>...in the VIDEOS the "ANTENNAS" Go all the way up into the sky...
No, you see little glitches in the video and you just believe Dave when he tells you it's sun glinting off the "wires". Amazing how Dave's "wires" line up exactly with the raster in that case. Some of the flashes really *are* sun glinting, and you'll notice that they are exactly where the VHF antenna is.
> I might not be an "EXPERT" like you are, but at least I'm not
> living in a dream world.
Yes, keep telling yourself that.
> OH, and you're explanation on HEAT Transfer is completely absurd.
> So you're telling me that the ground on the moon can heat up to
> 300+ faranheit, and that a camera, that is in the way of the SUN,
> would not heat up?
Not necessarily to the same temperature. That's basic radiative heat transfer. Absorption, transmission, and reflection must all add to unity. Lunar regolith is about 93% absorbent to IR, while the aluminized coating of the film magazines is about 3% absorbent. The magazines simply absorb far less sunlight than the ground. Read a heat transfer textbook.
> 1. Apollo 14 astronaut Allen Shepard played golf on the Moon.
> In front of a worldwide TV audience, Mission Control teased him
> about slicing the ball to the right. Yet a slice is caused by
> uneven air flow over the ball. The Moon has no atmosphere and no air.
Everyone but you got the joke.
> 2. A camera panned upwards to catch Apollo 16's Lunar Landerlifting
> off the Moon. Who did the filming?
First, it was Apollo 17, not 16. Second, Ed Fendell controlled the camera remotely through a very simple and well-documented set of radio remote control. If you had "studied both sides" of the problem as you said, you would have seen the camera panning and zooming on the J-missions for hours on end. Why is it such a surprise to you now?
> 3. One NASA picture from Apollo 11 is looking up at Neil Armstrong
> about to take his giant step for mankind.
Nope, that's a photograph that was taken in training. Ignorant conspiracy theorists sometimes try to pass it off as a real mission photograph, but NASA has never claimed that picture was taken on the moon; it was taken in the training building.
NASA is very careful about keeping its mission photography and its training photography separate in their archives and indexes. Conspiracy theorists are not.
> 4. The pressure inside a space suit was greater than inside a
> football.
No. A football is 14 psid, a space suit is 3.5 psid.
> The astronauts should have been puffed out like the Michelin Man,
> but were seen freely bending their joints.
Restraint layers are common in fluid power engineering. Just because you don't know how to make a flexible envelope that doesn't overexpand doesn't mean I don't. Rubber hoses on hydraulic devices contain pressure up the hundreds or even thousands of pounds per square inch, and they don't "puff out like the Michelin Man."
The joints were constant-volume joints accomplished either with bulbs or accordion pleats, all standard engineering techniques. Just because ignorant, untrained people can't figure out how something was done doesn't mean it's impossible.
> 5. The Moon landings took place during the Cold War. Why didn't
> America make a signal on the moon that could be seen from earth?
> The PR would have been phenomenal and it could have been easily
> done with magnesium flares.
Placing the laser retroreflectors was considered sufficient sign. Why do you think a magnesium flare would be visible 250,000 miles away?
> 6. Text from pictures in the article said that only two men walked
> on the Moon during the Apollo 12 mission. Yet the astronaut reflected
> in the visor has no camera. Who took the shot?
The astronaut reflected in the visor most certainly does have a camera, and it's mounted right on the RCU where it's supposed to be. The people who claim there's no camera are expecting the astronaut to be holding it up to his face, which is not how those cameras were operated.
> 7. The Lander weighed 17 tons yet the astronauts feet seem to have
> made a bigger dent in the dust.
17 tons is its weight at launch, most of that being the descent fuel that was burned off during the descent. Touchdown mass of the lunar module was about 7,300 kg. If you compare the distributed load of the astronauts and the LM, you'll indeed find that the pressure per unit area of an astronaut's stride really is greater than the LM. That's why we do the numbers: intuition is often wrong.
> The powerful booster rocket at the base of the Lunar Lander was fired
> to slow descent to the moons service. Yet it has left no traces of
> blasting on the dust underneath.
Then please explain this picture.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5921.jpg
The "powerful booster rocket" was operating only at about 2,500 lbf during the time it was close enough to the surface to cause an effect. I hear lots of people telling me it should have dug a crater, but no one seems to know why and no one can seem to do any of the computations to prove it. All the while, the Hawker Harrier generates ten times the thrust of the LM while hovering, and it doesn't dig holes in the ground.
> It was mounted on a chest-plate for the astronaut to operate.
No. It contained a bayonet that *could* be mounted on the RCU if the astronaut so chose. Most chose, but it could be removed at any time. The RCU itself is hung loosely on the astronaut's chest. There was plenty of play in it.
> The astronaut had to manually set the shutter speed and apertures
> while wearing bulky, pressurized gloves and without being able to
> see the controls.
So did many photo journalists of the day. I do quite a bit of photography, and I don't have to see all the controls of my camera in order to operate them.
Besides, I explained the procedure previously. The exposures were worked out ahead of time. People actually did this in the 1960s. Today most consumer cameras don't even let the photographer choose settings. That doesn't mean manual exposure setting was impossible.
The film magazine had an exposure chart showing the f-stop settings for that film in various directions relative to the sun. The astronaut was supposed to set the shutter speed at 1/250 second and leave it there. Armstrong, who was a very skilled photographer prior to becoming a pilot, was a little more adventurous and got some fairly good photographs outside the normal procedures. The f-stop was at f/5.6 for up-sun and cross-sun photography, f/8 for nearby down-sun, and f/11 for distant down-sun. It took me about a minute to get the "feel" of where the selector was supposed to be for each of those.
The astronauts used zone focusing. That's another technique from photojournalism. Your depth-of-field allows for broad overlapping zones of focus, and the Zeiss engineers put detents in for 1 meter, 5 meters, 10 meters, and infinity. Again, these are highly memorizable, and much of the photography used either the 5 or 10 meter setting.
> The cameras had NO VIEWFINDER, so the astronaut could only guess at
> what was being photographed.
I had no problem properly framing shots with that camera without a viewfinder. Again, photojournalists don't always use the viewfinder either. With practice any photographer can free himself from it. The key is the 45-degree field of view for the Biogon lens. It's a 60mm wide-angle lens. With a wide-angle lens you don't have to aim it precisely.
None of these conspiracy theorists has used an Apollo camera, or likely even seen one close up. Unlike your authors, I've actually tested their theories.
> The film (mainly Ektachrome color film) had a very narrow
> exposure range, which required PERFECT aperture and shutter settings...
No. The people complaining about the supposed impossibility of Apollo photography are -- at best -- studio photographers. (Many of them aren't photographers at all.) They are worried about the little details because in the studio you *can* worry about them. Apollo photography is more like photojournalism, and that operates according to a whole different set of rules. I've spoken to the astronauts and to the people who trained them to take pictures. There was never any expectation that the pictures would be perfect.
I shot hundreds of rolls of reversal film as a beginning photographer without anyone telling me I had to get it *exactly* right. And this was with a manual exposure camera. Those pictures I took still win awards. Sure, some of them may be a smidge dark and others may be a smidge light. But the notion that if you don't get it *exactly* right, the picture is unusable, is total hogwash. Yes, a studio photographer doesn't get paid if his photos are a smidge improperly exposed, but that's because the customer justifiably expects that degree of care in the controlled setting.
The notion that Apollo photography was invariably of suspiciously high quality is just pure bunk. Again, the conspiracy theorists just tell you this. They've never seen any appreciable portion of the Apollo photographs, and I'll bet you haven't either. Most of rolls 107 and 116, for example, is badly overexposed.
> OHHH alot more, but I'll leave you with just these.
Yeah, they may be new to you, but they've been around for many, many years. People discover them and, without any critical thought, throw them out to try to assert their erudition. But as you can see, they've been debunked for just about as long as they've existed. Don't pretend you can just copy arguments uncritically from some web site and pretend that it makes you some kind of expert. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and all you can do is to regurgitate decades-old stupidity. Maybe you're fine letting "Cosmic" Dave do your thinking for you, but I've actually *tested* these claims.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
boy oh boy you're really convinced with the nonsense they've told you - anyways, no point in wasting anymore time. The fact that humans haven't gone beyond 400 miles and have remained in low-orbit is still odd to me. And just to think that we went 240 THOUSAND miles away in 1969, landed on the moon, and SAFELY returned our men is just absurd. Everytime I hit you with a fact you say some techno-jargon, THEN! If I prove that to be somewhat false you edit your initial response, you say what you want me to know - not the TRUTH! You say the sun wouldn't effect the film at all, then I reply, and you say it will but only a little, tell me the facts in the first place! STATE THE TRUTH! You know the landings didn't happen! You are part of the system and there is no hope for you! OPEN YoUR EYES BEFORE IT's TOO LATE!
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
> boy oh boy you're really convinced with the nonsense
> they've told you...
"They" who? The world's leading scientists, engineers, and explorers for the past four centuries?
As I said, I'm an engineer. I don't believe in Apollo because of what "they've told me," but because of what I've seen with my own eyes and done with my own hands. I use the same basic principles that were used in Apollo every day of my career, and I know they work. If they didn't, I'd be out of a job in short order. My bosses don't care whether I'm abstractly faithful to some ideology. They only care if it works.
You, on the other hand, just go read some random web site and don't even think about what was written on it. It says what you want to hear, so you don't question the made-up facts or the completely wrong science. You're exactly what all those snake-oil salesman long for: a yahoo who will not question anything they say so long as they play into your paranoid worldview.
> ...anyways, no point in wasting anymore time.
Of course not. You demonstrated that you are utterly incapable of doing anything more than parrotting a wannabe with a web site, and who wants to listen to that? As soon as someone with real knowledge questions your beliefs, you get all paranoid and hurl random accusations. You obviously can't cut it in the real world, so perhaps you're better off in your fantasy world where you get to be the hero and save the world from all the Evil Gubmint Seekert Ajunts.
> The fact that humans haven't gone beyond 400 miles and have
> remained in low-orbit is still odd to me.
It isn't odd to me, because I know how that funding works. The taxpayer giveth and the taxpayer taketh away. It is, however, disappointing. We made great strides, and people like Nixon, Mondale, and Proxmire took it away from us for their own political gain.
> Everytime I hit you with a fact you say some techno-jargon...
Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it false. You still haven't wrapped your mind around the notion that there are people in this world who can know for themselves -- without being told by someone else -- that Apollo was indeed authentic and that the science behind it is fully workable. And your "facts" are nothing more than innuendo and supposition by people who have experience or expertise in the things they're talking about.
It isn't a "fact", for example, that the astronauts would inflate "like the Michelin Man." That's a supposition -- a faulty conclusion -- based on an ignorant person's wrong assumption about how space suits are made. It's just plain wrong. Calling it a "fact" doesn't make it so, and failing to acknowledge the principle of the restraint layer in pressure-bearing flexible conduits does not make the latter "techno-jargon". It's just yet one more thing you have absolutely no clue about.
> If I prove [something you said] to be somewhat false you edit
> your initial response ...
> You say the sun wouldn't effect the film at all, then I reply,
> and you say it will but only a little, tell me the facts in
> the first place!
I did. Here is my original statement regarding the cameras:
"The temperatures quoted for the lunar surface are for the *surface*: the rocks and the dirt. There is no path for that heat to be transfered to the film. The thermal environment of the film is governed by the absorptive properties of the film magazine. The temperature of rocks at high lunar noon is utterly irrelevant."
I said the absorptive properties of the film magazine determine the thermal environment of the film, and then I elaborated upon that in later posts. I said the *lunar surface* (i.e., rocks and dust) was irrelevant to the temperature of the film, but in no way did I say the *sun* was irrelevant to it. Just because you don't understand the answer doesn't mean it's wrong or contradictory. You can't distinguish between the different forms of heat transfer, so it's all just a big confusing mush to you.
You were given plenty of opportunities to elaborate upon your own arguments and to provide the computations and other quantitative arguments that they implied. But you didn't, and it's probably because you can't. You don't even seem to be able to do a simple uniform distributed load computation for the LM and the astronauts. Yet you, this great sage of cyberspace, is going to free us from blindness and ignorance!? Heh, as soon as you get outside the material your conspiracy web sites have spoon-fed you, you're all out of arguments and all you can do then is hurl a vague accusation and flee.
> You know the landings didn't happen! You are part of the system
> and there is no hope for you!
And that's the predictable last refuge of the conspiracy nut: anyone who actually knows the underlying principles for himself is written off as automatically "in" on it. Can't have anyone *legitimately* disbelieving the hoax theory, can we? That would make your little fantasy world less comforting to you.
In many ways it must be fun to live in a world completely unburdened by reality.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Interesting, a scientist makes an account to try and DEBUNK, the "conspirators" when it truly is you who are the conspiracist. You believe - falsely if I may add, that we went on the moon. It is your job, to convince the "inferior" that your view, or rather your bosses and governments view, is what we should believe in.
Well listen to me now fellow truth holders! Do not listen to this techno-jargon speaking abomination, named HERESJAY. He will do anything in his power to convince you to believe lies. Here are truthful links to open your minds.
http://moonmovie.com/moonmovie/
The above link, a brilliant man named Bart Sibrel, believed in Nasa's lies from day one, until he realized the truth. He approached Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin and questioned the truth. Buzz PUNCHED! Him in his face! Shows you what kind of men Nasa hired - liers, criminals, and thugs who were willing to commit to a nationwide hoax and live with that burden for the rest of their lives. Not like they had a choice, they would've been murdered if they tried to come out with the truth, but now we DESERVE THE TRUTH!
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
HERESJAY is working for Nasa, don't listen to his lies.
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
> It is your job, to convince the "inferior" that your view,
> or rather your bosses and governments view...
Look around. You're the one obsessed with "governments" and "bosses". I'm just pointing to the documented behavior of the physical universe. You're desperately trying to paint me as some kind of political apologist so that you can write me off as some sort of Illuminati or secret agent. But in fact all I've done is simply to provide you with the scientific and technical information that pertains to your claims. You just say you don't care and that what you say is true anyway.
> The above link, a brilliant man named Bart Sibrel, believed in
> Nasa's lies from day one, until he realized the truth.
LOL! I just finished debating Bart Sibrel on Yahoo. I asked him about a dozen questions regarding his manipulative and factually incorrect videos. He answered *none* of those questions, called me a "disinformationist", and ran away to hide. Just like you can't answer any serious questions regarding your claims, neither can he.
And the last thing he wants is for someone to dig into his profits. Ask him how much money he makes off of each person he convinces. Unlike you I happen to have conversed with people who know Sibrel personally and were members of his household; his moon hoax business keeps him in a style of living that he would otherwise not be able to afford. So go ahead and send him $30 or $40 for each of his videos if you want. I'm not stopping you from putting caviar on his dinner table.
But don't think you're getting anything except snake oil in return. Sibrel isn't "brilliant", except perhaps in how to mislead his viewers. At that he excels. I'll grant that he's a talented filmmaker. But that does not equate to his being a skilled and honest researcher. His "documentaries" are quite misleading, and his knowledge of space travel and engineering are even below that of the ordinary layman.
And contrary to what he tells you, he wasn't a "NASA believer" until the evidence dragged him to the truth. He was a part-time video cameraman for a local news station until he convinced a set of secret investors -- whom he still refuses to name -- to fund his little video project. He allegedly spent $500,000 of their money and five years' worth of their salary to him making his movie, which is nothing more than 45 minutes of ordinary stock footage with some voiceover.
Some of that stock footage is from NASA. For some odd reason he got it in his head that what NASA had sent him was "secret" footage that no one outside NASA had ever seen. And so he spins this incredible story of how the astronauts are allegedly faking their telecasts from low Earth orbit by taping stuff to the spacecraft window and making it seem like it shows the faraway Earth.
There are several problems with his theory. First, what he alleges to be out-takes are really the 30-minute live telecast that the astronauts did on the second day of their mission. What Sibrel claims was never seen outside of NASA was actually seen by tens of millions of people. Sibrel is so unfamiliar with Apollo history and its documentary record than he can't tell the difference.
Second, the stock footage isn't secret. It has been broadcast on television, sold as videotapes, and is now available on DVD from Spacecraft Films. As such, we don't need Sibrel's "expose" in order to see it for ourselves. It was a videotape made at the downlink station in Honeysuckle Creek, Australia (HSK). No big earth-shattering stuff there; most Apollo historians have seen it, and anyone can who wants to. But that doesn't stop Sibrel from making up a whole lot of garbage to wrap it in.
Third, Sibrel simply picks and chooses the clips he wants you to see. Out of more than an hour of HSK source material, Sibrel shows you a total of maybe a minute. And his narrator is talking over the audio so you can't hear what the astronauts are saying. Not only does he conveniently leave out the part of the video that CLEARLY shows a distant Earth and soundly disproves his paste-up theory, he pulls shenanigans like showing you a scene where the camera is close to the window, then he cuts to a scene where the camera is far away and implies that this is a consistency -- the only problem: Sibrel simply edited out the part where the camera pulls back! He's deliberately manufacturing "anomalies" in order to make his story seem more credible.
Fourth, Sibrel is blatantly manipulative. He spends half an hour of his first film in a religious discussion of how humankind offends God with his pride, and how Apollo was just another example of our insubordination to Divine majesty and power. (Sibrel is a member of the International Churches of Christ, an evangelical movement often criticized for manipulative and coerceive recruitment methods.) Then he pulls such ridiculous stunts as intercutting Apollo launch footage with images of starving children and Vietnam war atrocities.
> He approached Edwin Eugene "Buzz" Aldrin and questioned the truth.
> Buzz PUNCHED! Him in his face!
And now the rest of the story.
Sibrel arranged an interview with Buzz Aldrin under false pretenses. He told Aldrin he was from the Discovery Channel and wanted to interview him for a documentary on space exploration. When Aldrin arrived at the interview, Sibrel presented himself, brazenly challenged Aldrin's integrity, and demanded on-camera that Aldrin swear on the Bible that he had actually walked on the moon.
Some of the astronauts know Bart Sibrel because he has stalked and harrassed them before. Sibrel had lost his job for stalking Neil Armstrong and trespassing on his property, part of what made him want to make a film to "get back" at them. Aldrin is one of the people who had prior dealings with Sibrel and recognized him.
As you might expect, Aldrin declined to participate further in the interview. He left the hotel, with Sibrel in hot pursuit. Aldrin's car was not ready to pick him up, and so Aldrin walked out into the street to attempt to get away from Sibrel. Sibrel followed him, issuing challenges and repeating his demand to swear on the Bible. Aldrin then retreated back into the hotel where the hotel staff tried to separate Sibrel from him. Sibrel is a large man, and they were unable politely to do that.
Aldrin then again left the hotel, trying to get away from Sibrel. At this point Sibrel cornered him against the banister that surrounded the hotel porch and began poking Aldrin physically with the Bible. Sibrel then called Aldrin a "thief and a liar." It was at this moment that Aldrin struck Sibrel once in the face.
Sibrel's first comment was to his cameraman: "Did you get that? Did you get that?"
One of Sibrel's own film crew had to restrain Sibrel from accosting Aldrin. Sibrel retreated across the street, escorted by his sound engineer. Aldrin went back into the hotel.
The Los Angeles county district attorney refused to press charges against Aldrin because the whole thing had been caught on tape -- Sibrel's tape -- and showed that Sibrel had indeed proximally threated Aldrin physically and had committed assault upon him by poking him with the Bible. Under the laws of California, Aldrin was fully justified.
Of course Sibrel, in his version, shows only the portions of the tape that make it seem like Aldrin flew off the handle without provocation. But since he had to give the whole tape to the prosecutor, we have an objective record of what went on. That doesn't stop Sibrel from trying to stack the deck in his favor with his old selective editing.
I have spoken to the other astronauts whom Sibrel interviewed, and they all agree the interviews -- which were all set up under false pretenses -- seemed more like papparazzi ambushes than media interviews.
In his statement to the L.A. county prosecutor, in attempting to press charges against Aldrin, Sibrel told him "I approached him [Buzz Aldrin] and asked him again to swear on a Bible that he went to the moon, and told him he was a thief for taking money to give an interview for something he didn't do..."
Sibrel makes a big deal about having paid his astronaut interviewees a customary honorarium. But here he reveals that it was his intent to get them to take the money, and then accuse them on camera of doing something dishonest on no more evidence that his supposition.
> HERESJAY is working for Nasa, don't listen to his lies.
Whatever it takes to keep your fantasy world real to you. I notice that you -- just like Bart Sibrel -- are completely unable to address any of the arguments and refutations put to you. All you can do is wave your hands and call people liars.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
LIER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm getting tired of this, I can explain to you why the death star flies and how people can teleport in the world of star trek. Or how the flash runs at lightspeed. The explanations will sound scientific and really nifty, doesn't make em true. And that's all I have to say to you Heresjay. Nasa's science fiction explanations are just like anything you'd see on TV.
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
The problem is that you seem to think my explanations are some kind of exotic super-science, and that I could just be making them up and no one would know the difference. Unfortunately things like restraint layers and heat transfer are BASIC science. People learn about them in high school, so long as they're paying attention. Zone focusing and zone aperture are BASIC photographic techniques -- you can read about them in dozens of photography books.
This stuff isn't "NASA science"; it's just regular science that's also used in applications that have nothing to do with space. I'll be happy to point anyone who's interested to plain old textbooks that explain it. But just because you personally don't understand it doesn't mean you can make a credible case that no one else does either and that it must be made-up.
And you're right; you should be growing tired of this. For the past three or four posts all you've been able to manage is shrill accusations. It's fairly clear at this point which one of us is merely begging and pleading to be believed, and which one of us actually has a basis for his belief.
reply
share
cezar128
19 years ago
don't worry heresjay, most of the readers of this thread (who actually know and read something in life) already know the answer and will always be convinced by logic proofs, despite those brainless paranoic specimens...
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Who ARE YOU BOY???? This is between myself and HERESJAY! Get lost CEZAR! HERESJAY! There is no winning against you - obviously you've been expertly equipped with all the answers you'll ever need to fight off the truth-bearers. I can bring up any FACT, and you'll just deny it with some techno-jargon. When it is truly MY FACTS that make total sense. You've claimed to have spoken to Bart Sibrel, and if he cannot convince you of the truth, then I surely cannot. Well I think we both know you realize the truth, but you are paid very well to not admit to it. Attacking my knowledge of heat transfer and saying it was basic high school knowledge is even low for you heresjay. Sure, I'm no scientist, but at least I realize what's going on around me - you do what you're told, you smile, you agree with everything and you go home knowing you did your country well. As long as you have your house, nice car, you won't say anything against your masters. Bottom line is your government is lying to you every minute of your life and you must wake up before it's too late!
Send a man to the moon before 2050!!!
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
> Who ARE YOU BOY???? This is between myself and HERESJAY! Get lost CEZAR!
You are posting in a public forum. Anyone is free to comment.
Why do you insist on browbeating anyone who doesn't agree with you? If your position is so objectively strong, why must you resort to bullying?
> There is no winning against you...
Not by your previous method of citing questionable sources and then yourself being unable to answer the questions that naturally arise among well-informed people. And now your method simply consists of making broad, sweeping accusations and fending off criticism with verbal violence. Why do you think that method would be successful?
> obviously you've been expertly equipped with all the answers
> you'll ever need to fight off the truth-bearers.
That presumes that who I'm "fighting off" really are "truth-bearers". You would earn that title by telling the truth, and truth is tested by its ability to withstand criticism. You and your authors do not submit your ideas to criticism, but act instead to keep it from criticism. You poison the well and denounce any who refuse simply to believe your claims on their face as liars and secret agents. You fail to address the merits of the criticism and explain how your ideas can withstand them. Truth does not fear criticism, but charlatans do.
You don't merit the title "truth-bearer" because you are unwilling to have that which you bear tested for truthfulness.
And yes, I have been "expertly equipped" with answers, and those who have done the equipping are the masters of science and technology dating back to the time of Leonardo. The answers I give are those that are commonly in use by millions of people who use science and technology in their various activities.
> I can bring up any FACT, and you'll just deny it with some
> techno-jargon.
No. Again, calling your claims "fact" does not make them so. Defending your claims against well-reasoned criticism establishes them as fact, and you are both unwilling and unable to do so.
Calling my responses "techno-jargon" does not make them so. Yes, you are desperate to write off my responses as some sort of secret cabalistic web of lies that only NASA claims to understand and that no one outside of Powers
That Be can possibly fathom or refute. But that is just you poisoning the well and stating what you would need to be true in order for your fantasy world to seem real enough to you.
Heat transfer is no mystery. It isn't particular to NASA or space travel. It's not as if NASA can simply make up alleged principles of heat transfer and no one outside of NASA would know the difference.
Distributed gravity loads are no mystery; most high school students are taught to do them. The arithmetic is very straightforward, and is widely used in even non-technical fields.
The refutation of Bart Sibrel's ludicrous claims regarding relay satellites comes from celestial mechanics. That science predates NASA by about 50 years. Yes, most people don't care to read about it, but that doesn't mean that NASA's use of pre-existing science constitutes something NASA can just credibly lie about.
Face it, your attempt to paint my explanations as some kind of "exotic" made-up science are really masking the fact that you are an idiot of the most colossal variety and are unaware of just how common and well-known the sciences are that you are trying to say NASA is plausibly lying about.
> When it is truly MY FACTS that make total sense.
No. I have explained at great length here why what you claim to be "facts" are not facts, nor make any kind of sense. If your claims "make total sense" then you would be able to explain why my objections and criticisms do not make sense themselves. But you have not done that. You have simply dismissed them as "techno-jargon" with a wave of your hand without explaining what about them is so wrong.
You can't explain *why* my statements are wrong, so you just stammer that they "must" be and browbeat anyone who disagrees. Yeah, real strong argument there.
> You've claimed to have spoken to Bart Sibrel, and if he cannot
> convince you of the truth, then I surely cannot.
In that you both use the same tactics, no you cannot. He is unable to answer my questions, and so resorts to name-calling and vague accusations. Your flaw is in assuming that wholly unscientific arguments, selective presentation of fact, and wholesale fabrication of allegations should convince a reasonable and studious person.
Bart Sibrel knows very little about science, space travel, or engineering. He knows very little about the documentary history of Apollo. And so he is unable to carry on a discussion with the many people in the world who do. He has to satisfy himself with producing tabloid-style journalism for people who share his paranoid worldview and his disdain for fact.
> Well I think we both know you realize the truth, but you are
> paid very well to not admit to it.
LOL! Yes, you two are birds of a feather. You can't address my arguments, so you try like heck to convince everyone else that I'm a paid shill so that they won't listen to anything I say. You both are desperate not to have anyone actually question your claims in a meaningful way, so that you can continue to maintain the illusion that the ignorant garbage you spew is somehow factual.
Let's say that your very worst fears are confirmed. Let's say that I'm on NASA's payroll, and my job is to troll obscure chat rooms and to vigorously deny any arguments that the moon landings were fake. And in order to do that, I have to make up a bunch of scientific mumbo-jumbo that's not true.
How could you prove I'm a secret agent? Well, you could have private detectives dog me for months. If they came up with something, you'd have proof. But if they failed to find any evidence, you could always write that off by saying NASA is just covering its tracks too well. In short, you could always spin those results however you wanted.
But if everything you claim about me is true, then there is actually an obvious test you could perform, and one that can't be spun. If the "science" I'm spewing really is nonsense, then you should be able to show that it contradicts well-accepted practice, or easily-observed principles. That is, if I have to lie in order to do my job, then you can show that by demonstrated that what I say is a lie because it contradicts fact.
But that requires you to actually consider my statements at face value and deal with their content, which you refuse to do you. You'd rather just imply that I'm a liar than actually undertake any proof of it. It's easy for you to sit there and insinuate that I "really" know that you've been right all along. But that's because you have to resort to that kind of bluster in leiu of an actual case.
> Attacking my knowledge of heat transfer and saying it was basic
> high school knowledge is even low for you heresjay.
Hardly. It *is* basic high-school knowledge, and your lack of understanding *is* an impediment to your case.
But more importantly, your poison-the-well argument is that any explanation I come up with must be NASA-generated hogwash that is only meant to sound scientific, and that anyone who heard it wouldn't know any better. But if, in fact, what I'm talking about is well-known outside of NASA, well-used in many industries and activites, and -- as is often the case -- predates NASA or any claims to space travel, then your argument is wrong.
Your claims can be refuted with *basic* science. Just because you personally don't recognize it as such doesn't mean it's something other people don't know to be true and applicable. You can continue try to argue that heat transfer is NASA balderdash, but I'll just keep laughing at you. (And I'm not alone.)
> Sure, I'm no scientist, but at least I realize what's going
> on around me...
No, I think you invent a lot of what you think is going on around you. You don't know me from Adam, but you're already convinced I'm some kind of evil government agent.
If you're not a scientist, then don't pretend that your scientific arguments can't be in error. I have shown you the error, and you have neither defended nor retracted your claims.
> Bottom line is your government is lying to you every minute of
> your life and you must wake up before it's too late!
This isn't about the government. This is about whether *your* claims are factually or scientifically defensible. Paranoid handwaving doesn't address any of that.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
You're quite a character, I'll give you that - but you're still a lier. Funny how such an intelligent person calls someone else an idiot if they don't agree with his "OPINION". That's what all your statements are, just opinions. Bottom line is there is more evidence to disprove the moon landings. The only proof I need is the van allen belt, a human cannot survive through that belt. That's all I have to say, there's no need to get into details about the strings that I saw, and the light errors, they couldn't pass the belt. The videos with the string extend way past the lenth of the antennas from the pictures - the strings went up into the sky, ala strings holding their puppets. Since they can't pass the belt, there's no way they could've gone to the moon, PERIOD. Not to mention all the hardships they would face if they indeed did try to get to the moon. But you heresjay are a stupid idiotic piece of FECES who is too shallow to admit the truth. 2+2 = 5 << not true, UNTIL YOUR GOVERNMENT tells you it is. If enough people said you were crazy then it must be true.
You're a school teacher, congratulations - you know some fancy words, here's a cookie. Now stop defending NASA and OPEN YOUR MIND!
BTW, I am sending private detectives to spy on you, since you are working for NASA. YOU stating you worked for NASA was your ploy into getting me to think that you really weren't! Seeing how it is that everything you say I object to... Unless, you knew I was going to think that way and are trying some reverse psycology tactics.... Speak up against NASA! Before they abuse their power and start killing people(AGAIN) to SILENCE the truth!
Pathetic NASA! Trying to use all the little details to fabricate a large lie - too bad they underestimated the public. HOLD ON, let's put the ASTRONAUTS in quarantine to protect the PRESIDENT FROM LUNAR GERMS! AHAHAHAHAHAH! SO lame! Just like you...
AISJIFAIFJI JIJIJIFIDJfiJ iAJsfOJAJSLKFJLKAJSFIJAFJKLJASKLFJLKASJFKLJFLK FJSJASFKJASF KLI +WIL KSODJASJ IT OSJAID AISDJ A DIS OSjadijaidall jdksa jdk askd lies jdaksjdk adkj anASA OSAJDSIDJ SID SIS IS KDJ SAJDIJ E_-V-IL AJDIASjdiajd iasd isa jiasj M_--da-dasd O- -asd= N--ad - E --ad Y- -a d0 DO {ower OJAIFIAJSO OCajssssO asdiasdRas odUasdj{+PsadasTsad oadIoasdad Osad aN-
sdHAsdasdEjisajdiaRjiojasdjoEjoajSjAyjjasid=oasjdsads-n---0osdddBy
reply
share
BigRedCheese
19 years ago
Wow........just, wow. Everything you mentioned was successfully refuted in the above posts. Don't you realize how silly your making yourself look? There was a guy earlier in the thread whose argument was that we couldn't have gone to the moon because an old swami named Srila Prahbuda said we didn't, as goofy as that was, it was still a better argument than your making. Doesn't it phase you at all that this Sibrel kook in one breath says that we have never been to the moon because nothing can pass through the Van Allen Belts alive, but also claims that we are routinely being visited by aliens, wouldn't the little buggers have to pass through the Van Allen Belts?
Honestly, I don't think your an idiot, you're obviously well read in these conspiracy theories, and for some reason your intent on believing them. Well, more power to you I suppose, your not hurting anybody, but you are making yourself come off as sort of a goofball.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
You're quite a character, I'll give you that - but you're still a lier. Funny how such an intelligent person calls someone else an idiot if they don't agree with his "OPINION". That's what all your statements are, just opinions. Bottom line is there is more evidence to disprove the moon landings. The only proof I need is the van allen belt, a human cannot survive through that belt. That's all I have to say, there's no need to get into details about the strings that I saw, and the light errors, they couldn't pass the belt. The videos with the string extend way past the lenth of the antennas from the pictures - the strings went up into the sky, ala strings holding their puppets. Since they can't pass the belt, there's no way they could've gone to the moon, PERIOD. Not to mention all the hardships they would face if they indeed did try to get to the moon. But you heresjay are a stupid idiotic piece of FECES who is too shallow to admit the truth. 2+2 = 5 << not true, UNTIL YOUR GOVERNMENT tells you it is. If enough people said you were crazy then it must be true.
You're a school teacher, congratulations - you know some fancy words, here's a cookie. Now stop defending NASA and OPEN YOUR MIND!
BTW, I am sending private detectives to spy on you, since you are working for NASA. YOU stating you worked for NASA was your ploy into getting me to think that you really weren't! Seeing how it is that everything you say I object to... Unless, you knew I was going to think that way and are trying some reverse psycology tactics.... Speak up against NASA! Before they abuse their power and start killing people(AGAIN) to SILENCE the truth!
Pathetic NASA! Trying to use all the little details to fabricate a large lie - too bad they underestimated the public. HOLD ON, let's put the ASTRONAUTS in quarantine to protect the PRESIDENT FROM LUNAR GERMS! AHAHAHAHAHAH! SO lame! Just like you...
AISJIFAIFJI JIJIJIFIDJfiJ iAJsfOJAJSLKFJLKAJSFIJAFJKLJASKLFJLKASJFKLJFLK FJSJASFKJASF KLI +WIL KSODJASJ IT OSJAID AISDJ A DIS OSjadijaidall jdksa jdk askd lies jdaksjdk adkj anASA OSAJDSIDJ SID SIS IS KDJ SAJDIJ E_-V-IL AJDIASjdiajd iasd isa jiasj M_--da-dasd O- -asd= N--ad - E --ad Y- -a d0 DO {ower OJAIFIAJSO OCajssssO asdiasdRas odUasdj{+PsadasTsad oadIoasdad Osad aN-
sdHAsdasdEjisajdiaRjiojasdjoEjoajSjAyjjasid=oasjdsads-n---0osdddBy
HEY HERESJAY, I have LUNAR germs in my lungs - I will be put in quarantine for quite some time, enjoy your "FREEDOM"
reply
share
hobbes_42
19 years ago
You're quite a character, I'll give you that - but you're still a lier. Funny how such an intelligent person calls someone else an idiot if they don't agree with his "OPINION"
Alright then provide hard facts to prove it his opinion instead of constantly alternating between "Heresjay works for Nasa", "Heresjay thinks the moon landing were real because the government say's so" and throwing something else that come form Bart Sibrel.
The only proof I need is the van allen belt, a human cannot survive through that belt.
Now this is ironic, you claim that Heresjay is just stating his opinion without any facts outside of Bart Sibrel say's so. And now fore some facts, Dr. Van Allen him self says that the claims that the van allen belts are dangerous is a load of mouth wash. On September 14th 1968 the Soviet Union launched a probe around the moon and back containing two turtles around the moon and back, and they came back completely okay.
The videos with the string extend way past the lenth of the antennas from the pictures - the strings went up into the sky, ala strings holding their puppets
That cosmic Dave is really small so it's probably a compression artifact, and the fact that there's no link to where you can find the videos on ALSJ and that it is soundless is also quite suspicious and makes me further think that they were made small to create compression artifacts and make to small to see where the antenna starts and ends.
Since they can't pass the belt, there's no way they could've gone to the moon
Alright what are your facts to back that up?
But you heresjay are a stupid idiotic piece of FECES who is too shallow to admit the truth.
Saying things like that doesn't help you seem more intelligent in a debate.
UNTIL YOUR GOVERNMENT tells you it is
Just because the lies about some things doesn't mean it lies about everything.
And I have no clue what your talking about in the rest of the post.
reply
share
crow_3000
19 years ago
Oh, PowerSoul, you are the funniest thing I have seen all this week. I was just poking around IMDb for what I thought would be a few minutes, then I found this, and I was hooked. I must have been here for a good hour and half now.
You logic is hilarious, and the fact you find it necessary TO CAPITOLIZE at odd points, type in random symbols for several lines, total inability to understand the contents of other posts, and the stubborn determination of a dog chasing its own tail. All of which are oh so effective at persuading people.
You had me laughing so hard I nearly cried, keep up the good work.
As for heresjay, I always look forward to your replies. Though I have to wonder, do you have any hair left after having to answer the “Van Allen Belt” question over and over again?
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
WHOA< I just got back from buying new KICKS, kicks = sneakers. Umm yeah man, I just state the truth, and the obvious - we DIDN'T go on the moon. The Van Allen belt will DESTROY any living creature that tries to pass it. The moon is 240 thousand miles away, we've only gone 400 miles away - low orbit, since 1969. How is it that in 2005 we've gone 600X LESS the distance we have gone in 1969, it makes no sense. SO I don't know, things are looking a bit FISHY from my POV. I'll let everybody decide on their own, evidence points towards my theory, the landings were just a big HOAX> HERESJAY and his techno-Jargon are just a huge ploy from Nasa to try and deter us from the truth! OUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO US EVERYDAY! DO not believe them!
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050!!!!!
EDIT TIME - UMMM hey crow, I'm glad you've enjoyed the battle, but I believe my argument has merit, and many others concur. Thank you for your time, and help in the fight against NASA, and it's MEN IN BLACK!
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
Obviously there is no point to further discussion with PowerSoul. It's far more entertaining anyway to watch him just spew.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
You FEAR my power, now you want to hide behind your computer screen. I would too, if I knew POWERSOUL was coming after me. But since it's the new years and all, I've decided to give it a rest and allow my potential victims to enjoy the next year worry-free. But know this, one year from now, I shall return to these boards, and may god have mercy on your soul - foR MY POWER WILL CONSUME IT! MUAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
POWERSOUL is such a cooler name than heresjay. Ppl you're free to join in on this discussion, and talk about who's name is cooler and why. POWERSOUL will leave these boards! But I shall be watching! In another covert name, that no one will ever discover!
Send a man to the moon by 2050! Vote for Arnold!
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
Over two weeks since I first replied to him and Powersoul hasn't managed to defend one of his claims. I'm an engineer, I understand what Heresjay's saying and he knows what he's talking about. Powersoul, on the other hand, is all bluster and no substance. And before he resorts to calling me a NASA stooge too, I've never worked for them and I'm not even an American.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
Tough. When you learn that insults are a poor substitute for arguments, you might have a better chance of making a case.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
You are not worthy of a real response flyingswan.... Only Heresjay has that honor. Read my previous post and you will see that my arguments are valid. Now get lost.
reply
share
Mythicalreviewer
19 years ago
Actually I really believe that those who believe in the lunar landings are in general those who are either agnostic or atheists. Just as those who believe in evolution try to discredit that Almighty God through implications that man has evolved from fish.
Believing that man has the capability to land on the moon is one more giant leap for man becoming God. The devil offered Eve the ability be like God and now through test tubes and DNA the devil is offering man to become like Gods.
Here's another curve ball for you moon landers: Would you believe that the Earth is really the center of the universe? Go to
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm
and take the $1000 challenge.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Finally, another person who I can agree with. This whole God-challenging notion that we humans have put into our brain is insane. Ever since the Tower of Babel we humans have tried to surpass God - our attempts have been in vain. The fact is that we cannot pass the Van Allen belt of radiation that has sealed us into this planet. Humans cannot pass this belt, in fact a nuclear explosion detonated in outerspace actually STRENGTHENED this belts intensity - again, another attempt by humans to surpass god, which failed. They attempted to open a whole in this belt to reach the moon, they couldn't do so, the belt became stronger, and Gods will was secure. Now they had to depend on the deceptive properties of film and movie-making, to fool the United States, and all the atheists who are trying to be gods.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
Wow, the ultimate argument against the Apollo landings: God wouldn't have liked it. Would he have liked Playstations, cars, aircraft, medicine? Where in the bible is this list of sinful technology?
According to many of the posts on this thread, a guy called Prabhupada doesn't believe in Apollo because of another God entirely. Maybe you could debate religion with him and leave the science and engineering of Apollo to people who have actually bothered to understand them.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Sure, believe what science has told you in the past 100 years than in the last COUPLE THOUSAND! Vans Allen Belt prevents humans from flying past the earth, and I now believe that everything revolves around the earth, it makes perfect sense. We are the only people on this universe, we haven't been able to prove otherwise and the fact is that we are limited to the Earth, we are not meant to leave it.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
So what do you do when you need to travel? Get on an aircraft designed by engineers using scientific principles or pray to your god for a pair of wings?
Science is believable because its theories are constantly tested against reality and improved or replaced if they don't shape up. James Van Allen himself has said that the radiation belts would not have been a problem for Apollo. He discovered the belts and spent much of his life investigating them. What do you base your opinion on?
reply
share
Fatwoul
19 years ago
Wow. Thought I'd check back again to see if any of you guys actually had lives. Seems not.
:-D
reply
share
tgs333
19 years ago
wow 208!
"I'm a vehemently anti-nuclear, paranoid mess, harbouring a strange obsession with radioactive sheep."
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
The fact is that we cannot pass the Van Allen belt of radiation that has sealed us into this planet.
Dr. Van Allen himself has specifically repudiated this claim.
...a nuclear explosion detonated in outerspace actually STRENGTHENED this belts intensity...
Only temporarily. The Starfish Prime detonation's effects had fully dispersed by 1967. Since most of today's commercial communication satellites operate within the affected region, perhaps you'd like to explain why the international operators of the hundreds of such spacecraft have seen no evidence of the supposedly strengthed Van Allen belts you claim.
They attempted to open a [hole] in this belt to reach the moon...
False. The Starfish Prime detonation studied whether incoming ballistic missiles could be knocked out with the electromagnetic pulse from a thermonuclear detonation. The persistence of the effect was unanticipated and led to dropping that scenario as a ballistic missile defense alternative.
As to whether Apollo represents Godlessness, I suggest you investigate the real history of the Apollo program instead of the bizarro-world version you seem to have concocted for yourself.
Astronauts Frank Borman and Jim Lovell were devout Christians. Astronaut Jim Irwin later became a Christian minister. The crew of Apollo 8 elected to read from the Bible over the air during their mission. Ironically, NASA was sued by atheists for having allowed it. The drama of Apollo 13 was punctuated by special religious services on the crew's behalf from several faiths. In fact, the first elective act on the surface of the moon was the Holy Eucharist, administered by Buzz Aldrin with the permission of his minister back on Earth.
Before you get all hot and bothered about how pro-Apollo people must be atheists, perhaps you'd better check your facts.
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
Not that it matters, but I happen to be a practicing Christian (Episcopalian). Nothing in my religion precludes landing on the moon. Next stupid question...
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Congratulations, may god bless your mind and soul. Things are changing every moment, fact is that the Earth does indeed stay still. Everything revolves around the Earth as stated in the bible. Heresjay you seem to be a bright fellow, take the thousand dollar challege : http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm
There is no real proof against a geocentric system.
_____________________________________________________________________________
So what do you do when you need to travel? Get on an aircraft designed by engineers using scientific principles or pray to your god for a pair of wings?
--- Well you seem to have wings flyingswan, so that won't be a problem for you. But I didnt' say anything about technology as being something bad... I have been on an airplane, and a car too (I'm special) Bottom line is that you scientist make theories, and automatically deem them to be facts -- which is far from the truth! People tend to fear things they do not understand, thus making up all these theories and numbers to try and sway people towards science and away from god. Light takes time to travel from point A to point B. Gravity is instantaneous and absolute across the whole universe -- even sunlight requires time to reach the earth, how can gravity hold everything together? We can explain light, yet we can't explain gravity -- men can make light, they can't make gravity. So something else needs to be in play here, you scientist come up with "DARKMATTER" To try and solidify your theories once they're proven wrong. You'll always just come up with some new unproven fact until we just get sick and tired of talking with you and let you think whatever you want. Einstein himself began moving towards a believe in the aether towards his later days - perhaps he saw the truth.
_________________________________________________________________________
Science is believable because its theories are constantly tested against reality and improved or replaced if they don't shape up. James Van Allen himself has said that the radiation belts would not have been a problem for Apollo. He discovered the belts and spent much of his life investigating them. What do you base your opinion on?
Sure, once you guys get a mindset you stick to it no matter what. The Earth is flat, took quite some time to disprove that, and it will take quite some time to prove to you that we didn't go on the moon. Van Allen said what he had to say -- the radiation belts were deadly -- they destroyed satelites and probes as they went through them -- the Starfish prime caused problems to satellites just above low-orbit, so do NOT TELL ME THAT THE BELTS WOULDN'T have bEEN A PROBLEM! Now we coat our equipment with special shields that protect against these radiation storms. IMAGINE GOING DIRECTLY into the STORM! No way apollo could've survived. This computer I am on right now has more POWER than the apollo 13 computers, and you're telling me they went on the moon! The truth will be revealed soon enough.
I already stated this above heresjay, but your answer to why satellites can now survive the belt.
First they aren't directly in the belt, they are near it. You can go near the fire, but you can't go in it. Then, they have special shields heresjay, special shields to protect them against the violent waves that sometimes expand.
reply
share
crow_3000
19 years ago
"There is no real proof against a geocentric system."
Besides, well, math, telescopes, and satellites.
But it is good to see you back entertaining me. I was worred when you were gone for a while.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Yeah, don't listen to all of Nasa's lies. Basically the geocentric system can be applied to any planet since we do not have an outside reference point to observe the universe. Thus, they put the Earth as the center. You cannot disprove the geocentric system, it's just that the heliocentric has become more defacto -- since scientist always want to have an explanation to everything. It does make sense if you read into it a bit, perfect sense.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm
Go to that above website and click on the sciene link, it has everything you need to know - in fact go to the bottom link.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/case3.htm
Read the three pages of the argument. What you will see is concrete evidence that the gecentric belief is far from fiction.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
That fellow on your link seems to be a bit crazy, I'd stay away if I were you. He's figured out one principle and now makes up that silly website in an attempt to brainwash followers. Fortunately scientologist will contact ZENU and he will destroy him. Christianity is the real way to go.
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
Everything revolves around the Earth as stated in the bible.
Oh, please. This thread has already endured one head-in-the-sand religious nut. Spare us a second.
Van Allen said what he had to say -- the radiation belts were deadly...
No. Dr. Van Allen has said exactly the opposite with respect to Apollo. He has specifically denied that the Van Allen belts would have proven fatal to the Apollo astronauts. The world's leading expert on cislunar radiation has specifically said that you're full of crap. Deal with it.
do NOT TELL ME THAT THE BELTS WOULDN'T have bEEN A PROBLEM!
Fervently wishing something to be true doesn't make it true.
Now we coat our equipment with special shields that protect against these radiation storms.
We're not talking about "radiation storms". We're talking about the Van Allen belts. If you don't know the difference, then you aren't qualified to have this discussion.
This computer I am on right now has more POWER than the apollo 13 computers, and you're telling me they went on the moon!
How much computing power is required in order to get to the moon? Give me specific numbers. Comparing technology of one period in time to technology of a different period is irrelevant when the question you really want answered is whether technology at a certain moment was adequate to the requirements of that same moment.
Today my washing machine has more computing power than the fire-control system of a World War II battleship. Does that mean that people didn't wash clothes in WWII? Does that mean that WWII battleships couldn't hit their targets? Today my car has a computer. Henry Ford's Model T in 1917 didn't have a computer. Does that mean Ford's car was a hoax?
If you want to talk about computers, describe the capability of the Apollo Guidance Computer in concrete terms and compare it to the specific computing requirements of a trip to the moon. I don't accept vague handwaving as an argument.
First they aren't directly in the belt, they are near it.
False. The Van Allen belts extend to 7 earth radii, or about 44,000 miles. The geostationary belt is at 22,300 miles -- well inside this limit -- and contains several hundred spacecraft. The GPS constellation (at least 24 spacecraft) orbits at 12,000 miles. Most of our crucial satellites orbit right in the thick of the Van Allen belts.
Then, they have special shields heresjay, special shields to protect them against the violent waves that sometimes expand.
I know; I used to build those "special shields". Only a few centimeters of aluminum is enough to protect the sensitive electronics of these spacecraft against Van Allen belt radiation for life spans of 15-20 years. Yet you're telling me it was impossible for NASA to shield a spacecraft against the same radiation for an exposure of just a few hours!
You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You're talking to a qualified engineer, not some gullible yahoo. I worked on the Delta III payload interface and the Boeing 701 satellite chassis. Trying to handwave your way through technical discussions won't cut it. I'm going to hold your feet to the fire every time you try to bluster your way around a technical issue.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
The world's leading expert on cislunar radiation has specifically said that you're full of crap. Deal with it.
What's his name? Why would he say I'm full of crap when he doesn't even know me.
I'm not an expert like you so I couldn't make your questions bold. Unless you opened microsoft word to do so -- if that's the case then you my friend, are pathetic.
Today my washing machine has more computing power than the fire-control system of a World War II battleship.
Prove it, I want numbers. Give me specific numbers.
I'm pretty sure a battleship has more computing power than your washing machine buddy.
Well you know alot, but you're still being fooled by your government -- we didn't go TO SPACE! You also think that the Earth revolves around the sun, well go to the link below, you will see that it's impossible to prove that the sun doesn't go around the earth. Go to the site, read case # 3 and then check out the science section. You believe in a heliocentric system because that's what they tell you to believe. WHEN IN FACT! A heliocentric system is just as plausible. Go ahead, take the thousand dollar challenge, you can use the extra money since you're no longer working for Nasa. PROVE TO THe WORLD, that the universe doesn't revolve around the EARTH, in an AETHER of mystery! That will forever keep us on this Earth, until we discover our TRUE destiny! We never went on the moon!
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/case3.htm
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050!!@
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/case3.htm
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
What's his name?
Dr. James Van Allen.
...you my friend, are pathetic.
I see we're back to name-calling. Thank you for playing -- I'm finished with you.
Prove it, I want numbers. Give me specific numbers.
WWII battleship digital computing power: 0 (fire control system was analog)
Typical digital microcontroller (e.g., PIC 16C84) computing power: ca. 2.5 million instructions per second.
But of course you missed the point altogether. The point was that you could do amazing complex things (e.g., fight a naval battle) without digital computers, while today we now do some very mundane things with digital computers that strictly don't need them. The lesson is that there is no inherent need for computers in any job. Computers simply make some jobs easier or cheaper to do. Engineers build machines with the tools they have available. As new kinds of tools emerge, new solutions to old problems are built around them. That doesn't meant he problems couldn't be solved without those new tools.
Well you know alot, but you're still being fooled by your government...
No. "The government" has nothing to do with whether I'm right or wrong.
You also think that the Earth revolves around the sun...
No. I know it does, and so do the people who navigate spacecraft around the solar system for a living. But I'm not going to debate geocentrism and celestial mechanics with you; when your authors have navigated spacecraft according to their theories, then I will talk to them.
You clearly are not equipped to undertake an intellectual discussion regarding your beliefs. I've wasted far too much time with you.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
Flyingswan: "Science is believable because its theories are constantly tested against reality and improved or replaced if they don't shape up."
PowerSoul: "Sure, once you guys get a mindset you stick to it no matter what."
You credit me with saying the exact opposite of what I actually said. Science has frequently changed its theories in the face of new evidence, plate tectonics and the moon's origin being relatively recent examples. I'm not myself a scientist, I'm an engineer, I use scientific theories to design real-world products which my company successfully sells to customers who successfully operate them. This suggests to me that the theories are pretty close to the truth, and that any future replacement theory would have to give results close to those of the current ones for the conditions I design for.
I know what would make me believe the Apollo missions were hoaxed: a hoaxer owning up and giving a convincing explanation of how it was done, particularly faking the moon rocks so as to fool all the geologists, worldwide, who have examined them.
Nothing will ever make you believe that the Apollo mission were real. If you want to see someone with a fixed mindset, look in a mirror.
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
Science has frequently changed its theories in the face of new evidence...
The entire overriding notion of science as it is practiced today is the constant, ongoing revision of theories to account for new observations and arrive at ever more predictive theories. Scientists, in fact, don't have anything to do unless they are investigating possible revisions to theories. They're the ones most motivated to look for problems with current theories because otherwise they're just sitting around throwing paper clips at each other.
The entire scientific method is based on the notion that you can't ever know for sure whether a theory is completely true. A hypothesis cannot be proven throught testing; it can only be confirmed. It can be disproven through testing, however, which is the scientific notion of falsification. And so, in a flippant way, science is composed of only two kinds of theories: those that have been disproven, and those that have not yet been disproven. A sequence of successful predictions does not guarantee that the theory won't eventually meet with something it can't handle.
I'm an engineer...
As am I.
...I use scientific theories to design real-world products which my company successfully sells to customers who successfully operate them.
As do I.
This suggests to me that the theories are pretty close to the truth, and that any future replacement theory would have to give results close to those of the current ones for the conditions I design for.
That's the key. Pseudoscientists see the incremental and tentative nature of science, and the associated allowance for revision, as the *beep* into which they try to drive their "wedge" -- oddball theories with limited promise and very limited predictiveness. Since mainstream science isn't "100% sure" of what it believes, there's a chance their oddball theory might just also be true.
But that's not how it works. The new theory has to encompass and generalize the old one. Einstein encompassed and generalized Newton; Newton still holds, but now only under the certain specific conditions that Einstein identified and which Newton had no knowledge of. We know Newton is strictly wrong, but it so happens that the conditions now recognized as being those under which Newton holds comprise nearly all of what we engineers continue to do. We can achieve dramatic and useful precision with Newton.
But this is why it's so ludicrous when people like PowerSoul say we "must" still be "fooled by the government". The theories we use to validate Apollo are the same theories we continue to use to make useful and working items today, often of great complexity. We don't hold to the theories because someone tells us we should; we hold to them because they are adequately predictive and demonstrably correct enough. I only get paid if my stuff works, not if I toe some ideological line. I'm strongly motivated to seek out theories that work, no matter what their source. PowerSoul's argument is like telling an auto mechanic that his socket set doesn't work and that "the government" is only fooling him into thinking it's suitable for tightening bolts.
I'm not myself a scientist, I'm an engineer...
I disagree. An engineer is a scientist. An engineering design is a hypothesis that is validated only through testing (i.e., by building it), and may require revision as previously unknown effects are discovered. Scientists can examine a hypothesis deductively for certain kinds of known flaws, but that does not confirm that the hypothesis accurately predicts reality. Similarly, engineers can review and analyze designs to look for known flaws, but that does not guarantee the final product will satisfy its requirements and constraints without failure. The scientist's empirical test is equivalent to the engineer's construction and implementation. Conversely there are only two types of engineering design: those that have failed, and those that have not yet failed.
New scientific hypotheses increase humankind's predictive abilities while also retaining the residual predictive ability of older hypotheses; and new engineering designs extend humankind's abilities while retaining as much of the safety and determinism of their ancestors. Everything that was correct about old suspension bridge designs is retained in new designs, just as everything that was right about Newton is retained in Einstein. But everything that we discovered through empiricism (i.e., bridge loads plummetting to the bottom of a chasm) to be wrong with old bridge designs is obviated in the newer ones, just as everything that was wrong with Newton has been superseded with better knowledge.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
You're all going to hell. And I will read everything and write my TRUE response tomorrow. Browsed through some of it, Heresjay, you are right -- your theories will be disproven. And flyingswan go fly somewhere else! This is between myself and HERESJAY!
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
Temper, temper. If you want a private discussion, don't post to a public forum.
reply
share
Mythicalreviewer
19 years ago
The devil knew the bible better than any televangelist and the devil believes in God..... Sooooooooooooooooooooooo....
What's your point?
reply
share
heresjay
19 years ago
You claimed believers in Apollo "must" be atheists, then went on to postulate an enormous amount of idle conjecture based on that assertion.
But I'm not an atheist, and I believe in Apollo.
So my point is that whether the topic is religion or science, you simply make it up as you go and are therefore not worthy of listening to. The very powerful and the very foolish have one thing in common: they try to make the facts fit their beliefs instead of the other way round.
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Powersoul must depart to a land that is miles away. May god power your souls, and may man reach the moon.
reply
share
cntzero
19 years ago
At long last, sentiments I can agree with in every detail (even if I do add a parenthetical "again" to the end). :)
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Don't bother readng any of it. It's the same filth going back and forth. Basically I don't think the moonlandings happened, with the support of many people -- while others(nasa workers) like to dispute my claims. Oh and now the usa wants to send another craft to the moon.... SEEMS like Bush wants some extra money.
reply
share
bobvious
19 years ago
Fascinating. Can you work all that out for me in a chart? Especially about how a moon landing will satisfy Bush's desire for more money.
I don't disagree, I just want to see your angle.
Warm thoughts.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
That's the trouble with the Apollo hoax theory, there's no consistent story to it. The proponents point to alleged anomalies in the photos, deadly radiation, etc, all of which come down to ignorance of the lighting conditions, photographic exposure, radiation levels and the rest of physics, but when it comes to why and how, there is even less there. It was to fool the Russians, but the Russians didn't blow the whistle so they must have been in on it too. It was to take attention from Vietnam, but started before the war really blew up, and was cancelled before the war ended. NASA couldn't do it for real, but all their contractors were supplying equipment they thought would do the job. The contractors were in on it too, but 400000 people can keep a secret for three decades.
So please give us a fully coherent story, we're waiting.
reply
share
conor_kiley
19 years ago
That's the trouble with the Apollo hoax theory, there's no consistent story to it.
That's the problem with any conspiracy theory. I think it's just a personality type that prefers fantasy to reality. They want to believe something and twist the facts to fit what they want to be reality.
I think the moon landings were real because there is evidence to support it. The people who claim it was "faked" use a bizarre scattershot ever-shifting rationale to feed some inate paranoia.
Not to mention how it is a way to sell books and make money.
reply
share
postbaguk
19 years ago
You guys do know he's got you wriggling on a hook?
Powersoul doesn't actually have an opinion either way as to whether man landed on the moon... He has decided to stick his flag in the "hoax" camp for one reason only... to go fishing.
Looks like he caught a shark!
On second thoughts, I have a sneaking suspicion that he KNOWS man landed on the moon... as anyone who has looked at the evidence *objectively* also knows. But he's a member of that pernicious breed of internet wind-up merchants who are comonly referred to as "Trolls", I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Happy trolling!
Incidentally, over the years I too have done a lot of research... like Powertroll, I KNOW that man landed on the moon. Unlike Powertroll, I'm not a wind-up merchant.
Oops... did I say Powertroll? Silly me...
reply
share
PowerSoul
19 years ago
Sure, we went 250 thousand miles away to the moon over 35 years ago! And now we haven't even gone beyond 400 miles. Hmm I believe that postbauguk believes we didn't go on the moon, he just follows the majority of what people think, or rather on what is government tells him. FOllow your leaders! OBEY YOUR MASTERS YOU PUPPET! OBEY THEM! OBEY THEM!!!!!
reply
share
postbaguk
19 years ago
Not the most convincing argument in the world, is it Powersoul? Another reason that leads me to believe you are indeed just trolling.
I'll try to simplify things for you, because your replies to many of the "intelligent" posts imply you have trouble with more complex arguments.
A man flies to Australia for a visit, round trip over 20,000 miles. Since then he's only travelled locally.
Is the man lying about going to Australia, just because he hasn't been back? Try to think of a few reasons. Go on, you know you can. No? I'll help you out.
Maybe it's just too darned expensive. Maybe he fully intends to go back. Maybe he's planning a trip to Antarctica instead.
"...he just follows the majority of what people think, or rather on what is government tells him."
I've examined much of the so-called "evidence" for a moon-landing hoax myself. And I NEVER blindly follow what the government (or anyone else for that matter) tells me! (Didn't believe there were WOMD in Iraq, didn't believe we should go to war.) Oh, nice try on reversing my logic, doesn't wash unfortunately!
There is indeed a huge hoax being pulled. And many people have indeed been scammed. Sadly, Powersoul, you are one of them. And people with beliefs such as yours have made others a small fortune perpetrating this nonsense. Quite ironic isn't it? The people making a huge noise about the alleged "moon conspiracy" are the guilty ones! No wonder you don't want to lose face by admitting your error.
Powersoul - are you are confirming your gullibility by STILL believing the moon landings were faked? Or are you just too darned proud to admit you've been rumbled, and are trying to bluff it out?
Now, be a good boy and get back to your Dungeons and Dragons, and leave the adults to deal with reality.
reply
share
Hyperwarp
19 years ago
but it's interesting to note that the people who have made the Most money are the mainstream folks. how many zillions of mainstream videos, books, and paraphenalia are sold of the Apollo missions and NASA merchandise with gov't textbooks? basically everybody involved with the Apollo program makes money off it with their famous status. it easily dwarfs the number of conspiracy merchandise to be profited from.
reply
share
cntzero
19 years ago
I don't have a problem with that. As far as I'm concerned, they earned it by achieving such an incredible and inspiring feat. The hoax hucksters haven't achieved anything, and try to gain money and notoriety by tearing down the hard work and accomplishments of others. They are cultural vandals - nothing more.
reply
share
cntzero
19 years ago
Well, then it's a good thing for everyone that they didn't fake it.
reply
share
backsideflip
19 years ago
If the moon landings are not fake, then why have the Americans never been back?
Its been over 30 years. Can you imagine Columbus arriving in America, planting a flag, leaving, only to travel back a few times, then simply forgeting about it for 30 years. Why are they supposedly preparing to go back to the moon in the next decade if the technology (Saturn 5)to get there already exists today? Why not simply reuse it? America want to control everything so why have they left the moon alone after supposedly getting there? Surely its a mining dream on the moon,not to mention an excellent military position.
reply
share
flyingswan
19 years ago
It was over forty years after Amundsen and Scott before anyone went back to the South Pole.
The answer to your question lies with how little interest the US public has shown in space once the Russians were beaten to the moon, and the resulting lack of money voted to NASA by the people's representatives. Have you any idea how big a budget NASA had during Apollo and how it compares with the current NASA budget? They have to figure out a way to go back without increasing their budget, and they're having to cancel a lot of other programmes in the process.
Quite what is the military advantage of being on the moon?
reply
share
cntzero
19 years ago
If the moon landings are not fake, then why have the Americans never been back?
Its been over 30 years. Can you imagine Columbus arriving in America, planting a flag, leaving, only to travel back a few times, then simply forgeting about it for 30 years.
It's been 46 years since man visited the deepest part of the ocean - The Challenge Deep, near the Marianas Islands - and we haven't been back since. It's been more than 30 years since we sent a probe to Mercury, and we are only now sending a follow-up mission. After the Viking probes landed on Mars in 1976, it wasn't until 1997 that we sent another.
Why are they supposedly preparing to go back to the moon in the next decade if the technology (Saturn 5)to get there already exists today?
Sadly, the technology to build a Saturn V does not exist today. NASA (to its eternal shame) scrapped it in favor of the Space Shuttle. Once a certain technology or manufacturing process is discarded, you have to start all over. The Russians had the right idea: Build a usable system (such as Soyuz/R-7) and keep refining it.
America want to control everything so why have they left the moon alone after supposedly getting there? Surely its a mining dream on the moon...
Bigotted prologue aside, Exploration is expensive (exploitation more so), and the monetary rewards are not always obvious. If moon rocks were made of 24-karat gold, it still would not be economical go there to mine them.
...not to mention an excellent military position.
The idea of using the moon for military use became obsolete with the development of reconnaisance satellites and ballistic missile submarines.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
postbaguk you are full of crap I can smell it from your hut in nasa's facility in houston. We didn't go to the moon, 911 is indeed a government act, and you believe whatever you see on television. Wake up please.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Tragic.
Reminds me of a quote from "The Abyss".
(Paraphrasing).
"You think everything's a conspiracy."
"Everything is."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Handwaving is not a valid debating technique. You ask why man hasn't been back to the moon, and use this as an argument that man never went at all.
Firstly, man DID go back to the moon. Six landings altogether, 1969 - 1972.
Secondly, I'll give you ANOTHER example to assist your analysis - you have done some analysis, haven't you? I lived in the Middle East a few years ago, but haven't been back since. Applying your logic, I never went to the Middle East, as I haven't been back for several years.
Thirdly, there are many other sound reasons why we haven't yet returned to the moon since 1972. No need to even discuss them if you can't understand the logic of my second point above.
Do you understand how your logic is clearly flawed? If not, please provide a clear and logical comparison that proves that your inferred assertion is correct, i.e. please state why not returning somewhere proves you never went?
I'd like to venture that you may have some difficulty.
Regarding this specific point, either provide further evidence to support your position, or cede that this is not proof or evidence of faked moon landings.
If you really want to make yourself look foolish, I'll truck with you for a while. Need to fill these nightshifts somehow! Please address the points I've raised re your "no return to moon argument". If you can't, then I dare you to be man enough to withdraw that argument.
Once you have done that, feel free to present another specific reason why you think man never went to the moon. I'll then destroy that reason, not with hand-waving, strawmen and ad hominem attacks, but by using simple logic and science. Eventually, I will have destroyed every single argument you can concoct, leaving you with no logical basis to believe that man never went to the moon.
Guess what? Even then you will still believe that man never went to the moon. And you truly will be happy in your ignorant bubble. Which is a shame for you. You are denying yourself so much.
If you're up to the challenge, go for it. Once you address the points above, we can discuss this if you like...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9355479/
...and talk about how silly you may feel if/when mankind is back on the moon.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
If/when mankind goes back on the moon. Yeah, then it will be for the FIRST TIME, they couldn't do it with the computers back then. Read my other posts, you'll see websites I posted, and many other things, I'm not going to argue with you - I've proved my point to a dozen others on these boards.
"I lived in the Middle East a few years ago, but haven't been back since."
You've never been to the middle east, so don't lie. Bottom line here is there's more evidence supporting the FACT that we didn't go on the moon than the theory that we landed on it. Believe what you want, I know the facts, I checked out the link you posted above, that'll happen when pigs fly WITH WINGS. Our government likes to talk alot and seems to be good and making large sums of money disappear. Umm let's see, Vietnam was going on, LET's send some people to the moon!
We can't even get the space launches right now, we have problems and disasters happening now! No way they went on the moon, the videos look fake, and that lunar module taking off of the moon's surface looks like a kid made it. Bottom line here is your brainwashed, wake up and realize the FACTS. If you believe 9/11 was done by terrorist than you are truly under the control of the Military industrial complex. MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
here's the reality. you don't remember the Cold war and the soviet union.
the problem with moon hoax believers
is that they continually ignore the huge,
massive, enormous, hole in there argument
as if by ignoring it, there logic doesn't
simply crumble. But to believe that the
USA did not go to the moon, requires you
to live at a level of ignorance that you
would have to question ones ability to make
any form of rational thought.
the hole I'm
talking about is this:
THE SOVIET UNION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR CONCEIDED THE FACT THAT THE USA WENT TO THE MOON. The Soviet Union had the most to gain by exposing the hoax, had the most scientific equipment, money, and resources to uncover the hoax, and still has no problem with the claim. If as that is not enough, and if the USA actually did commit the most amazing hoax under the watchfull eyes of the entire world, completely documented it, etc, THE USA HAD THE BRAVADO TO ACTUALLY REPEAT THE HOAX, NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, NOT THREE TIME, NOT FOUR TIMES, NOT JUST FIVE TIMES, BUT REPEATED FAKING MOON MISSIONS SIX MORE TIMES, JUST TO GIVE THE RUSSIANS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE HOAX.
to believe that we faked the moon missions,
to any degree, means that the soviet union
couldn't of figured out the hoax. That
cannot be. It
would of been impossible for the USSR to
miss all of those things. In order for
their of been an hoax The hoax would have
to extent to the level that the entire
soviet union, the cold war, are also a hoax.
The soviet union could not of existed, the
cold war would also have been a hoax, every
olympic since 1960 also would of had faked
competition, ...
Please if your going to purport a hoax theory,
you must resolve ALL of the issues.
oo oo oo!!!
I just thougth of something else!!
now let's say the USA is going to try and pull off this lame hoax that the HB'ers can see through in minutes; and they know the USSR will fall for it. Then the USA would of had to know that the USSR are the lamest, stupidest, morons on the planet without any possible chance of beating us to the moon!! Their wouldn't of been a race in the first place!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Powersoul: "I'm not going to argue with you - I've proved my point to a dozen others on these boards."
Ah, don't you just wish.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
I notice you refuse to answer my very simple question, and instead accuse me of lying over something so trivial (living abroad) as to render the rest of your "arguments" (and I use the word tenuously) completely laughable.
"they couldn't do it with the computers back then" How much computing power is required to send a manned vehicle to the moon and back? The number-crunching was done by a mainframe at the control centre. The onboard computer was a specialised device used for guidance. http://www.clavius.org/techcomp.html
"Umm let's see, Vietnam was going on, LET's send some people to the moon!" - an argument requiring a leap of faith so great I'd be surprised if you don't think you can walk on water.
"We can't even get the space launches right now". How do you think we get satellites or the shuttle into space? Willpower?
"we have problems and disasters happening now!" Yes we do... space travel is not "easy", but it is "possible". Another analogy, although you do have difficulty with them... disasters happen to commercial airlines on a regular basis. Does this mean that they can't actually fly?
"No way they went on the moon, the videos look fake". They look fake to you because you WANT to believe that they are fake.
"lunar module taking off of the moon's surface looks like a kid made it". See above.
"Bottom line here is your brainwashed, wake up and realize the FACTS" Far from being brainwashed (although I do enjoy the irony in your comment), I have looked at the facts with an open mind and from an objective viewpoint. I have listened to arguments from both sides, I have studied the photographic, documentation, scientific and anthropological evidence, and the only logical conclusion that stands up to rigorous scientific examination, is that man did indeed land on the moon. People who would have you believe otherwise wish to perpetrate the "hoax theory" so they can sell videos and books. Others simply haven't investigated the facts themselves, and have refused to OBJECTIVELY look at the evidence. Some are plain ignorant.
"If you believe 9/11 was done by terrorist than you are truly under the control of the Military industrial complex." And this has what to do with the veracity of the Apollo program? You are using a standard "water muddying" technique which is the resort of those who know they cannot rationally argue the issues.
"MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON YOUR SOUL." I hope he does too: same right back at yer. I doubt he'll send me to Hell for knowing that man landed on the moon though.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
trim the high weeds first.
the lawn will look a lot better.
answer this first. without it your just pissing in the ocean.
the problem with moon hoax believers
is that they continually ignore the huge,
massive, enormous, hole in there argument
as if by ignoring it, there logic doesn't
simply crumble. But to believe that the
USA did not go to the moon, requires you
to live at a level of ignorance that you
would have to question ones ability to make
any form of rational thought.
the hole I'm
talking about is this:
THE SOVIET UNION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR CONCEIDED THE FACT THAT THE USA WENT TO THE MOON. The Soviet Union had the most to gain by exposing the hoax, had the most scientific equipment, money, and resources to uncover the hoax, and still has no problem with the claim. If as that is not enough, and if the USA actually did commit the most amazing hoax under the watchfull eyes of the entire world, completely documented it, etc, THE USA HAD THE BRAVADO TO ACTUALLY REPEAT THE HOAX, NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, NOT THREE TIME, NOT FOUR TIMES, NOT JUST FIVE TIMES, BUT REPEATED FAKING MOON MISSIONS SIX MORE TIMES, JUST TO GIVE THE RUSSIANS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE HOAX.
to believe that we faked the moon missions,
to any degree, means that the soviet union
couldn't of figured out the hoax. That
cannot be. It
would of been impossible for the USSR to
miss all of those things. In order for
their of been an hoax The hoax would have
to extent to the level that the entire
soviet union, the cold war, are also a hoax.
The soviet union could not of existed, the
cold war would also have been a hoax, every
olympic since 1960 also would of had faked
competition, ...
Please if your going to purport a hoax theory,
you must resolve ALL of the issues.
oo oo oo!!!
I just thougth of something else!!
now let's say the USA is going to try and pull off this lame hoax that the HB'ers can see through in minutes; and they know the USSR will fall for it. Then the USA would of had to know that the USSR are the lamest, stupidest, morons on the planet without any possible chance of beating us to the moon!! Their wouldn't of been a race in the first place!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
still waiting.
its a simple concept.
explain how the soviet union was unable to unmask this charade.
it cost them world dominance in the height of the cold war. you would think
they would of been the first to claim foul.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
How are you going to use the Soviet Union to prove that the USA went to the moon. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to track the LAUNCH and follow it from the ground to space, where it was - it NEVER MADE ITS WAY TO THE MOON. The ship floated within 500 miles of the Earth while Nasa hoaxed the whole thing!
The bottom comment is taken straight from the website you sent me -
"During Project Apollo, six highly complex manned craft landed on the Moon, took off and returned to Earth using a relatively low level of technology, with only one unsuccessful mission (an 86% success rate). Since Apollo, twenty-five simple, unmanned craft with increasingly higher levels of technology have attempted to fulfill their missions to Mars. Only seven succeeded. A mere 28% success rate. Was Apollo blessed?"
NO APOLLO WASN't BLESSED! IT was HOAXED! Ever hear of the Van Allen belt? That ALONE will prevent the men from reaching the MOON ALIVE! Then they have the astronauts in a "SEALED" protection room when the president went to go see them, so lame...
Why fake the moon landings? NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets! The photographs are all messed up, wrong shadows, perfect exposure on ALL THEIR PHOTOS! And multiple light sources are detected on them! Impossible when the SUN IS YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT!
Also consider the recent announcement from NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already????
Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place. << ExPLAIN THAT!
Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.<<<< EXPLAIN THAT! Had I gone to the moon I would atleast want to jump 5 feet in the air.
An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?
AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. I REST MY CASE! The website you sent me helped me debunk your claim buddy.
Check this website out also, it will help open your eyes
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
You government followers are full of crap, you make me want to vomit.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
"How are you going to use the Soviet Union to prove that the USA went to the moon. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to track the LAUNCH and follow it from the ground to space, where it was - it NEVER MADE ITS WAY TO THE MOON. The ship floated within 500 miles of the Earth while Nasa hoaxed the whole thing! "
That is completely false.
Transmissions have been trackable since the 1940's to the source of transmissions. A ship at 500 miles is also visible from the surface of the earth. Yours is a ridiculous statement, and besides, it still would of been in the interest of the Soviet Union to raise the shadow of doubt. For petes sake, the SU had a parallel spacecraft going to the moon all the way for apollo 11.
And unfortunately for your position, I have worked on the exact same computer system that was on the apollo LM and Saturn V, 32k memory limitation and all,
and it works just fine. Built a valve control system with it. computer system fits in a suitcase.
and all of your other 'inconsistencies' all have very easy explanations all have been gone over 1000x, and
I REPEAT, WHY IN GODS NAME WOULDN'T OF THE SOVIET UNION AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR HAVE NOTICED ANY OF YOUR LAUNDRY LIST OF 'INCONSISTENCIES'???
you will need to explain that one first. Period.
Until you do, your a crackpot.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
The same tired old arguments which have been clearly and consistently refuted time and time again.
"Ever hear of the Van Allen belt? That ALONE will prevent the men from reaching the MOON ALIVE!"
Not according to the man who discovered them. And I quote: "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.
"Then they have the astronauts in a "SEALED" protection room when the president went to go see them, so lame..."
And this proves a faked Apollo program how exactly?
"The photographs are all messed up, wrong shadows, perfect exposure on ALL THEIR PHOTOS!"
Simply wrong. Have you actually looked at the photos? Many were over or underexposed. I suggest you also spend some time actually looking at them.
"And multiple light sources are detected on them! Impossible when the SUN IS YOUR ONLY SOURCE OF LIGHT!"
The Sun is the primary light source. Reflected light from the moon's surface is the secondary light source which enables us to see details that would otherwise be in shade. A very simple concept you should be able to grasp. Ask yourself this: how can you see the moon? Light from the Sun is reflected from its surface.
"Also consider the recent announcement from NASA that it would take scientists 15 years from now to design and build a craft to go back to the Moon. Why when we have allegedly been there 6 times already????"
Do you think they have a huge mothballed facility ready to start churning out Saturn V rockets whenever required? Much of the work on the Apollo program was done by contractors who would have no need to keep the technology and equipment. Any attempt to go to the moon now would require many technologies to be designed from scratch. There was enormous political will in the 60's to get the job done inside ten years. Apparently that will is returning... NASA plans to go back to the moon in 2018, just 12 years away.
"Footprints are the result of weight displacing air or moisture from between particles of dirt, dust, or sand. The astronauts left distinct footprints all over the place. << ExPLAIN THAT!"
Lunar dust particles aren't weathered like sand on earth, for obvious reasons. They are actually quite abrasive. Armed with that knowledge, I'll let you figure out for yourself how easily footprints were formed.
Don't take my word for it, take the Russians. They sent unmanned missions to the moon. Here's a link to an image taken from Lunokhod on the moon's surface. The tracks are clearly visible. Or are you going to suggest that the Russians faked their unmanned missions?
http://pages.preferred.com/~tedstryk/luna17_1.jpg
"Instead of being able to jump at least ten feet high in "one sixth" gravity, the highest jump was about nineteen inches.<<<< EXPLAIN THAT! Had I gone to the moon I would atleast want to jump 5 feet in the air."
Congratulations, that's exactly what Neil Armstrong did - jumping onto the third rung of the lunar module ladder, approx 5 or 6 feet. On one jump he came close to falling over backwards, and decided he wouldn't risk damaging his PLSS after that.
"An astrophysicist who has worked for NASA writes that it takes two meters of shielding to protect against medium solar flares and that heavy ones give out tens of thousands of rem in a few hours. Russian scientists calculated in 1959 that astronauts needed a shield of 4 feet of lead to protect them on the Moons surface. Why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 14 and 16 die after exposure to this immense amount of radiation? And why are NASA only starting a project now to test the lunar radiation levels and what their effects would be on the human body if they have sent 12 men there already?"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/27jan_solarflares.htm
and
http://www.answers.com/topic/forbush-decrease
"AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST
In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator. I REST MY CASE! The website you sent me helped me debunk your claim buddy."
You rest your case? Are you kidding? In 2002 a top of the range computer required 64MB RAM just to boot up to Windows!!! The first home computer I owned in the 1980's had less memory than the Apollo computer, at the time I was amazed at what it could do. Programmers had to be FAR more efficient as they had limited resources to work with, and the Apollo computer had a specific use - guidance and navigation. (And as stated previously, the serious number crunching was done by mainframes - the RTCC - on earth.)
Here it is:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_guidance_computer
But let's not let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh Powersoul?
(Edited for typos)
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
I REPEAT, WHY IN GODS NAME WOULDN'T OF THE SOVIET UNION AT THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR HAVE NOTICED ANY OF YOUR LAUNDRY LIST OF 'INCONSISTENCIES' -- Such a lame excuse, why wouldn't the cubans track the UNITED STATES TO PROVE THEY DIDN't GO TO SPACE! That's how you sound like.... It was impossible to track them through space and USA knew that.
Russia sent unmanned, they KNEW by recording radiation samples that men couldn't survive the Van Allen belt. Yeah, Van allen said the belts couldn't kill after they used their MEN IN blACK MUSCLE. They also got engineers to state that the Twin Towers fell from fire -- not the hidden explosives they had planted throughout the building.... SO believe what you want, but I KNOW the truth.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2020!
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Yet again, you demonstrate complete inability to rationalise an argument, let alone provide evidence. Let's look at some of the logial inconsistencies in your 19:52:50 post.
"It was impossible to track them through space and USA knew that."
"Russia sent unmanned"
Please explain how the Russians successfully sent unmanned probes to the moon, but were unable to track any of the Apollo craft. Yet again, I'll give you a clue. Radio telescopes. Incidentally, you made no mention of the tracks in the lunar soil made by the Russians remote rover.
"Van allen said the belts couldn't kill after they used their MEN IN blACK MUSCLE."
Evidence please. This is not even conjecture - it is pure fabrication.
"They also got engineers to state that the Twin Towers fell from fire"
Changing the subject, since you are unable to survive in a proper "debate" (and I use the term lightly).
No danger of answering my refutations to your previous post? Of course not. You can't. You have consistently demonstrated your inability to properly debate the issue.
"SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2020!"
When this has been achieved, you will still not believe it. You will simply believe it has been faked. And no doubt some people will make more money selling more "Moon Hoax DVDs" to the next generation of gullible fools.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
The evidence is out there, search the web and realize the truth. Buy books if you must, the bottom line is our government lies to us 24/7.
"Please explain how the Russians successfully sent unmanned probes to the moon, but were unable to track any of the Apollo craft. Yet again, I'll give you a clue. Radio telescopes. Incidentally, you made no mention of the tracks in the lunar soil made by the Russians remote rover."
Exactly, the RUSSIANS SENT unmmaned probes to the moon but were unable to track any of the APollo craft or anything they left BEHIND! I believe the Russians sent probes, but sending men to the moon on your FIRST TRY and successfully bringing them back is just insane to believe. Radio telescopes are unable to track the way you envision them - it's just impossible. Having a radio telescope track the apollo craft is the same as saying wearing a pair of binoculars in space will enable you to see a submarine under water. It's IMPOSSIBLE.
But alas you have been brainwashed, I won't waste anymore time with the likes of you -- wake up before it's too late --
POWERSOUL HAS TRAVELED TO A GALAXY FAR AWAY... WHEN HE WILL RETURN? NO ONE KNOWS.......
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
once you get past all the red herrings you've thrown in the way, your still left
with a simple problem. the soviets had the most to gain by exposing a hoax and still said nothing but congratulations. And then with all the intracacies of
setting up a hoax, potential for it being exposed, the Gov't is going to risk
exposure 6 more times instead of making a hasty exit.
until you can explain why the soviets accepted the american landings your nothing
but a crackpot.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Dude get off of the soviets not exposing them. If they could've they would've, but with the techonology available back then their claim would have without merit. Time tends to reveal all secrets and now we know the truth - even President Clinton doesn't believe that we landed on the moon. Why don't you stick to your crack and wake up from your cozy dreamworld -- Fools like you will perish underneath THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
Dude, your laughable.
All your "evidence" you've displayed in this thread requires no advanced technology to expose it. "the techonology available back then their claim would have without merit" is exactly the same as your claims are without merit today.
Your simply a paranoid fool, do us a favor make up your kool-aid mix and get ready for aliens to take you away.
Its just that the scientists, astronomers, military personell, spies, etc of the Soviet Union had a brain, and realized it was happening. Sorry, your talking about the 2nd most powerfull nation on the planet, with hundreds of thousands times the resources to uncover a hoax than you or an of HBer's have, and until you can explain why not even a whisper of doubt from them. Your still a crackpot.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
"The evidence is out there, search the web and realize the truth. Buy books if you must, the bottom line is our government lies to us 24/7."
Your government may well lie to you about many things, that is an irrelevant argument. Oh, I have searched the web. And looked OBJECTIVELY at the evidence. I have no agenda to prove or disprove.
"Exactly, the RUSSIANS SENT unmmaned probes to the moon but were unable to track any of the APollo craft or anything they left BEHIND!"
They sent craft to the moon, to bring back samples... not to justify your conspiracy.
"I believe the Russians sent probes"
Based on what evidence? Why do you believe the Russians sent craft to the moon
"but sending men to the moon on your FIRST TRY and successfully bringing them back is just insane to believe."
Then don't just accept it: examine the evidence. The Apollo program was a culmination of years of research, trial and error, and indeed failures.
"Radio telescopes are unable to track the way you envision them - it's just impossible."
Anything is possible in the world of "Space Cadet Powersoul". How exactly do we track the Voyager probes? You'll be claiming the planet's entire space program has been faked next.
"Having a radio telescope track the apollo craft is the same as saying wearing a pair of binoculars in space will enable you to see a submarine under water. It's IMPOSSIBLE."
Strawman argument. Please do better.
"But alas you have been brainwashed"
Nope. I look at the facts.
"I won't waste anymore time with the likes of you -- wake up before it's too late"
Hurrah!
"POWERSOUL HAS TRAVELED TO A GALAXY FAR AWAY... WHEN HE WILL RETURN? NO ONE KNOWS......."
Enjoy your trip, Space Cadet Powersoul.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
I shall enjoy my trip, postbaguk has real argument, unlike jleslie who is a fool himself. He cannot see the facts, and has to go with his soviet union story... Buddy, only crackpot here is you if you feel that you need Russia to disprove a theory. POWERSOUL - OUT!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
wrong again fool.
I worked on guidance systems for the space shuttle.
My father was a mechanical engineer for the windows for the Gemini spacecraft.
I have done 1000x the amount of research on the apollo/gemini/mercury than you've
barely even dismissed, let alone actually studied.
your a fool that refuses to look at the facts of the space program, and as such arguing you at a technical level is ridiculous. you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. I lecture on the space program at a science center.
The Soviet Union argument is the easiest arguement to make to laymen like yourself, as you have no argument, strawman, or red herring to debate it. You have taken the only defense against it that you can, I hearby award you the
ostrich award:
http://jleslie48.com/badge_467.jpg
Ignore the obvious. Your pathetic. You list all kinds on nonsense that has been
properly explained on a dozen websites as evidence, and still think because you
have raised multiple [idiotic] points they all count because of the volume of
[idiotic] arguments. Then you dismiss my one and only one, simply because I refuse to back off it for the reason you can't give a logical argument against it, as if because its only one argument it doesn't have validity.
If you knew anything about science, the scientific method, or boolean logic, you
would know that my simple little idea is all that it takes to bring down your
entire "theory". Maybe that is why is you are so quick to dismiss it. Your
a liar, a fool, and a con man. You should be ashamed.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Thanks for the award, I can see where all your comments come from - straight from your a-ss. Every person who denies that we went on the moon happens to have worked on guidance systems, or get this, one person on these boards said he designed the metal used to shield the craft from radiation (Even though it would take 4 feet thick lead to block the radiation from the Van Allen Belt)
You are just a pompous person that is in denial and can't accept that his government has lied to him. Yeah, I bet this board is filled with scientist who worked with nasa... Why don't you just go back into your cardboard box and continue your little game of I wish I were a scientist.
Oh you happen to know about Mr.George Boole congrats -
The united states went on the moon = 0
THE UNITED STATES DIDNT GO ON THE MOON = 1
I rest my case. Van Allen Belt - the sheer size required by a spacecraft to reach the moon - everything just doesn't add up. There is more reason to believe we DID NOT! Get to the moon, than we did.
Btw I'm a certified nasa technician, I worked on the guidance system for Freedom and Independence. We prevented a massive asteroid from destroying all life in the world. It was decided that this mission was too much for people to handle and the hysteria it would cause would outweigh the benefits... that's why we made it into a movie that made tons of money.
That's what your moon landing talk sounds like, just a big FAKE movie. I've SEEN the TAPES, I've seen the inconsistencies - IT DOES NOT ADD UP!
All of you people must learn the TRUTH!
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2020!!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
yup. you sure have it figured out. the russians couldn't of sent one of their moon missions up with a gieger counter and proved that the radiation was lethal.
Yeah that's it.
And just to doubly rub their noses in it the USA faked a second mission.
And triply a third mission.
and quadruply a fourth mission.
and pentagaly a fifth mission.
and hextangaly a sixth mission
and even a septangal one.
Just in case; we really wanted to give the world and the SU all the chances in the world to prove we were making it up.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound????
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Not denying we went to space, denying that we went to the moon!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
Sorry, your still throwing about red herrings.
You can deny we went to the moon all you want,
still doesn't change the fact that the soviets did not.
still doesn't change the fact that the Americans claim to have, and documented,
8 trips to the moon, with 6 landings.
Still doesn't explain why the USA would risk re-visiting the scene of the crime and continue to fake moon landings.
and with all your nonsense of the Van Allen Belts, it is well documented the concerns and realities of the radiation exposure, the amount of time the astronauts were exposed to the radiation, and also the documentation of the SOVIETS DISMISSING THE VERY SAME VAN ALLEN RADIATION RISK for their own Moon Rocket.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
you really are an idiot.
I'm talking about the soviet manned moon rocket. the N1. the one that would
carry cosmonauts through the very same van allen belt.
you didn't even know they had a manned moon rocket project did you???
your the one than needs to hit the books/go back to school.
dude, your way out of your league.
go back to the JFK conspiracy theory, or maybe area 51, you'll do better.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Bringing up other conspiracy theories to try and make yourself look good huh, I've battled dozens of you and have lost my patience. Read my PREVIOUS POSTS and you will see all the answers, go to the links I POSTED FOR YOU - stop complaining and learn the Truth. N1 wouldn't have gone through the Van ALlen Belt, the Russians knew it, and THUS didn't attempt it. The lack of funding was just their excuse. BUT Russia will get alot more money since now they will sell weapons to Iran! Go Russia!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
You have not provided a shred of evidence for your belief that it was impossible for Apollo to get safely through the Van Allen belts. James Van Allen himself says it wasn't a problem, so what measurements of the radiation levels, unknown to the world expert, are you basing your belief on?
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
"Bringing up other conspiracy theories to try and make yourself look good huh, "
Nahhh, just to point out how ridiclous you look, you stink of the same BS.
it would really help if you would come up with something that hasn't be dismissed 100x over already.
plus you still refuse to explain any of my issue.
your just another crackpot with a loud mouth. Still saying nothing.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
blabla just a crackpot loud mouth, yadayada, seems to me like YOU'RE the only person here saying the same things. I feel sorry for people who attack others with snide comments just to try and prove a point, I really do. Why don't you keep your comments to yourself and to your family.
BTW, I don't speak SLANG! >>>>> NAHHHH"" << what the hell is that?
Say nothing and be gone from my presence! You are no longer worthy weak man.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2020!!!!
POWERSOUL! OUT!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
blabla just a crackpot loud mouth, yadayada, seems to me like YOU'RE the only person here saying the same things. I feel sorry for people who attack others with snide comments just to try and prove a point, I really do. Why don't you keep your comments to yourself and to your family.
BTW, I don't speak SLANG! >>>>> NAHHHH"" << what the hell is that?
Say nothing and be gone from my presence! You are no longer worthy weak man.
Which neatly sums up the intellectual quality of your arguments.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
yet umpteen posts later and you have yet to address a single issue I have raised:
THE SOVIET UNION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR CONCEIDED THE FACT THAT THE USA WENT TO THE MOON. The Soviet Union had the most to gain by exposing the hoax, had the most scientific equipment, money, and resources to uncover the hoax, and still has no problem with the claim. If as that is not enough, and if the USA actually did commit the most amazing hoax under the watchfull eyes of the entire world, completely documented it, etc, THE USA HAD THE BRAVADO TO ACTUALLY REPEAT THE HOAX, NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, NOT THREE TIME, NOT FOUR TIMES, NOT JUST FIVE TIMES, BUT REPEATED FAKING MOON MISSIONS SIX MORE TIMES, JUST TO GIVE THE RUSSIANS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE HOAX.
to believe that we faked the moon missions,
to any degree, means that the soviet union
couldn't of figured out the hoax. That
cannot be. It
would of been impossible for the USSR to
miss all of those things. In order for
their of been an hoax The hoax would have
to extent to the level that the entire
soviet union, the cold war, are also a hoax.
The soviet union could not of existed, the
cold war would also have been a hoax, every
olympic since 1960 also would of had faked
competition, ...
Please if your going to purport a hoax theory,
you must resolve ALL of the issues.
now let's say the USA is going to try and pull off this lame hoax that the HB'ers can see through in minutes; and they know the USSR will fall for it. Then the USA would of had to know that the USSR are the lamest, stupidest, morons on the planet without any possible chance of beating us to the moon!! Their wouldn't of been a race in the first place!
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Your absolutely right, the Russians are pretty lame, they couldn't even fish out a submarine from 400 feet depth. Oh well, believe what you wish.
POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
spinwit
18 years ago
This likely is going to be dismissed but at what point is the "Conspiracy" supported with anything that even approaches the level of reasonable evidence?
The "theorists" tend to use hit and run tactics. Any time evidence is used in a reasonable manner they just shift the issue in order to avoid being exposed as frauds who are using ignorant grade school assumptions.
Stay the hell away from me and mine, focus on Sasquatch. It's more your speed.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
Not dismissed by me ;)))
good analysis on that hit and run tactic. HB'ers don't understand that hit and run approach is the first clue that they are a con man in the used car salesmen stereotype genre.
reply
share
spinwit
18 years ago
HB'ers don't understand that hit and run approach is the first clue that they are a con man
Exactly. I see so many a$$inine arguments from them and I am dumbfounded how everything they claim gets so easily destroyed yet they fight on as if science and factual evidence isn't even a matter for concern. They think it therefore it must be true?
One delightful issue is how they use "moon dust". They read the word "dust" and assume the issue is about the dust they deal with in thier homes and base a whole argument on that.
I can't tell half the time if they are serious or just Trolls since the reasoning is so off the wall insane. I have corresponded with some people to congratulate them on posts that I thought were brilliant satires only to find out I was talking to frighteningly disturbed people.
ps- The first time I saw a Kent Hovind video I thought it was one of the funniest bits of satire ever (the animals were babies! That explains it!). Then I realized the twisted moron was serious and the whole "Intelligent Design" thing went to the courts.
Golgafrinchams.
reply
share
Audie-T
18 years ago
Noone else besides NASA claims to have traveled to the Moon and back succesfully.
It's simply not verifiable. So according to Ocam's Razor, mankind most likely never went to the moon.
And the other feats of mankind that have never been repeated? For all I know they could be scams as well. Now the Mount Everest is visited regularly so I don't think that one's a hoax.
We only got NASA, some fuzzy recordings and photographs to prove that mankind ever set foot on the moon. And moonrocks that never travel outside of NASA's vaults. Sorry folks, but untill a second party lands on the moon and shows us the moonbuggies and landers left behind by NASA you got no reliable evidence.
Think you can trust your cat? Think Again!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
NASA is still sending out moon rock samples to geologists at the rate of about 1000 a year. If you're not a qualified geologist, find someone who is to ask if the moon rocks are genuine and whether they could have been faked or retrieved by an unmanned mission.
Apart from the rocks, Apollo was tracked by astronomers, professional and amateur, optical and radio, from countries all round the world, including cold-war enemies of the USA. If the Soviet Union with all their tracking systems and space-flight expertise believe NASA, who are you to doubt them?
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
"It's simply not verifiable."
Not according to many independent scientists, and foreign governments in direct competition with the USA at the time.
"So according to Ocam's Razor, mankind most likely never went to the moon."
I can throw that one right back at you, and use Occam's razor to say mankind most likely DID go to the moon. Witness the enormous amount of data and evidence they would have had to have faked, not once... but SIX times; the tens of thousands of people who would have had to be a party to the hoax.
"And the other feats of mankind that have never been repeated? For all I know they could be scams as well. Now the Mount Everest is visited regularly so I don't think that one's a hoax."
It was repeated. Six successful trips in total.
"We only got NASA, some fuzzy recordings and photographs to prove that mankind ever set foot on the moon. And moonrocks that never travel outside of NASA's vaults."
There is an enormous body of evidence, may I politely suggest you spend a little time on some research to find out for yourself.
"Sorry folks, but untill a second party lands on the moon and shows us the moonbuggies and landers left behind by NASA you got no reliable evidence."
Plenty of evidence. And surely you'd just say that any other missions would be faked too?
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
"And moonrocks that never travel outside of NASA's vaults"
I've held them personally.
you have to get take some training courses on how to properly handle them/secure them while they are in your posession, then request them. they come in a great case too.
really neat.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Thank you Audie-T, they can't believe the truth because it's too scary for them. They cannot accept the fact that their government lied and lies to them on a daily basis. We know the truth, let them live in a dream world.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
I'm well aware that the US government (and others) lie to their people.
Which is why I look objectively at the facts, and disregard political rhetoric.
All of which is completely irrelevant to this debate... but carry on muddying the waters anyway, doesn't really make any difference to the blind.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
wouldn't trust the USA govt farther than I could throw GWB.
still changes nothing, and your still ignoring and not addressing
the huge monster hole in your logic.
You keep changing the target and I'll keep putting it under your
nose:
the problem with moon hoax believers
is that they continually ignore the huge,
massive, enormous, hole in there argument
as if by ignoring it, there logic doesn't
simply crumble. But to believe that the
USA did not go to the moon, requires you
to live at a level of ignorance that you
would have to question ones ability to make
any form of rational thought.
the hole I'm
talking about is this:
THE SOVIET UNION IN THE HEIGHT OF THE COLD WAR CONCEIDED THE FACT THAT THE USA WENT TO THE MOON. The Soviet Union had the most to gain by exposing the hoax, had the most scientific equipment, money, and resources to uncover the hoax, and still has no problem with the claim. If as that is not enough, and if the USA actually did commit the most amazing hoax under the watchfull eyes of the entire world, completely documented it, etc, THE USA HAD THE BRAVADO TO ACTUALLY REPEAT THE HOAX, NOT ONCE, NOT TWICE, NOT THREE TIME, NOT FOUR TIMES, NOT JUST FIVE TIMES, BUT REPEATED FAKING MOON MISSIONS SIX MORE TIMES, JUST TO GIVE THE RUSSIANS EVERY OPPORTUNITY TO EXPOSE THE HOAX.
to believe that we faked the moon missions,
to any degree, means that the soviet union
couldn't of figured out the hoax. That
cannot be. It
would of been impossible for the USSR to
miss all of those things. In order for
their of been an hoax The hoax would have
to extent to the level that the entire
soviet union, the cold war, are also a hoax.
The soviet union could not of existed, the
cold war would also have been a hoax, every
olympic since 1960 also would of had faked
competition, ...
Please if your going to purport a hoax theory,
you must resolve ALL of the issues.
now let's say the USA is going to try and pull off this lame hoax that the HB'ers can see through in minutes; and they know the USSR will fall for it. Then the USA would of had to know that the USSR are the lamest, stupidest, morons on the planet without any possible chance of beating us to the moon!! Their wouldn't of been a race in the first place!
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Copy post, I can see how much the subject means to you now. The russians are in fact very stupid and we did go on the moon just like one bullet killed JFK and went through governor John Connally's back and hand...
Believe what you want. If lies is what you wish to believe than DO SO!
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
right, the soviets were very stupid.
http://www.jleslie48.com/badge_467.jpg
copy post is my original and you still don't address it. its part of my
lecture series on the space program. Yes I actually teach it. I've actually
studied the blueprints, the fuel rate consumption analysis, trajectory
correction burns, Fact is, you have
no evidence that the soviets were stupid, actually if you have studied
the subject even at the most basic you would know that they were quite the
experts in space travel. They had all the technology to make it to the moon,
and years before the USA, but lacked the organization. Their failure was nothing
more than poor management of a project.
and the magic bullet has been explained 1000x before.
I really feel sorry for you. having to walk around all day paranoid.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
LOL magic bullet has been explained before 1000x? I feel sorry for you for being so gullible. Multiple shots were fired on the day JFK was killed. That is a FACT. He didn't want to go to war, so they got rid of him - that simple. Wow I don't even want to know how you can explain the magic bullet that travelled through John Connally then magically changed trajectory and hit JFK in the head. Watch the videos again, the governor is HIT before JFK and then after his head gets blown off - somethings up.......
reply
share
heresjay
18 years ago
<b>they can't believe the truth because it's too scary for them.</b>
No, we don't believe what you say because we have mounds of evidence to the contrary, and you have no evidence for your own claims. You just bang this same tired old drum about how the only reason anyone would have for not agreeing with you is some sort of irrational loyalty.
In fact, you can't accept the possibility that there are people who know far more than you do about these things, and they aren't impressed by your made-up facts, your baseless assumptions, and your just-plain ignorance.
<b>They cannot accept the fact that their government lied and lies to them on a daily basis.</b>
I think it's highly probable that governments routinely lie. However, it is just as illogical to implicitly disbelieve something as it is implicitly to believe it. If you want to know for sure whether something is a lie, you look at the facts surround that specific case and you apply the best knowledge available to them.
I've examined NASA's claims and I've examined the conspiracy theorist's claims. I am professionally qualified to do so in this case. And I can say that there is absolutely NO QUESTION that NASA's claims are far better supported by facts than any conspiracy theory I've heard to date. You simply can't continue to try to convert this into a "who are you going to believe?" argument. The facts are clear on this, and they do not support your belief.
reply
share
heresjay
18 years ago
> No one else besides NASA claims to have traveled to the Moon and back succesfully.
And this proves exactly what? Must everything in history happen at least twice in order to be true?
Guess what: we only fought one World War II, and the "only" people who can testify to it are the people who were involved. Does that mean it's a fake too?
> It's simply not verifiable.
Apollo is as verifiable as any other historical event. More so, since meticulous records and materials
> So according to Ocam's Razor, mankind most likely never went to the moon.
Hogwash. We have moon rocks, photographs, video, direct observation, radio transmissions monitored by NASA's enemies, examples of the spacecraft, and millions of pages of documents. All those have to be explained.
Occam's Razor says that of all the theories that explain the observations, the simplest one is most likely correct. Can you provide ONE SHRED of evidence for, say, the moon rocks having been obtained by some other means? No -- all there is from the conspiracy theorists are vague, handwaving conjecture. That makes the conspiracy theory fail Occam's Razor: "simplicity" under that rule means not raising questions that have no answers. Since the conspiracy theorists can only guess at what "might" have been done to produce all that evidence, they lose.
> And the other feats of mankind that have never been repeated? For
> all I know they could be scams as well.
Well at least you can be praised for consistency if not for logic.
> We only got NASA...
Sure, only if you ignore the Russians. They infiltrated Apollo, monitored its radio communications, and even intercepted the television transmissions. The official policy of the Russians is still that the U.S. did indeed land on the moon.
> some fuzzy recordings...
Only Apollo 11 had poor television. The other missions had broadcast quality TV, perfect 16mm film, and hours and hours of audio recordings that were monitored by people all over the world and verified by their directional antennas to have come from the direction of the moon.
> and photographs...
Some 20,000 photographs, each fully consistent with the purported environment. Sure, the conspiracy theorists make a big deal about how they say the photos "must" have been faked. I love reading their explanations -- it's clear none of them has any training or experience whatsoever in photographic interpretation.
You simply dismiss all of this. You say somehow that this isn't enough. What exactly do you think there should be?
Further, we have the designs for the equipment and examples of it. I'm a professional engineer, and I've worked on space technology. I can give my professional opinion that the Apollo equipment -- which I have studied considerably -- was perfectly capable of carrying out the tasks assigned to it. If you're not going to really go, why would you build the equipment that could do it?
> And moonrocks that never travel outside of NASA's vaults.
Utter, complete hogwash. The Apollo samples are widely shared with scientists from many nations, including the Soviet Union in the 1970s.
> Sorry folks, but untill a second party lands on the moon and shows
> us the moonbuggies and landers left behind by NASA you got no reliable
> evidence.
And until someone fights World War II again, there's no "reliable evidence" it occurred either. Sheesh.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Wasn't talking to you know was I JLESLIE! Stay by your television and absorb the lies they spit and you. We'll see who's the idiot when your having a CHIP implanted into your hand to track you - for safety purposes....
reply
share
spinwit
18 years ago
"There are two types of people in the world; those who walk into a room and turn the TV on and those who immediatly turn it off."
A free deck of cards for the first person to place that.
reply
share
jleslie48
18 years ago
I know, but I had to look it up to find out the quote. I like it.
My original guess would of been Groucho Marx, because of his quote:
"I find television very educational. Every time I enter a room with
one on, I go into another room and pick up a book."
reply
share
spinwit
18 years ago
"I find television very educational. Every time I enter a room with
one on, I go into another room and pick up a book."
I wasn't aware of that one even though I love the Marx Brothers. I guess the basic theme involved with the quote is common and longstanding.
The only problem now is that I promised a deck of cards... you should play a game of solitair and forget that I said that. Or jump in a lake.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
Dude, get help.
Or at least pick a more interesting conspiracy theory, and get your rhetoric together. Not only do you not make any real points, you simply tell everyone who doesn't believe you that they are just zombies following their government - which may or may not be true. You don't have any facts, any evidence, or any 'game.' You're just spouting what you heard on Art Bell or somewhere.
What is CLEAR is that you are simply repeating theories and ideas that YOU didn't invent - you've haven't come up with anything yourself either - you're as much of a folllower as the people you're putting down for not believing a silly scenario you are very poor at articulating. So who are you following? My guess is it's a nutty uncle or the voices in the walls of your cell.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
GOsh Bobvious, you had to continue this, I think you enjoy hearing me telling you the truth - you're just too convoluted in your complex life and can't or rather, don't want to accept it. I say we didn't go on the moon, and I am correct. I say JFK was murdered by our government, yet again I'm correct. I say 9-11 was allowed by our government to happen (I'm being very lenient right now) ANd yet again I'm correct. BElieve what is told to you, not my problem -but many know I'm right. I've seen the videos, I've seen the evidence, the moon landing was a hoax. Sure, let's go 200 thousand miles away, through the VAN ALLEN BELT - land on the moon, take over 20 thousand photos in perfect focus, go BACK TO OUR COMMAND MODULE< and back to Earth all on one shot. They can't even get their spacecraft to reenter correctly in the 21st century, with ALL This technology, and over 35 years ago they went to the moon and came back perfectly....... You are lied to every day of your life, wake up and see the truth.
POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Which just confirms what Bobvious said, you've got no evidence, you're just a sucker for conspiracy theory web sites.
Do a bit of research, find out what the radiation levels actually are in the Van Allen belts. If you can't do this, can't produce any evidence on how long you need to stay in them to get a dangerous dose, don't know why the Shuttle has a more fragile heat shield than Apollo, why should we listen to anything you say?
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
Amusing? Not really. You don't have enough game to make it funny. You're just pathetic.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Lol, somebody had to "UPDATE" his initial response, you're the pathetic one. Doesn't even know what to say online. You know the truth, we didn't go on the moon, and you just can't admit it. And it's quite OBVIOUS that you are brainwashed like most of the users on this website. Stay away from these boards, BOB.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Sure, let's go 200 thousand miles away, through the VAN ALLEN BELT
What's the problem with the Van Allen belt? Even the person who discovered them knows they didn't pose a serious health problem for the Apollo astronauts. They passed through the belts quite quickly, receiving a relatively small dose. This will give them a "sligtly" increased risk of cancer throughout their lifetime - but it is nowhere near enough to prevent them actually travelling through the belts. Their dosimeters showed they received the same exposure as a chest X-ray. Do some independent research... don't blindly listen to the conspiracy websites or videos, they have their own agenda... parting fools with their cash.
- land on the moon, take over 20 thousand photos in perfect focus
The number you quote is for ALL SIX landings, not just one. And they most certainly NOT all in perfect focus.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11-40-5904.jpg
Took me two minutes to find this blurred image - there are many others. Did you even bother trying to verify your own claims?
go BACK TO OUR COMMAND MODULE< and back to Earth all on one shot. They can't even get their spacecraft to reenter correctly in the 21st century, with ALL This technology, and over 35 years ago they went to the moon and came back perfectly.......
Of course they can - ever heard of the space shuttle? Spacetravel is inherently dangerous... technology can reduce those dangers, but never eliminate them. Ask the Apollo 13 crew.
You are lied to every day of your life, wake up and see the truth.
Maybe we are. And indeed you should.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Ooo, Apollo 13 was just as fake as anything they've told us. They needed something "extra" to spice up the news at night and they said Apollo 13 was in danger - truth was they were floating in space with no problems. Malfunction in space = YOU BLOW UP. Well I'm going to invade a country because they have weapons of mass destruction. POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
Right, you're scaring me.
Warm thoughts, you poor retarded soul.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Powersoul, you appear to be blissfully happy in your ignorance, despite the well meaning intentions of many on this thread to help you see through the conspiracists claims. Which makes me feel somewhat sad.
Hopefully when you're a little older and have matured somewhat, you'll be able to revisit the issue with an open mind.
For starters, you could do a lot worse than browsing www.clavius.org.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
PowerSoul, you are becoming an inconvenient presence on this board. Please call BOps Delta Z now or expect the consequences as illustrated in the waiver form S-S99 you signed while aboard the mother ship Ex-Warf Z100l in the year of your brain implant, 1997. Your frequent revelations of super top-secret, highly detailed confidential information to the general public can no longer be ignored. You are hereby requested to call your psychiatrist, request a tripling of your current doseage of ALL psychotropics, and remain calm and concealed in your tuff-shed mountain cabin in the mountains above sedona. We strongly urge you not to reveal any more details (and please don't mention the mother ship... oops).
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Of course Bobvious, immediately pointing me towards medicine that is not the cure to problems, in fact it is the CAUSE of most of today's problems. Typical of a person who follows his government without question. The websites I mentioned were websites in reference to all the lies that are being told to us about current affairs. If our government liES TO US now and today, which they do, why wouldn't they lie about the apollo missions going to the moon, which in fact they didn't go to the moon - just hovering in low orbit. I will pick up that book btw to cook some pies, I love pie.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050! POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
about the apollo missions going to the moon, which in fact they didn't go to the moon - just hovering in low orbit.
Ignoring the fact that it is physically impossible to "hover" in low orbit, if they were in low orbit, why did no-one see them? The Apollo stack was quite a large object, similar to the Skylab space station which was highly visible.
You've been posting to this thread for quite a while, and I'm still waiting for you to come up with evidence for your beliefs. Face it, you don't have any - you are just the gullible type that falls for the nonsense on conspiracy websites.
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Powersoul
We all KNOW that YOUR Government (not mine) lies to you on various issues... as do governments the world over. This is not empirical evidence proving that NASA faked the Apollo programme.
The owners of some websites also lie to you. They have their own agenda, and are not all desperately seeking "the truth". You need to use bit of nous. Not EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. The proponents of the Apollo Hoax Theory are capitalising on people's ignorance of the facts, inability (or sheer laziness) to do their own research, and inbuilt mis-trust of the government to peddle their lies (oh, and their DVDs - at $30 - $50 a pop. I wonder what their REAL motivation is?)
Powersoul - why not register on this forum and speak to some of the people on there? What's the worse that can happen? After all, if they're all just government dis-information agents, you'll be doing the "Truth Movement" a greatservice by using up their valuable resources.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com
There's also the possibility that you might learn something about "the truth". Maybe that possibility scares you?
reply
share
spinwit
18 years ago
The proponents of the Apollo Hoax Theory are capitalising on people's ignorance of the facts, inability (or sheer laziness) to do their own research, and inbuilt mis-trust of the government to peddle their lies (oh, and their DVDs - at $30 - $50 a pop. I wonder what their REAL motivation is?)
Excellent point. The history of conspiracy/hoax theories make it blatantly obvious that the primary motivation behind them is profit (though there certainly are elements of ideological/political agendas) yet the people who defend them usually point out some financial motivation for the suppression of the "Truth".
The contradictions and bizarre, scattershot reasoning are maddening.
I also find it amusing how many of the HB/CT are
Americans while the world over it's not much of an issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.comThat's an interesting site, thanks for posting the link, I'll be browsing it tonight.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
The Apollo astronauts themselves were forced to lie about the moon mission. They are being watched by the FBI and any attempt to go public will lead to their unexpected death. Many people have been killed by the government to put a lid on the moon hoax.
Now here's my final answer.... And it might even be extreme for me... How can you go on the moon, if there is no moon.
http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
THE MOON DOES NOT EXIST! SEE THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Many people have been killed by the government to put a lid on the moon hoax.
You're making a pretty serious allegation.
On your track record, let me guess, you've not a shred of evidence to back it up.
Right?
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Hmmm... seems I was correct weeks ago.
Happy trolling, Powersoul.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Guys, I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Even I believe there is a moon, but I don't believe we landed on it. It takes us NOW in the 21st century 2 years to just get a shuttle into space! And of course, we are able to get to the moon and back on our first try perfectly. BOLLOCKS.
HERE IS ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
It has everything from top to bottom, the Van Allen Belt, the camera issues, the SHADOW ANoMAlies - the list goes on and on!
reply
share
thecaffeinatedone
18 years ago
Guys, I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Even I believe there is a moon, but I don't believe we landed on it. It takes us NOW in the 21st century 2 years to just get a shuttle into space! And of course, we are able to get to the moon and back on our first try perfectly. BOLLOCKS.
http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
Now, sit down and shut up.
"I'm a mean Christian!"
-Ann Coulter
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Your website is a load of crap.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
It was impossible to go to the moon then, and NOW, of course they want to "RETURN" to the moon. Seems to me like they're going to start another full blown conflict in the middle east, and they want the "moon" expedition to get our minds off of it.
Caffeine, why don't you get off of these boards and leave the arguing to Flyinswan, postbuk and I. You obviously don't know the facts, and the truth is whatever FACTS we tell you NASa is going to come up with some techno-jargon to counter us. And the simplest explanations are always the truth. We have the facts, we have the evidence, your techno-jargon means nothing.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
"The Moon Does Not Exist! See the Truth For Yourself"
PowerSoul: you are either
1) taking the piss or
2) the stupidest person ever to figure out how to log onto the internet.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
HERE IS ALL THE PROOF YOU NEED
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
The problem with your "proof" is that it has all been shown to vanish when looked at in detail. Whoever put that page together doesn't understand the lighting conditions on the lunar surface, how dust behaves in a low-gravity vacuum, perspective, photographic exposure and several branches of physics relevant to the moon.
Someone saying "I don't understand this, it must be a fake" is not proof of a fake, it's proof of the speaker's lack of knowledge.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
"the MOON doesn't exit post" was done to show that even I have standards. I in no way can be considered an EXTREME compared to all the wackos out there. ALl I stated was we didn't land on the moon, many people believe that statement and I've provided you all with proof:
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
You have to realize, you genius-in-your-own-mind: irony is COMPLETELY invisible on a message board. Idiot.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Proof? You've pointed us to one web page that repeats a lot of claims which appear anomalous to the page's author, all of which have been comprehensively explained.
Proof is finding someone involved in the hoax who can explain how it was done. How were all the worlds geologists fooled by the Apollo rocks? Who put the laser reflectors on the moon? What did the worlds' astronomers observe when they thought they were observing Apollo? How can you film hour-long sequences that appear to be in a 1/6th g vacuum? Why didn't the Russians, with their space tracking expertise, detect a hoax?
Well, where's the proof?
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Funny, no way to prove what you've just stated either. "moon rocks" are actually rocks from alaska. Laser Reflectors if any don't need to be put by man, they can simply be launched to the moon. 1/6th g vacuum? They don't even go above 1 foot when they jump, their in studio hoax was simply recorded at 100+ frames a second, slow motion. Impossible to track shuttles location with technology then.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
"moon rocks" are actually rocks from alaska.
Name a geologist who thinks so.
Laser Reflectors if any don't need to be put by man, they can simply be launched to the moon.
If any? There are observatories in several countries using them. And which unmanned mission put them there?
1/6th g vacuum?
Look at the way the dust behaves, it never billows as it would in air.
They don't even go above 1 foot when they jump, their in studio hoax was simply recorded at 100+ frames a second, slow motion.
Speed up any bit of lunar surface film longer than the carefully selected short clips on the conspiracy websites. It will look ridiculous. There are shots of astronauts doing a five foot standing jump to get back on the LM ladder. All consistent with 1/6 g.
Impossible to track shuttles location with technology then.
Surprising what can be done. In 1966 a bunch of schoolchildren with a secondhand HF receiver announced the location of a new Russian launch site.
reply
share
thecaffeinatedone
18 years ago
Your website is a load of crap.
Why? Because it beats the living the crap out of the no moon theory?
Waaaaa...
"I'm a mean Christian!"
-Ann Coulter
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Oh, now of course another fake mission to go to the moon. TO take our minds off of the middle EAST WAr. We couldn't go to the moon half a century ago, and we can't go now.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
PowerSoul, please adjust your tin-foil hat to the left. We can't quite scan your brain from here inside the mountain unless you are standing still with the tin foil hat just so.
You are right by the way: while an infinite series of lies and deceptions have taken place to convince people that 'we' went to the moon, there are absolutely no living witnesses to any of the activities, no movie industry refugees showing pictures of the sound stage where the moon walks were staged. That is because they are all dead.
So adjust your hat, PowerSoul. Or else you may find yourself recalling this famous statement:
I hated my hat until I saw a man with no head.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Insinuating threats are we Bobvious. I've finally gotten to you to the point where you feel my facts are reaching out to the masses. THIS BOARD KNOWs I speak the truth. They know we DIDN't Go on the moon. THEY've seen the videos and they know it's just a bunch of crap. For the government you expected a bit better, an 11 year student with some cardboard can make a video more convincing than Nasa's lunar Module flying off of the 'moons' surface.
Adjust your glasses Bobvious, for you may find yourself recalling this statement:
IGNORANCE IS BLISS>
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
Oh, puh-lease. You are a piece of work, PowerSoul. I have not insinuated any threats. I've playfully created a voice that's in your head from the Mother Ship. You'd no sooner believe any of the crap I might say than if I actually did threaten you. Walk it off, nut job.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Sure, reneging on your previous comment - typical of you nasa types. Oh and now you're a psychic, the list keeps growing... what else are you? You must be part of the FBI, trying to muscle me around to keep quit. I don't FEAR YOU! THE TRUTH SHALL GET OUT! THE WORLD WILL KNOW we didn't go on the moon! I guess you're also playfully going along with the 'we-went-on-the-moon-story' as well. No worries Bobvious, the majority of the population knows, and as with any event the government wants us to forget, they never mention it.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050!
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Yes, we all know what PowerSoul is. He only has to be accused of trolling to come back at us with another example of just that.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
Nasa types?
FBI?
Muscle you around?
Fear me?
The TRUTH?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!
THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION KNOWS?????????????????
OK, I'm gonna go out on a limb: you are taking the piss. You don't believe anything you've been writing. I'm humbled by your level of comedy. Sometimes the most brilliant jokers appear to be the most profoundly idiotic, retarded, stupid ass-hats. Here we have another fine example: PowerSoul.
OOH, FEAR ME, POWERSOUL!
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
One would have to be dumber than a box of moonrocks to continually believe the load of nonsense the Powersoul keeps dishing out- a condition that would make it all but impossible put a single word together, much less the hundreds of internet postings attributed to him/her...
So, it would make sense that Powersoul is brilliantly maintaining some sort of act. Too bad this talent, effort, and commitment couldn't have gone to better use. If so, we could have COLONIZED the moon by now.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Right, an act.... Now you've decided to call the "truth" an act. Honest, I've said everything I could, I've posted websites that show pictures and questions that cannot be answered honestly.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Visit this website, and scroll to the bottom of the page - click on the LUNAR MODULE taking off from the moons surface. Tell me #1 how did they get the camera there in perfect setting recording the take off. AND THEN! Just look at the take off, it looks as if it's from a B sci-fi flick - this is all just terribly fake.
Visit the website and read the FACTS for yourself, and ask yourselves hte questions. Even president Clinton doubted the moon landings in his autobiography, he of course is not telling all.
We cannot go beyond the Van Allen Belt, without that belt we are unprotected from the sun's radiation - this is a facT! That is why we remain in low orbit - any attempt to reach outer orbit has resulted in failure. Truth is it will take at least another 50 years till we get on the moon. Until then,
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!
V
I
S
I
T
W
E
B
S
I
T
E
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Tell me #1 how did they get the camera there in perfect setting recording the take off. AND THEN! Just look at the take off, it looks as if it's from a B sci-fi flick - this is all just terribly fake
TV camera on the rover, remotely operated from earth. Because of the communications lag, the operator had to lead the LM position using the pre-planned ascent trajectory. Fascinating story, look it up. Until you demonstrate some expertise on the subject, I'm not impressed by your opinion that it's fake.
We cannot go beyond the Van Allen Belt, without that belt we are unprotected from the sun's radiation - this is a facT!
Until you come up with some evidence for this - this is your unfounded opinion.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Check out the website, that's all you can say - oH you're opinion is "unfounded" Proof from scientist are all over the web, including the website I posted.
What more evidence do you need? You are lied to on a daily basis, that alone should be enough for you to tell yourself: "wait just a minute here, if they lied to us about this now, they must've lied about that then"
Apollo missions were done to take our minds off of the vietnam war, just as now they're planning a new mission to go on the moon - take our minds off of the war in the middle east which will last a very very long time.
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Proof from scientist are all over the web, including the website I posted.
What scientists? That website has Bill Kaysing, a librarian, David Percy, a photographer, and an Australian woman with an unreliable memory.
...if they lied to us about this now, they must've lied about that then...
...the war in the middle east...
You contradict yourself. The US government says they've got troops in Iraq, but they lie about everything, therefore they haven't. The middle east war is a hoax.
You may think that's not much of an argument, but it's exactly equivalent to your argument about Apollo being a hoax.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
"WE CANNOT GO BEYOND THE VAN ALLEN BELT."
prove it, numbnuts.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
PROVE THAT WE WENT BEYOND IT!
Proof is out there for you to view, you've seen the lunar module take off from
the "moon" you've seen the mistakes in their video - now just say to yourself, maybe this isn't real.
The astronauts back then were able to move more freely on the "moon" than they can move now in the 21st century! You've seen how imobile the spacesuits are in their current missions - they can barely move their hands and arms a bit. But over 30 years ago they were able to jump around on the moon and take over 2000 photographs?
Take some time and look at the photos of the crane site used to fake the missions.
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
And more photos
http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/APOLLOSCAM/
Here is more proof for you
http://www.geocities.com/apollofacts/
Folks this is right in front of your face.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
If incessantly calling something a "fake" proves that it is, then sure it's all right in front of our faces... even if we are just "Pro-NASA nutters".
Okay, so you aren't acting. In fact, you aren't alone, which means that you're actually part of a conspiracy that's almost as elaborate as the one that you seek to expose. Have at it. Live your conspiracy as the question of whether or not Apollo actually landed on the Moon is the centerpiece of your life.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Why is the truth considered a conspiracy? Why is everything considered a conspiracy by the powers that be. Question your superiors, and discover the truth.
POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
Truth in itself is not a conspiracy. Being part of a group that promotes a "Truth" that is based exclusively on theory, conjecture, and fantasy, without physical evidence, is.
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
Pretty tenuous defintion of "evidence" there Powersoul, not at all unlike the lunar atmosphere. Wonder how any of THAT would hold up to the Van Allen Belts.
It''s all completely foolish and worthy of far more contempt than any of us could muster here.
Yet at the end of the day, what difference does it really make in our lives if it was a big hoax? Afterall, none of us have no real interests in being there. Okay, so it proves that the government LIES and is capable of widescale deception. Not exactly a shocking revelation. We aren't naïve enough to NOT know that outside of a "Moon Hoax"
Even as a hoax, you've got to give them credit for at least trying to pull it off. The technological advances alone were more than worth the "price of admission". What exactly have your rants, and those of all your co-cultists, accomplished in comparison?
"POWERSOUL OUT!" ? We can only hope so. You really need to get help.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Yes, needing help because I'm not gullible and can see things from multiple points? I used to believe in the apollo missions, oh when I was say, 8 years old. More evidence points to the truth and fact that we DID not land on the moon. Hard for you to believe since you accept any lies that the government spits your way but the truth hurts.
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
Of course I'm impressed in the efforts Nasa undertook to orchestrate this hoax but it's nothing more, a mockery aided by the power of film. I don't even think you visited the website, truly just observe the models/sets they made. View the crane holding the lunar vehicle and the Lunar module.
And can you tell me why NASA edits their photographs/VIDEOS?! They have gone and fixed ANOMALIES that us "conpiracy theorist" have discovered. There was the letter "C" on one of the stones in a photo released by nasa. The letter "C" is a film term for ceneter of the shot. I'm sure the astronauts were able to CARVE a c into a rock in those spacesuits where the sun glare can BLIND YOU!
Funny how spacesuits 40 years ago can be smaller and more mobile than the current ones. Even though once you past low orbit cosmic radiation due to the Van Allen Belt and solar flares can melt them.
Bottom line here is Russia tried to get to the moon and failed, USA knew they couldn't go to the moon and staged the whole thing. Listen to this folks, we went to the moon over 6 times within a 4 year period. Doesn't that just sound a bit surreal? It takes us 2 YEARS just to get into low orbit now because of a faulty FOAM tile - and 40 years ago we went on the moon 6 TIMES! LANDED and everything perfect? Use some common sense.
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
PLEASE visit this website, it has everything from the hoax, to the facts, to the REALITY of the events. And TWilk, if you're not going to visit the website don't bother posting stating things you haven't seen yet. I visit all the sites that support the moon landings, I know both sides.
SEND MAN to the moon by 2050!!
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!!!
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
yeah, whatever...
and of course I visited the website... what a load of rubbish. For starters, the test sites look like the "moon"... it's because they're SUPPOSED to. That's what TESTING is all about.
reply
share
thecaffeinatedone
18 years ago
THIS BOARD KNOWs I speak the truth.
Dude, you're a dumbass.
"I'm a mean Christian!"
-Ann Coulter
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Stick to your resident evil boards/aliens. You don't know what's been going on so just KEEP OUT OF IT. Why don't you worship ANn Coulter a little more, a lady who wants to bomb the middle east, ban islam and convert everyone to Christianity. YOU ARE DUMBASS For quoting that psycho lady.
She's over the top, I'm just realistic and stating the obvious.
POWERSOUL OUT!
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
" I'm just realistic and stating the obvious."
Realistically, you are obviously an ass.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
SEems to me you didn't see the previous post before mine.
"Dude, you're a dumbass."
"I'm a mean Christian!"
-Ann Coulter
The person who called my a dumbass is a fan of Ann Coulter - enough said. So don't speak BOBVIOUS before you know what's going on.
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
PowderSoil:
I know what's going on: you have certain beliefs without foundation, proof, or facts (it's called in certain quarters "religion"). That's what's going on. The lineage of who called you a what when is moot. It has more truth than a million of your ludicrous, idiotic, baseless, wacko postings. You're an idiot. Case closed.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
just say to yourself, maybe this isn't real.
Just say to yourself, "Powersoul has no expertise to judge whether this is real." Why do aerospace engineers disagree with you?
The astronauts back then were able to move more freely on the "moon" than they can move now in the 21st century! You've seen how imobile the spacesuits are in their current missions - they can barely move their hands and arms a bit. But over 30 years ago they were able to jump around on the moon and take over 2000 photographs?
You're making things up again, you know nothing about space suits. How did the Shuttle astronauts fix the Hubble telescope or assemble the International space station?
Take some time and look at the photos of the crane site used to fake the missions.
Or alternatively, the crane used to train the astronauts. If it was part of a fake, why should NASA publicise it before the moon landings?
Edit to add: Just noticed that you mentioned a second web page of "Apollo Facts". I quote:
"FACT: Rumor has it that ..."
Which just about says it all.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
We've now resorted to Name calling. Well bObLivious you didn't bother to even check out the website I linked. Believe it or not you might even be the minority in this argument. You are pathetic, useless, green, and ignorant. A person who refuses to see both sides of the coin and is so narrowminded that the thought of the reality scares him. I pitty you, I truly do. One day you will wake up and realize I was right all along.
SEND A MAN TO THE MOON By 2050!
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Believe it or not you might even be the minority in this argument.
You don't decide matters of historical fact by democratic vote. Yet another attempt to cover for the fact that you have zero evidence.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
You have my sincere promise: I will NEVER "check out" a link you provide. You are of no possible value to me as a reference to 'fact.' I visit this thread with one purpose: to see what idiotic wacko out-of-left-field unsupported statement you make next. You are ALMOST as interesting as a caged monkey.
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
LOL, Bob... At least give the monkey credit for wanting to get out of its cage if it had the chance. This fool could leave anytime he wants, yet keeps ranting on, month after month. It would get monotonous, however, if there weren't a few childish insults tossed in from time to time.
It is quite amusing.
I would suggest, however, that you DO check out his website. It's quite a gem, not because it's profound, but because it makes the idiocy so much "richer".
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/
Right, I show you facts and you people are talking about monkeys. I've spent enough time on this board. I've convinced a good amount who looked at both sides of the argument. The website I've posted shows the dubious lunar landing and takeoff. When the lunar module landed there was no smoke, ofcourse nasa says some bogus story. THEN! When it takes off in the most ridiculous liftoff I've ever seen in my life, there's smoke all over the place - then it goes even higher and the sky looks blue! I thought we were on the moon guys! Oh of course the three stooges have to try and mock me - yes, it is quite amusing twilk. The facts are in front of you and you refuse to believe. The fake moon, the fake lunar module, and the crane set up in a secret base to mimic the moons gravity. They couldn't get 250000 miles away so they faked the whole thing. I'm off for vacation, honest I think I'll start posting a daily journal, I think most of you will find it interesting since you have nothign better to do than try and refute my FACTS!
I AM POWERSOUL! I SPEAK THE TRUTH! SEND A MAN TO THE MOON BY 2050!!!1
POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!
UNtil next time.... that is, if there is a next time.....
reply
share
twilk
18 years ago
"Right, I show you facts and you people are talking about monkeys."
Yeah, we're REALLY obsessed about those monkeys.
"I've spent enough time on this board. I've convinced a good amount who looked at both sides of the argument."
You've got to be joking... Unless, of course, f you consider ZERO to be a "good amount"...
"The fake moon, the fake lunar module, and the crane set up in a secret base to mimic the moons gravity. They couldn't get 250000 miles away so they faked the whole thing."
That's the most hysterical use of "fake. fake. fake" since Elaine's routine from Seinfeld.
"I'm off for vacation, honest I think I'll start posting a daily journal, I think most of you will find it interesting since you have nothign better to do than try and refute my FACTS!"
Yeah, keep posting that journal... we'll find it MOST interesting. LOL
sincerely
stooge #1
reply
share
postbaguk
18 years ago
Powersoul
All the dis-information on the site you linked has been thoroughly de-bunked on this site and others. No need to debunk it all again as you simply ignore any rebuttals given on here, and plod on with your hand-waving and strawmen arguments.
The site you mentioned refers to the Langley Research Centre, which NOT a "secret base". NASA's own website provides a map on how to get there:-
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/about/directions.html
And you can read some more about the NASA Langley Amateur Radio Club which also now uses the facility here:-
http://larc-exchange.larc.nasa.gov/lea/amateur-radio/
Why should we take you remotely seriously when you can't even research the Hoax Conspiracy sites that make stuff up about Apollo?
And if you don't believe we went to the moon, this should give you food for thought:-
http://exploration.larc.nasa.gov/
Quote from your HT site:-
"In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine."
A statement so laughable that I find it hard to believe you took the rest of the site seriously - it comes across as being a wind-up, for which you clearly fell, and are allowing it to feed your troll-like appetite for nonsense.
POWERSOUL - GET A LIFE AND OPEN YOUR EYES BY 2050.
Stooge #2
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
"...... in the most ridiculous liftoff I've ever seen in my life,"
'Nuf said: you imply that you've seen many many liftoffs. I agree: you've seen the Mother Ship take off and land numerous times -- in the field across from the Nut House you call home.
I can't argue with that kind of authority, PowerSoul - you've obviously seen lots of liftoffs. Lunar, Terrestrial, and otherwise.
By the way, which booth are you in at ComicCon this weekend?
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
Very Funny BOBvious, I have returned ladies and gentlemen... I have returned from the moon. I found no lunar module, nor any flag there. Which means one thing, and one thing only - we did NOT land on the moon. It's hard for some to believe, yes I know, but you were all lied to. And of course Nasa uses some high-tech voice altering device to change Neil Armstrong's first words on the 'moon' They change everything all the time, I've seen photos dated from 20 years ago and now they've changed them. They'll do is so slowly that you won't even notice, just like the far-fetched notion of "evolution" -- WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEY'S!
Perhaps in the near future we will make that giant leap for mankind but until then! POWERSOUL OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
WE DID NOT COME FROM MONKEY'S!
Oh no, after multiple posts demonstrating his ignorance of Apollo, he's now starting on his ignorance of biology.
reply
share
PowerSoul
18 years ago
If you think that we came from monkeys then you are truly lost.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Maybe Powersoul didn't come from a monkey, maybe he's a 'bot. Would explain the total lack of originality in his thinking.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Looked at that website. How come a lot of training equipment is proof of a hoax? Would you want to go to the moon without any training? And if the equipment is part of a hoax, why doesn't it look anything like the moon in the Apollo photos and videos?
Ludicrous.
The author of the site is a total ignoramus. As proof, here is a quote from the site:
"Earth diameter is 7,900 miles, and Moon diameter is 2,160 miles. It takes on average 90 minutes to complete one Earth orbit, so one Moon orbit should take roughly 25 minutes."
If you can't see what is so ridiculous about this quote, you do not know enough science to discuss Apollo at all.
reply
share
bobvious
18 years ago
The only thing that is certain with you, Powersoul, is that you will always want the last word - even if you have to wait 2 months for your local backwoods library to let you back onto the old IBM Pentium 1 after your two month suspension for some sort of forbidden computer activity. And here you are, back on IMDB stirring the pot. You'll never learn.
reply
share
sidnum
18 years ago
Can anyone who believes we went to the moon at least consider the possibility that we didn't? Curious.
reply
share
flyingswan
18 years ago
Can anyone who believes we went to the moon at least consider the possibility that we didn't?
Well, I could, but then I'd have to find a geologist who could explain how to fake moon rocks, an astronomer who could explain all the observations of "something" going to the moon and back, a communications engineer who could explain how telemetry, audio and video appeared to come from the moon, a special effects expert who could explain how to fake a low-gravity vacuum...
reply
share
jaywindley
18 years ago
Can anyone who believes we went to the moon at least consider the possibility that we didn't?
It depends on what you mean by "consider the possibility". If you just mean to accept for the sake of argument that it's hypothetically possible we didn't really go, then yes, I can certainly do that. Any rational person who holds a belief must accept the possibility that his belief is wrong. But the possibility that he is wrong isn't a meaningful argument that he is wrong. One is a categorical question; the other is an empirical question.
Let's say you're a lawyer and a witness gives damning evidence against your cause. You tell the jury, "But it's possible this witness is lying." Of course that's possible -- it's always possible -- but pointing it out isn't proof he is lying. If you propose to explain away his evidence by saying he's lying, you have to show actual proof of the lie, not just some abstract possibility.
Conspiracy theorists believe that all they need to do is suggest some alternate possibility in order to impeach a rational belief in Apollo. That implies that people who believe in Apollo must necessarily believe it was impossible to fake. Instead one only has to show reason to believe it wasn't faked, not that it was impossible to fake.
Now if you can show that something is impossible, that's one good way of proving it wasn't done. But you don't have to prove it that way. You can show that something likely wasn't done because the evidence suggests something else was done instead to achieve the same result.
So we may say, for example, that faking moon rocks in Earth laboratories is impossible. But we don't have to do that in order to argue that the moon rocks weren't made that way. We can simply show that there's more evidence they were brought back by astronauts from the moon than that they were made in a lab. In fact, if you were to argue that the moon rocks were made in a lab, you'd have the burden of proof to show how and where they were actually made. If you can't, then we have no obligation to consider that it actually happened that way. It might remain an abstract possibility, but it has no value in explaining how we got the rocks.
Instead we can produce the astronauts who say they did it. We can show examples of the spacecraft that were used, and talk with the people who produced them. We can submit those designs to people who know about spacecraft and have them tell us whether they are valid designs. We can talk to the people who operated the missions and who can make testable statements about how it was done.
Is all that conclusive? Of course not. It doesn't have to be the only explanation, just the best one according to the evidence.
That's they key idea.
If you propose that the Apollo landings were faked, then you still have to account for all the evidence and materials associated with it. Accounting for it goes way beyond merely contemplating other ways in which that material might have come about. "Considering the possibility" means showing that the possiblity is actually better at explaining the evidence than all the others. We may consider it and dismiss it if it doesn't account for the observations better than some other possibility. That's not unfair or irrational.
Conspiracists conceive of the problem like this: "Since it was possible to do it some other way, we'll believe that's how it was done until you prove conclusively it was done the way you say." That's improperly presumptive. They set the bar very, very low for themselves and very high for any who disagree with them. They make it sound like all one needs to do is show some other possibility and that "automatically" becomes a sort of default explanation.
Instead the problem is formulated better like this: "If there are two or more possible ways to have done something, then let's see which of them is more likely actually to have been done." So "considering the possibility" of fakery means comparing it on equal evidentiary footing with other possibilities to see which one best explains the observations without raising more questions. When the hoax theory plays on an equal playing field that requires evidence that a hoax actually occurred (not merely that it wasn't impossible), the hoax theory fails miserably.
I believe we went to the moon because I have extensively considered all the possibilities put to me and evaluated them according to how they explain the evidence.
reply
share
sidnum
18 years ago
Gee, what did you score on the Bar? :) I was kinda just looking for a yes or no, but I am very intrigued by your post. I'm just glad to hear from someone with an open mind for a change. Thanks.
reply
share
jaywindley
18 years ago
Thanks for reading it -- I do tend to ramble on. I'm an engineer by profession, actually. I've spent quite a great deal of time considering the alternative scenarios proposed in the conspiracy theories. So that's where the overkill comes from.
reply
share
ta_naemhni
14 years ago
"I have returned from the moon. I found no lunar module, nor any flag there. Which means one thing, and one thing only - we did NOT land on the moon."
OK, so, just so I'm clear here... you're using your own landing on the moon as proof that no one has ever landed on the moon?
reply
share
ta_naemhni
14 years ago
"http://www.revisionism.nl/Moon/The-Mad-Revisionist.htm
THE MOON DOES NOT EXIST! SEE THE TRUTH FOR YOURSELF!"
If you read that site closely and critically (which is, admittedly, something that you don't appear to be capable of), you would realize that it is a spoof of precisely the type of conspiracy theory that you are a proponent of. And a brilliantly done spoof at that, I might add... so well done, in fact, that a conspiracy theorist is now himself using it in support of a conspiracy theory, thus demonstrating the site's point: conspiracy theorists lack critical thinking skills. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
reply
share