Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moon and Rover fakery - Shocking PROOF like never before seen!!!

page: 6
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246

They have real moon rocks that made it to earth from deep impacts happening on the moon sending up moon rock into space that ends up on earth.
No-No -No, if that was the case, then tests would show up what we call "cosmic exposure" when it passes into earths atmosphere have you actually done any research on this?
have you thought your hypothesis through carefully? Did you know that moon rocks are all different in size color



Lunar Origin please read r2d2 just this once hey?.....



The ages of Moon rocks are between 3.2 and 4.6 billion years old, which is the age of the Moon itself. The youngest Moon rocks are as old as the oldest Earth rocks, so they can tell us a bit about what the early Earth must have been like – impacted like the Moon we see preserved in the highlands of the Moon today.

The chemistry of the Moon is different than the Earth r2d2. The Moon has been heated to high temperatures during formation, which has driven off the volatile elements (low melting points) buddy, and retained the refractory (high melting point elements) and formed from these. The Earth as a balance of both, and the lava from the Moon has a higher content of Iron, Magnesium and Titanium (5-7%) (more mafic) than does the Earths basaltic lavas (more felsic). There are no sedimentary rocks on the Moon, and the highlands are composed mainly (as far as is know from the limited sampling sites) to be mainly breccias and anorthosite. This anorthosite tells something very important about the early Moon. It seems to have been molten to a depth of maybe 400km and the lighter weight rocks (plagioclase) floated to the surface forming "rockbergs" and the heavier iron and magnesium rocks sank. These later erupted to the surface as lava after the major impact basins formed after the "Magma Ocean" solidified. So the Moon is a differentiated planet with a unique history of its own, just like the Earth. This was a surprise to some investigators who thought prior to Apollo that the Moon was a cold undifferentiated body – but before the return of samples, it was anybody’s guess as to what would be found – Apollo closed the bets and the dice was rolled! We now know that the Moon is an evolved planet, just like the Earth.

The Moon rocks continue to be kept at the Johnson Space Center, in building 31N which was built in 1979. They are protected by more than 18 inches of concrete and steel yes rd2d2, and a sophisticated motion detector system. Inside this r2d2, they are protected in stainless steel vaults and the rocks are stored in gaseous nitrogen as it is fairly unreactive. If they were stored in oxygen they would rust. A representative sample collection is stored at Brookes Air Force base in San Antonio as backup is something happened to the Johnson Space Center.

Now you know the basics of the Moon r2d2, and i may add that lunar science research is continuing with about 1000 samples being sent out to scientists each year...

So tell me r2dtoo are they the public geoligists in on it too?

Perhaps r2dtoo in the not too distant future we will have new samples from the Moon from areas not yet visited. There is much more to learn from our mysterious Moon....





posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:16 AM
link   
Great thread. The first and last video were a real eye opener. It's always baffled me why people would believe that we would spend billions of dollars to get some space rocks and show off to the Russians. Add a gullible apathetic docile population and you can fake it 100%. The only reason now they're spending money on space projects is so they can put up big brother satellites.

Probably one of the biggest heists of all time.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


While NASA may have largely moved on from moon missions, although they do have 3 planned missions between now and 2018, there are over a dozen other space agencies planning manned moon missions in the coming years.

Two of which are private entities.

So what will the moon landing naysayers say when Iran lands on the moon in 2025 and confirms the Apollo missions were actually real?

Then there's India, China, Japan, Russia and the ESA too.

One day the truth of the moon landings will be undeniable and only the fringe of the fringe will still think it never happened, even if they took a tourist trip to the moon and saw a Luna module themselves.
edit on 1-10-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 



You don't think witnesses or whistle blowers are in fear of losing their lives?

Let's look at 9/11:






jenningsmystery.com...




Almost every single war we've entered in the last 100 years has been because of a false flag attack.

Lusitania.
Pearl Harbor.
Gulf of Tonkin.
9/11.

Half of those were unconstitutional.


You don't think they can get away with making a fake moon landing video? If they can get away with killing tens of millions of people, they can sure as hell put some sand on the ground and make it look like the moon. Did you watch the first and last video that OP posted?


All Governments are liars and murderers.

Remember that.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
Great thread. The first and last video were a real eye opener. It's always baffled me why people would believe that we would spend billions of dollars to get some space rocks and show off to the Russians. Add a gullible apathetic docile population and you can fake it 100%. The only reason now they're spending money on space projects is so they can put up big brother satellites.

Probably one of the biggest heists of all time.



Sweet heavens above :


Is there a price to inspiration and creativity? Economic, scientific and technological returns of space exploration have far exceeded the investment. Globally, 43 countries now have their own observing or communication satellites in Earth orbit. Observing Earth has provided G.P.S., meteorological forecasts, predictions and management of hurricanes and other natural disasters, and global monitoring of the environment, as well as surveillance and intelligence. Satellite communications have changed life and business practices with computer operations, cell phones, global banking, and TV. Studying humans living in the microgravity of space has expanded our understanding of osteoporosis and balance disorders, and has led to new treatments. Wealth-generating medical devices and instrumentation such as digital mammography and outpatient breast biopsy procedures and the application of telemedicine to emergency care are but a few of the social and economic benefits of manned exploration that we take for granted.

Space exploration is not a drain on the economy; it generates infinitely more than wealth than it spends. Royalties on NASA patents and licenses currently go directly to the U.S. Treasury, not back to NASA. I firmly believe that the Life Sciences Research Program would be self-supporting if permitted to receive the return on its investment. NASA has done so much with so little that it has generally been assumed to have had a huge budget. In fact, the 2007 NASA budget of $16.3 billion is a minute fraction of the $13 trillion total G.D.P.

You owe Nasa a big thank you sir .........



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
There' another thing that seems so obvious to me. When they went to the moon the photos and the videos look stagged. The reason being that the video camera never moves in any significant panning, such as doing a 360 or pointing up. I've never seen even once them do that. That's classic hollywood. When you watch a movie and are filming a scene they don't do a 360. Why? because you'd see the film crew and lighting obviously. That's exactly the same with the moon landing.



Then you're just showing your ignorance, because a 360 degree panorama was one of the first things Neil did when he setup the camera away from the lander.


And to all those people talking about the recreations with and photoshop and other computer graphics... doesnt it concern you that none of this existed back in 1969 and thus becomes a complete bogus argument?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kang69
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 



You don't think witnesses or whistle blowers are in fear of losing their lives?



You don't think they can get away with making a fake moon landing video? If they can get away with killing tens of millions of people, they can sure as hell put some sand on the ground and make it look like the moon. Did you watch the first and last video that OP posted?


All Governments are liars and murderers.

Remember that.


Remember this:



Do me a favour and try this at home sir try dropping a hammer and feather at the same time well go
on then?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Attention moon hoaxers: "Please read peoples posts" stop being ignorant, they have answered
your questions thousands of times and you still ask it's getting pathetic people and humiliating
for netruals to watch..

'Come on now, i see the same people keep asking and the same people like myself keep posting.

R-E-A-D.... People have answered your claims many times allready wtf.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Kang69
 


You need to learn a bit more about history.

The Lusitania was sank by a German Uboat.

Pearl harbor was the Japanese.

Gulf of Tonkin was the Vietnamese.

The three above were attacks that were made by aggressors on the US, did the US use them as a pretext for escalation? Only in the GOT incident, and even then the Vietnamese war was on the cards long before that, as with WW1 and WW2. Either way they were not 'False Flags', none of them were orchestrated by the US, all were real attacks.

BS infowars revisionism is the hallmark of a bafoon. Same goes for the moon hoax rubbish.


Secondly. We have witnesses risking their lives to come forward for many other world events, why not the Apollo missions? I'll tell you why there are none.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I don't want to alarm anyone but I don't really see the "proof"?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellaByStarLight
reply to post by r2d246
 


I think you are spot on r2d246. For so long I have wanted to get into the mix. Guess my timidity has hurt in the past. I worked for NASA, roughly 11 years as a project manager. Some of us would chat occasionally about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our being buggered on some of this stuff, especially the planetary probes and Apollo. Sometimes, I think because we were women, a couple of girlfriends and I that worked there, people actually paid us MORE mind. But ultimately we'd get shouted down. The main reason for my suspicions, tendency toward disbelief in the reality of the big projects, had to do with the principals not being very convincing. I met Gene Cernan and I thought he was a con man, VERY UNCONVINCING as a spaceman. I listened to him talk and thought, "No way this guy went to the moon, NO WAY!". I don't think Cernan could park a car, let alone land a lunar excursion vehicle and drive a rover. Also, the hostility thing. I always felt that, and still do, the hostility of the conventional view folks is so much out of proportion to the hoax believers. That is a telltale sign of weakness, aggression. This is so because there is no genuine alternative. I am yet to declare myself an HB publicly , but and am on the verge of it. I also met Lovell. He yaks like mad, but it is all bull. I don't think he could pass a college level calculus with a B+. He come across as a C student with the gift of gab. The planetary probe projects and Apollo are gamed, can't be legitimate.


Can you provide anything other than personal opinion?

Both these astronauts were military pilots so I would say your take on them was askew and biased, unless you believe that anybody who could park a car could fly a fighter jet?


edit on 1-10-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlphaHawk
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
 


While NASA may have largely moved on from moon missions, although they do have 3 planned missions between now and 2018, there are over a dozen other space agencies planning manned moon missions in the coming years.

Two of which are private entities.

So what will the moon landing naysayers say when Iran lands on the moon in 2025 and confirms the Apollo missions were actually real?

Then there's India, China, Japan, Russia and the ESA too.

One day the truth of the moon landings will be undeniable and only the fringe of the fringe will still think it never happened, even if they took a tourist trip to the moon and saw a Luna module themselves.
edit on 1-10-2012 by AlphaHawk because: (no reason given)



Hey, if that will be the case, I will have no trouble putting this Moon hoax thing finally to rest. Nothing I like best than truth being evident.

I am skeptical a bit about that though...the US has declared the Apollo landing sites national heritage. I doubt that any missions going to the moon will be allowed to land at or near the sites. Also, I'm kinda still sold on the Van Allen's belt "lethalness", so I doubt there will be manned landings in the near future.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
The claim is that they'd only be in the van allen belt for a few hours. And they'd have sheilding (not the half foot of lead that they'd need) but some other sheilding? Who knows what really. That would protect them to some degree. So they claim the exposure would be minimal. Seems outrageous to me. At 70 rad you got the runs at 120 rad your puking. At 200 you'd be incapacitated. One solar flare gives off something like 950 rad. It would kill them instantly. But yet they dodged the flares, got threw the van allen, managed not to run into any solar flares on any mission. and also didn't run into any other radiation that is surging threw space coming from all over! Amazing! They did it, they're hero's hurrayy hurrraaw!! Sounds like a movie. And ya there's hundreds of discrepencies that they somehow overcame, crazy. To me that makes me think it's why they now only do rover missions. Which I think are faked in area 51 or something. Less to have to explain.


You don't need a "half a foot of lead shielding". In fact when you're talking shielding, lead is the WORST type of shielding for space travel. When you have high energy protons impacting you, you want shielding that is not dense. The denser your shielding, the more particles are going to be thrown off from it when the particles hit it.

The Van Allen Belt isn't a uniform belt of radiation like most hoax believers think. It has thicker and thinner spots as you go around the earth. That's why launches have the trajectory that they do. It pushes them through the thinner portions of the belts. Even a satellite can't survive in the thicker portions of the belt for very long.


The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads, much less than the standard of five (5) rem per year set by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[22]

en.wikipedia.org...

Most of the radiation from the belts comes from the inner belt, which extends up to roughly 4,000 miles. When you talk about the exposure levels from the belt, you are talking after years of exposure. The Apollo missions were through them within the first day or two of being in orbit.


"I looked up a typical satellite passing the radiation belts (elliptic orbit, 200 miles to 20000 miles) and the radiation dosage per year is about 2500 rem, assuming one is shielded by 1 gr/cm-square of aluminum (about 1/8" thick plate) almost all of it while passing the inner belt. But there is no danger. The way the particles move in the magnetic field prevents them from hitting the atmosphere, and even if they are scattered so their orbit does intersect the ground, the atmosphere absorbs them long before they get very far. Even the space station would be safe, because the orbits usually stop above it--any particles dipping deeper down are lost much faster than they can be replenished.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...

That's 6.8 rem a day, or roughly .29 an hour. If Apollo had stayed in the same levels of radiation for 12 hours (which they didn't), and were shielded with a 1/8" thick plate of aluminum (which they weren't), they would have been exposed to roughly 3.4 rems on their way through. Still well below the 5 a year that is considered safe for a nuclear power plant worker.


The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

www.clavius.org...

cont......
edit on 10/1/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:02 AM
link   
cont.....



The "six feet of lead" statistic appears in many conspiracist charges, but no one has yet owned up to being the definitive source of that figure. In fact, six feet (2 m) of lead would probably shield against a very large atomic explosion, far in excess of the normal radiation encountered in space or in the Van Allen belts.

While such drastic measures are needed to shield against intense, high-frequency electromagnetic radiation, that is not the nature of the radiation in the Van Allen belts. In fact, because the Van Allen belts are composed of high-energy protons and high-energy electrons, metal shielding is actually counterproductive because of the Bremsstrahlung that would be induced.

Metals can be used to shield against particle radiation, but they are not the ideal substance. Polyethylene is the choice of particle shielding today, and various substances were available to the Apollo engineers to absorb Van Allen radiation. The fibrous insulation between the inner and outer hulls of the command module was likely the most effective form of radiation shielding. When metals must be used in spacecraft (e.g., for structural strength) then a lighter metal such as aluminum is better than heavier metals such as steel or lead. The lower the atomic number, the less Bremsstrahlung.

www.clavius.org...

Bremsstrahlung:


X-ray production typically involves bombarding a metal target in an x-ray tube with high speed electrons which have been accelerated by tens to hundreds of kilovolts of potential. The bombarding electrons can eject electrons from the inner shells of the atoms of the metal target. Those vacancies will be quickly filled by electrons dropping down from higher levels, emitting x-rays with sharply defined frequencies associated with the difference between the atomic energy levels of the target atoms.

The frequencies of the characteristic x-rays can be predicted from the Bohr model . Moseley measured the frequencies of the characteristic x-rays from a large fraction of the elements of the periodic table and produces a plot of them which is now called a "Moseley plot".

Characteristic x-rays are used for the investigation of crystal structure by x-ray diffraction. Crystal lattice dimensions may be determined with the use of Bragg's law in a Bragg spectrometer.

hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

www.clavius.org...
edit on 10/1/2012 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
You have any idea of how many people worked/work on these projects? There is now way in hell every single one of them would keep quiet.. Humans do NOT keep secrets to themselves..It's somehow engrained in our genetic make-up to gossip..Don't ask me how, but it is. This whole "everything is fake" stuff is really a disservice to mankind's genius and ingenuity..I know it's fun, but it really is a smack in the face of mankind..



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:28 AM
link   
One thing puzzles me, the earth is bigger than the moon, so, why is it, when the earth is seen from the moon, the earth looks the same size as the moon seen from earth. baffles me.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly

I'm kinda still sold on the Van Allen's belt "lethalness", so I doubt there will be manned landings in the near future.



Van Allen himself dismissed the claims made by hoax theorists as ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
One thing puzzles me, the earth is bigger than the moon, so, why is it, when the earth is seen from the moon, the earth looks the same size as the moon seen from earth. baffles me.


How do you know how big the Earth looks like from the moon?



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by pikestaff
 


It's all about perspective and distance.



posted on Oct, 1 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by pikestaff
One thing puzzles me, the earth is bigger than the moon, so, why is it, when the earth is seen from the moon, the earth looks the same size as the moon seen from earth. baffles me.


Perspective. Just like how when you're moving away from something it gets smaller. The distance from earth just happens to be at the point where the earth appears roughly the same size as the moon. Eventually the moon will move far enough away that the earth will appear smaller.





new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join