Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

How many times does Neil Armstrong lie to us in this 1970 BBC interview.

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


What about pictures of the ISS? The ATS member ngchunter actually took photos of it...and posted them here.


Fakery in Orbit: THE ISS




posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Well you could try to only quote the parts that apply. Like I did. You have nothing. Admid it.


I quoted the reports conclusions.


8. Under fretting conditions, none of the investigated coatings on stainless
steel (SS17-7PH) is able to prevent cold welding. Also MoS2 is not
effective under fretting, and the lubrication is quickly lost. Hence, the
best strategy must be to use different steels (maximum one of which
should be austenitic). Hard coatings should not be used on hard steels.
In contrast with steel, hard anodising of aluminium prevents adhesion
under fretting conditions, but much loose debris is formed. A thick
‘Keronite’ coating (20 µm), which is based on a plasma-electrolytic
oxidation (PEO) process, is not only resistant to fretting but also avoids
debris formation. A test using an uncoated titanium pin against coated
titanium discs did not provide a ‘general solution’. All thin coatings – solid
lubricants and hard coatings – were destroyed in the fretting contact. The
best combinations still showed medium adhesion after breakage of the
coating. The combination titanium and low-adhesion steel also did not
provide a solution. Further research will target thick coatings produced
by PEO (Keronite).


So nearly 50 years after NASA sent man to the moon and necessarily overcame
such issues, the ESA cannot solve the problems associated with cold welding?
Makes (NASA) sense.

Maybe Somebody should have told the ESA that cold welding is really a myth, eh?
Would've saved them alot of unnecessary bother.

Fakery in Orbit: THE ISS



edit on 26-8-2012 by OutonaLimb because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


So you point me to some whacked out website with poor video that could have been faked...the videos were hinky and acted strange from the get go...Explain this video...



Originally posted by ngchunter...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


So you point me to some whacked out website with poor video that could have been faked...the videos were hinky and acted strange from the get go...Explain this video...



Originally posted by ngchunter...

Well if it's not one thing, then it must be something else. CGI was mentioned
a few times in the thread you linked.
That whacked out website as you call it, offers pretty conclusive evidence that the ISS
is nothing but another large scale NASA hoax.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:50 PM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 

So, you are alleging this member has faked this video, perhaps utilizing CGI...okay...



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I think we went to the moon. I just can't imagine a lie of this magnitude surviving this long without having its lid blown off. And there were easier ways of feigning superiority to the russians. However, I do think that the moon mission became important to us as a tool to unite the population and to compete with the russians in a way that wasn't violent. Remember the hysteria during the cuban missile crisis? There were children growing up with the fear of nuclear armageddon. So going to the moon was a way to divert attention away from the scarier implications of the cold war.

I think in the 1960's and after there was also an effort to move attention away from the Orion Project, a military funded study into the potential of using nuclear-pulsed propulsion in spacecraft. It had far ranging implications. Launching spacecraft into orbit became -more- cost effective as they got bigger. One of the principle men behind the orion project, Freeman Dyson, is claimed to have stated this - after the project was killed - in the journal Science, "...this is the first time in modern history that a major expansion of human technology has been suppressed for political reasons.” From what I can tell, this appeared in an article he wrote that was named Death of a Project: 'Research Is Stopped on a System of Space Propulsion Which Broke All The Rules of the Political Game.'

* I found information that says the Science issue date was 9 July 1965

The real reason the project was suppressed was because it would have created the need for an industry based on utilizing nuclear weapons materials in the pursuit of cheaper space travel. Imagine the big superpowers using these materials to launch spacecraft into space and then other countries wanting to do the same? What if these (WMD) materials got into the wrong hands?

I've heard that they could have potentially used something like thermonuclear mini-bombs to reduce the radiation effects, but this doesn't skirt the weapons potential of the materials. Anytime you have a technology that can make a BIG bang, it can present a threat if a bad person possesses it. I think in the case of fission and fusion mini-bombs, there's good reason to suppress their uses.
edit on 26-8-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
The greatest argument the moon landing was faked, is no one has gone back to the moon since. Technology is vastly more advanced, and we still cannot return to the moon.
It was very surprising at the time that the Apollo program was canceled. It makes sense if it was fake. Nixon was the only US President during the supposed landings.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 10:47 PM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
To understand why the Apollo Missions were cut short and why we have not been back, read all of this link.



posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 11:42 PM
link   
well if you look at teh 'moon rising' video on youtube, and others, even telescope fotos of the moon, you can easily see the lit up white looking or blue looking, in some cases, domes all over the moon.

the moon's inhabited imo..



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


Your own sources say nothing about that being an issue. I sourced that it's a myth and you have failed completely in your attempt to discredit that.
Also when it comes to ISS how do they fake thousands of people seeing with their own eyes at the same time? Do they shoot the cgi directly into their retinas?



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by magma
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


There is nothing in your last post that provides proof

You will not be able to produce it



Yip. Nothing to (conveniently) see there, I'm sure.
What a quick reader you are - it took you two minutes to absorb a whole intricate pdf
presentation before commenting.

When you want to believe so badly, nothing (even the cold harsh truth) will convince you otherwise.


For someone with an iq just above a rock your pdf would be intricate. I read that pdf before I posted a reply. Your pdf provides no evidence of what you are saying. What truth is it? No one denies cold welding. What you fail to see is they work around the issue. No where in that article does it say it is not possible for a moon landing. You are a classic example of someone who twists things to fit into their own belief system,negating the actual facts to attempt to get your point across. Simple fail



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:22 AM
link   
People who believe the moon landings didnt take place are called conspiracy theorists when in actual fact, he true word should be "Skeptics". If you dont believe the government your a conspiracy theorist, if you dont believe the people you are a skeptic, go figure the madness behind that?!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 02:55 AM
link   
This documentary touches on all the points I made on the first page.



For a more in depth analysis what also this one. Here they also explain (and question) the photographic film used was simple stock film, untreated for protection against the radiation it also would have been exposed to. Considering Kodak had created film that supposedly would survive exposure to radiation, freezing cold, and scorching hot, why did they chose not to capitalize on it. Hmm



Anyway. Explain some of these believers, then we'll talk.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   
Was really hoping Neil would of opened a whole can of worms with a video to be released after his death



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 

Does anyone happen to know whether there have been doubters from the very beginning?

Or is this a newer phenomenon?




posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by maxella1
Here's the real footage...

R rating for the language contained within the film
edit on 26-8-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 26-8-2012 by maxella1 because: (no reason given)


Thank you so much for posting that, it's a new one to me. I played it whilst listening to a techno set and the timing couldn't have been better. There was already a spacey tune being played and with the video sound over it, it was the best f***ing mix I've ever heard.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by gladtobehere
reply to post by sprtpilot
 

Does anyone happen to know whether there have been doubters from the very beginning?

Or is this a newer phenomenon?


They gave been here from the beginning... A woman in Western Australia claimed she saw Coca Cola bottle roll across the lunar surface during the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 EVA.

I suspect a lot of deniers saw the film Capricorn One on TV in the late 70's when they were little kids and it somehow influenced them regarding the moon landings.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheMindWar
People who believe the moon landings didnt take place are called conspiracy theorists when in actual fact, he true word should be "Skeptics". If you dont believe the government your a conspiracy theorist, if you dont believe the people you are a skeptic, go figure the madness behind that?!


Thank you for such a brilliant insight. With that logic, all conspiracy theorists are actually skeptics! I had never thought of it this way.

Where does this leave the skeptics of the conspiracy theories? Treading water? Please reply! I like your thinking!



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 05:41 AM
link   
thanks for posting the video. was interesting viewing.

neil looks like a very professional guy.

he knows how many people are watching and how to conduct himself in an interview.

just at about 1.30 into the video he is answering a question on how he could only see the solar corona when they were flying. the smile that grows on his face when he is talking about this cannot be faked. you can clearly see how he must be remembering seeing that and how amazing it was. unlike us he does not jump up and down and start screaming how fricking unbelievable it was. he stays in total control. except for that smile, which he cant hold back.

lucky guy.



posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by AdamOver
 


Explanation: Uhmmm?



What powered the PLISS. Batteries according to the astronauts. Such powerful batteries that they kept them warm in the shadows, yet cool in the sun. No steam is shown emanating from the astronauts when they go from the being in Sun to then into Shadow.


The batteries were housed INSIDE the PLSS!




Note the Power supply unit (item 213) is housed INSIDE the PLSS.


So they were never warmed directly by the sun! :shk:

Personal Disclosure: Please detail why steam would be emanating from the astronauts at any time during EVA?





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join