What is with the trust of NASA?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
hahahahaha please don't talk about sheep...

reply to post by DoomsdayRex
What racist statement have I made please tell me?

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

 

hahahahaha please don't talk about sheep...

Please explain how we are being the sheep when it is us who have shown through investigation, logic, and observation of the world around us (and, admittedly, research by others -- but per-reviewed research) in attempts to verify certain aspects of the Apollo Moon landings -- while you have...

...simply repeated something you've seen on the internet.

Sometimes, the actual facts on an issue don't agree with one's preconceived notions regarding that issue. It's the sheep who can't some to terms with this, and follow the flock no matter what evidence is presented.


[edit on 5/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

Usually I don't put people on ignore but I did both of you....I'm ready to say some things to you both that would be a "breach" in contract here at ATS so yeah peace be with the ignorants...

Oh and mr. Doomsday I meant "If you can count how many stars that was" not if you can spell, just clarifying.

Originally posted by NWOWILLFALL
There was a thread not long ago about nibiru, now IM NOT claiming it exists but for all the skeptics the only graphs I got from anyone were from NASA...they have lied to everyone consistently yet we believe them consistently ...I just don't get it.
Space rocks are now classified look it up...moon landing, call me crazy but that crap was a hoax to strike fear in the minds of other countries during the cold war...and where are most of our taxpayer dollars going? Into massive and I mean mile to two mile deep city's....What for? Because they have not told us.
They have to be prepping for something big.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

[edit on 28-4-2010 by NWOWILLFALL]

This is something I just came across the other day. It is an extremely interesting article about a "Day after Tomorrow" scenerio envalving not a planet such as Nibiru or Planet X, but rather suggests a "swarm of comets". Pushed from the ort cloud, a swarm of comets (like a shotgun blast) could endanger us.

One interesting thing to think about is what is said about the number of moons "discovered" since 1975 on the outer planets of Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus.

The third edition of the university textbook Exploration of the Universe, by George O. Abell, published in 1975, informs us that Jupiter has 9 moons as of 1974. It says:

The outer seven, however, have rather eccentric orbits, some of which have a large inclination to Jupiter's equator. The four most distant satellites revolve from east to west, contrary to the motions of most of the other objects in the solar system. They may be former minor planets captured by Jupiter. [p. 324]

Please note that Abell is suggesting that some of Jupiter's moons have been captured by Jupiter's gravity.

Now let's time travel back to the future, and see what the latest information tells us about Jupiter's moons:

Jupiter is now given 63 satellites. Forty-seven of those satellites have been discovered since 1999. What if they weren't there before?

What about Saturn. Our 1975 text tells us that Saturn has 10 satellites. In 2007? Well, there are so many that one source declines to give a precise number!

However, counting the named satellites on the Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites gives us a count of 62, with 41 being discovered since 2000 and another ten in the 80's and 90's.

Moving outward, we come to Uranus, given five satellites in 1975, it now has 28, with ten being discovered in the 1980's, six in the 90's, and 7 since 2000.

Neptune had two satellites in 1975, now it has 13.

Planet 1975 2005
Jupiter 9 63
Saturn 10 62
Uranus 5 28
Neptune 2 13

Table 1. Number of moons

The explanation given most often to explain this surge in the numbers of satellites for these planets is that telescopes have gotten better. That is, we can see further, with greater detail, and can therefore find things that we couldn't see before. It is an explanation that makes sense. One small problem with this theory is that the "new" moons of Neptune and Uranus showed up before the new moons of Jupiter and Saturn. One would think that powerful telescopes capable of finding moons as far away as the seventh and eighth planets would have found the hard to see moons of the fifth and sixth first.

Another possible explanation, and one which fits with new moons appearing around Neptune and Uranus prior to appearing around Jupiter and Saturn, is that these new moons, or some of them, are objects that have been trapped into orbits around these planets only recently, that they were captured by the gravity of these planets and removed from the incoming comet cloud. Passing the orbits of the outer planets first, they would arrive at the inner planets afterward.

Another question posed is about carcases found in Alaska of animals with grass in there mouths that had been flash frozen. I started thinking about that. If a tsunami were big enough to go over the land fast enough it would basically freeze it from the vacuum of pressure created by the wave. When all that air came rushing back through....Hoth.

Peace

Full Article

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


He put us on ignore. Apparently we have been asking too many hard questions.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


The rise in the number of moons discovered around Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter was not caused by better telescopes.

Many of the moons of Neptune and Uranus were found by data from the Voyager 2 spacecraft gathered in 1986 -- Because of direct observation by Voyager 2, the number of moons of Neptune went from 3 to 8, and the number of moons of Uranus went from 5 to 16.

Jupiter and Saturn are closer, so ground-based observation is still effective in finding small moons (unlike for Uranus and Neptune). However, the rise in the number of moons for both Jupiter and Saturn were not "strictly" the result of "better telescopes as your link says, but rather due to a single team of astronomers using a new method for searching for these moons....The team led by Scott Sheppard and David Jewitt discovered the bulk of Jupiter's and Saturn's small moons.

Sure, the fact that the telescopes they used were "better" did help the discoveries, but it was more the method used and detailed observations used by this team that led to theses moons being discovered. If it was only because of better telescopes, then many more people would have also discovered these moons -- not just mostly this one team.



[edit on 5/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

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

 

The rise in the number of moons discovered around Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, and Jupiter was not caused by better telescopes.

Many of the moons of Neptune and Uranus were found by data from the Voyager 2 spacecraft gathered in 1986 -- Because of direct observation by Voyager 2, the number of moons of Neptune went from 3 to 8, and the number of moons of Uranus went from 5 to 16.

Jupiter and Saturn are closer, so ground-based observation is still effective in finding small moons (unlike for Uranus and Neptune). However, the rise in the number of moons for both Jupiter and Saturn were not "strictly" the result of "better telescopes as your link says, but rather due to a single team of astronomers using a new method for searching for these moons....The team led by Scott Sheppard and David Jewitt discovered the bulk of Jupiter's and Saturn's small moons.

Sure, the fact that the telescopes they used were "better" did help the discoveries, but it was more the method used and detailed observations used by this team that led to theses moons being discovered. If it was only because of better telescopes, then many more people would have also discovered these moons -- not just mostly this one team.



[edit on 5/31/2010 by Soylent Green Is People]

I believe the article just used that as an example of an argument that could be posed, the "better telescopes" statement.

Regardless it does cause one to ponder if those are not new discovery's but rather new arrivals. With NEAT comet, shoemaker-Levy, and a string of other phenomena, it's something to ponder.

Peace