Following on from the radiation in Space thread
18 September 2006, 03:41 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from the radiation in Space thread
And have we been to the moon because of radiation
Check this site out. Quite interesting
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Some interesting extracts.
On the web site is a video :
This footage shows the Apollo 11 crew pre-recording supposed 'live' footage. Armstrong claims that they are 130,000 miles from Earth, and yet we soon discover that the camera is placed on the other side of the cabin, with the windows blacked out, filming the Earth through the round window opposite. Why would they do this if they wanted the best shot of the Earth? The answer is simple - to fool the public into thinking that it is far away, when in fact the craft is still in Earth orbit. How do we know this? Because just before the camera is turned off, the windows are uncovered to reveal blue sky!
Worth a look !!
The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?
RADIATION
Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.
Probably the most convincing argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!
September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.
Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.
CONCLUSIONS
How did man manage to collect the rock samples if we didn't go to the Moon???
750 lbs or so were said to be collected on the Apollo missions. This maybe so, but according to official NASA records, only a couple of pounds were actually collected by the astronauts. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results.
Did you know that two years before the Apollo 11 mission, its lead scientist Dr. Werner Van Braun made a trip to Antartica which is a prime area for collection Moon rocks?
Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?
They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was travelling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Kaysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Kaysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!
Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence?
Check out the film documentary at the top of this page showing NASA employees talking about how they were instructed to airbrush out anomalies on the Moons surface.
consider this. The distance that Man allegedly had to travel to get to the Moon was the equivalent of 30 Earth diameters. Now compare that with the greatest distance that Man has travelled since then (in the Shuttle) which is 400 miles. That is the equivalent of just 1/2 an inch from the Earth compared to the distance travelled to the Moon.
Von Braun said in his book 'Conquest To The Moon' (published in 1953) that it would be impossible to send anyone to the Moon because of the sheer size of craft needed to do the trip. In fact, taking Von Braun's calculations into consideration, a spaceship that needed to travel that distance would have had to be 266 times bigger than the Saturn 5.
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?
J. F. Kennedy announced in 1962 that Man would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man allegedly did just that. But more than 35 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?
SOME FURTHER POINTS
The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
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.
Check this site out. Quite interesting
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
Some interesting extracts.
On the web site is a video :
This footage shows the Apollo 11 crew pre-recording supposed 'live' footage. Armstrong claims that they are 130,000 miles from Earth, and yet we soon discover that the camera is placed on the other side of the cabin, with the windows blacked out, filming the Earth through the round window opposite. Why would they do this if they wanted the best shot of the Earth? The answer is simple - to fool the public into thinking that it is far away, when in fact the craft is still in Earth orbit. How do we know this? Because just before the camera is turned off, the windows are uncovered to reveal blue sky!
Worth a look !!
The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time. The exhaust jet coming out of the LEM on descent or ascent should have created an enormous cloud of reddish coloured gas, instead we see the bursting apart of the milar covering as it leaves the Moons surface? The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today, and we can clearly see the exhaust smoke coming from them, so why not the LEM?
RADIATION
Radiation plays a big part in space travel. Solar flares could have affected the astronauts at any time. The Apollo leaving Earth would travel through 2 specific areas of very high radiation called the Van Allen Belt. The first field is 272 miles out from Earth. The amount of radiation in the belts actually varies from year to year, but every 11 years its at its worst when the sunspot cycle is at its highest. And guess what? 1969 to 1970 was one of the worst times to go, as this was the time where the radiation was at its peak. I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation. Why did NASA only use a small sheet of aluminium to protect the astronauts when they knew that the radiation levels in Space and on the Moon's surface would be many hundreds of times more deadly? And why would they risk their astronauts to such conditions? In 1959 Bill Kaysing was privy to a study made by the Russians. The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed. Why didn't NASA heed their warnings?
Did you know that the US Government tried to blast a hole in the belt 248 miles above Earth in 1962? During Operation Starfish Prime a Megaton Nuclear Bomb was used to try and force an unnatural corridor through the Van Allen Belt... Unfortunately, the radiation levels actually got worse, not better. What they created was a third belt that was 100 times more intense than the natural belts, and as estimated by Mary Bennett in 'Dark Moon - Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers, by 2002 this artificial zone will still have 25 times more radiation than the other 2 belts. There is no agreement to how wide these radiation belts actually are. Dr James Van Allen, the discoverer of the belts estimated that they were at least 64,000 miles deep, but NASA say they are only 24,000 miles deep. Each Apollo craft spent approximately 4 hours within the belts.
Probably the most convincing argument however about the dangers of radiation to astronauts comes from NASA themselves. Read this report made on 8th September, 2005. It makes very interesting reading, especially when you have a number of sceptics like I have breathing down my neck trying to claim otherwise!
September 8, 2005: On the Moon, many of the things that can kill you are invisible: breathtaking vacuum, extreme temperatures and space radiation top the list.
Vacuum and temperature NASA can handle; spacesuits and habitats provide plenty of air and insulation. Radiation, though, is trickier.
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground, they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies.
CONCLUSIONS
How did man manage to collect the rock samples if we didn't go to the Moon???
750 lbs or so were said to be collected on the Apollo missions. This maybe so, but according to official NASA records, only a couple of pounds were actually collected by the astronauts. It would not be impossible to irradiate a rock or put it in a vacuum to get the same results.
Did you know that two years before the Apollo 11 mission, its lead scientist Dr. Werner Van Braun made a trip to Antartica which is a prime area for collection Moon rocks?
Why hasn't anybody spoken out about the cover-up?
They have. Bill Kaysing got in touch with his friend, a private investigator from San Francisco called Paul Jacobs, and asked him to help him with his Apollo anomalies investigations. Mr. Jacobs agreed to go and see the head of the US Department of Geology in Washington, as he was travelling there the following week after his discussion with Mr. Kaysing. He asked the geologist, 'Did you examine the Moon rocks, did they really come from the Moon.?' The geologist just laughed. Paul flew back from Washington and told Kaysing that the people in high office of the American Government knew of the cover-up. Paul Jacobs and his wife died from cancer within 90 days!
Lee Gelvani another friend of Kaysing, says he almost convinced informant James Irwin to confess about the cover-up. Irwin was going to ring Kaysing about it, however he died of a heart attack within 3 days. Is this evidence that a cover-up is in existence?
Check out the film documentary at the top of this page showing NASA employees talking about how they were instructed to airbrush out anomalies on the Moons surface.
consider this. The distance that Man allegedly had to travel to get to the Moon was the equivalent of 30 Earth diameters. Now compare that with the greatest distance that Man has travelled since then (in the Shuttle) which is 400 miles. That is the equivalent of just 1/2 an inch from the Earth compared to the distance travelled to the Moon.
Von Braun said in his book 'Conquest To The Moon' (published in 1953) that it would be impossible to send anyone to the Moon because of the sheer size of craft needed to do the trip. In fact, taking Von Braun's calculations into consideration, a spaceship that needed to travel that distance would have had to be 266 times bigger than the Saturn 5.
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?
J. F. Kennedy announced in 1962 that Man would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man allegedly did just that. But more than 35 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?
SOME FURTHER POINTS
The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!
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.
Last edited by stilover; 18 September 2006 at 03:43 PM.
18 September 2006, 03:46 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yay for crazy internet conspiracy theories.
THis bit made me laugh
Uh - because they do it several times everyday for years, you loon 
THis bit made me laugh
I have had numerous internet chats with sceptics who say that the radiation would not play a part in the missions because Man would have not been in the radiation belt for too long. My answer to that is, when Dentists or Doctors take X ray pictures they either leave the room or stand behind a sheet of thick lead to shelter from the radiation
18 September 2006, 03:51 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But more than 35 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?
FWIW i am a bit of a sceptic as well regards the whole moon/nasa thing, i used to use anomolies.net quite a bit when doing shift work, and there are a lot of intelligent people on there
18 September 2006, 03:58 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
Yay for crazy internet conspiracy theories.
Uh - because they do it several times everyday for years, you loon
Uh - because they do it several times everyday for years, you loon
is that if it's dangerous for a Dentist to be exposed to minor radiation several times, so it is suicide for a Astronaut to be exposed to lethal levels of radiation for several hours. In fact killing them.Hardly a conspiracy theory. More fact than anything
18 September 2006, 04:04 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you could stage the moon landing, why on earth (moon? ) would you do it repeatedly, not only that, why would you then "fake" apollo 13 (which following this theory, you would have to do).
Many NASA scientists have said that getting concorde to fly at supersonic speeds was an achievement equal to the Moon landings - and none of us doubt that.
) would you do it repeatedly, not only that, why would you then "fake" apollo 13 (which following this theory, you would have to do).Many NASA scientists have said that getting concorde to fly at supersonic speeds was an achievement equal to the Moon landings - and none of us doubt that.
18 September 2006, 04:06 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new spaceship (Orion) isn't just going to be a one-shot-to-the Moon-and-back though. It's also to be used to supply the ISS, and be used as a core part of manned missions to Mars.
18 September 2006, 04:08 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Worthing..
Posts: 7,575
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
The point is you loon !! is that if it's dangerous for a Dentist to be exposed to minor radiation several times, so it is suicide for a Astronaut to be exposed to lethal levels of radiation for several hours. In fact killing them.
Hardly a conspiracy theory. More fact than anything
is that if it's dangerous for a Dentist to be exposed to minor radiation several times, so it is suicide for a Astronaut to be exposed to lethal levels of radiation for several hours. In fact killing them.Hardly a conspiracy theory. More fact than anything
The guy is all over the place - first he tells us that the Van Allen belt, this radition hot spot ,is 272 miles out from the earth, Then he tells us that the shuttle goes to 400 miles - Havent seen any modern day astronauts in lead suits....
Trending Topics
18 September 2006, 04:39 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PeteBrant
Even if you could stage the moon landing, why on earth (moon? ) would you do it repeatedly, not only that, why would you then "fake" apollo 13 (which following this theory, you would have to do).
Many NASA scientists have said that getting concorde to fly at supersonic speeds was an achievement equal to the Moon landings - and none of us doubt that.
) would you do it repeatedly, not only that, why would you then "fake" apollo 13 (which following this theory, you would have to do).Many NASA scientists have said that getting concorde to fly at supersonic speeds was an achievement equal to the Moon landings - and none of us doubt that.
The film here sees the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM, the craft is allegeded to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out of the window we see blue sky? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?
18 September 2006, 04:44 PM
#10
Originally Posted by StickyMicky
red tape?? lol
FWIW i am a bit of a sceptic as well regards the whole moon/nasa thing, i used to use anomolies.net quite a bit when doing shift work, and there are a lot of intelligent people on there
FWIW i am a bit of a sceptic as well regards the whole moon/nasa thing, i used to use anomolies.net quite a bit when doing shift work, and there are a lot of intelligent people on there
Like Good ol time tavelling john
18 September 2006, 05:00 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've got to be sh*tting me. A web site that thinks aliens have been visiting the planet (coming though all that nasty radiation from the other direction) and yet thinks us going the other way is some big conspiracy - it beggars belief.
18 September 2006, 05:00 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The dark side of the Sun and owner of 2 fairy tokens
Posts: 5,043
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
By the time of the Apollo 13 Mission in April 1970, public interest in space travel was beginning to diminish. This could have been partly due to most of the previous Apollo 12 Mission having to rely mainly on an audio transmission, due to the camera malfunctions encountered. Was this a factor in the alleged near disaster on the Apollo 13 mission? Were NASA trying to get back the publics attention and therefore guarantee the continued funding of the US Government? On the 13th hour of the 13th day of the 13th Apollo Mission, disaster struck when an oxygen tank exploded.
The film here sees the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM, the craft is allegeded to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out of the window we see blue sky? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?
The film here sees the astronauts from the Apollo 13 just before they transferred to the LEM, the craft is allegeded to be some 200,000 miles from Earth. If we look out of the window we see blue sky? how can this be if they are in deep space??? Surely the windows should be showing black space, unless they are in near Earth orbit of course?
Timings are a bit out there...
Launch April 11 at 2:13pm EST
Oxygen tank failure April 13 10:07pm EST
Without seeing the film, I couldn't comment, however it is likely that the blue is probably caused by reflection of light from inside the capsule.
18 September 2006, 05:15 PM
#13
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zed Ess Won Hay Tee
Posts: 21,611
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kingofturds
19 September 2006, 02:02 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by stilover
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.
http://www.ddj.com/184404139
An extract: " The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was built by Raytheon and used approximately 4000 discrete integrated circuits from Fairchild Semiconductor. Spanning nearly a decade of project development, the AGC began as a research project at the MIT Instrumentation Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lab was home to the world's foremost experts in guidance and control, where Polaris and Poseidon missile guidance programs were developed. However, until Apollo, all computations for the equations of motion in these systems were performed by analog computers. In April 1961, NASA contracted with MIT to study the feasibility of a digital control system for the Apollo program ".
Dave
19 September 2006, 02:21 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hutton_d
Oh, as you don't know anything about computer systems history go read this:
http://www.ddj.com/184404139
An extract: " The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was built by Raytheon and used approximately 4000 discrete integrated circuits from Fairchild Semiconductor. Spanning nearly a decade of project development, the AGC began as a research project at the MIT Instrumentation Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lab was home to the world's foremost experts in guidance and control, where Polaris and Poseidon missile guidance programs were developed. However, until Apollo, all computations for the equations of motion in these systems were performed by analog computers. In April 1961, NASA contracted with MIT to study the feasibility of a digital control system for the Apollo program ".
Dave
http://www.ddj.com/184404139
An extract: " The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was built by Raytheon and used approximately 4000 discrete integrated circuits from Fairchild Semiconductor. Spanning nearly a decade of project development, the AGC began as a research project at the MIT Instrumentation Lab in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The lab was home to the world's foremost experts in guidance and control, where Polaris and Poseidon missile guidance programs were developed. However, until Apollo, all computations for the equations of motion in these systems were performed by analog computers. In April 1961, NASA contracted with MIT to study the feasibility of a digital control system for the Apollo program ".
Dave
19 September 2006, 03:25 PM
#18
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
when in fact the craft is still in Earth orbit. How do we know this? Because just before the camera is turned off, the windows are uncovered to reveal blue sky!
The lunar lander used two engines stacked on top of one another. The LEM's descent engine used hyperbolic propellants, that means two different fuels that light at the same time.....The fuel used are exactly the same as used on the Shuttle today
Didn't bother reading any more.
Last edited by carl; 19 September 2006 at 03:31 PM.
19 September 2006, 03:52 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carl
LOL! The sky's not blue in any achievable Earth orbit. The sky's black even at the altitude that Scaled Composites's SpaceShipOne got to (around 70 miles).
19 September 2006, 06:15 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
Try viewing the footage before you write it off. Only a idiot dismisses something without even looking at the evidence.
19 September 2006, 06:53 PM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
Try viewing the footage before you write it off. Only a idiot dismisses something without even looking at the evidence.
20 September 2006, 12:47 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a load of crap. There is nothing new in there. All the arguments have been banded about for years. Every single one of them has been disproved. Every 'anomoly' has been recreated and shown to be normal physical effects. If any of these pseudo 'scientists' bothered to do their research they would realise they haven't got a clue. There is an excellent documentary called The truth behind the moon landings. They talk to these so called experts and then disprove all of their bollocks. Even a gcse science student can show up their methods and conclusions. Apparently the moons surface has the reflective index of tarmac. Thats why it is so bright is it?
20 September 2006, 09:52 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattstant
why thats what EVERY moonlanding conspiracy theorists does
Actually the shuttle RCS thrusters or OMS may use N204/UDMH but again you can't see any flames from them...
20 September 2006, 10:13 AM
#24
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really amazes me. Everything the US Governments say, people assume that they are always telling the truth. Why?
Do you not think that maybe it's possible that the US Government faked the Moon landings for their own gain?
Do you all believe the US Governments reasons for invading Iraq, ie WMD? Or do you maybe think it's all about Oil?
No, The US Government said it was for WMD, so that must be true then
You really need to think for yourselves instead of being a bunch of sheep. Obviously as soon as someone tries to prove the Government are lying they are going to try to dismiss these as conspiracy theories. Why aren't the US Governments versions the real conspiracy theories? Because most of the population are under the deluded view that the US Government would never lie to them. They are the Government after all.
The day NASA/US Government allow Hubble to be turned on the moon, and allow an independent body to view the lunar landing site, is the day I'll take back my words and be a true believer, just like most of you.
Now, NASA/US Government say it would cost to much, it would take so long finding the site. They've been there, they must know where they landed. Someone even suggested on one documentary I was watching, saying that the remaining debris is too small for Hubble to pick out.
When Hubble was launched, they said it was powerful enough to pick up a pin on the surface of Mars. Why now is it not powerful enough to pick out a moon buggy on the Moon?
Turn Hubble on the moon and prove all the conspiracy theorists wrong.
Most of you are a Governments dream Voter. You believe any old cr@p they tell you to believe.
Do you not think that maybe it's possible that the US Government faked the Moon landings for their own gain?
Do you all believe the US Governments reasons for invading Iraq, ie WMD? Or do you maybe think it's all about Oil?
No, The US Government said it was for WMD, so that must be true then
You really need to think for yourselves instead of being a bunch of sheep. Obviously as soon as someone tries to prove the Government are lying they are going to try to dismiss these as conspiracy theories. Why aren't the US Governments versions the real conspiracy theories? Because most of the population are under the deluded view that the US Government would never lie to them. They are the Government after all.
The day NASA/US Government allow Hubble to be turned on the moon, and allow an independent body to view the lunar landing site, is the day I'll take back my words and be a true believer, just like most of you.
Now, NASA/US Government say it would cost to much, it would take so long finding the site. They've been there, they must know where they landed. Someone even suggested on one documentary I was watching, saying that the remaining debris is too small for Hubble to pick out.
When Hubble was launched, they said it was powerful enough to pick up a pin on the surface of Mars. Why now is it not powerful enough to pick out a moon buggy on the Moon?
Turn Hubble on the moon and prove all the conspiracy theorists wrong.
Most of you are a Governments dream Voter. You believe any old cr@p they tell you to believe.
20 September 2006, 10:31 AM
#26
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Here, There, Everywhere
Posts: 10,619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Iwan
I met Buzz Aldrin once, I didn't get the impression he was talking b0ll0cks about having been to the moon.
People love their conspiracy theories though.
People love their conspiracy theories though.
Maybe there's just nothing to see
20 September 2006, 10:56 AM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do the conspiracy theorists really believe that, after nearly 40 years, if the moon landing was faked that someone in the know wouldn't have come clean by now. The money someone could earn by proving they were fake - if they were - would surely have tempted at least one of the thousands of people who would have to be "in" on the ruse to cash in. You just can't hush up that many people for that long.
20 September 2006, 11:18 AM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,701
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
Like I said. If they point Hubble at the Moon, they could put the subject to bed straight away. Why won't they?
Maybe there's just nothing to see
Maybe there's just nothing to see
"we claim you didn't go there, so rather than us providing irrefutable proof that you didn't go - we want you to prove you did".
If I were NASA I'd just say "hahaha - fcuck off!"