Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


not sure if you are serious - but here goes :

1 - during the apollo era - coal fired power stations were more prevelant - so the topic of fly ash would be better known to the public than today - also domestic solid fuel heating was more common than today - so the duty of disposing of the ash would be daily chore for many more people than it is today

2 - the vaccum chamber that you alledge the apollo footage was shot in is the space power facility @ the glenn research centre - it is 30m in diameter - a " working footpring that would be drasticaly reduced by the props / backdrop that your fantasy would require - there is simply not enough room in there to fake even the ` on foot ` EVA missions - never mind the rover ones

case dismissed


Not true, i have been on a set before, and it was TINY, i mean really really tiny, but when you watch it on TV it looked like an opera house.

Have been on the set of "the love guru" also, the club scene was filmed in government night club, it is a tiny room, when you see it on the screen though it looks much bigger, at least 5 times bigger then it actually is, props make everything look bigger.




posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


How we perceive size on film has more to do with the focal length of the lenses used to make the shots than anything else really.

However, please refer to my earlier post concerning the length of the moon rover(10 feet) and how we can see clearly that it travels more than 10 times its length in the original films. This can be easily evaluated regardless of the focal length of the lenses used to make the films. The notion that these shots were taken in a chamber 100 feet in diameter can be easily refuted, and the further claim that scale models were used is in my opinion ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


not sure if you are serious - but here goes :

1 - during the apollo era - coal fired power stations were more prevelant - so the topic of fly ash would be better known to the public than today - also domestic solid fuel heating was more common than today - so the duty of disposing of the ash would be daily chore for many more people than it is today

2 - the vaccum chamber that you alledge the apollo footage was shot in is the space power facility @ the glenn research centre - it is 30m in diameter - a " working footpring that would be drasticaly reduced by the props / backdrop that your fantasy would require - there is simply not enough room in there to fake even the ` on foot ` EVA missions - never mind the rover ones

case dismissed


Not true, i have been on a set before, and it was TINY, i mean really really tiny, but when you watch it on TV it looked like an opera house.

Have been on the set of "the love guru" also, the club scene was filmed in government night club, it is a tiny room, when you see it on the screen though it looks much bigger, at least 5 times bigger then it actually is, props make everything look bigger.


Ape is using his common. Extended rover drive,

www.youtube.com...
edit on 4-11-2012 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm kinda curious where all the enormous Saturn V rockets were flying off to, if not the Moon? There was that part about the return capsules and that's a whole Aircraft carrier full of normal sailors to keep a secret as well if they weren't really recovering those in the ocean?

I probably don't want to ask your theory about the men who died on the pad in an Oxygen fire in the Apollo 1 set up.


Well, one possibility is that they were in orbit, then splashed down and were picked up by a carrier full of sailors.
I havent read the whole thread but who said that there werent any rockets taking off?



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Themanwithnoname
 


I'm starting to suspect that there are members with multiple accounts posting moon hoax stuff, whether rolf is one or not I don't know, or care. At least he's trying, I've no problem with people asking questions and proposing possible methods of fakery, but when they ignore arguments against their theories and keep thumping their hoax bible I feel dismayed. I've said this a hundred times before, when a subject becomes a belief system then you are in trouble.

Somebody my say that I and others 'believe' the landings were real, this is a fallacy, the evidence for verses the evidence against is so disproportionate it's not even funny, logic must, and will, prevail.

Taken from an independent and un-biased view point the moon hoax theories are full of errors and built upon pseudo scientific untruths and misconceptions, propagated by persons willing to lie, deceive and deliberately mislead, and believed by people who are either mildly to seriously delusional, or very easily lead.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Neil Armstrong’s UFO Secret Published August 27, 2012 | By drgreer Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, passed away this weekend at age 82. Many have asked if Armstrong took with him the secrets of what really happened during the famed 1969 Lunar Landing. Well, yes- and no. Over the years, I have gotten to know a number of astronauts- and very close family members and friends of astronauts. As you may recall, my uncle was the senior project engineer for Grumman (now Northrop Grumman) that built the Lunar Module, that landed on the moon in July of 1969. The truth of that historic event has never been told. We did go to the moon- but the events that transpired were kept secret and officially remain secret to this day. By the time we landed on the moon, the Lunar Orbiter had mapped the moon and imaged ancient as well as more recent structures on the moon. This has been confirmed by more than one DisclosureProject.org witness. So by the time we landed, the military and intelligence community- and a small compartment of operatives at NASA- knew that we may in fact encounter something very unusual there. To prepare for this possibility, there was a time delay from the Lunar Module via an NSA (National Security Agency) uplink


and other, alternative film footage was prepared to be shown in the event of something really unusual happening. Well it happened. Close friends and very close family members of both Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin have separately told me that indeed there were numerous, large UFOs around the crater where the Lunar Module landed and that these were seen by both Armstrong and Aldrin. I have also spoken to military officers that have seen the footage of this event- but it has never been made public. One close family member of Buzz Aldrin told me “It is not my place to out Buzz on this- someday if he can speak about it, he will…” Neil Armstrong became somewhat of a recluse after the moon landing, and rarely spoke of the historic event. His friends and family have told me that this is because he was a man of such integrity that he simply did not want to be put in a position to lie to the public about such a momentous encounter. How tragic that our heroes have been placed in this untenable situation!


i like this general explanation of things, which indicates a hoax, a genuine moon landing, and UFO's to boot!
the author's name [of the quoted text] is in the first line. shhh!!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Where does it indicate a hoax?

Edit: Ok, I see the part about 'alternative film footage was prepared'. Interesting if you believe what Dr Greer is saying, and I'm not gonna start Greer-bashing but I'm not sure he's 100% credible.

On the other hand I'm very open to the possibility that they encountered something up there.


edit on 4-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by tinhattribunal
 


Care to provide an actual link to that source?

Would love to see the link.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:

"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"

Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting that specific hypothesis stated in the title??

edit on 11/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: sppellling



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:

"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"

Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting the specific hypothesis stated in the tile??


In short: he didn't.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:

"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"

Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting that specific hypothesis stated in the title??

edit on 11/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: sppellling


He didn't. At all.

Funny part about that. The chemical composition of Lunar Soil is different than Fly Ash.

Lunar Soil tends to be jagged around the edges of it. Follow the link for Fly Ash and take a look at microscopic pictures of it.......not jagged at all.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by badgerprints
Yeah,
That top secret powder that they truck out of coal plants in the wee hours of the morning so nobody sees it.
It all goes to a giant vacuum chamber where actors drive around in moon buggies?
O.K. Case closed.
Good job.


Close but not quite..




On a serious note I know we brought back moon rocks, but does anyone know if we brought back dust also? I would find it unusual to bring back just rocks.
edit on 4-11-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


They brought back rocks and regolith.

Also the astronauts suits invariably had quite an amount of regolith soiled onto them.

Alan Bean(Apollo 12) added moon dust to some of his lunar paintings, apparently it is illegal to buy or sell lunar regolith, but he took his mission patches which were originally sewn onto his spacesuit out of their glass case and shook them and got a small amount.

edit on 4-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Edit: I see you caught it.

Bean also saved one of the overshoes he wore on the lunar surface, and uses it to add "footprint" texture to his paintings.

Alan Bean Gallery
edit on 4-11-2012 by Saint Exupery because: I edited to correct for seabac's edit-correction



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


It's actually Alan Bean (Apollo 12), not Charlie Duke._javascript:hideribbon();

Alan Bean Gallery

He also saved one of the overshoes he wore on the lunar surface, and uses it to add "footprint" texture to his paintings.


Correct, I had hoped I edited my post before anyone noticed


Last night was a late one.


jra

posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Here's a video that I really like. It's from Apollo 15 and they're digging a trench to collect soil samples from a few inches below the surface.



Now here is the same video, but played back at 245% of the original speed. If the claims of NASA purposely slowing down the footage to make it look like they were on the Moon, then this should be the "normal" speed.



That sure doesn't look "normal" to me. It looks sped up and there is no way dust could fly like that in an atmospheric environment in 1G.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 


The second video shows two actors on amphetamines, they later died of exhaustion induced heart attacks.



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by OutonaLimb
 


Ha! Bill Kaysing?

That man is nothing but an attention seeking charlatan.

Do yourself a favour and cop on will ya!

I always think its hilarious that gullible fools will ignore the tonnes of data available to them in favour of the bitter rantings of a known liar and sensationalist.

If you believe Kaysing you are sailing upon a sea of delusion with limp sails and a cloven rudder.


Red Falcon, You have lost your way. Your wings are clipped and
your mind for the hunt has abandoned you!

Let's all believe blindly what searac (Irish for halk/falcon) says. Let's forget about
the extremely intelligent and compelling account of a former employee who
wouldn't go along with the hoax and subsequently gave his coherent and conclusive
reasons why it was a hoax. He certainly has this gullible fool convinced (along with all the other
evidence for fakery, of course).

Is tusa Eireannach?
If so, I hang my head.

How quickly you dismiss. Almost too quickly.
Point out one section of the transcript posted that is so obviously flawed to you, yet
not to gullible fools like me.

I bet you cannot!



posted on Nov, 4 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:

"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"

Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting that specific hypothesis stated in the title??

edit on 11/4/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: sppellling


He didn't. At all.

Funny part about that. The chemical composition of Lunar Soil is different than Fly Ash.

Lunar Soil tends to be jagged around the edges of it. Follow the link for Fly Ash and take a look at microscopic pictures of it.......not jagged at all.


So the OP is lying. There is no confirmation, nor did he attempt to provide evidence of a confirmation.
Doesn't that make the thread title deliberately misleading/a lie?

I would give the OP the benefit of the doubt that he was not intentionally trying to mislead if he even attempted to back up the claims made in the title. But considering no such attempt was made, I have to think there is deliberate deception on the OP's part.

I mean, shouldn't the thread title be an accurate representation of what the thread is about? ESPECIALLY when the thread title claims to "confirm" something.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join