An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Click here for more information.

SoylentGreen, jra, ngchunter, nataylor, et al, you are awesome contributors.

If I had Admin powers I would grant bonus point to you all. For now, I can only say 'Thanks' for your great posts. It really helps to elevate the scholarly level that ATS is known for.

Cheers

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

You have misrepresented the reason for not being able to see stars in photographs from the Moon.

Thanks for the post SGIP. Actually I belive that it is you who is wrong.

The reason the Apollo astronauts could not see stars is that is was daytime and the breathable atmosphere colored the sky a saffron color like this:



Many people think there is no breathable atmosphere on the moon, however, in my opinion they would be wrong.

Thanks for the post and I sympathize with your error, it is a common misconception based on NAZA disinformation.

In fact Alan Bean (Apollo 12) remembers the sky being "black as a pair of patent leather shoes." Get it?

reply to post by johnlear


Hello, Capt Lear

Thanks for your info on another thread, much appreciated!

I seem to remember something else Alan Bean said, regarding his Apollo 12 EVA...he accidentally aimed the camera at the Sun after the lens cap was removed and fried the ccd. Many conspiracy buffs jump on that as 'proof' that there was something to hide. Any thoughts/knowledge about whether this was a cover story, or an actual accident?

BTW, since I'm here grabbing your attention...given that there are other missions to the Moon, top secret missions, did, or did not Apollo actually succeed? Perhaps we should put this matter to rest, once and for all. What I mean is, Apollo has been 'held up to the light', so to speak, and used by many to cry 'FAKE!'. I tend to remember something you said regarding Apollo 11 --- not that it didn't happen, but that there are still secrets involved, as in, stuff that could not be talked about by Neil, Buzz, and Mike. Could this be the seed to start the 'conspiracy' theories?

Thanks...

Oh, and Happy Holidays!!

Follow on, since this is a Moon Conspiracy forum thread...

I would never wish to contradict Capt John Lear, but I'm just a little confused about the assertion of the Moon having .64g on the 'Nearside', but having 1g on the 'Farside'. Only because, it sounds illogical to me, unless there is some sort of external (or internal) force beyond our comprehension.

My other question is: If there is a breathable atmosphere on the Moon, I mean it's been said here that it is a virtually 'shirt-sleeve' environment, why is the sky yellow?

On the Earth the sky is blue because of the Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere mix which filters out the lower part of the EM spectrum. So, we see 'blue', something our eyes have adapted to after millions of years of evolution, and then as language was invented we assigned a word to describe the color.

So, if the atmosphere on the Moon is breathable by humans...why would the sky be yellow? That would require a certain mix of gases in the atmosphere that only filtered out the really low EM spectrum...just wondering what that gaseous mix would be?

Thanks, hope to hear back soon....

...out of post...

May I please give a shout out to the Admins for, once again, banning a person who repeatedly, using multiple 'names', kept coming back to waste time and space?

Thanks...

Season's Greetings!

Originally posted by johnlear
...In fact Alan Bean (Apollo 12) remembers the sky being "black as a pair of patent leather shoes." Get it?

Mr. Lear,

Actually, I don't get it -- maybe I'm just thick-headed. Black patent leather shoes are very very black - albeit very shiny - but nevertheless very black. Maybe Bean didn't say "black patent leather", but in the 1960s patent leather shoes were usually black.

Also, If the Moon has a breathable saffron-colored atmosphere, then why haven't the Russians, the Chinese, nor the Japanese reported this fact. Plus, why haven't the 100's (thousands?) of professional and amateur astonomers all over the world who have access to high-powered telescopes and spectrometers not notice this dense atmospere?

[edit on 12/20/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I seem to remember something else Alan Bean said, regarding his Apollo 12 EVA...he accidentally aimed the camera at the Sun after the lens cap was removed and fried the ccd. Many conspiracy buffs jump on that as 'proof' that there was something to hide. Any thoughts/knowledge about whether this was a cover story, or an actual accident?

I believe that camera was for 'live' TV and NAZA sure as heck wasn't going to let the sky's color out of the bag. So if Apollo went at all the 'accidentally pointing the camera at the sun" was just another NAZA scam.

BTW, since I'm here grabbing your attention...given that there are other missions to the Moon, top secret missions, did, or did not Apollo actually succeed?

I don't know. I was a firm believer that Apollo went but now I am not so sure. If they went they sure as heck didn't use a rocket to land and take off from the Moon. They wouldn't have had enough fuel to perform that feat in .64% gravity. We certainly had the anti-grav trechnology at that time but the question is...did we use it on the lunar lander?

Perhaps we should put this matter to rest, once and for all. What I mean is, Apollo has been 'held up to the light', so to speak, and used by many to cry 'FAKE!'. I tend to remember something you said regarding Apollo 11 --- not that it didn't happen, but that there are still secrets involved, as in, stuff that could not be talked about by Neil, Buzz, and Mike. Could this be the seed to start the 'conspiracy' theories?

A team of very experienced remote viewers looked at Apollo 11 and said it definately did not happen. I doubt if the Apollo moon landings will ever be proven one way or the other....ever.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

I would never wish to contradict Capt John Lear, but I'm just a little confused about the assertion of the Moon having .64g on the 'Nearside', but having 1g on the 'Farside'. Only because, it sounds illogical to me, unless there is some sort of external (or internal) force beyond our comprehension.

I assume that if you had the techonology to build the moon and place it in orbit around the earth in rotational lock that you probably had the technology to generate the gravity 'B' wave. And if you could generate the gravity 'B' wave you could dial in any gravity value you wanted. So you could dial in 1 G for the farside and .64 for the nearside.

My other question is: If there is a breathable atmosphere on the Moon, I mean it's been said here that it is a virtually 'shirt-sleeve' environment, why is the sky yellow?

I don't know the answer to that yet.

On the Earth the sky is blue because of the Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere mix which filters out the lower part of the EM spectrum. So, we see 'blue', something our eyes have adapted to after millions of years of evolution, and then as language was invented we assigned a word to describe the color.

So, if the atmosphere on the Moon is breathable by humans...why would the sky be yellow? That would require a certain mix of gases in the atmosphere that only filtered out the really low EM spectrum...just wondering what that gaseous mix would be?

The Moon has many, many mysteries. We are just beginning to be aware that there are mysteries with the moon. I don't know what the gaseous mix might be. But I'll bet certain people at NAZA do.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Mr. Lear,

Actually, I don't get it -- maybe I'm just thick-headed. Black patent leather shoes are very very black - albeit very shiny - but nevertheless very black. Maybe Bean didn't say "black patent leather", but in the 1960s patent leather shoes were usually black.

I just checked the quote. The quote was in answer to a question posed to Bean in 1995 by Discover Magazine:

"What does space look like from the lunar surface?"

Beans answer:

"Black Patent Leather Shoes."

I guess Bean wanted to be sure that he described the sky as black rather than, say, Dark Brown Patent Leather Shoes.

In fact, in my opinion, Alan was just repeating an hypnotic suggestion given to him, "the sky is black, as black as a pair of patent leather shows."

Also, If the Moon has a breathable saffron-colored atmosphere, then why haven't the Russians, the Chinese, nor the Japanese reported this fact.

There are certain members of those countries that have all the facts and that we, the U.S., work closely with. There would be no reason for them to divulge a secret like that. Just look at the recycled NAZA pictures coming out of China and Japan from their alleged lunar orbiters. Quite a show and very funny watching the tap dance.

Plus, why haven't the 100's (thousands?) of professional and amateur astonomers all over the world who have access to high-powered telescopes and spectrometers not notice this dense atmospere?

As I have said before the lunar atmosphere may not be as dense on the nearside which is the only place astronomers can look. If the atmosphere was not contaminated with dust or water or any other particles and if it were only 1000 feet high it would be very difficult to catch an occultation. Most astronomers don't even try because the "no breathable atmopshere on the Moon hoax" is so ingrained in our heads.

Also remember that whoever put the Moon there went to a lot of effort to keep their existence secret. So they probably went to a lot of trouble to make darn sure that 100's (thousands?) of professional and amateur astronomers weren't going to stumble onto the secret very easily.

Both Firsoff and Pickering would disagree with the notion that there is no lunar atmosphere. So would Peter Andreas Hansen, were he still alive.

Thanks for the post.

Originally posted by johnlear
Just look at the recycled NAZA pictures coming out of China and Japan from their alleged lunar orbiters. Quite a show and very funny watching the tap dance.

John, could you expound a bit, on what you mean by "recycled" ?

Originally posted by weedwhacker


SoylentGreen, jra, ngchunter, nataylor, et al, you are awesome contributors.

If I had Admin powers I would grant bonus point to you all. For now, I can only say 'Thanks' for your great posts. It really helps to elevate the scholarly level that ATS is known for.

Cheers

Thanks for listing all BORING "contributors" who know nothing but insulting the real researchers. You are a group of people who should not be on a forum like this. You place is "crime of thought investigation volunteers" on the CNN task force. You are the killers of the true spirit of scientific research. You are a bunch of EXTREMELY boring and not-so-educated NASA little spies.

reply to post by swimmer


Swimmer --

I went back through this thread to see what SPECIFIC evidence you have presented to advance your cause. I did this because I like to know my facts before posting. In this case, I wanted to know what evidence you have that the Moon landing was a hoax.

Do you want to know what I found? NOTHING. All of your posts have done nothing but personally attack other posters such as jra and ignorant_ape. There were post where you present a blanket statement that NASA is full of liars, but you give no specific example of those lies. You posted that the Apollo photos are all fakes, but you didn't post specific photos and point out specific problems with those photos. You have been posting in this thread for over a year, but have NOT provided any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE of a hoax.

I'm not trying to make this personal -- all I'm asking is that you present the evidence that you have. You MUST have some specific evidence, since you have been so vocal in your belief that we never made it to the Moon. You have mention on several occasions that the Apollo photos are fake. Please tell me what evidence you have that would make you think that.

[edit on 12/20/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
You have been posting in this thread for over a year, but have NOT provided any SPECIFIC EVIDENCE of a hoax.

And I've been trying to get swimmer to debate the subject for that long, but he just seems to avoid debate and would rather insult and attack others.

Here's hoping he has a change of heart. I'm all for debating and researching further into the topic. Are you swimmer?

Hear, hear, SoylentGreen and jra (the REAL jra),

We can debate with other scholarly people, and that is good. But, occasionally, some others come in and instead of providing any substance they just rail and shout at those who are in opposition.

I fear that the so-called 'Moon Conspiracy' has been founded by those who wish to make a buck...or a few thousand bucks...by creating this alleged 'conspiracy' by use of clever marketing, clever edits and clever manipulation of whatever media will let them have their say.

Of course, every conspiracy has possible deeper layers, like an onion...so, here at ATS, it's time to keep peeling back, digging through the layers, to find the nuggets of truth that may reside down there...

Love your posts, keep 'em coming!

Originally posted by Jbird
John, could you expound a bit, on what you mean by "recycled" ?

There are two threads following the drama (soap opera ) surrounding China's one and ONLY moon picture that matches closely one from Google Earth from the Clementine Data set... Pop over there and you will see the media hipe... well at least its made mainstream news

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There is also one following the Japanese probe with their CGI images

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Hasn't been much activity as there are no new releases

[edit on 20-12-2007 by zorgon]

reply to post by zorgon


Zorgon, my friend,

Am I to assume --- bad word. Can I infer, from your last post, that you think the Japanese and Chinese are faking their photographic info? I can understand that the Japanese might be swayed, but the CHINESE?!?

Would not the entire wrath of the civilized world come down on them, if proof of fakery...no, not even proof, just a hint of fakery made it into the news?

Just curious, thanks, as always, for your posts.....

Originally posted by weedwhacker


Hear, hear, SoylentGreen and jra (the REAL jra),

We can debate with other scholarly people, and that is good. But, occasionally, some others come in and instead of providing any substance they just rail and shout at those who are in opposition.

Langley crane was built to test spaceships that had to land going

backwards safely.

I have never seen at least one.

Don't you think there is anything strange?

reply to post by jetpilot


We've been over this many times before, but since you're new here ( ), I'll say it again.

The Lunar Landing Research Facilty (LLRF) at Langley was NOT used to test the LEM, but was instead used to simulate THE PROCEDURES for landing on the Moon and controlling the LEM down to the surface of the Moon, which has 1/6 the gravity of the Earth.

The gantry at Langly allowed the LEM SIMULATOR to be hung with cables and pulleys that would simulate the gravity of the Moon. Because of the Moon's low gravity, there are unique problems that arise when trying to land. This facility helped identify those unique problems, then developed and tested solutions to those problems. This had nothing to do with testing the way the LEM worked, but the manner in which an astronaut would fly it.

An analogy would be you telling me that an airline pilot's flight simulator (used to train a pilot how to fly a new plane) would indicate whether or not that certain plane is able to fly. (which -- of course -- is not its purpose).

The actual flight tests of the LEM took place in space, which is the only place the LEM could possibly be test flown, since it was designed only to work in space (i.e. The Apollo LEM didn't work on the Earth with 6X the gravity of the Moon.)

EDIT:spelling

[edit on 12/21/2007 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


The Lunar Landing Research Facilty (LLRF) at Langley was NOT used to test the LEM, but was instead used to simulate THE PROCEDURES for landing on the Moon and controlling the LEM down to the surface of the Moon, which has 1/6 the gravity of the Earth.

This is your interpretation. I think instead Langley crane had to be used to test LEM and other probes. But NASA engineers were not able to build a spaceship that could land going backwards, then they faked all the story.

Imagine LEM running fastly towards the ground of the Moon. What should you do to brake its run? You have not the foot-brake. Then you turn the LEM and run going backwards, switch full throttle and begin to whirl crashing on the ground. I'm a jet pilot, I know aerodynamics.