a look at what they were supposedly to have done on the moon within the time frame they had. yeah..


So once again, nothing but your own opinion, and no facts. Nice

Please provide some more details and FACTS as to why you personally believe it was "impossible" other than them being up there doing what they were SUPPOSED to be doing.



ALSO, when i say 1960's tech, I am comparing the differences between then and now (well really in the 90's and early 00's regarding the shuttle missions. They apollo missions supposedly took their film up to the moon and back without and when it was developed, there were little to no blemishes caused my radiation, how is that possible when the shuttle missions (soomething like 20-30 years later right?) had to use water shielding like crazy to protect the film from getting damaged as radiation particles pass through the film and create blemishes and damage.


The metal containers used for the film were enough to stop the radiation from fogging the emulsion.
Space shuttles stay in space for weeks at a time, so it is only logical to think that they would use better protection as opposed to the moon missions. Is that not obvious?



Speaking of photo's should we get into the inconsistencies of the lighting? haha no, because you'll come back saying something like, "well Nasa said so, so it must be true"


Yes, I think we should. That would give me a very nice chance to point out your ignorance, seeing as there are no "lighting inconsistencies."




So they walked around for days on a completely radioactive surface without any suffering any health effects at all? short term or long term? If thats the case, why arent we recreating the spacesuits used in apollo and shipping them over to Fukushima for them to use to clean everything up? Oh right... because it was all a load of bs!


Ah another classic example of the moon hoaxer not doing any research at all whatsoever! Do yourself a favor, and look for your answers. Trust me, they are there! But you won't get them from Jarrah White



At least 39 former astronauts have suffered some form of cataracts after flying in space, according to a 2001 study by Francis Cucinotta of NASA's Johnson Space Center (see journal references below). Of those 39 astronauts, 36 had flown on high-radiation missions such as the Apollo Moon landings. Some cataracts appeared as soon as 4 or 5 years after the mission, but others took 10 or more years to manifest.
science.nasa.gov...


For some other examples, Apollo 13 astronaut Jack Swigert died of cancer in 1982, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Schirra contracted mesothelioma and died in 2007 following a heart attack caused by complications, and astronaut Deke Slayton (Apollo-Soyuz) died following a battle with a malignant brain tumor.



Seriously though, IF those suits were sooo protective that they allowed them to march across a barren radioactive surface thats been battered by radioactive particles for millions of years, then why arent we using the same tech to have people go through Fukushima. Should be completely safe right?!!


You are absolutely ridiculous! At least start with looking at how much radiation the astronauts received on their missions!

Biomedical Results of Apollo

Biomedical Results of Apollo - Section 2, chapter 3 - "Radiation Protection and Instrumentation"





The radiation at Fukashima is much greater than any radiation the astronauts faced during the Apollo missions!
THAT'S why.

Thanks for adding me as a foe, by the way
I thought it was pretty cute.
edit on 5-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta

Seriously though, IF those suits were sooo protective that they allowed them to march across a barren radioactive surface thats been battered by radioactive particles for millions of years, then why arent we using the same tech to have people go through Fukushima. Should be completely safe right?!!


If an umbrella keeps you dry in the rain, you should be able to walk into the ocean holding one and stay dry.
That is literally a parallel comparison to what you just said. You need to do some serious research on radiation and first learn the difference between particle and EM radiation then also look into the difference in intensities between the lunar surface and a nuclear reactor. I'd also like to point out that that's nearly the identical example Ralph Rene used (he said Chernobyl, it was before Fukushima). Do you have any new theories or are you content to stick with fluff that's been debunked for decades?



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta


The flag flapping,


Called transfer of force. Basic physics....


the 'wires' that can be seen,


You mean the wires that you just like to make up?


the lack of dust when the landers 'landed', the lack of dust when they took off,


There was plenty of dust when they landed. But due to no air on the surface, the dust particles are shot outward, and not upward.




the camera that somehow moved when the landers took off and filmed it like there was someone still on the moon to do it,


You're probably referring to Apollo 17. In that case:


The television camera was mounted on the rover which Gene parked about 145 meters east of (behind) the lunar module. The ascent stage ignites and climbs, spacecraft foil and dust flying in all directions. Ed Fendell in Houston anticipates exactly the timing of ignition, lift-off, and the rate of climb, and the camera tilts to follows the ascent. At pitchover, the throat of the ascent engine points down at the camera and its combustion is visible as a small bright light. The clip ends as Challenger reaches an altitude of 1,500 feet.
www.hq.nasa.gov...




the fact that apollo 13 capsule was freezing cold (Think of it, the capsule was in direct exposure to the sun except when it went behind the moon. The capsule does not have an atmosphere like a planet to protect from heat right? So how was it that they were 'freezing' in the capsule when at least one side of the capsule was in direct , unfiltered sunlight? This would mean that one side was cold, due to unexposure, the other side would have been extremely hot due to exposure. AND thats if they were not rotating at all throughout the trip. If they were, then basically the capsule would be rotating through extreme heat and cold, that should have essentially cancelled eachother out)




The command module was not powered down until approximately 2 hours after the explosion. During those hours, the command module was running on its re-entry batteries and one barely functioning fuel cell. When oxygen tank number one finished its slow leak into space, the last surviving fuel cell was shut down and the crew powered down the command module to save the remaining battery power for later entering Earth’s atmosphere. With severe constraints on power, cabin heat and potable water, the crew endured great hardship and survived by using the Lunar Module still attached to the CSM, as a 'lifeboat'.

The Lunar Module was designed to sustain two people for 50 hours, but by carefully conserving both air and power, three astronauts survived in this improvised lifeboat for 95 hours (about 4 days). The lithium hydroxide canisters available for the LM's carbon dioxide scrubbers would not last for all four days. The CM had an adequate supply of replacement canisters, but they were the wrong shape to fit the LM's receptacle. An adapter then had to be fabricated from materials in the spacecraft.
www.aerospaceguide.net...




Ok, i could go on but I'll stop so you can have time to 'debunk' everything and call me a moron for questioning the official story


I'd call you a moron, but I feel mean now, seeing how uninformed you are.
edit on 5-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta


Again, there is no way i will ever change your mind, and same goes for you trying to change mine.


Ah...maybe you should find another website to pander your incoherent ramblings to. Refusing to learn because you have a bias is just flat out pathetic. I can't think of another word to describe it.

And you're telling him HE'S brainwashed?

I think you are afraid to face the facts because you are worried about what a fool you've sounded like all along, arguing with people who actually know what they're talking about.

Cognitive dissonance.


I pray that the hoax is exposed before you pass on, not to shatter your world (cause obviously it would)


Won't ever happen, because there was no hoax.


but for Americans and the world to wake up and realize that there is still an opportunity for a human on this planet to be the first to actual walk on the moon.


You mean for man to walk on the moon again*


Although, since the technology doesnt exist (and never did) for us to go there, im afraid that it most likely wont be seen within your lifetime


Really? Is that why other countries are planning on manned moon missions within the next decade?

When they go, you can tell me what the major advancements are that allowed them to, that wasn't available in the 60s

edit on 5-28-12 by paradox because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nspekta
reply to post by PluPerfect
 


Well IMO, its obvious that you are a product of the brain-washed cold war era, and thats unfortunate. I have read books about the subject... and i still question the facts. And I'm all for you believing what you want. Its sometimes really scary to question the truth because its scary to find out that maybe what you've been made to believe your whole life is a lie, most people could not handle that reality, and i understand.

Again, there is no way i will ever change your mind, and same goes for you trying to change mine. I pray that the hoax is exposed before you pass on, not to shatter your world (cause obviously it would) but for Americans and the world to wake up and realize that there is still an opportunity for a human on this planet to be the first to actual walk on the moon. Although, since the technology doesnt exist (and never did) for us to go there, im afraid that it most likely wont be seen within your lifetime

edit on 5/28/2012 by Nspekta because: terrible spelling ugh


"Brain-washed Cold War era"??


How patently absurd.

Your unfortunate lack of understand of the science, and failure to grasp the technical aspects of all facets of the Apollo program, are on blatant display, here.

Of course, as I infer from your statements, your age is less than mine --- which means that very soon (within a decade, or thereabouts) your mistaken "beliefs" in a "hoax" will be dashed to bits, and you will live to see these events unfold.

Perhaps you might live another 30-50 years, as well.....long enough to see more of a Human presence on the Moon, especially as private enterprise companies begin to make the journey (witness the recent "SpaceX" unmanned supply capsule that was launched, and then docked with the ISS. Where there is profit to be made, then entrepreneurs and business potential will drive the advancements.....).



posted on May, 28 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Neil Armstrong's Barber Recalls Hair-Raising Apollo Mooning


CINCINNATI — Apollo moon mission astronaut Neil Armstrong has threatened to sue a barbershop owner who sold the spaceman’s hair trimmings for $3,000. The buyer said Wednesday he won’t return the locks but will donate the purchase price to charity.

Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, used to go to Marx’s Barber Shop in Lebanon about once a month for a cut. That stopped when he learned that owner Marx Sizemore had collected his hair clippings from the floor and sold them in May 2004 for $3,000.

The buyer, John Reznikoff of Westport, Conn., is a collector listed by the Guinness World Records as having the largest collection of hair from historical celebrities. His collection, insured for $1 million, purportedly includes hair from Abraham Lincoln, Marilyn Monroe, Albert Einstein and Napoleon.

Sizemore, who admits selling the hair, said Armstrong asked him to try to retrieve it. He said he told Armstrong that the buyer did not want to give up the locks. Then, Sizemore said he got a letter from the former astronaut’s attorney contending that the sale violated an Ohio law designed to protect the rights of famous people.

The letter threatens legal action if Sizemore does not return the hair or contribute his profit to charity and asks Sizemore to pay Armstrong’s legal expenses. But Sizemore said he will not pay and has already spent most of the $3,000 on bills.

Reznikoff said Wednesday that he won’t give the hair back, but will donate $3,000 to a charity. He said he decided to make the donation after reading news accounts that said the former astronaut had threatened to sue.

“I bought it for my collection, and I plan to keep it,” Reznikoff said. “I called Armstrong’s lawyer today to tell him I would donate the money, but I haven’t received a response yet.”

Reznikoff said he remembers the thrill he had as a 9-year-old watching as Armstrong commanded NASA’s Apollo 11 mission in 1969 and took the first steps on the moon. “Neil Armstrong has always been one of my heroes.”

Armstrong, who lives in suburban Cincinnati, left the space program in 1971 to teach aeronautical engineering at the University of Cincinnati. He seldom appears at public functions or grants interviews. His attorney, Ross Wales, did not immediately return a call seeking comment on Wednesday.
www.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


That is so creepy. I can fully understand how Neil would disapprove.
I think the barber should be shut down. It just doesn't seem appropriate at all.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Bleeeeep
 


It could always be creepier.

The barber could have shaved his own head and glued Neils hair on it or something.



posted on May, 29 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by cavalryscout
 


Come on Man. The cave-dwelling RockMan Jerry tidies up every now and then. Pimple Face Bruno



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join