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

reply to post by OutonaLimb


It's Red Hawk.

Kaysing was never an employee of NASA.

If you want to believe him that's your prerogative, his claims have all been refuted.

Edit: Not wishing to offend.

As you probably have assumed I have not read Kaysings' book, nor do I intend to, but have read summations of his claims. If you wish to post some please do?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

As you probably have assumed I have not read Kaysings' book, nor do I intend to, but have read summations of his claims. If you wish to post some please do?

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

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.

NASA are liars and fakers. It is proven.
Read the book and then post comments like the above, for Gods sake!

You can do better. The ordinary decent people deserve better!




Let this be a lesson to all.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People



I don't think the OP is trying to mislead, rather he is attempting to bolster his views on the subject by putting this thread together, and maybe looking for people to support his assertions. It doesn't seem to have worked (although as with these moon hoax threads, members from the opposing camps will sally forth and chuck a few spears in the direction of their sworn enemies). As you can see he started with one premise and gradually side slipped to another, demonstrating the unsoundness of his initial claim.

Originally posted by OutonaLimb

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by OutonaLimb

 

As you probably have assumed I have not read Kaysings' book, nor do I intend to, but have read summations of his claims. If you wish to post some please do?

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

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.

NASA are liars and fakers. It is proven.
Read the book and then post comments like the above, for Gods sake!

You can do better. The ordinary decent people deserve better!




Let this be a lesson to all.

What are you on about?

You say 'read the book', I say examine the data.

Don't be an idiot for god's sake.

Let me ask you, have you read Kaysings book? If so, bring one of his arguments to the table and we shall discuss it. It is patently obvious that a man with his background to have made the claims he made was a liar or a complete loon.

Do you expect me to read his book on your recommendation? Pffft! Stop being daft.

Do you still contend that Kaysing actually worked for NASA?

reply to post by rolfharriss


You do see the astronauts' faces. Armstrong collects the contingency sample with his visor down and face very visible. You are not correct about this.



Doesn't prove hoax or nonhoax. But you do see his face.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
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.

Wow dude, honestly all i said was, that props wont make the set smaller but actually do the opposite on camera.

AND also, this is a conspiracy website, and i am getting the feeling that most people here on ATS are not even into conspiracies, but are here for reasons beyond me, you me or anyone else on this website never been to the moon with those astronauts, so pretending like you were doesn't make it true.

If they had a shuttle that went to the moon successfully why did they change the rocket? they explored a fraction of the moon, why not go back?

And did any of you non believers of the moon hoax theory ever see this undeniable evidence with your own eyes? or just read a bunch of bs off the internet?

reply to post by XaniMatriX


A shuttle that went to the Moon? Shows how much you know about the space program.

NASA stopped going to the Moon because it was incredibly expensive, and they also wanted to start the Space Shuttle program.

or just read a bunch of bs off the internet?

That's exactly what hoax believers are doing.

A simple but important question to the OP (assuming I haven't missed it already being asked)...

Why would they need to use vacuum chambers to create a fake moon scene? There is no reason whatsoever that would warrant the need of filming in a vacuum is there? It seems like an awful lot of risk, trouble and expense to go to to create what is effectively an elaborate movie scene.

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
A simple but important question to the OP (assuming I haven't missed it already being asked)...

Why would they need to use vacuum chambers to create a fake moon scene? There is no reason whatsoever that would warrant the need of filming in a vacuum is there? It seems like an awful lot of risk, trouble and expense to go to to create what is effectively an elaborate movie scene.

edit on 5-11-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)

Because in a vacuum the dust wouldn't hang in the air as it would outside BUT it still wont fall at correct rate even if he changes video speed as other actions would look wrong!

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by fiftyfifty
A simple but important question to the OP (assuming I haven't missed it already being asked)...

Why would they need to use vacuum chambers to create a fake moon scene? There is no reason whatsoever that would warrant the need of filming in a vacuum is there? It seems like an awful lot of risk, trouble and expense to go to to create what is effectively an elaborate movie scene.

edit on 5-11-2012 by fiftyfifty because: (no reason given)

Because in a vacuum the dust wouldn't hang in the air as it would outside BUT it still wont fall at correct rate even if he changes video speed as other actions would look wrong!

Ah yes, I hadn't considered that. I completely agree with the fact that slowing the video down wouldn't have the same effect though. Plus, I would love these moon hoax believers to try jumping up and down and not landing awkwardly in a pressurised suit with all the gear in Earth's gravity!

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by XaniMatriX

 

A shuttle that went to the Moon? Shows how much you know about the space program.

NASA stopped going to the Moon because it was incredibly expensive, and they also wanted to start the Space Shuttle program.

or just read a bunch of bs off the internet?

That's exactly what hoax believers are doing.

Shuttle, Rocket, space pod ect ect,.. are just words for god sake, you knew exactly what i meant so your response has nothing to do with what i am asking, and the believers of the moon landing are also doing exactly the same thing.

Incredibly exspensive? around 20 billion dollars in a span of a decade for the moon missions, it now costs around 450 million per shuttle launch and that is not including training, facilities ect ect.... So they have sent around 119 shuttles into space, 450 million each would equal up to roughly 54 billion (training and all that not included, so its' around close to 60 billion) in a span of 30 years, the prices are the same and they are not even going to the moon.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Firstly don't be ridiculous. I merely stated a fact about focal length and it's relation to the viewers perception of scale, I did not challenge you in any way.

I am here like the majority of members to engage in discussion about alternative topics, not to indulge in childish fantasies and ignorant flights of imagination, the oft quoted moto of this site is?

You seem to be quite naïve about this subject, but don't be so foolish to think that I and other members have merely read what we know about the Apollo program from "BS" websites online.

I suggest you try to learn something about a topic before you attempt to engage others in debate, you could probably start by simply reading through the posts before expressing your opinion.

reply to post by XaniMatriX


Read some history, do some research. You're questions reflect nothing other than your lack of comprehension regarding this subject, and I for one am tired of trying to explain simple concepts to people who're too lazy to learn for themselves.

Best of luck.

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
Incredibly exspensive? around 20 billion dollars in a span of a decade for the moon missions, it now costs around 450 million per shuttle launch and that is not including training, facilities ect ect.... So they have sent around 119 shuttles into space, 450 million each would equal up to roughly 54 billion (training and all that not included, so its' around close to 60 billion) in a span of 30 years, the prices are the same and they are not even going to the moon.

edit on 5-11-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)

You should check your figures. The Apollo program cost over $100B over 10 years in modern funds. You can't compare $20B in 1970s funds, to what the shuttle cost in modern funds. You have to adjust for inflation to compare them. But even if you don't, they spent $20B for 6 landings on the moon. The total program breaks down to over $1B per flight.

reply to post by rolfharriss

Case closed, when will we go to the moon for real?

Exhibit A:



Fly ash.

Exhibit B:



Moon dust.

Case closed. You lose.

reply to post by XaniMatriX



ATS is a conspiracy site. It's also a site that promotes knowledge, research and basically denying ignorance.

When a person comes up with a theory for a conspiracy, because it is posted on here does not mean that it is going to automatically accepted by everyone, and deemed as a "Fact"

In reality, ATS members will question what has been presented. If they find that the information is faulty, contradicts itself, or is too weak, they will point it out.

If you don't like that fact, then may I suggest you step over and hang out at GLP? There is a great example of a place where any schmuck can post anything their little heart desires, no mater how outlandish it may be, with no sources, no links, no nothing, and everyone else must and will accept it.

To question it at all will get you banned.

A large majority here on ATS do believe that we went to the moon. A even larger majority here on ATS not only believes we went to the moon, but that we are still there now, with secret bases, and a Navy Space Fleet.

Interestingly enough, those people tend to present some rather quality threads. Not all of them, and many with pictures tend to get debunked. But some actually have subjects that even I have a hard time debunking.

Unlike Moon Landing Hoaxers, who seem to post rather poor quality threads that end up getting debunked, caught lying (either about themselves or the subject mater, and then banned), faking things themselves (and banned), proclaiming themselves subject mater experts only to show that they are anything but that.

ATS gets it's content from it's members. If you think you've got a good conspiracy dealing with the Apollo Moon Landings, then please, by all means, post it here. But keep in mind that you'll be in for debates, arguments and discussion, which is as it should be.

If you don't want to do that, or read that on here, again, might I suggest finding a forum that is all about Moon Landing Hoaxes where members that DARE question the validity of those claims get banned, have posts removed, etc, etc.

There is no vacuum on the moon.

When Apollo was doing those surface experiments and hammering that stake into the ground with a hammer you can hear on the video "ting....ting....ting....ting......ting".....as the hammer struck the steel rod.

There's no sound in a vacuum.


Besides if it was a full vacuum their spacesuits would have been bulging out like balloons and they wouldn't have been able to move.

The moon has an atmosphere. Not much of one, but does have one.

reply to post by Pervius


Can you please link to the video where you hear that "ting". Offhand, I can suppose that the shock from banging that hammer travelled through the spacesuit and into the microphone.

As for spacesuits in vacuum, how do you suppose modern astronauts do spacewalks on the ISS? The spacesuit is rigid enough not to inflate like a balloon, and flexible enough to allow some movement. Why do you deny that there is vacuum on the Moon when all evidence shows there is? Lunar dust and the objects dropped by the astronauts fall exactly like they would've done in vacuum. If the Moon had an atmosphere, we would see it from Earth.

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
...AND also, this is a conspiracy website, and i am getting the feeling that most people here on ATS are not even into conspiracies, but are here for reasons beyond me...

The mission statement of ATS is "Deny Ignorance", and denying ignorance is a two way street.

reply to post by Pervius


Hi Pervius, I'm Michael,aka touchdowntrojans. I am sort of trying to make up my mind about the hoax vs non hoax thing. One of the first pictures I saw that sort of got me going was from Michael Collins book Carrying the Fire. There is a moonwalk picture of him but his suit doesn't look pressurized at all. Doesn't look like its bulging at all. Also there is an identical shot taken in a vomit comet and so the argument is that Collins never spacewalked. They took the vomit comet shot, flipped it around right for left and blacked out the background to make it look like a space walk shot. Your talking about this vacuum business brought this to mind for me. One of the things that made me suspicious about Apollo is in the later editions of the book they didn't feature this moonwalk shot. Like they caught on. So my dad has this first edition of the paperback book with the funny suspicious shots and a copy I had picked up years later did not feature it.

I agree with your point about finding more hoax opponents than advocates but it seems to make it all the more worthwhile exploring the topic in such an environment. That is what motivated me to finally start participating here and move on from simply reading other people's posts. The only way I will sort through it is to challenge and be challenged myself.

I'll see if my dad still has that first Bantam edition of the Collins book. It's an eye opener. For me it is not proof of an Apollo hoax. It does suggest to me though NASA was faking some things early on.

Playing the ol' proverbial devil's advocate PErvius, if it is a hoax, why did they do it? This is a stumbling block for me. More than anything other fact or lack of one its what pushes me to believe the thing is real. Because why fake it? I can't really convince myself of a good reason to pretend to go to the moon given the inherent risk in being found out and embarrassed.