An End To The Moon Conspiracy!

Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Why is it that modern spacemen, when they are in space doing repairs and such and wearing their spacesuits, need to be hooked up to the mother ship when they are in space in order to keep their coolpacks working, but the astroNOTs on the moon didn't?

I assumed that it was just a tether to keep them tied to the ship so that they don't float off into space. Being in zero gravity is a bit differnt than being on the Moon. You won't float off into space on the moon. But one wrong step while outside the station / shuttle and you're gone.

I don't think it does anything more than keep them tied to the station / shuttle. If you have any sourses that say otherwise, please post them.

[edit on 19-10-2005 by jra]

two entirly differant situations resistance. Most space walks these days are done while thetered to the capsule, station or craft mainly so they they dont fly away and lose the ability to come back. These things are called SAFTY TETHERS. When Ed White went EVA in Gemini 4, along with the safty teher were his oxygen line, communications, and electrical.

These days, and even during the Moon landings all the oxygen, and electricty for the suits were self contained in the backpacks. There is also the MMU that was used for untetehred EVAs, and now the SAFER system which allows limted EVA movment by shooting out presuriseve gas.

To cope with the extremes of temperature, most spacesuits are heavily insulated with layers of fabric (Neoprene, Gore-Tex, Dacron) and covered with reflective outer layers (Mylar or white fabric) to reflect sunlight. The astronaut produces heat from his/her body, especially when doing strenuous activities. If this heat is not removed, the sweat produced by the astronaut will fog up the helmet and cause the astronaut to become severely dehydrated; To remove this excess heat, spacesuits have used either fans/heat exchangers to blow cool air, as in the Mercury and Gemini programs, or water-cooled garments, which have been used from the Apollo program to the present.

Proof = scientific facts

how did humans pass through Van Allen's radiation belt ? I far as i know there was no lead in the walls of the rocket ( try getting that off the ground) . SO if they did go to the moon Buzz and the boys would of been microwaved like TV's dinners in that rocket. Not to mention the flim, you think camera flim and a Unmodified Hasselblad can expose photo that those levels of RADS . Check this out for your self they just used

Unmodified Hasselblad 550C medium format cameras were first used on the last two Mercury one-man missions in 1962 and 1963. The Hasselblads proved the mainstay of the early space program and were used throughout the Gemini two-man spaceflights in 1965 and 1966.

history.nasa.gov...

I encourage ATS members to research basic photography skils and see how NASA is now is the miracle business.


[edit on 19-10-2005 by helium3]

Originally posted by helium3
Proof = scientific facts

how did humans pass through Van Allen's radiation belt ? I far as i know there was no lead in the walls of the rocket ( try getting that off the ground) . SO if they did go to the moon Buzz and the boys would of been microwaved like TV's dinners in that rocket. Not to mention the flim, you think camera flim and a Unmodified Hasselblad can expose photo that those levels of RADS

. Check this out for your self they just used

Unmodified Hasselblad 550C medium format cameras were first used on the last two Mercury one-man missions in 1962 and 1963. The Hasselblads proved the mainstay of the early space program and were used throughout the Gemini two-man spaceflights in 1965 and 1966.

history.nasa.gov...

I encourage ATS members to research basic photography skils and see how NASA is now is the miracle business.


[edit on 19-10-2005 by helium3]

How? Very carefully, it took them about 30 minutes to go around it inside a 3 inch thick metallic structure capable of guarding them from anything caught by the earth's magnetic field.

You can probably find it on the web for yourself: a short quote by Van Allen himself stating that any theories that the astronauts would have been killed by the radiation as foolishness.

The metal structure they were traveling in gave them enough protection. LMAO! It is not as if they were traveling assnaked through it at 50 mph.

"Unmodified Hasselblad can expose photo that those levels of RADS . Check this out for your self they just used"

Last I heard the Van allen belt holds particles in the magnetosphere. These particles are easily stoped by the skin of the spacecraft.

The biggest risk that astonauts take is being exposed to gamma rays w/ extremely high energies. This happens when solar activity is at the minimum, during the Solar minimum when there are few sunspots.

So how did that take photos ? for underwater photography you need a special housing same applys with extreme conditions photography. yet they used you a run of the mill hassleblad ?.


Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)

The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).

(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and grays - that measure different things, but they turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)

Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.

Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.

Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.

According to NASA, none of the Apollo missions exceeded one roentgen of total dosage.

www.uwgb.edu...

[edit on 19-10-2005 by helium3]

Originally posted by helium3
So how did that take photos ? for underwater photography you need a special housing same applys with extreme conditions photography. yet they used you a run of the mill hassleblad ?.

And the cameras used on the moon where enclosed too. Just look at any photo of an astronaut on the moon with his camera and you can see that.

Supposedly, travel to the moon is impossible because of the Van Allen radiation belts. So who better than Van Allen himself to describe the hazards (of course, he's part of the plot too!)

The Van Allen Belts are zones where particles from the sun are trapped by the earth's magnetic field. In a 1960 paper, On the Radiation Hazards of Space Flight, Van Allen describes the belts and their hazards. The belts vary greatly in extent and radiation depending on solar activity, but generally there is an inner, energetic belt mostly at low latitudes between about 2000 and 4000 kilometers and an outer, less energetic belt between about 13,000 and 20,000 kilometers above the earth. The belts carry a radiation dose of about 20 roentgens (grays in modern units) per hour and the gap in between about one. These figures are for spacecraft shielded by about 4 mm of aluminum (one gram per square centimeter).

(Note: dosimetry is a complex issue and there are several types of units - roentgens, rems, rads, and grays - that measure different things, but they turn out to be roughly equivalent when applied to human exposure. On the other hand, if you know enough about dosimetry to care, then you should know enough to refute the Van Allen Belt argument. If you still believe the conspiracy theory, shame on you.)

Assuming, then, that we shoot the Apollo capsule straight through the belts at escape velocity (40,000 km/hour), we're talking 0.05 hours in the inner belt, 0.225 hours in the gap and 0.175 hours in the outer belt. That means a total dose of (20 x 0.05) + (.225 x 1) + (20 x 0.175) = 4.7 roentgens, or about 1% of the fatal radiation dose. Double this figure for the round trip. Once beyond the belts the radiation hazard becomes small.

Although ten roentgens is far below the lethal dose, it poses significant long-term health hazards and nowadays is considered a wholly unacceptable dosage. There are two ways to reduce the risk. First, since the inner belt is largely confined to within 30 degrees of the equator, launch into an orbit inclined at least 30 degrees to the equator and then launch into a lunar trajectory above or below the inner belt.

Second, the energy distribution of the particles in the inner and outer belt is quite different. Changing our 4 mm of aluminum to lead would have only marginal effects in reducing dosage in the inner belt, but it cuts the dosage in the outer belt by a factor of 500. Also, the outer belt is still most intense at low latitudes and the spacecraft trajectory can be aimed to minimize radiation exposure in the outer belt.

According to NASA, none of the Apollo missions exceeded one roentgen of total dosage.

www.uwgb.edu...

[edit on 19-10-2005 by helium3]

One thing you must learn is that there are many kinds of radiation. Some are more harmful than others. The Van Allen belts are mostly proton radiation. You don't need lead to block those. Wood can block a proton or even light metals or plastics in thicknesses of about a centimeter. They also traveled through the belts above the equator. The Van Allen belts are much weaker there, thus little exposure.

The only types of radiation that they really had to be worried about are X-rays and Gamma rays. Those are the types of ratiation that you need to use lead or concrete for. The sun will give off that kind of radation from large solar flares, but that's why they traveled at times of low solar activity.

Originally posted by resistance
Astronomer -- Why is it that modern spacemen, when they are in space doing repairs and such and wearing their spacesuits, need to be hooked up to the mother ship when they are in space in order to keep their coolpacks working, but the astroNOTs on the moon didn't?

Did you not bother reading the quote on the last page and look at the picture?

You might find this link useful too:

www.nasaexplores.com...

And this:

The Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) provides a Shuttle crewmember with the life support equipment and mobile pressure enclosure necessary to perform Extravehicular Activity (EVA). EVA highlights include the refueling and repair of satellites on orbit, retrieval of satellites for refurbishment on earth, and the assembly of the International Space Station. EMU has demonstrated the ability of humans to work effectively in space. The EMU consists of two major subsystems; the Life Support Subsystem (LSS) and the Space Suit Assembly (SSA). This integrated space suit and life support system permits astronauts to work comfortably and safely in space.
www.hamiltonsundstrand.com...

Here's a link to the manual for the Apollo suit:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

Here are some schematics for the Apollo LSS:

www.myspacemuseum.com...

Some more general info here:

Primary Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) - provides oxygen, power, carbon dioxide removal, cooling water, radio equipment and warning system

science.howstuffworks.com...

Did you bother doing some research before making your statements?
(that too, was a rhetorical question).


Some Van Allen belt info:

spider.ipac.caltech.edu...

I liked the this quote from the site above:

By this point I have no doubt told you more than you really wanted to know about the Van Allen belt and the Apollo radiation problem! Nevertheless, I have barely scratched the surface, and waved my hands a bit, to make it seem likely that I'm not full of baloney. But in the end you always have to either do it all yourself, or trust a stranger completely, or try to find some path in between: which means understanding a little science, so you can judge for yourself if my arguments make any sense at all, check a little, think about it, maybe do a bit of research on your own from the references if you are interested. The only alternative is to trust no one and do everything, which is simply impossible for anyone; or really give up all your judgements to other people, who may be saints or crooks, wise or insane. I hope you will try to find the possible but not perfect in-between path by learning some science. It is hard, but it is fun and interesting, and it gives you your own power to think and evaluate for yourself, albeit in a limited and imperfect way.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [1]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

wikipedia.


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

Agent, Bode, jra, Astronomer and everybody else who's discussed moon temperature w/ me:

I concede to you guys on this point and agree you were correct in what you were telling me, that the moon's surface gets only so hot. Physics is not my forte at all, so thank you for bearing with me on that and generally for discussing this whole topic in the civilized manner you have been.

This doesn't mean, however, that I think anybody landed on the moon.

Jra was wanting to know if the tethers were just to keep the spacemen from floating away or if they provided life support. I'm putting up Agent's link here which says they provided life support:


quote: The Apollo space suits were the first to use liquid cooling garments with a separate ventilation garment. The cooling and ventilation system was drastically improved because the astronauts would be doing a great amount of physical activity exploring the moon therefore producing more body heat and perspiration. The astronaut would first dawn the liquid cooling garment, which was long underwear with poly-vinyl tubing sewn in it. This water was cooled in the PLSS and returned to the tubes to cool the astronaut. The ventilation garment was the inner most layer of the pressure garment. This ventilation garment used nylon fabric ducts to circulate the air inside the suit in order to remove carbon dioxide as well as perspiration. This system is very close to the current system in its design because they both use the PLSS to provide cool water and ventilation and their actual construction is very similar. These same Apollo suits were again used in the Apollo-Soyuz missions but relied on an umbilical tether to the spacecraft for air and water. The case was the same for the Skylab missions as well. ILC Dover manufactured and designed both of the suits. ILC Dover manufactures LCVG's for the current space shuttle suit.
ssoar.org...



So I'm still wanting to know how Armstrong, et al, were able to stay on the moon so long and do so much -- while wearing coolpacks/airtanks that were not hooked up to anything. I think I got you this time. You aren't going to be able to come up with an explanation for this. This is not an anomaly. This is just plain an impossibility.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance

The Apollo space suits were the first to use liquid cooling garments with a separate ventilation garment. The cooling and ventilation system was drastically improved because the astronauts would be doing a great amount of physical activity exploring the moon therefore producing more body heat and perspiration. The astronaut would first dawn the liquid cooling garment, which was long underwear with poly-vinyl tubing sewn in it. This water was cooled in the PLSS and returned to the tubes to cool the astronaut. The ventilation garment was the inner most layer of the pressure garment. This ventilation garment used nylon fabric ducts to circulate the air inside the suit in order to remove carbon dioxide as well as perspiration. This system is very close to the current system in its design because they both use the PLSS to provide cool water and ventilation and their actual construction is very similar. These same Apollo suits were again used in the Apollo-Soyuz missions but relied on an umbilical tether to the spacecraft for air and water. The case was the same for the Skylab missions as well. ILC Dover manufactured and designed both of the suits. ILC Dover manufactures LCVG's for the current space shuttle suit.
ssoar.org...

So I'm still wanting to know how Armstrong, et al, were able to stay on the moon so long and do so much -- while wearing coolpacks/airtanks that were not hooked up to anything. I think I got you this time. You aren't going to be able to come up with an explanation for this. This is not an anomaly. This is just plain an impossibility.

[edit on 20-10-2005 by resistance]

You haven't I'm afraid, the PLSS is the Portable Life Support Subystem - as it says the suit was attached to the PLSS for the trips to the moon, and indeed often are when performing space walks.
However, as the article states, during the Apollo/Soyuz missions instead of using the PLSS the supplies were taken from the spacecraft.

You see, your idea that they were not hooked up to anything is wrong, the Portable Life Support Subsystem obviously doesn't otherwise it would be pretty crap don't you think? Bit like having a mobile phone...... that you have to plug into a phone line.
You're basically confusing the spacesuit as the suit itself and the PLSS as a whole, when they are two seperate units. They are saying that the suits were connected to the spacecraft instead of a PLSS.. Do you see?

The current Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) is an improved version of the originaldeveloped in 1975 by Hamilton Sundstrand and ILC Dover. The two major subsystems ofthe EMU are the Portable Life Support Subsystem (PLSS) and the Space Suit Assembly(SSA).

www.lpi.usra.edu...

[edit on 20-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Agent Smith -- Those links you posted were just a goldmine of information. Thank you so much.

I learned that the spacesuits that are worn on spacewalks from the shuttle or the space station are TWICE AS HEAVY as those supposedly worn on the moon. I also learned these spacesuits designed only for short excursions into space, while being twice as heavy, are also tethered to the mother ship to provide cooling water and oxygen.

So my question again is, how were the astroNOTs able to bounce around on the moon for 12 or 14 hours wearing those hokey coolpacks as their only supply of food, water, oxygen, and cooling?

My friend who has a doctorate in physics agrees with me on this. I will have more information to post on this when I hear more from him. I'm not sticking my neck out on things to do with physics. It's not my strong point. I know when I need help, and I don't like to be wrong. (and I was wrong about the moon temp)

Originally posted by resistance
Agent Smith -- Those links you posted were just a goldmine of information. Thank you so much.

I learned that the spacesuits that are worn on spacewalks from the shuttle or the space station are TWICE AS HEAVY as those supposedly worn on the moon. I also learned these spacesuits designed only for short excursions into space, while being twice as heavy, are also tethered to the mother ship to provide cooling water and oxygen.

So my question again is, how were the astroNOTs able to bounce around on the moon for 12 or 14 hours wearing those hokey coolpacks as their only supply of food, water, oxygen, and cooling?

My friend who has a doctorate in physics agrees with me on this. I will have more information to post on this when I hear more from him. I'm not sticking my neck out on things to do with physics. It's not my strong point. I know when I need help, and I don't like to be wrong. (and I was wrong about the moon temp)

My best guess to your question would be engineering and it is probably stated in the links you posted.

Could you post some sources as to how long the astronauts were on the surface, the amount of times the actually bounced around, the expected time of supply of these packs.

This way you could post why you think these packs were inefecient rather than just asking questions and saying your friend agrees. Not everyone here has an advanced understanding of physics, including myself, but it is possible to carry on a debate without all the mathematics (at least on this board) surrounding physics and researching just enough of physics to carry on.

Originally posted by resistance
Agent Smith -- Those links you posted were just a goldmine of information. Thank you so much.

I learned that the spacesuits that are worn on spacewalks from the shuttle or the space station are TWICE AS HEAVY as those supposedly worn on the moon. I also learned these spacesuits designed only for short excursions into space, while being twice as heavy, are also tethered to the mother ship to provide cooling water and oxygen.

So my question again is, how were the astroNOTs able to bounce around on the moon for 12 or 14 hours wearing those hokey coolpacks as their only supply of food, water, oxygen, and cooling?

Where do you get your figures??

The Apollo 17 second EVA was the longest Apollo lunar EVA, at 7 hours and 37 minutes, and contained the longest traverse of any mission at 19.5 km.
www.spacecraftfilms.com...

The Apollo suit weighed 22 kg and its PLSS Portable Life Support System, 26 kg.
www.astronautix.com...

The Shuttle EMU suit weighed 50 kg and its PLSS Portable Life Support System, 15 kg. It provided life support for up to nine hours.
www.astronautix.com...

Lets compare the modern unit to the Apollo 17 unit which was the mission on which they had the longest EVA:

Primary Life-Support Subsystem (PLSS)
The PLSS is the backpack worn by the astronaut. It contains the oxygen tanks (1.2 lb / 0.54 kg at 518 atm tank pressure), carbon dioxide scrubbers/filters, cooling water (10 lb / 4.6 kg total), radio, electrical power, ventilating fans and warning systems. Oxygen flows into the suit behind the astronauts's head and out of the suit at the feet and elbows. Once inside the PLSS, the air flow enters a charcoal cartridge, to remove odors, and then the carbon dioxide scrubber cartridge. The gas flow then goes through a fan, and then to a sublimator that removes water vapor and returns it to the cooling-water supply. The temperature of the air flow is maintained at 55 F (12.8 C). The astronaut can adjust the temperature, pressure and air flow through controls on the DCM. The PLSS provides up to seven hours of oxygen supply and carbon dioxide removal.
science.howstuffworks.com...

And the Apollo 17 PLSS:

For Apollo 17, each PLSS could hold enough oxygen (1.8 pounds), feedwater water (12 pounds), and battery power (25 amp hours) to see an astronaut through seven to eight hours of Extravehicular Activity (EVA).
www.hq.nasa.gov...

As experience and confidence grew after the first few missions, it became apparent that longer duration EVAs could be accommodated. EVAs for Apollo 11 through 14 were limited to 4 hours. To support the more ambitious exploration plans for Apollo 15 through 17, the PLSS operational lifetime was doubled to 8 hours. The changes made to the PLSS were:

Oxygen capacity: Pressure in the primary oxygen bottles was increased to 1430 PSIA from 1020 PSIA
Feedwater for cooling: Increased to 11.5 pounds (about 5.2 liters) from 8.5 pounds (about 3.9 liters)

Battery: Capacity increased to 390 watt-hours from 279 watt-hours

Lithium hydroxide: canister increased to hold 3.12 pounds of LiOH, up from 3.0 pounds.


The capacity of the OPS was not changed, and remained at about 30 minutes of oxygen for breathing and cooling. When combined with the Buddy Secondary Life Support System, which used the functional PLSS for cooling, the OPS could supply oxygen for 75 to 90 minutes.

They also had the OPS and BSLSS (see above) which provided portable backup in the case of emergency.

And your point is.... what exactly?

Some info on the Apollo equipment:

lsda.jsc.nasa.gov...

Some fairly detailed schematics:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

EDIT:

I wasn't going to bother stating this becasue it's obvious, but.. I err thought I'd better..

Obviously the PLSS was recharged inbetween EVAs in the Lunar Module:



Let's see their 'hokey' little PLSS and suits:

Apollo 11



Apollo 14



Apollo 17



A Shuttle EMU suit



All look pretty reasonable to me.

In fact the whole NASA site below has all the photos, transcripts, etc of all the Apollo missions, including the numerous failed photos:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I just thought this picture showed quite well how the crosses 'disappear' in bright light




[edit on 20-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Here's the link to NASA's version of the most historic event in the history of mankind -- the first landing of men on the moon. Does this strike you as the way such an event would be reported if this had actually happened? Just read it (it takes about one minute to read, which should tell you something right there).

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Originally posted by resistance
Here's the link to NASA's version of the most historic event in the history of mankind -- the first landing of men on the moon. Does this strike you as the way such an event would be reported if this had actually happened? Just read it (it takes about one minute to read, which should tell you something right there).

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Sorry but your arguments are starting to get really lame..

Anyway, you've got to remember that a lot of schools use the main NASA site and a lot of the information in the main sections is geared towards kids and people who want the basic details and so is just the basic information.
As I already pointed out in my post above NASA has a HUGE amount of information - including all photos (including bad ones), transcripts, mission details, the complete and detailed day by day journal, videos, audio files, etc here (and that's for ALL the Apollo missions):

www.hq.nasa.gov...

I would copy the basic mission summary onto here but it's too long.

Next question please.....

EDIT:

In fact, you can link to the info I provided using the links on the right of the page.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Re -- spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Sorry but your arguments are starting to get really lame..

Anyway, you've got to remember that a lot of schools use the main NASA site and a lot of the information in the main sections is geared towards kids and people who want the basic details and so is just the basic information.
As I already pointed out in my post above NASA has a HUGE amount of information - including all photos (including bad ones), transcripts, mission details, the complete and detailed day by day journal, videos, audio files, etc here (and that's for ALL the Apollo missions):

Agent -- NASA has had 35 years to put together a "description" of the most amazing, heroic event mankind has ever accomplished in its history. Yet the impression you get from the description in the link above is that nobody cares, there's nothing to tell, and they assigned the task of writing something up to the closest one sitting next to the typewriter. This may seem fine to you, but to me not.

It doesn't make sense, just like it doesn't make sense that we never went back, that the astroNOTs never speak about their heroic adventures on the moon. This is not something to keep quiet about. This is something to be crowed about.

And the moon landings would have been repeated again, I'm certain, after 35 years, if we'd ever gone there in the first place.

I'm suspicious also as I said about their equipment to survive on the moon in the harsh conditions there. I'm suspicious of so many pictures taken and the amount of time it takes to do that. spaceflight.nasa.gov...

I'm suspicious of the moon films themselves because they don't hit me as real, and footage put in the Moon Movie of the astroNOTs standing up where it looked like it was wires pulling them up by their belt, stuff like that. I'm suspicious to see the astroNOTs at their first and only press conference squirming and stammering and just acting like they had just hid the body in their back yard. The blue sky through the window when they're supposed to be in deep space. There's just too, too many things that are wrong here.

Add these all up, and that's why I call them astroNOTs.

And I know we're on the verge of the NWO, and I know NASA is a big part of it. The NWO is based on lies and greed, two things I see written all over NASA's face. They are involved with the alien stuff, the mind control stuff, all that really bad Illuminati stuff. They are making a movie with Disney, $150 million movie to promote the idea that Mars is inhabited. I think this time that rather than stage a fake manned voyage to the moon or to Mars or whatever, they will just stage a fake "invasion" of aliens, probably so-called Martians. But they won't be true aliens but human/demon hybrids. Go ahead and laugh. Have you ever read any of the stuff the whistleblowers have said, like William Cooper? Have you read Cutting Edge or looked at these sites?

educate-yourself.org...

The Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind Controlled Slave
educate-yourself.org...

Deeper Insights into the Illuminati Formula
www.whale.to...

Monarch Mind Control Programming: What It Is
mindcontrolforums.com...





[edit on 21-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by resistance
Agent -- NASA has had 35 years to put together a "description" of the most amazing, heroic event mankind has ever accomplished in its history. Yet the impression you get from the description in the link above is that nobody cares, there's nothing to tell, and they assigned the task of writing something up to the closest one sitting next to the typewriter. This may seem fine to you, but to me not.

Maybe that's your opinion, but like I said it is a brief introduction and you have the option to read much, much more from the links on the page, it's like a book you have an introduction that outlines the contents or sets the basis and then you turn the page or in the case of the Internet click the link.

You seem to be the sort of person that expects everything to be handed on a plate to you or something, your lack of doing research demonstrates that.
Why don't you look it up in an encyclopedia? It would be brief in there too, you really are clutching emptily at straws.

It doesn't make sense, just like it doesn't make sense that we never went back, that the astroNOTs never speak about their heroic adventures on the moon. This is not something to keep quiet about. This is something to be crowed about.

They do talk about there adventures on the moon, they attend events and have been in TV shows, magazines, books including some of their own works, what do you expect after 35 years? Front page news every day
And so what if they seem nervous on camera? It's not their job to act in front of camera, they are astronauts. Jeez even most of the famous actors I've met are pretty shy with a few exceptions. Have you ever been on Television? Do you know what it's like? Have you ever had to do large public presentations? I have and it can be pretty nerve racking.

And the moon landings would have been repeated again, I'm certain, after 35 years, if we'd ever gone there in the first place.

They are going again, in 2018 I believe the date is. They have to spread the costs out and they will obviously design, build and test new equipment.
Geez we went 6 times already and there were 7 attempts, what more do you expect? It costs a lot of money and there is relatively little to be gained to the average Joe, how long do you think the public would put up with their tax $$ being spent on it?

I'm suspicious also as I said about their equipment to survive on the moon in the harsh conditions there. I'm suspicious of so many pictures taken and the amount of time it takes to do that.

That is, sorry to be rude, because you don't understand.
I don't fully understand Nuclear Fusion, but last time I checked the Sun was still shining.

I'm suspicious of the moon films themselves because they don't hit me as real, and footage put in the Moon Movie of the astroNOTs standing up where it looked like it was wires pulling them up by their belt, stuff like that. I'm suspicious to see the astroNOTs at their first and only press conference squirming and stammering and just acting like they had just hid the body in their back yard. The blue sky through the window when they're supposed to be in deep space. There's just too, too many things that are wrong here.

Add these all up, and that's why I call them astroNOTs.

I'm suspicious of you being a bit childish and not having the ability to do research and back up your views.

And I know we're on the verge of the NWO, and I know NASA is a big part of it. The NWO is based on lies and greed, two things I see written all over NASA's face. They are involved with the alien stuff, the mind control stuff, all that really bad Illuminati stuff. They are making a movie with Disney, $150 million movie to promote the idea that Mars is inhabited. I think this time that rather than stage a fake manned voyage to the moon or to Mars or whatever, they will just stage a fake "invasion" of aliens, probably so-called Martians. But they won't be true aliens but human/demon hybrids. Go ahead and laugh. Have you ever read any of the stuff the whistleblowers have said, like William Cooper? Have you read Cutting Edge or looked at these sites?

If you want to discuss NWO and Illumanti, then please use the appropiate forum, this forum is about Space Exploration. It is not really relevent to proving the Moon missions one way or the other in any way, least of all technically.

You seem to have a strong opinon, but you don't back any of your claims up with any facts, theories, experiments, or ... anything at all really.. Can you at least try?

And can you link to this movie you keep talking about? Sounds interesting.. I imagine that it is more than likely NASA are advising if anything to help make the movie more realistic, assuming it's real.

EDIT:

Forget that, I found it, you're 5 years out of date! LOL

Now, over a generation after it was initially discovered … and then repeatedly, deliberately denied … a 120 million-dollar feature film from Touchstone Pictures (Disney Corporation) – titled "Mission to Mars: Let There Be Life" – will finally confront (and with NASA’s backing, no less!) the overwhelming controversies of "the Face" …
www.enterprisemission.com...

Mission to Mars (2000)
Tagline: Let There Be Life. (more)

Plot Outline: When the first manned mission to Mars meets with a catastrophic and mysterious disaster, a rescue mission is launched to investigate the tragedy and bring back any survivors.

www.imdb.com...

No 'faked alien invasion' yet, was a good(ish) film by the way, remember seeing it now.
As I said, they were involved to help make sure that it seemed as realistic as possible.

Where do you get your sources?
Please keep it coming, I havn't had this much entertainment in ages! LOL


[edit on 21-10-2005 by AgentSmith]

"a good(ish) film by the way"

no... no it wasn't, Worst... Movie... Ever!
I still want my 8 bucks back.

back on topic.
Smith, many astronauts were high level masons, so there is a reason to discuss this along with the landings and there accomplishments. however I don't think that that means that they were faked, in fact I think it is more possible.
"America's Astronauts" Masonic First Day Covers

Originally posted by Halfofone
"a good(ish) film by the way"

no... no it wasn't, Worst... Movie... Ever!
I still want my 8 bucks back.

Yeah OK, I was wrong

back on topic.
Smith, many astronauts were high level masons, so there is a reason to discuss this along with the landings and there accomplishments. however I don't think that that means that they were faked, in fact I think it is more possible.
"America's Astronauts" Masonic First Day Covers

Yes indeed, I realised that - but I don't see why we are diverting away from discussion on the technical feasabilty just becasue Res realises he's wrong in every aspect on that. The technical aspects is something that can effectively be proved and discussed. But things like "They are involved with the alien stuff, the mind control stuff, all that really bad Illuminati stuff. " is probably garbage and is certainly not fact.

As this discussion seems to have gone on mostly in relation to the technical aspects, I don't see why we should have to start talking what I would consider 'drivel' and stray away from scientific discussion because someone doesn't understand and is fighting a losing battle. It wouldn't be bad if it happened through some sort of natural progression, but blatantly trying to change the direction of things because one doesn't know what they are talking about isn't right. I think if it was the other way around it would be quickly called a dis-information tactic.

I imagine that if someone wants to hit something from a completely new angle then that's what the 'New Thread' button is for.

Not getting at you by the way mate.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by AgentSmith]