Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

page: 25
60
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 22 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonbeleiver77
 



I am yet to read anything in this post as to how the hoax supporters think that all the people who worked on the missions where kept quite? Over half a million people worked on the Apollo missions.
Please explain your theory's on how all the people involved where kept quite for the rest of their days so much do that NOT ONE has ever come forward or even intimated a hoax.
Over 500,000 people....


The obvious answer to your question is this : The 500,000 people you speak of didn't go into space.

Unfortunately you have latched onto this figure of "500,000 people" and you haven't presented a SINGLE SOURCE for that figure.


And your theory's on where the rockets went if not the moon?


The rockets were lifted into low earth orbit. That much is obvious, thousands of eye witnesses. But the Apollo telemetry tapes would show the ships stayed in Low Earth Orbit. So it was decided (probably by Nixon) the 700+ boxes of tapes, encompassing all manned Apollo missions, were "lost" (hi-jacked by Nixon's Plumbers) during a routine transfer between the National Archives and Goddard Space Flight Center.


FYI- I don't mean to speak for all the Apollo skeptics. There are so many different angles to the Apollo Hoax Hologram, Nixon's Apollo, the angle that I think is the best one, for me.

Go ahead and ask more questions. The Apollo skeptics will help you understand the truth.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

The rockets were lifted into low earth orbit. That much is obvious, thousands of eye witnesses. But the Apollo telemetry tapes would show the ships stayed in Low Earth Orbit. So it was decided (probably by Nixon) the 700+ boxes of tapes, encompassing all manned Apollo missions, were "lost" (hi-jacked by Nixon's Plumbers) during a routine transfer between the National Archives and Goddard Space Flight Center.

FYI- I don't mean to speak for all the Apollo skeptics. There are so many different angles to the Apollo Hoax Hologram, Nixon's Apollo, the angle that I think is the best one, for me.

Go ahead and ask more questions. The Apollo skeptics will help you understand the truth.


apollo 11 telemetry tapes are missing, presumed to be erased and reused for other things. but what about apollo 12-17? theres no word on those being missing. most sources only refer to apollo 11 tapes.

you are pretty good a digging things up, help us out here.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Why do you insist on lying about apollo telemetry data being unavailable? It has been explained to you multiple times that the original Apollo 11 data tapes are available, but they were erased AFTER copies of the data were made. Once again, I'll put the question to you. Since the lack of original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11 seem to invalidate the mission for you and we just ignore the entire mission, how do you explain the other eight apollo missions that went to the moon?
edit on 23-4-2013 by captainpudding because: typo



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


The key section is underlined, bolded. According to the gallant, non-NASA investigation headed by John Sarkissian, CSIRO Parkes Observatory, the National Archives saw fit to place all the "Apollo era magnetic tapes" - not just Apollo 11 - into the archive named Accession #69A4099.

Notice that he says "Apollo era", not just "Apollo 11".


In 1970, the tapes were placed in the US National Archives in Accession #69A4099. By 1984, all but two of the over 700 boxes of Apollo era magnetic tapes placed in the Accession, were removed and returned to the GSFC for permanent retention. These tapes are now missing.
These missing data tapes include the raw Apollo 11 SSTV tapes. For the past several years, a search for these tapes has been undertaken by several former Apollo 11 personnel. To date, no Apollo 11 SSTV tapes have been found. SOURCE www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Why do you insist on lying about apollo telemetry data being unavailable? It has been explained to you multiple times that the original Apollo 11 data tapes are available, but they were erased AFTER copies of the data were made. Once again, I'll put the question to you. Since the lack of original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11 seem to invalidate the mission for you and we just ignore the entire mission, how do you explain the other eight apollo missions that went to the moon?
edit on 23-4-2013 by captainpudding because: typo


You say that copies were made? Then why did Sarkissian go searching for the tapes in 2006? Where are the copies and who possesses them today if you say these copies exist? Sources. Please.

Captain, you take this too far. I never said to ignore the entire mission.

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for any evidence from the Apollo side with regard to the whereabouts of Apollo 11-EAGLE and Apollo 16-ORION.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
reply to post by mrkeen
 


First of all, it is common knowledge that test pilots (in general) and the Apollo astronauts (specifically) took great risks. I'm not sure why you are suddenly surprised by this.

Secondly, as I said, the risk of a solar flare happening during the Apollo flights and being directed towards the Apollo spacecraft were low -- lower than other dangers posed by the Apollo mission. So it's not that it was at all likely that a solar flare would kill them. Given the relatively poor record of launch failures up to that time, it was more likely the astronauts would die in a launch explosion/launch accident rather than a solar flare.

Thirdly, once the astronauts are in space, the cost of the spacecraft hardware is already consumed. It's not like they would likely reuse any of it if the astronauts died by solar flare (maybe the LM and attached rover could be worth recovering and reusing, but I doubt they would do that, considering that is just adding the the risk of an already risky mission).

edit on 4/22/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


It's not about the risk, it's about the technology and the events that took place before, during and after the mission that people are even questioning this pretty Hollywood story.

They are test pilots, they would LOVE to go to the Moon or Mars, that's why they took the job of test pilots in the first place, Adrenaline!!!, so it's not about them.

It's not about the thousands of people that worked on the project, it's about the political, technological, and militarized actions that took place to create a staged propaganda coo, just so a few people can make profits, send a spy satellite program into orbit and continue making profits.

Now you mention astronauts were more likely to die at launch, wow so they had technology to go through the unknown and unexpected space where jet propulsion doesn't even work (unless your in LEO) about 240, 000 miles through nothing but cosmic solar and other unknown radiation., on a rocket that could or could not blow up at launch?

Call me crazy, but there is just waaaaay to many excuses to make it seem like it was possible in the 60's, even today lol.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter
 

Why do you insist on lying about apollo telemetry data being unavailable? It has been explained to you multiple times that the original Apollo 11 data tapes are available, but they were erased AFTER copies of the data were made. Once again, I'll put the question to you. Since the lack of original telemetry tapes for Apollo 11 seem to invalidate the mission for you and we just ignore the entire mission, how do you explain the other eight apollo missions that went to the moon?
edit on 23-4-2013 by captainpudding because: typo


You say that copies were made? Then why did Sarkissian go searching for the tapes in 2006? Where are the copies and who possesses them today if you say these copies exist? Sources. Please.

Captain, you take this too far. I never said to ignore the entire mission.

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for any evidence from the Apollo side with regard to the whereabouts of Apollo 11-EAGLE and Apollo 16-ORION.



They are using the Apollo 16-Orion to go to Mars hehe. Don't know if it's true but NASA showed of their Mars lander and it's name is Orion, and it look's exactly the same.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for any evidence from the Apollo side with regard to the whereabouts of Apollo 11-EAGLE and Apollo 16-ORION.



apollo 11 eagle was left in lunar orbit and its orbit was presumed to have decayed by now.

apollo 16 orion lost stability after jettison and was unable to perform a de-orbit burn. It is presumed to have remained in lunar orbit for maybe a year.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

They are using the Apollo 16-Orion to go to Mars hehe. Don't know if it's true but NASA showed of their Mars lander and it's name is Orion, and it look's exactly the same.


First of all, the LM used for ASpollo 16 (nicknamed Orion) looks nothing at all like the new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) named Orion:

Apollo 16 "Orion" LM:




New Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) [artist impression]:




Secondly, if the Orion CEV goes to Mars, it will NOT be the primary Mars cruise vehicle, but it may be used as part of a larger vehicle. The Orion CEV on its own is not large enough on its own to be the home for the Mars astronauts for the several month flight both ways. It could, however, be a piece of that vehicle.

Actually, it is more likely that SpaceX corporation's Dragon capsule may be part of the Mars Cruise vehicle, and may end up being the Final Mars descent and ascent vehicle.

The Orion CEV's main job will be to take astronaut's to LEO and to the Space station. It may also be used for future trips to the Moon or to visit relatively close asteroids.


edit on 4/23/2013 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

As a matter of fact, I'm still waiting for any evidence from the Apollo side with regard to the whereabouts of Apollo 11-EAGLE and Apollo 16-ORION.



apollo 11 eagle was left in lunar orbit and its orbit was presumed to have decayed by now.

apollo 16 orion lost stability after jettison and was unable to perform a de-orbit burn. It is presumed to have remained in lunar orbit for maybe a year.


Can you post something more than what's in wikipedia?
You know that these two modules could be the key to unlocking the Apollo enigma.
Your indifference to the matter, and the lack of substantive replies, either by you or by the regular Apollo crowd sort of confirms it. This indifference amounts to a collective ignorance.

NASA claims of Apollo engineering precision and scientific exactitude are at stake.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

Can you post something more than what's in wikipedia?
You know that these two modules could be the key to unlocking the Apollo enigma.
Your indifference to the matter, and the lack of substantive replies, either by you or by the regular Apollo crowd sort of confirms it. This indifference amounts to a collective ignorance.

NASA claims of Apollo engineering precision and scientific exactitude are at stake.


exactly what do you hope to uncover from two now junked crafts? had they been able to time the de-orbit burns they would have a good clue as to where they would have crashed on the moon. Apollo 11 was left in orbit and Apollo 16 was unable to perform the burn. You are effectively asking NASA to track two pieces of space junk orbitting the moon for several years.

also i didnt get this info from wiki, its in the äpollo by the numbers" which you so love.

regarding orion:

After jettison, the LM lost stability and began tumbling at a rate of about 3° per second. This may have been due to a guidance circuit breaker inadvertently being left open. A maneuver was made at 195:03:13 to separate the CSM from the ascent stage. No deorbit burn maneuver was possible, and the ascent stage remained in lunar orbit for approximately one year.


did you forget that no one is inside these modules anymore? without a precise de-orbit burn, which is related to time and orientation, NASA cannot predict where it will be.

or did you want NASA to track them with telescopes for a year or more just so they know exactly where these two now junked modules will crash on the moon?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
You know that these two modules could be the key to unlocking the Apollo enigma.


You mean the enigma as to why moon landing conspiracy theorists make up silly stories about the moon landings?


NASA claims of Apollo engineering precision and scientific exactitude are at stake.


No they are not at stake actually - why claim that they are?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by choos
 


If the missing lunar ascent modules (A11-Eagle, A16-Orion) crashed into the moon then each impact should have been picked up and recorded by the seismometer stations set out by the Bellcomm/NASA hoax plotters.


The Apollo 11 seismometer returned data for just three weeks but provided a useful first look at lunar seismology. More advanced seismometers were deployed at the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 landing sites and transmitted data to Earth until September 1977. Each of these seismometers measured all three components of ground displacement (up-down, north-south, and east-west). Source www.lpi.usra.edu...



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1
Another source...

"Clearly, aluminum which was taken as a reasonableshield material a few years ago is now considered a poorcandidate for future spacecraft construction"

webcache.googleusercontent.com...:9OHEEx4jn58J:citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download%3Fdoi%3D10.1.1.37.9353%26rep%3Drep1%26type%3D ps+aluminum+is+a+poor+radiation+shield+material+to+hazardous+outside+of+LEO+applications&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

There's a pdf version of the above soyrce, as well.


The two sources I've posted clearly support my argument. You have not shown any sources to support your case, as yet.

If you can't, then it obviously confirms Apollo was a hoax


sorry, both your sources are referring to prolonged stays outside of LEO, not short term which was what the apollo missions were. in other words, your sources are looking for ways to protect astronauts from major solar particle events and/or all galactic cosmic rays.



No, they are referring to ANY mission beyond LEO. Again, here's the quote...

"..aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

What does "outside of LEO" refer to, then? Obviously, it refers to ANY mission outside of LEO! Whether it's a short term mission, or a long term mission.

The short-term missions don't fit your argument, of course. So you claim only long-term missions are being referred to, not any short-term missions..

You have no evidence for that claim, of course.

Now what?
edit on 26-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: fix typo



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Now what?


They don't want to talk about the missing telemetry tapes, the missing lunar modules or any of those things that deviate from the sacred Apollo scriptures.


The switcheroo with Sample Bag 196 and the Genesis Rock? Don't talk about it!
The hiring of Farouk El-Baz by Richard Nixon's little brother? Don't talk about it!
The missing 18 1/2 minutes of the Apollo 12 covert EVA? Don't talk about it!
The miracle recoveries of Jim Irwin, Alan Shepard, Deke Slayton and the free Corvettes. Don't talk about it!
The Apollo negatives under CIA control at all times. Don't talk about it!



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos
 


If the missing lunar ascent modules (A11-Eagle, A16-Orion) crashed into the moon then each impact should have been picked up and recorded by the seismometer stations set out by the Bellcomm/NASA hoax plotters.


The Apollo 11 seismometer returned data for just three weeks but provided a useful first look at lunar seismology. More advanced seismometers were deployed at the Apollo 12, 14, 15, and 16 landing sites and transmitted data to Earth until September 1977. Each of these seismometers measured all three components of ground displacement (up-down, north-south, and east-west). Source www.lpi.usra.edu...


and who is to say that these machines didnt pick up on the impact from eagle and orion (presuming they did impact the moon and not somehow escaped the moons gravity and headed towards the sun)


from your link:

Distribution of Lunar Seismic Sources. More than 1700 meteoroid impacts were recorded by the seismometer network, with impactor masses estimated to be between 0.5 and 5000 kilograms.


also how does a seismometer tell the difference between a large 5000kg meteor impact and the ascent stage impact which happens to weigh 4547kg that could have been on the other side of the moon?

what is this magic you speak of?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, they are referring to ANY mission beyond LEO. Again, here's the quote...

"..aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

What does "outside of LEO" refer to, then? Obviously, it refers to ANY mission outside of LEO! Whether it's a short term mission, or a long term mission.

The short-term missions don't fit your argument, of course. So you claim only long-term missions are being referred to, not any short-term missions..

You have no evidence for that claim, of course.

Now what?
edit on 26-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: fix typo


there is a difference between short term LEO and long term LEO.. long term missions needs to take into account survival from and recovery of large solar particle events pointed directly at the astronauts and staying there afterwards and possibly taking more.

short term missions does not neccesarily need to take these into account. its similar to passing through the VA belts.

if they were to put the ISS within the VA belts, then yes they dont have the tech or material to protect an astronaut, but if they were only going to pass through the VA belts for a short period of time then aluminum is good enough protection. this goes for beyond LEO as well, short term they can make procedures to shorten the mission. long term they HAVE to protect them with shielding.
edit on 27-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 02:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos
[yes then i suppose the spike in interest in the fields were completely pointless, the jobs and oppurtunities were pointless. satellites and GPS all pointless and should be put away. you need to think more broadly, the taxpayer wont benefit directly, but indirectly they will. think of the olympics. gov's fund them, but what does the taxpayer get?? they dont get no handout, what they do get is increased tourism, which they can benefit from.

were you able to identify the difference in radiation types?

were you able to identify which types of radiation would pose the greatest threat to astronauts excluding a major solar event?


Highly-energized particles called "killer electrons" are well-known - what's your point?

You said the so-called 'return' to the moon failed because it lacked money and public support.

As I said, Shuttles didn't need any public support, in 30 years of (seemingly) endless Earth orbits .

Public support for a moon base, or a manned Mars mission would likely be huge in comparison to Shuttles. If it really matters, anyway

And NASA got all the money they requested, as I said earlier. NASA said more money was needed to do it. So they got more money. And NASA still failed.

Who is to blame for its failure, up to this point? NASA or the US Admin? NASA, for sure.

Once again, though, NASA cries for more money - much, much more money.

No money was given this time, however. Why? Because the problem isn't solved by throwing out more and more money. When asked how much money would be required to succeed, NASA had to admit they had no idea!!

NASA failed due to a lack in the required technologies. And that's why couldn't do it over 40 years ago with Apollo, either.

The first (supposed) moon landing was in 1969, only 7 years after JFK announced the 'goal' in 1962..In 1999, Bush set the same goal by 2020. So that's about three times longer than going the first time, and with 40 years of progress!! What a crock.

They set a far-off date of 2020 because they lacked the technology, and hoped it have it within the next 20 years No other reason makes much sense.

edit on 27-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: fix punctuation marks
edit on 27-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: refix marks



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by turbonium1

Highly-energized particles called "killer electrons" are well-known - what's your point?


whats the difference between particle radiation and wave radiation? which is more prevalent to an astronaut and which one can be feasibly protected against?


You said the so-called 'return' to the moon failed because it lacked money and public support.

As I said, Shuttles didn't need any public support, in 30 years of (seemingly) endless Earth orbits .

Public support for a moon base, or a manned Mars mission would likely be huge in comparison to Shuttles. If it really matters, anyway

And NASA got all the money they requested, as I said earlier. NASA said more money was needed to do it. So they got more money. And NASA still failed.

Who is to blame for its failure, up to this point? NASA or the US Admin? NASA, for sure.

Once again, though, NASA cries for more money - much, much more money.

No money was given this time, however. Why? Because the problem isn't solved by throwing out more and more money. When asked how much money would be required to succeed, NASA had to admit they had no idea!!

NASA failed due to a lack in the required technologies. And that's why couldn't do it over 40 years ago with Apollo, either.

The first (supposed) moon landing was in 1969, only 7 years after JFK announced the 'goal' in 1962..In 1999, Bush set the same goal by 2020. So that's about three times longer than going the first time, and with 40 years of progress!! What a crock.

They set a far-off date of 2020 because they lacked the technology, and hoped it have it within the next 20 years No other reason makes much sense.


you have yet to realise that NASA can go back to the moon for short term purposes.. permanent is a different story. a moon base is permanent, permanent requires technology and very advanced material to protect against all types of radiation. short term, if you are willing to take the risk, need not fully protect against all types of radiation.

you are using your long term ventures beyond LEO logic for short term purposes.

if i were to use your logic then the ISS is impossible as well, even though it is in LEO it passes through the SAMA for about 30 mins per 90 mins orbit which is about 8 hrs per day.. how do you explain that?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by turbonium1

No, they are referring to ANY mission beyond LEO. Again, here's the quote...

"..aluminum is a poor radiation shield material to hazardous outside of LEO applications."

What does "outside of LEO" refer to, then? Obviously, it refers to ANY mission outside of LEO! Whether it's a short term mission, or a long term mission.

The short-term missions don't fit your argument, of course. So you claim only long-term missions are being referred to, not any short-term missions..

You have no evidence for that claim, of course.

Now what?
edit on 26-4-2013 by turbonium1 because: fix typo


there is a difference between short term LEO and long term LEO.. long term missions needs to take into account survival from and recovery of large solar particle events pointed directly at the astronauts and staying there afterwards and possibly taking more.

short term missions does not neccesarily need to take these into account. its similar to passing through the VA belts.

if they were to put the ISS within the VA belts, then yes they dont have the tech or material to protect an astronaut, but if they were only going to pass through the VA belts for a short period of time then aluminum is good enough protection. this goes for beyond LEO as well, short term they can make procedures to shorten the mission. long term they HAVE to protect them with shielding.
edit on 27-4-2013 by choos because: (no reason given)


It is "beyond LEO".

You can't spin it to fit the Apollo yarn

Simple as that.

. ,





new topics




 
60
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join