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

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


There is an atmosphere on the moon, it's just too thin to do much. You can't even really say that it's a fraction of Earth's atmosphere, because it's a tiny fraction of ours, but it's there.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 


Just to clarify, did you mean a photo of Collins during a space walk or moonwalk? I'm sure you're aware that Collins didn't walk on the moon.

Collins was the first man to space walk from one capsule to another in 1966, I've seen the photos you're referring to, and from what I understand there seems to be some confusion concerning whether NASA actually ever claimed these were pictures of Collins' actual space walk in the first place.

I'm going to look into this particular subject in more detail, as far as I know there is another thread on ATS about these shots.

As far as I'm concerned they(Collins controversial pictures) are not indicative of faked landings, although I can see why some would say they lend weight to the hoax argument, if it was NASA who released the photos and stated they were shots of the space walk, but to my knowledge that is where the confusion arises.



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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Spacewalk, it is a famous or infamous photo depending on POV. What piqued my interest was that it seems to have been redacted from the latter publications of the book. I saw it in a '74 Ballantine paperback. I'll post a copy if I can find it. It is public domain stuff, NASA photo. I think Ralph Rene was the first to point this out publicly, but my father actually showed it to me before Rene had said anything about it in public. Rene featured both the spacewalk and vomit comet shots in his introduction and argued NASA has been lying habitually.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by touchdowntrojans
 



Spacewalk, it is a famous or infamous photo depending on POV. What piqued my interest was that it seems to have been redacted from the latter publications of the book. I saw it in a '74 Ballantine paperback. I'll post a copy if I can find it. It is public domain stuff, NASA photo. I think Ralph Rene was the first to point this out publicly, but my father actually showed it to me before Rene had said anything about it in public. Rene featured both the spacewalk and vomit comet shots in his introduction and argued NASA has been lying habitually.


Glad you brought it up. That photo actually proved that Ralph Renè was lying habitually:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Ah... good times... good times....



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


They remove posts? i hope i am not that ignorant
i believe that we did go to the moon i just don't believe the footage they showed us is legitimate.

The only reason why i mentioned the whole conspiracy is, before disclaiming some theory you gotta also except in one way or another the conspiracy at hand, did not mean that in a negative way at all.

And to reply about the funds, in 1970 it's 20 billion dollars in a span of a decade just in order to reach the moon, why even include the inflation is, weird... since the 1980's, and if you like to include inflation, wouldn't the shuttle programs then be worth a lot more? that's why inflation is irrelevant (in my opinion) 20 billion is still 20 billion no matter what day it is, all i am saying, technically the price to send a shuttle into space today, is worth just as much as it did to send man to the moon, only this time were not going to the moon, but into orbit, should it not cost less.

About the ash, the way it kicks up when they pour it is very similar to the way the "dust" kicks up and settles in the moon footage.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

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.


It was thread title propaganda.. Snappy title gets people's attention. Such as the thread title "I keep dreaming of a Zombie 9/11 Nibiru Apocalypse and I am wearing a g-string.'



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
And yes we have found the facility where the lunar remote control scale models were filmed.. In a vacuum chamber in Ohio with fly ash as the moon dust.

Something I have not heard discussed is the fact the astronauts brought large amounts of moon dust into the Lunar landing module. If the suits protected them whilst they were on the moon the amount on these suits brought back into the module would have been lethal. How did they ensure they were not harmed by the radiation coming from the dust on the space suits?

www.workingonthemoon.com...
edit on 5-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: link



Earth's friend, Man's enemy: The Moon is layered in dust bathed in radiation, which could prove deadly for pioneers
By EDDIE WRENN
PUBLISHED: 16:16, 13 July 2012 | UPDATED: 15:46, 16 July 2012
Comments (133)
Share

"Earth's friend, man's enemy: Moon-dust is expected to be very harmful to man as it is ultra-fine and doused in UV radiation
Living on the moon is surely humanity's goal as we make our first baby steps into space.
But our constant neighbour may not treat us so well - for scientists now think that the very dust on our luna partner is poisonous to humans.
The surface of the moon is coated in a layer of thick, undisturbed dust, which is not only ultra-fine - and therefore easy to inhale - but can increase the risk of various cancers, similar to breathing asbestos and volcanic ash."

"The dust -subjected to millenia of UV radiation, would prentrate deep into the lungs, and micro-gravity would only help in bringing the dust deep into the lungs."


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
edit on 5-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: info



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



And yes we have found the facility where the lunar remote control scale models were filmed.. In a vacuum chamber in Ohio with fly ash as the moon dust.


They filmed this in that little chamber?




Something I have not heard discussed is the fact the astronauts brought large amounts of moon dust into the Lunar landing module. If the suits protected them whilst they were on the moon the amount on these suits brought back into the module would have been lethal. How did they ensure they were not harmed by the radiation coming from the dust on the space suits?


What radiation on the dust?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:33 PM
link   
"The dust -subjected to millenia of UV radiation, would prentrate deep into the lungs, and micro-gravity would only help in bringing the dust deep into the lungs."

That dust.


We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.

Static driver prop.




Static driver prop.

edit on 5-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: link edit



"I can't move my hands right now because I am remote control prop"
edit on 5-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: link



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Because if you're going to compare apples to apples (Apollo to the shuttle), you can't say use 1970s dollars, and compare them to 2000s dollars. The value of the dollar changes quite a bit over time. If you want to compare them, you have to show the same value amount.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 



We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.

Static driver prop.


Really? Explain this:




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Did anyone else notice that his following tracks? like exactly as they are laid out, that's why i don't belive the footage is legitimate, there are way too many slips such as the tracks.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Seriously!? That is the evidence. Why is the astronaut dangling his arm around ! This is more evidence that dummies were used as props for the bulk of the 'Lunar surface' images



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Because if you're going to compare apples to apples (Apollo to the shuttle), you can't say use 1970s dollars, and compare them to 2000s dollars. The value of the dollar changes quite a bit over time. If you want to compare them, you have to show the same value amount.


I am not comparing them, all i am saying is that cost them in 10 years 20 billion dollars, and now a days it cost them also roughly 20 billion dollars to do something which requires less effort, what does inflation have to do with it? you can't say it cost them 100 billion dollars to send man to the moon in 1970 when they spent 20 billion at that time, and now they spend 20 billion dollars (roughly) every ten years now a days also, i still don't understand what inflation has to do with those figures it just makes no sense.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss


We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



No rolf, you haven't established anything of the sort.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


I didn't say that it cost them $100B to do it, when it only cost them $20B. I said in 2000s dollars it would have cost $100B. There was a comparison to how the Apollo program cost $20B in the 1970s, but the shuttle was $450M+ per launch in the 2000s. If they are going to be compared, then you have to account for inflation, and put the prior program into modern dollars to do so.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


You need to get on to NASA and mysteriously unearth some unseen footage, you need some CGI clips or the story will not hold. Its the same problem today's CGI may not hold up in 10 years time.

All the Lunar hoax youtube vids have been pushed down the rankings or deleted, some have been clipped to shorter videos. Shame I did think this was on it's way out and we could get some real space exploration done!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by rolfharriss


We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



No rolf, you haven't established anything of the sort.


But all of the astronauts in the Lunar rover footage are clearly dummies, this means the footage has been faked. What more proof do you need.

If this thread makes just one person question the Apollo hoax then it is a good thing, if our governments start being pursued for things they have done in the past we might not get screwed over as much in the future.
edit on 5-11-2012 by rolfharriss because: info



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 




Look, back in the 70's you could buy a lot more with a dollar than you can today, a whole lot more.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by rolfharriss


We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



No rolf, you haven't established anything of the sort.


But all of the astronauts in the Lunar rover footage are clearly dummies, this means the footage has been faked. What more proof do you need.



That's because they're not clearly dummies.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join