In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
That fuel argument is the stupidest BS I've heard in a while.
I suppose the mars rovers are a hoax as well, as were the viking landers, they had a lot further to go.
The Cassini probe that went to Titan... thats a lot further than the moon, no way it could make it.
Distance from the Sun to Saturn (which Titan orbits): over 1,300 Million kilometers.
Distance from Earth to the Sun: Less than 153 Million Kilometers.
Distance from the Earth to the Moon: Less than 0.406 Million Kilometers.
Mars to the Sun: over 206 Million Kilometers.
In fact, once you get into Earth orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere" in the solar system.
The Delta-V required to reach Earth orbit is about half the Delta-V required to get to any destination in the solar system.
Spacecraft generally don't consume fuel during their journey, like ballistics missiles, they just travel along ballistic trajectories (newer ion drives and magnetoplasma rockets with very high specific impulse and low thrust are excepted).
Its either humorous or pathetic that someone who doesn't even know this speaks with conviction about the implications of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Space Shuttle has fuel only enough to take it into LEO (that is Low Earth Orbit about 300-450 km form ground).
The huge external tank has enough capacity to take Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) about 227,641 lbs or 385,265 US gallons, and 1,361,936 lbs or 143,351 US gallons of Liquid Oxygen.
But is only enough to run the Space Shuttle's Main Engines(SSME) up to 8-10 minutes!!! to give the shuttle speed of 27,000 feets per second to remain on the LEO.
Yes if you are talking about the facilities for astronauts to remain into the orbit, then the space shuttle can carry 7-9 astronauts and they can remain there up to 14-15 days.
We must go full throttle 3hrs through the Van Allen belt to insure all safety precautions
In the previous post if you look in the Astronauts face sheild , theres Earth reflecting off the sheild in the opposite corner so how can this happen when he's not facing the Earth ??
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
quote:Originally posted by CA sucks
That fuel argument is the stupidest BS I've heard in a while.
I suppose the mars rovers are a hoax as well, as were the viking landers, they had a lot further to go.
The Cassini probe that went to Titan... thats a lot further than the moon, no way it could make it.
Distance from the Sun to Saturn (which Titan orbits): over 1,300 Million kilometers.
Distance from Earth to the Sun: Less than 153 Million Kilometers.
Distance from the Earth to the Moon: Less than 0.406 Million Kilometers.
Mars to the Sun: over 206 Million Kilometers.
In fact, once you get into Earth orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere" in the solar system.
The Delta-V required to reach Earth orbit is about half the Delta-V required to get to any destination in the solar system.
Spacecraft generally don't consume fuel during their journey, like ballistics missiles, they just travel along ballistic trajectories (newer ion drives and magnetoplasma rockets with very high specific impulse and low thrust are excepted).
Its either humorous or pathetic that someone who doesn't even know this speaks with conviction about the implications of the Van Allen radiation belts.
hi CA,
This is the fuel claim i mentioned earlier, not the trajectory red herring you've constructed. And Cassini is a nuclear powered deep space probe, far different than manned flight. (another red herring)
I'm not buying that in the 1960s men were sent to the moon surviving those conditions including the radiation and temps. Wasn't done then and hasn't been done since, not even with a lab rat.
Probably the biggest fakery smoking gun is Bart Sibrel's footage of astonauts in earth orbit faking their distance with camera tricks..
quote: Bart Sibrel spent five years and $500,000 on the research and filming of his Apollo documentary, starting in 1996. The end result was A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon:
www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie
He acquired a lot of video from NASA's archives during his research. One of the containers of video was mis-marked. Inside was video that had not been edited for the public. Instead, it contained the raw video directly from the Apollo spacecraft.
If the Apollo astronauts really did go to the moon, it would not matter if somebody acquired unedited video.
However, this particular unedited video showed the astronauts in orbit around the earth, and they were setting up for a photo to make it appear as if the earth was a small sphere a long distance away, thereby creating the illusion that they were halfway to the moon.
.
.
That footage may be at his website in a short clip. I've seen it on youtube but it's been a while. It's in a Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
Some people defend this moon hoax as they do NASA's claim about the big bang and earth's formation theories, and that's what it's often about. It becomes a philosophical debate and not about facts. Facts are rejected because one thing leads to the next. NASA provides data about the supposed big bang and Hubble. There are many other claims NASA makes which are refuted by other scientists. Many all around the world reject claims of going to the moon.
Some people will never accept a moon hoax no matter what the evidence says, without a direct admission from NASA which isn't going to happen.
quote:Originally posted by Junkballer
In the previous post if you look in the Astronauts face sheild , theres Earth reflecting off the sheild in the opposite corner so how can this happen when he's not facing the Earth ??
Not seeing what you're looking for. If it's the one in my post the sun is suppose to be in his visor while the "earth" is above him and the flag.
The video posted claims they've found what looks like the "moon" set at Area 51 Nevada. Craters and all. Suppose it was just for training. Amazing the way the craters look just like the pictures of the "moon mission".
the inner belt is primarily electrons (beta particles) and protons with around 500keV energies. The outer belt is primarily alpha particles (helium nuclei...which can in fact be stopped by a heavy-weight sheet of paper or the outer layer of your skin!).
I am not sure how to judge the 500keV electrons, since we use much higher energies in radiation therapy. However, I have data for a 6MeV electron beam from my clinical training (6MeV = 6000keV, 12 times the energy of the Van Allen belt particles).
the R50 (range to which 50% of electrons penetrate human tissue) is around 2.3cm, so one would expect that the aluminum body or an aircraft or spacecraft would have little trouble stopping 500keV beta particles.
A few years ago, Dr James Van Allen was interviewed on one of the Discovery or Nature channels (can't remember which) and was asked about the N0-LANDING conspiracy theory that relies on the "impossibility" of transitting the belts named after him. He said that he gets a chuckle out of that claim and stated that it's easy to safely transit. I'll take the word of this guy, since he discovered the belts and studied them probably better than anyone else, especially uneducated conspiracists. [:D]
YES we did land Humans on the MOON
1961-- 100%
1971-- 99%
1981-- 98.2%
1991-- 98.0%
2006-- 97.1% same as Weapons of Mass Destruction
2008--50.4% same as Weapons of Mass Destruction
Long Range Prediction as Technology advances
2013--40.2%
2019-- 00.0% next scheduled moon landing ?
Taken from the Wallie's Book of Facts VOL. 1
Page 4462 to page 5111
Wow, the shear ignorance located in this one thread is ridiculous. It's sad to see people so blinded by their own opinions that they won't even acknowledge the the mountains of evidence against said opinions. I love how every conspiracy theorist claims everyone else is blind, yet when confronted with the truth they refuse to acknowledge it. It's perfectly fine to question, but you need to accept the answers when they are given. You can't ignore facts just because they don't fit your "theory".
And wallie continues to post stupid pictures irrelevant to the debate.
"If you can't Impress with Intelligence, Baffle them With Bullsh**" seems to be his motto.
quote:This is the fuel claim i mentioned earlier, not the trajectory red herring you've constructed. And Cassini is a nuclear powered deep space probe, far different than manned flight. (another red herring)
It is you using red herrings.
The propulsion system for Cassini was the same as Apollo, a chemical rocket. Cassini had a lot farther to travel, and a lot longer, its meant to operate for over a decade, too far away from the sun to use solar panels effectively.
Apollo's electrical supply only had to last several days, not years.
Apollo was also a much bigger craft, and had a much bigger launch vehicle.
Manned space flight is the same as robotic, as far as fuel use per unit of craft mass. If we can send a craft to Saturn using chemical rockets, we can send men there, we just need to launch more/bigger rockets, because a craft capable of supporting humans for that long is going to be a lot heavier.
Apollo was a lot bigger, it didn't go nearly as far (by a few orders of magnitude), and the mission was a lot shorter (again by a few orders of magnitude).
That link does not support your "insufficient fuel" claim, its just generalist BS, followed by explaining that they saved fuel by not having the entire craft land on the moon and take off again.
The "funny thing happened..." youtube video was already posted here, I watched it, and I see no evidence of anything they were talking about.
They are delusional if they think that those images were just of the earth as seen through a cutout hole.
They suppossedly brought back rocks and soil samples. Did they ever release what sample consisted of ? Not sure if I ever heard. Is anything there worth the expense of going back that would help mankind that could'nt be found if they just stayed in low orbit?
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Basic high school science. Space is a vacum. There is no resistance in a vacum. With some minor exceptions once movement has started there is nothing to stop it. Fuel is only necessary to accelerate which is easier without resistance and decelerate, which is harder without resistance. Think about a comet which travels through the universe for thousands or even millions of years. Comets are ice and gas...no propulsion system yet they keep on going. They are aided by gravitational pull which is also used to some extent in our space flights. Even our planets have no propulsion yet they continue to orbit our sun only kept in orbit by the suns gravitational pull.
For Sci Fi fans it is a fallacy that spacecraft need constant thrust from engines. Thrust is only needed for manuvering, stopping and counter acting gravitational pull. "warp drive" only need to provide thrust until you reach the required speed.
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
Basic high school science. Space is a vacum. There is no resistance in a vacum. With some minor exceptions once movement has started there is nothing to stop it. Fuel is only necessary to accelerate which is easier without resistance and decelerate, which is harder without resistance. Think about a comet which travels through the universe for thousands or even millions of years. Comets are ice and gas...no propulsion system yet they keep on going. They are aided by gravitational pull which is also used to some extent in our space flights....
Poppycock.
I have seen the rocket plume coming off the back of comets on the TV. They are powered vessels. Do not believe the 'gas and ice' myth propagated by recent hero movies.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
I went to the shore 2010 and used the most advanced sun blocker of the century and our wonderful earth's shield
2hrs and ~(.)-(.)~ I ~(.)-(.)~ like an over ripe tomato
Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died."
Besides being a threat to satellite systems, energetic particles present a hazard to astronauts on space missions. On Earth we are protected from these particles by the atmosphere, which absorbs all but the most energetic cosmic ray particles. During space missions, astronauts performing extra-vehicular activities are relatively unprotected. The fluxes of energetic particles can increase hundreds of times, following an intense solar flare or during a large geomagnetic storm, to dangerous levels.
According to Interplanetary crew exposure estimates for the August 1972 and October 1989 solar particle events , "...estimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided."
Now their telling us man went through the Van Allen Belt and beyond with the technology of the 60's
GIVE ME A BREAK
I believe we did land on the moon but not with
humans
Maybe to pick up rocks before the fake moon landing
But I have an opened mind and as science progresses and new evidence come into play I may change my mind
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
Basic high school science. Space is a vacum. There is no resistance in a vacum. With some minor exceptions once movement has started there is nothing to stop it. Fuel is only necessary to accelerate which is easier without resistance and decelerate, which is harder without resistance. Think about a comet which travels through the universe for thousands or even millions of years. Comets are ice and gas...no propulsion system yet they keep on going. They are aided by gravitational pull which is also used to some extent in our space flights....
Poppycock.
I have seen the rocket plume coming off the back of comets on the TV. They are powered vessels. Do not believe the 'gas and ice' myth propagated by recent hero movies.
I don't see a green font.
We may have a winner for the dumbest statement of the thread.
Btw, why does wallie always include stupid photos in his posts?
Probably the same reason he uses such bad logic, like comparing a sun burn from electromagnetic radiation - UVA and UVB rays that can be stopped with a sheet of paper, as if it were evidence that ionic radiation (mostly Protons and electron) outside the earths atmosphere was extremely deadly.
And of course, wallie's posts contain lies.
There was no soviet dog that entered the Van Allen radiation belt.
There was no space dog at all that died from radiation.
The first one died a few hours after launch (far too early for the radiation to cause any symptoms, even if the dog was completely exposed to the radiation).
Two others died when the re entry vehicle broke up.
Wallie, your arguments are incoherent and full of falsehoods and misdirection, with pictures thrown in to seemingly try to divert attention from the stupidity of the arguments being made.
The government wants u to believe what they want u to know
And everyone knows they will ban info coming in if not to their specifications
Like brain washing
The Russians knew it was not possible for life to land on the moon, YET
I had close contact with a family that the Russians drafted their dog for space travel
Back in the 50's, 60's they were looking for dogs in the streets but most were not in good physical condition
They sent many animals in different compartments with different type of shielding for radiation experiments
U will never hear\read this but it has happened
Just the Van Allen radiation belt, mind you when the Russians told the world there was no way getting through them. The U.S.A quickly made up a story that they flew REAL FAST, kind like superman, and we all know the technologically they had in the 60's. Now with all the BS they have spun with the help of their paid scientist, they have people believing there is no such thing as radiation around earth. Plus since the 60's watch any cartoon, or science fiction movie especially by Disney, and you will never here them talking about the Van Allen radiation belt or nuclear radiation on the moon. They are never mentioned, set up to brain wash Americans mostly, and Canadians get caught up in it.
With a voltage of 1 to 100 mio. volt and higher and with radioactive radiation "moon flights" are said having been possible. But the radiation of the moon itself without protecting atmosphere has also to be considered.
So, the "moon landings" were not possible.
This is NO conspiracy theory, nuclear radiation on the moon are never mentioned in the cartoons and in the science fiction films. this is logic.
Now for those that do understand this, I am working on a pic
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
From Wiki....
"A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[13]"
I am pretty sure 3 mm of aluminum shielding was not beyond the reach of technology in 1969.
Naturally, that would not shield from meteorite impact, but I see no one hyperventilating over that, either.
Barzillia,
Take your shielded satellite or a boombox and put it out on the beach for two weeks and see how bad the sun burn is? Shielding an electronic signal from interference is different than what you and i can survive. Comsats for TV signals are stationary at 23,000 miles alt while the GPS birds are lower at 12,000 miles alt. Both very radiated and functional.
There's a reason the Space Station (ISS) is only 280 miles altitude -> they've never been any higher than 500 miles and lived and never will. The ozone and magnetosphere protects us from the harmfull solar radiation. Without earth's atmosphere it would become a barron wasteland like the moon.
They have given no proof of this planet, as i asked for in their
discussion area. It's a baseless claim or new statistic.
NASA clings to the brainwashed-world view the big bang formed
everything thus there are other worlds out there, since planets are
said to have formed slowly over millions of years. They need their
moon hoax to remain credible as an authority providing Hubble and
other data. If there are other planets and possibly life out there
then earth is not a special creation by God. If they can go to the
moon then life out there is suppose to be possible. That and the
ICBM Cold War hoax were the only real reasons to go.
Now as a Christian I have no problem with other planets created by
God at the time of creation or with them going to the moon. However,
They will have to prove these fantastic claims. The evidence i've
seen shows we are a special creation in this solar system. I have no
need to accept their theories and if the evidence shows they did not
go to the moon then that is the way it is. If the evidence shows
there are no other solar systems in this or other galaxies then that
is the way it is.
The past few weeks NASA has been in awe of the solar flares. Are we
to believe a solar flare will destroy the earth? With each passing
solar flare NASA loses credibility.
NASA only first claimed to discover other solar systems with planets in
1992. That's right, before 1992 they only theorized about
other planetary solar systems. After 92 they now claim to have some
evidence via indirect imaging. Now they also have the Jesuit's new
telescope namedLucifer providing data we can all relly upon?
There are other scientists who refute the theories that big bang
caused the universe billions of years ago or that the earth took millions of years to form. These theories are founded upon SAND and don't
have to be accepted. Some need to accept everything NASA says or
their whole world view collapses, and gasp, there may be a Creator
afterall. What does He want?
Like the United Nations, NASA has an interesting founding by members
of the occult. That is their religion. They have a political agenda
for their world view.
Jack Parsons was the cofounder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
He led the Agape Lodge of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO),
and was associated with scientists, thinkers, and writers prominent
in their time; Ray Bradbury, L. Ron Hubbard, and Robert A. Heinlein.
Jack Parsons' extracurricular interests included explosives and
solid rocket fuels. He was an avid practitioner of magical rituals
the likes of which were performed by Anton La Vey, the former head
of the Church of Satan in San Francisco, & the notable British
Occultist & 33? Freemason Aleister Crowley. A brilliant scientist, &
poet with a masterly command of the secret languge, Jack Parson's
remains one of the most perplexing & enigmatic figures in the
America Space Programme's modern History.
There's a lecture given about this called The UN Occult Agenda by
pastor Walter Veith. It's on Google or here.
They have given no proof of this planet, as i asked for in their
discussion area. It's a baseless claim or new statistic.
NASA clings to the brainwashed-world view the big bang formed
everything thus there are other worlds out there, since planets are
said to have formed slowly over millions of years. They need their
moon hoax to remain credible as an authority providing Hubble and
other data. If there are other planets and possibly life out there
then earth is not a special creation by God. If they can go to the
moon then life out there is suppose to be possible. That and the
ICBM Cold War hoax were the only real reasons to go.
Now as a Christian I have no problem with other planets created by
God at the time of creation or with them going to the moon. However,
They will have to prove these fantastic claims. The evidence i've
seen shows we are a special creation in this solar system. I have no
need to accept their theories and if the evidence shows they did not
go to the moon then that is the way it is. If the evidence shows
there are no other solar systems in this or other galaxies then that
is the way it is.
The past few weeks NASA has been in awe of the solar flares. Are we
to believe a solar flare will destroy the earth? With each passing
solar flare NASA loses credibility.
NASA only first claimed to discover other solar systems with planets in
1992. That's right, before 1992 they only theorized about
other planetary solar systems. After 92 they now claim to have some
evidence via indirect imaging. Now they also have the Jesuit's new
telescope namedLucifer providing data we can all relly upon?
There are other scientists who refute the theories that big bang
caused the universe billions of years ago or that the earth took millions of years to form. These theories are founded upon SAND and don't
have to be accepted. Some need to accept everything NASA says or
their whole world view collapses, and gasp, there may be a Creator
afterall. What does He want?
Like the United Nations, NASA has an interesting founding by members
of the occult. That is their religion. They have a political agenda
for their world view.
Jack Parsons was the cofounder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
He led the Agape Lodge of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO),
and was associated with scientists, thinkers, and writers prominent
in their time; Ray Bradbury, L. Ron Hubbard, and Robert A. Heinlein.
Jack Parsons' extracurricular interests included explosives and
solid rocket fuels. He was an avid practitioner of magical rituals
the likes of which were performed by Anton La Vey, the former head
of the Church of Satan in San Francisco, & the notable British
Occultist & 33? Freemason Aleister Crowley. A brilliant scientist, &
poet with a masterly command of the secret languge, Jack Parson's
remains one of the most perplexing & enigmatic figures in the
America Space Programme's modern History.
There's a lecture given about this called The UN Occult Agenda by
pastor Walter Veith. It's on Google or here.
Look Amish, it all comes down to math. On a clear night how many stars can you see? LOTS, and thats a very small % of whats out there, so, out of 1 billion stars, 1 star has planets, take that times number of stars out there equals BILLIONS of planets. Now say 1 out of a billion of those planets have life (a very likely thing, mathematically)times the billion of planets equals BILLIONS of planets with life. Now out of those billions of planets with life, say 1 out of billion have intelligent life times the billions of planets with life, there are BILLIONS of intelligent life forms out there. ITS MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN THAT THERE IS! Even with loooooong odds I stated. More than likely the odds are not that long!
So, you see, intelligent beings are out there, you just arent one of them! [:D][:D][:D]
God has nothing to do with it, its about the math! [:)]
Oh ya, we landed on the damn moon you idiots! [:D][:D]
The "funny thing happened..." youtube video was already posted here, I watched it, and I see no evidence of anything they were talking about.
They are delusional if they think that those images were just of the earth as seen through a cutout hole.
Criminals sure can get mean when cornered. Actually it was investigative reporter Bart Sibrel that scored the knockout. After Aldrin became violent there was a court date that generated alot of needed publicity to get the truth out about this giant fraud.
Sibrel was right when he called Aldrin "a coward a liar and a thief". It took alot of courage to confront the popular NASA astronaut.
Coward - Refuses to answer questions.
Liar - Claims to have walked on the moon.
Thief - Steals taxpayer retirement for a fraud of a career that helps NASA continue to defraud us all of billion$.
NASA has been spending billions looking and listening for life out there for decades. So far - ZERO. Not a sound or a trace of life anywhere in space. (proof positive of none.)
Those running NASA know there is no life out there. They know they faked the moon hoax, and that the space conditions do not allow for life in space. The entire program, including the new CERN money pit in Europe, allows them to invent data for their new theories. It has nothing to do with actually finding life as they claim.
This is ridiculous... Grown men believing in the delusions of a blatantly stupid conspiracy. What a shame. I can understand not trusting a government, but this is right up there with the Flat-Earth theorists. If you think there is a religious reason it doesn't make sense. The Tower of Babel reference? Well, that is just plain out of context. This wasn't an issue of man trying to reach God, or to prevent drowning in another flood, or anything else like that. If that was the case, you'd think aviation would be a dead field. Not believing in it due to scientific and technological reasons is more understandable, but not if one takes the time to look at the information. Of course, it would help to comprehend that information too, but I was hoping that was implicit.
If the Saturn V (capable of delivering over 200,000 pounds of thrust in its third stage burn) couldn't shoot the Apollo spacecraft to the moon through the frictionless vacuum of space, then there is no way that a smudge of gunpowder could propel an itty-bitty bullet over 100 feet through relatively moist air while fighting gravity the whole way. I mean, the bullet doesn't have any propellant in it to keep going, does it? Unless they are tracers! Tracers must be the only bullets to get!
The inner Van Allen radiation belt (considered to be the more dangerous of the two, but only moderately dangerous at that) is about 6000 miles "thick" or "wide" or however you want to call it. The Saturn V's 3rd stage pushed the astronauts through the Van Allen belt at about 10,000 feet per second. That is over 6000 miles per hour.
They went through the inner belt in under an hour.
That might seem like a long enough time to cook them, but... I'm not going to throw that much radio theory at you. To compare the radiation found in the Van Allen belt to a dental x-ray, or to a sunburn even (really?), does nothing but expose ignorance on the subject. Just consider that there is a difference between exposure, intensity, and saturation, along with many other things. I'll refer you to some educational links though:
You'll notice light blue words peppering the text. If you click on them, you can learn what those words mean too...
********************************
Hey everybody, that reminds me: green is for sarcasm, so what color do we use for patronizing?
********************************
There are other links for all sorts of learnin', but in case you think wikipedia is in on the plot (despite the outside references they usually cite at the bottom of the page), try talking to a doctor or technician in the field of radiology, physics teachers at a local school, and/or a therapist.
Criminals sure can get mean when cornered. Actually it was investigative reporter Bart Sibrel that scored the knockout. After Armstrong became violent there was a court date that generated alot of needed publicity to get the truth out about this giant fraud.
Sibrel was right when he called Armstrong "a coward a liar and a thief". It took alot of courage to confront the popular NASA astronaut.
Coward - Refuses to answer questions.
Liar - Claims to have walked on the moon.
Thief - Steals taxpayer retirement for a fraud of a career that helps NASA continue to defraud us all of billion$.
[img][/img]
NASA has been spending billions looking and listening for life out there for decades. So far - ZERO. Not a sound or a trace of life anywhere in space. (proof positive of none.)
Those running NASA know there is no life out there. They know they faked the moon hoax, and that the space conditions do not allow for life in space. The entire program, including the new CERN money pit in Europe, allows them to invent data for their new theories. It has nothing to do with actually finding life as they claim.
You are calling a national hero a criminal? Wow. Hate to hear your opinion on recipients of the MoH.
That "Earth-like" planet NASA found? Hyped up by the media. Just like the recent arsenic-based life they "found" not too long ago. The planet was Earth-like, not because they saw oceans, mini-malls, and airports, but because it was situated in roughly the same orbit from its sun as we are. A position called the "Goldilocks Zone". Furthermore, it was a team of astronomers in Hawaii that found it, not NASA.
What the F does CERN have to do with your musings? NASA has nothing to do with them. They are particle physicists. Oh, and they happened to have invented the world wide web as a means of sharing the results of their experiments.
Also, NASA has nothing to do with SETI. The US Gov and NASA may have funded a study or two, but they aren't related. SETI is mostly privately funded and has only been around since the early 1960's.
I highly doubt SETI will ever find an alien radio signal, but that is basically what they are doing: scanning for radio signals. To claim that 'their failure to find evidence of an alien version of The Rolling Stones is proof that there isn't any life outside of our solar system' is rather foolhardy (I paraphrased). You have any idea how big the universe is? Heck, it takes over 8 minutes for light to reach us from the sun. You have any idea how long it takes for a radio signal, that WE have sent, to travel from our solar system to another solar system? Let me give you a hint: radio signals are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light.
Give up?
Proxima Centauri, the star nearest ours, is over 4 light-years away. Four light-years away. Four. Years. And Proxima Centauri doesn't even have any planets.
Again, I don't expect to wake up one day and hear about the latest on an alien Howdy Doody, but I'm not gonna say there is NO life outside our solar system.
So, you have grossly incorrect assumptions of NASA. You feel that national heroes are criminals. You have no idea what radio telescopes are, nor what they are for. You find absolute proof for your theories in the singular failures of currently ongoing experiments. And, the moon must be made of cheese.
Something else is strange to me, I can understand a rocket having to get to 18/20,000 mph to leave the pull of gravity but why does a returning shuttle have to re-enter traveling so fast and run the chance of melting like what happen over Texas, why not slow down and let gravity do the work slowly ?
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Junkballer- what you are seeing IS gravity doing it's work. They are actually using the atmosphere to brake- they were moving faster before getting here. Spacecraft in orbit has a minimum speed needed to stay in orbit around the earth. Swing a bucket of water in a circle over your head, water stays in bucket. Try it real slow- you are going to get wet.
As far as what the moon rocks consisted 0f- have you looked for that information? BTW, if you visit the Smithsonian in DC, there is a moon rock you can touch. As far as info from NASA being classified- nope. You guys ARE aware that all of NASA's info is open source by law- and there are MOUNTAINS of data out there.
But I am sure man did not land on the moon- because they brought back rocks, and everyone knows that the moon is made of cheese
Well people fight, fight and if u have to bash, bash me and leave every one [B)] else alone.
It all boils down to who is telling the truth
and it is called "TRUST"
If u have a history of deceit, u are going to have this fighting
TRUST has to be EARNED, marriage, government or what ever
U can not buy "TRUST"
U can not go to Wal-Mart and ask, Give me a lb of TRUST
TRUST has to be EARNED
Now, if anyone does not understand this let me know and I'll draw up pic [:)]
All I see is a blue circle, surrounded by black,
At 3:20- 4:00, you can tell the person making the youtube video has zoomed in and cropped the image. Or it was just really zoomed in
At 6:00 I see a "fuzzy" edge that they claim is the result of a crescent shaped insert into the window... yea, right... sure - they offer no explanation as to how it would produce the fuzzy edge, nor is there any evidence that its not actually what NASA claims it is.
Nor does it explain why the edge away from the terminator is much brighter,
The light gradient can be explained by theimage encompasing an entire sphere, not by just viewing a small subset of the surface of a sphere.
Ie: their explanation for how it could be faked is insufficient, they offer nothing to show it is not genuine.
After all the non zoomed images, you still think they are just looking through a hole at an earth that takes up most of the screen? What, they had a super fisheye lens camera?
That smoothly zoomed in with no distortion?
You don't notice a few cuts in the video between when he says he has the camera at the window, and when it gets obscured?
The video claims it is an astronaut's arm. I can't determine this, maybe its his finger? Is it a lens that has its focus adjusted by rotating it? Like the old cameras without electric motors and automatic focus had?
At 8:30 their clais get really stupid
The earth looks too small?
Have you seen how small the moon is in pictures if you don't zoom in?
Your pictures do not show an earth that is the wrong size.
Its like the claims of non parallel shadows, its just a matter of how the photograph was taken (mythbusters has a very good demonstration of the proper perspective that causes this)
You guys simply chose not to believe it, and grasp at straws to justify your belief.
quote:Originally posted by Junkballer
Something else is strange to me, I can understand a rocket having to get to 18/20,000 mph to leave the pull of gravity but why does a returning shuttle have to re-enter traveling so fast and run the chance of melting like what happen over Texas, why not slow down and let gravity do the work slowly ?
You could decelerate more before re entry, but that requires a lot more fuel.
If you want to hit the atmosphere at 0 mph relative speed, you need to carry almost as much fuel when you are finished with the mission as one starts with right now.
This doesn't mean 2x as much fuel, because now you need to accelerate all that fuel
If you use 10 pounds of fuel for every pound of stuff you get into orbit (the Saturn V used about 22 pounds of fuel for every pound of stuff sent to the moon).... then to de orbit, with almost no speed, your craft much be almost 10x heavier.
So now you need to lift 10x as much stuff into orbit, you need 100 pounds of fuel for every pound of craft that you bring back. Its just not feasible.
Especially since with that much fuel, you could pretty much get your entire craft to anywhere in the solar system, and back (as long as you don't land, but just enter and leave orbit - you could probably land on Ceres and take off again, or Mimas, but no way in heck are you going to be able to enter Jupiter's upper atmosphere, and then leave), if you just use a heat shield and let the atmosphere slow you down, rather than using rocket fuel to do so.
Every spaceflight would have to use a rocket bigger than the one that took us to the moon, if we didn't use atmospheric breaking and high re entry velocities.
If there's life on other planets far more advanced than ours that would mean their radio/tv signals has been traveling many many years, possibly before man on earth and should have already reached earth long ago and with these antennas we should be watching a steady stream of their movies and listening to their radio programs. Wasted taxpayers money to line their(politicians/scientist pockets) for a better life for themselves.
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
Comments
I suppose the mars rovers are a hoax as well, as were the viking landers, they had a lot further to go.
The Cassini probe that went to Titan... thats a lot further than the moon, no way it could make it.
Distance from the Sun to Saturn (which Titan orbits): over 1,300 Million kilometers.
Distance from Earth to the Sun: Less than 153 Million Kilometers.
Distance from the Earth to the Moon: Less than 0.406 Million Kilometers.
Mars to the Sun: over 206 Million Kilometers.
In fact, once you get into Earth orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere" in the solar system.
The Delta-V required to reach Earth orbit is about half the Delta-V required to get to any destination in the solar system.
Spacecraft generally don't consume fuel during their journey, like ballistics missiles, they just travel along ballistic trajectories (newer ion drives and magnetoplasma rockets with very high specific impulse and low thrust are excepted).
Its either humorous or pathetic that someone who doesn't even know this speaks with conviction about the implications of the Van Allen radiation belts.
Please do not ~(.)-(.)~ if it's going to irritate u
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1tqZyZVoDM&feature=related
The huge external tank has enough capacity to take Liquid Hydrogen (LH2) about 227,641 lbs or 385,265 US gallons, and 1,361,936 lbs or 143,351 US gallons of Liquid Oxygen.
But is only enough to run the Space Shuttle's Main Engines(SSME) up to 8-10 minutes!!! to give the shuttle speed of 27,000 feets per second to remain on the LEO.
Yes if you are talking about the facilities for astronauts to remain into the orbit, then the space shuttle can carry 7-9 astronauts and they can remain there up to 14-15 days.
We must go full throttle 3hrs through the Van Allen belt to insure all safety precautions
WE made it with fuel to spare
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
We must go full throttle 3hrs through the Van Allen belt to insure all safety precautions.
What do you base this on?
You do realize the Fuel to mass ratio of the Saturn V rocket was way higher than that of the space shuttle, right?
That fuel argument is the stupidest BS I've heard in a while.
I suppose the mars rovers are a hoax as well, as were the viking landers, they had a lot further to go.
The Cassini probe that went to Titan... thats a lot further than the moon, no way it could make it.
Distance from the Sun to Saturn (which Titan orbits): over 1,300 Million kilometers.
Distance from Earth to the Sun: Less than 153 Million Kilometers.
Distance from the Earth to the Moon: Less than 0.406 Million Kilometers.
Mars to the Sun: over 206 Million Kilometers.
In fact, once you get into Earth orbit, you are "halfway to anywhere" in the solar system.
The Delta-V required to reach Earth orbit is about half the Delta-V required to get to any destination in the solar system.
Spacecraft generally don't consume fuel during their journey, like ballistics missiles, they just travel along ballistic trajectories (newer ion drives and magnetoplasma rockets with very high specific impulse and low thrust are excepted).
Its either humorous or pathetic that someone who doesn't even know this speaks with conviction about the implications of the Van Allen radiation belts.
hi CA,
This is the fuel claim i mentioned earlier, not the trajectory red herring you've constructed. And Cassini is a nuclear powered deep space probe, far different than manned flight. (another red herring)
I'm not buying that in the 1960s men were sent to the moon surviving those conditions including the radiation and temps. Wasn't done then and hasn't been done since, not even with a lab rat.
Probably the biggest fakery smoking gun is Bart Sibrel's footage of astonauts in earth orbit faking their distance with camera tricks..
quote: Bart Sibrel spent five years and $500,000 on the research and filming of his Apollo documentary, starting in 1996. The end result was A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon:
www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie
He acquired a lot of video from NASA's archives during his research. One of the containers of video was mis-marked. Inside was video that had not been edited for the public. Instead, it contained the raw video directly from the Apollo spacecraft.
If the Apollo astronauts really did go to the moon, it would not matter if somebody acquired unedited video.
However, this particular unedited video showed the astronauts in orbit around the earth, and they were setting up for a photo to make it appear as if the earth was a small sphere a long distance away, thereby creating the illusion that they were halfway to the moon.
.
.
That footage may be at his website in a short clip. I've seen it on youtube but it's been a while. It's in a Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon.
Some people defend this moon hoax as they do NASA's claim about the big bang and earth's formation theories, and that's what it's often about. It becomes a philosophical debate and not about facts. Facts are rejected because one thing leads to the next. NASA provides data about the supposed big bang and Hubble. There are many other claims NASA makes which are refuted by other scientists. Many all around the world reject claims of going to the moon.
Some people will never accept a moon hoax no matter what the evidence says, without a direct admission from NASA which isn't going to happen.
In the previous post if you look in the Astronauts face sheild , theres Earth reflecting off the sheild in the opposite corner so how can this happen when he's not facing the Earth ??
Not seeing what you're looking for. If it's the one in my post the sun is suppose to be in his visor while the "earth" is above him and the flag.
The video posted claims they've found what looks like the "moon" set at Area 51 Nevada. Craters and all. Suppose it was just for training. Amazing the way the craters look just like the pictures of the "moon mission".
the inner belt is primarily electrons (beta particles) and protons with around 500keV energies. The outer belt is primarily alpha particles (helium nuclei...which can in fact be stopped by a heavy-weight sheet of paper or the outer layer of your skin!).
I am not sure how to judge the 500keV electrons, since we use much higher energies in radiation therapy. However, I have data for a 6MeV electron beam from my clinical training (6MeV = 6000keV, 12 times the energy of the Van Allen belt particles).
the R50 (range to which 50% of electrons penetrate human tissue) is around 2.3cm, so one would expect that the aluminum body or an aircraft or spacecraft would have little trouble stopping 500keV beta particles.
YES we did land Humans on the MOON
1961-- 100%
1971-- 99%
1981-- 98.2%
1991-- 98.0%
2006-- 97.1% same as Weapons of Mass Destruction
2008--50.4% same as Weapons of Mass Destruction
Long Range Prediction as Technology advances
2013--40.2%
2019-- 00.0% next scheduled moon landing ?
Taken from the Wallie's Book of Facts VOL. 1
Page 4462 to page 5111
I have been to the moon 7 times.
Just don't like to brag about it...
"If you can't Impress with Intelligence, Baffle them With Bullsh**" seems to be his motto.
quote:This is the fuel claim i mentioned earlier, not the trajectory red herring you've constructed. And Cassini is a nuclear powered deep space probe, far different than manned flight. (another red herring)
It is you using red herrings.
The propulsion system for Cassini was the same as Apollo, a chemical rocket. Cassini had a lot farther to travel, and a lot longer, its meant to operate for over a decade, too far away from the sun to use solar panels effectively.
Apollo's electrical supply only had to last several days, not years.
Apollo was also a much bigger craft, and had a much bigger launch vehicle.
Manned space flight is the same as robotic, as far as fuel use per unit of craft mass. If we can send a craft to Saturn using chemical rockets, we can send men there, we just need to launch more/bigger rockets, because a craft capable of supporting humans for that long is going to be a lot heavier.
Apollo was a lot bigger, it didn't go nearly as far (by a few orders of magnitude), and the mission was a lot shorter (again by a few orders of magnitude).
That link does not support your "insufficient fuel" claim, its just generalist BS, followed by explaining that they saved fuel by not having the entire craft land on the moon and take off again.
The "funny thing happened..." youtube video was already posted here, I watched it, and I see no evidence of anything they were talking about.
They are delusional if they think that those images were just of the earth as seen through a cutout hole.
Just WTH are you "no landing" guys smoking????
Where's that pic of the dead horse being whipped?
Laika was shot up into low Earth orbit...well under the Van Allen belt...
[xx(]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU&sa
Brad Steele
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
For Sci Fi fans it is a fallacy that spacecraft need constant thrust from engines. Thrust is only needed for manuvering, stopping and counter acting gravitational pull. "warp drive" only need to provide thrust until you reach the required speed.
Basic high school science. Space is a vacum. There is no resistance in a vacum. With some minor exceptions once movement has started there is nothing to stop it. Fuel is only necessary to accelerate which is easier without resistance and decelerate, which is harder without resistance. Think about a comet which travels through the universe for thousands or even millions of years. Comets are ice and gas...no propulsion system yet they keep on going. They are aided by gravitational pull which is also used to some extent in our space flights....
Poppycock.
I have seen the rocket plume coming off the back of comets on the TV. They are powered vessels. Do not believe the 'gas and ice' myth propagated by recent hero movies.
Brad Steele
2hrs and ~(.)-(.)~ I ~(.)-(.)~ like an over ripe tomato
Intense solar flares release very-high-energy particles that can be as injurious to humans as the low-energy radiation from nuclear blasts. Earth's atmosphere and magnetosphere allow adequate protection for us on the ground, but astronauts in space are subject to potentially lethal dosages of radiation. The penetration of high-energy particles into living cells, measured as radiation dose, leads to chromosome damage and, potentially, cancer. Large doses can be fatal immediately. Solar protons with energies greater than 30 MeV are particularly hazardous. In October 1989, the Sun produced enough energetic particles that an astronaut on the Moon, wearing only a space suit and caught out in the brunt of the storm, would probably have died."
Besides being a threat to satellite systems, energetic particles present a hazard to astronauts on space missions. On Earth we are protected from these particles by the atmosphere, which absorbs all but the most energetic cosmic ray particles. During space missions, astronauts performing extra-vehicular activities are relatively unprotected. The fluxes of energetic particles can increase hundreds of times, following an intense solar flare or during a large geomagnetic storm, to dangerous levels.
According to Interplanetary crew exposure estimates for the August 1972 and October 1989 solar particle events , "...estimates of human exposure in interplanetary space, behind various thicknesses of aluminum shielding, are made for the large solar proton events of August 1972 and October 1989. A comparison of risk assessment in terms of total absorbed dose for each event is made for the skin, ocular lens, and bone marrow. Overall, the doses associated with the August 1972 event were higher than those with the October 1989 event and appear to be more limiting when compared with current guidelines for dose limits for missions in low Earth orbit and more hazardous with regard to potential acute effects on these organs. Both events could be life-threatening if adequate shielding is not provided."
Now their telling us man went through the Van Allen Belt and beyond with the technology of the 60's
GIVE ME A BREAK
I believe we did land on the moon but not with
humans
Maybe to pick up rocks before the fake moon landing
But I have an opened mind and as science progresses and new evidence come into play I may change my mind
Or did we?
quote:Originally posted by dakotashooter2
Basic high school science. Space is a vacum. There is no resistance in a vacum. With some minor exceptions once movement has started there is nothing to stop it. Fuel is only necessary to accelerate which is easier without resistance and decelerate, which is harder without resistance. Think about a comet which travels through the universe for thousands or even millions of years. Comets are ice and gas...no propulsion system yet they keep on going. They are aided by gravitational pull which is also used to some extent in our space flights....
Poppycock.
I have seen the rocket plume coming off the back of comets on the TV. They are powered vessels. Do not believe the 'gas and ice' myth propagated by recent hero movies.
I don't see a green font.
We may have a winner for the dumbest statement of the thread.
Btw, why does wallie always include stupid photos in his posts?
Probably the same reason he uses such bad logic, like comparing a sun burn from electromagnetic radiation - UVA and UVB rays that can be stopped with a sheet of paper, as if it were evidence that ionic radiation (mostly Protons and electron) outside the earths atmosphere was extremely deadly.
And of course, wallie's posts contain lies.
There was no soviet dog that entered the Van Allen radiation belt.
There was no space dog at all that died from radiation.
The first one died a few hours after launch (far too early for the radiation to cause any symptoms, even if the dog was completely exposed to the radiation).
Two others died when the re entry vehicle broke up.
Wallie, your arguments are incoherent and full of falsehoods and misdirection, with pictures thrown in to seemingly try to divert attention from the stupidity of the arguments being made.
And everyone knows they will ban info coming in if not to their specifications
Like brain washing
The Russians knew it was not possible for life to land on the moon, YET
I had close contact with a family that the Russians drafted their dog for space travel
Back in the 50's, 60's they were looking for dogs in the streets but most were not in good physical condition
They sent many animals in different compartments with different type of shielding for radiation experiments
U will never hear\read this but it has happened
Just the Van Allen radiation belt, mind you when the Russians told the world there was no way getting through them. The U.S.A quickly made up a story that they flew REAL FAST, kind like superman, and we all know the technologically they had in the 60's. Now with all the BS they have spun with the help of their paid scientist, they have people believing there is no such thing as radiation around earth. Plus since the 60's watch any cartoon, or science fiction movie especially by Disney, and you will never here them talking about the Van Allen radiation belt or nuclear radiation on the moon. They are never mentioned, set up to brain wash Americans mostly, and Canadians get caught up in it.
With a voltage of 1 to 100 mio. volt and higher and with radioactive radiation "moon flights" are said having been possible. But the radiation of the moon itself without protecting atmosphere has also to be considered.
So, the "moon landings" were not possible.
This is NO conspiracy theory, nuclear radiation on the moon are never mentioned in the cartoons and in the science fiction films. this is logic.
Now for those that do understand this, I am working on a pic
From Wiki....
"A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.[13]"
I am pretty sure 3 mm of aluminum shielding was not beyond the reach of technology in 1969.
Naturally, that would not shield from meteorite impact, but I see no one hyperventilating over that, either.
Barzillia,
Take your shielded satellite or a boombox and put it out on the beach for two weeks and see how bad the sun burn is? Shielding an electronic signal from interference is different than what you and i can survive. Comsats for TV signals are stationary at 23,000 miles alt while the GPS birds are lower at 12,000 miles alt. Both very radiated and functional.
There's a reason the Space Station (ISS) is only 280 miles altitude -> they've never been any higher than 500 miles and lived and never will. The ozone and magnetosphere protects us from the harmfull solar radiation. Without earth's atmosphere it would become a barron wasteland like the moon.
"We've discovered an earth like planet in another solar system."
They have given no proof of this planet, as i asked for in their
discussion area. It's a baseless claim or new statistic.
NASA clings to the brainwashed-world view the big bang formed
everything thus there are other worlds out there, since planets are
said to have formed slowly over millions of years. They need their
moon hoax to remain credible as an authority providing Hubble and
other data. If there are other planets and possibly life out there
then earth is not a special creation by God. If they can go to the
moon then life out there is suppose to be possible. That and the
ICBM Cold War hoax were the only real reasons to go.
Now as a Christian I have no problem with other planets created by
God at the time of creation or with them going to the moon. However,
They will have to prove these fantastic claims. The evidence i've
seen shows we are a special creation in this solar system. I have no
need to accept their theories and if the evidence shows they did not
go to the moon then that is the way it is. If the evidence shows
there are no other solar systems in this or other galaxies then that
is the way it is.
The past few weeks NASA has been in awe of the solar flares. Are we
to believe a solar flare will destroy the earth? With each passing
solar flare NASA loses credibility.
NASA only first claimed to discover other solar systems with planets in
1992. That's right, before 1992 they only theorized about
other planetary solar systems. After 92 they now claim to have some
evidence via indirect imaging. Now they also have the Jesuit's new
telescope namedLucifer providing data we can all relly upon?
There are other scientists who refute the theories that big bang
caused the universe billions of years ago or that the earth took millions of years to form. These theories are founded upon SAND and don't
have to be accepted. Some need to accept everything NASA says or
their whole world view collapses, and gasp, there may be a Creator
afterall. What does He want?
Like the United Nations, NASA has an interesting founding by members
of the occult. That is their religion. They have a political agenda
for their world view.
Operation Paperclip: Dark Side of the Moon
Sixty years ago the US hired Nazi scientists to lead pioneering
projects, such as the race to conquer space.
Drugs, Sex Magick & JPL: The Bizarre Story of the Enigmatic Founder of America's Modern Space Programme
Jack Parsons was the cofounder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
He led the Agape Lodge of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO),
and was associated with scientists, thinkers, and writers prominent
in their time; Ray Bradbury, L. Ron Hubbard, and Robert A. Heinlein.
Jack Parsons' extracurricular interests included explosives and
solid rocket fuels. He was an avid practitioner of magical rituals
the likes of which were performed by Anton La Vey, the former head
of the Church of Satan in San Francisco, & the notable British
Occultist & 33? Freemason Aleister Crowley. A brilliant scientist, &
poet with a masterly command of the secret languge, Jack Parson's
remains one of the most perplexing & enigmatic figures in the
America Space Programme's modern History.
There's a lecture given about this called The UN Occult Agenda by
pastor Walter Veith. It's on Google or here.
Other recent false claims by NASA:
"We've discovered an earth like planet in another solar system."
They have given no proof of this planet, as i asked for in their
discussion area. It's a baseless claim or new statistic.
NASA clings to the brainwashed-world view the big bang formed
everything thus there are other worlds out there, since planets are
said to have formed slowly over millions of years. They need their
moon hoax to remain credible as an authority providing Hubble and
other data. If there are other planets and possibly life out there
then earth is not a special creation by God. If they can go to the
moon then life out there is suppose to be possible. That and the
ICBM Cold War hoax were the only real reasons to go.
Now as a Christian I have no problem with other planets created by
God at the time of creation or with them going to the moon. However,
They will have to prove these fantastic claims. The evidence i've
seen shows we are a special creation in this solar system. I have no
need to accept their theories and if the evidence shows they did not
go to the moon then that is the way it is. If the evidence shows
there are no other solar systems in this or other galaxies then that
is the way it is.
The past few weeks NASA has been in awe of the solar flares. Are we
to believe a solar flare will destroy the earth? With each passing
solar flare NASA loses credibility.
NASA only first claimed to discover other solar systems with planets in
1992. That's right, before 1992 they only theorized about
other planetary solar systems. After 92 they now claim to have some
evidence via indirect imaging. Now they also have the Jesuit's new
telescope namedLucifer providing data we can all relly upon?
There are other scientists who refute the theories that big bang
caused the universe billions of years ago or that the earth took millions of years to form. These theories are founded upon SAND and don't
have to be accepted. Some need to accept everything NASA says or
their whole world view collapses, and gasp, there may be a Creator
afterall. What does He want?
Like the United Nations, NASA has an interesting founding by members
of the occult. That is their religion. They have a political agenda
for their world view.
Operation Paperclip: Dark Side of the Moon
Sixty years ago the US hired Nazi scientists to lead pioneering
projects, such as the race to conquer space.
Drugs, Sex Magick & JPL: The Bizarre Story of the Enigmatic Founder of America's Modern Space Programme
Jack Parsons was the cofounder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).
He led the Agape Lodge of Aleister Crowley's Ordo Templi Orientis (OTO),
and was associated with scientists, thinkers, and writers prominent
in their time; Ray Bradbury, L. Ron Hubbard, and Robert A. Heinlein.
Jack Parsons' extracurricular interests included explosives and
solid rocket fuels. He was an avid practitioner of magical rituals
the likes of which were performed by Anton La Vey, the former head
of the Church of Satan in San Francisco, & the notable British
Occultist & 33? Freemason Aleister Crowley. A brilliant scientist, &
poet with a masterly command of the secret languge, Jack Parson's
remains one of the most perplexing & enigmatic figures in the
America Space Programme's modern History.
There's a lecture given about this called The UN Occult Agenda by
pastor Walter Veith. It's on Google or here.
Look Amish, it all comes down to math. On a clear night how many stars can you see? LOTS, and thats a very small % of whats out there, so, out of 1 billion stars, 1 star has planets, take that times number of stars out there equals BILLIONS of planets. Now say 1 out of a billion of those planets have life (a very likely thing, mathematically)times the billion of planets equals BILLIONS of planets with life. Now out of those billions of planets with life, say 1 out of billion have intelligent life times the billions of planets with life, there are BILLIONS of intelligent life forms out there. ITS MATHEMATICALLY CERTAIN THAT THERE IS! Even with loooooong odds I stated. More than likely the odds are not that long!
So, you see, intelligent beings are out there, you just arent one of them! [:D][:D][:D]
God has nothing to do with it, its about the math! [:)]
Oh ya, we landed on the damn moon you idiots! [:D][:D]
The "funny thing happened..." youtube video was already posted here, I watched it, and I see no evidence of anything they were talking about.
They are delusional if they think that those images were just of the earth as seen through a cutout hole.
Ah, Here's the one, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon (earth clip). The whole film is worthy.
"I see nothing." (throw in "delusional" Shultz)
And the tiny earth, an unexplainable scientific impossibility?
"I see nothing."
Haven't been back? Seems like NASA would want to establish some sort of forward base there if it were possible at all?
"I see nothing."
Obviouse to most, due to solar radiation, if the ozone were depleted cancer rates would increase?
"I See nothing."
Buzz seems to think he walked on the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU&sa
Criminals sure can get mean when cornered. Actually it was investigative reporter Bart Sibrel that scored the knockout. After Aldrin became violent there was a court date that generated alot of needed publicity to get the truth out about this giant fraud.
Sibrel was right when he called Aldrin "a coward a liar and a thief". It took alot of courage to confront the popular NASA astronaut.
Coward - Refuses to answer questions.
Liar - Claims to have walked on the moon.
Thief - Steals taxpayer retirement for a fraud of a career that helps NASA continue to defraud us all of billion$.
NASA has been spending billions looking and listening for life out there for decades. So far - ZERO. Not a sound or a trace of life anywhere in space. (proof positive of none.)
Those running NASA know there is no life out there. They know they faked the moon hoax, and that the space conditions do not allow for life in space. The entire program, including the new CERN money pit in Europe, allows them to invent data for their new theories. It has nothing to do with actually finding life as they claim.
If the Saturn V (capable of delivering over 200,000 pounds of thrust in its third stage burn) couldn't shoot the Apollo spacecraft to the moon through the frictionless vacuum of space, then there is no way that a smudge of gunpowder could propel an itty-bitty bullet over 100 feet through relatively moist air while fighting gravity the whole way. I mean, the bullet doesn't have any propellant in it to keep going, does it? Unless they are tracers! Tracers must be the only bullets to get!
The inner Van Allen radiation belt (considered to be the more dangerous of the two, but only moderately dangerous at that) is about 6000 miles "thick" or "wide" or however you want to call it. The Saturn V's 3rd stage pushed the astronauts through the Van Allen belt at about 10,000 feet per second. That is over 6000 miles per hour.
They went through the inner belt in under an hour.
That might seem like a long enough time to cook them, but... I'm not going to throw that much radio theory at you. To compare the radiation found in the Van Allen belt to a dental x-ray, or to a sunburn even (really?), does nothing but expose ignorance on the subject. Just consider that there is a difference between exposure, intensity, and saturation, along with many other things. I'll refer you to some educational links though:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attenuation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_flux
For starters.
You'll notice light blue words peppering the text. If you click on them, you can learn what those words mean too...
********************************
Hey everybody, that reminds me: green is for sarcasm, so what color do we use for patronizing?
********************************
There are other links for all sorts of learnin', but in case you think wikipedia is in on the plot (despite the outside references they usually cite at the bottom of the page), try talking to a doctor or technician in the field of radiology, physics teachers at a local school, and/or a therapist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Buzz seems to think he walked on the moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOo6aHSY8hU&sa
Criminals sure can get mean when cornered. Actually it was investigative reporter Bart Sibrel that scored the knockout. After Armstrong became violent there was a court date that generated alot of needed publicity to get the truth out about this giant fraud.
Sibrel was right when he called Armstrong "a coward a liar and a thief". It took alot of courage to confront the popular NASA astronaut.
Coward - Refuses to answer questions.
Liar - Claims to have walked on the moon.
Thief - Steals taxpayer retirement for a fraud of a career that helps NASA continue to defraud us all of billion$.
[img][/img]
NASA has been spending billions looking and listening for life out there for decades. So far - ZERO. Not a sound or a trace of life anywhere in space. (proof positive of none.)
Those running NASA know there is no life out there. They know they faked the moon hoax, and that the space conditions do not allow for life in space. The entire program, including the new CERN money pit in Europe, allows them to invent data for their new theories. It has nothing to do with actually finding life as they claim.
You are calling a national hero a criminal? Wow. Hate to hear your opinion on recipients of the MoH.
That "Earth-like" planet NASA found? Hyped up by the media. Just like the recent arsenic-based life they "found" not too long ago. The planet was Earth-like, not because they saw oceans, mini-malls, and airports, but because it was situated in roughly the same orbit from its sun as we are. A position called the "Goldilocks Zone". Furthermore, it was a team of astronomers in Hawaii that found it, not NASA.
What the F does CERN have to do with your musings? NASA has nothing to do with them. They are particle physicists. Oh, and they happened to have invented the world wide web as a means of sharing the results of their experiments.
Also, NASA has nothing to do with SETI. The US Gov and NASA may have funded a study or two, but they aren't related. SETI is mostly privately funded and has only been around since the early 1960's.
I highly doubt SETI will ever find an alien radio signal, but that is basically what they are doing: scanning for radio signals. To claim that 'their failure to find evidence of an alien version of The Rolling Stones is proof that there isn't any life outside of our solar system' is rather foolhardy (I paraphrased). You have any idea how big the universe is? Heck, it takes over 8 minutes for light to reach us from the sun. You have any idea how long it takes for a radio signal, that WE have sent, to travel from our solar system to another solar system? Let me give you a hint: radio signals are electromagnetic radiation and travel at the speed of light.
Give up?
Proxima Centauri, the star nearest ours, is over 4 light-years away. Four light-years away. Four. Years. And Proxima Centauri doesn't even have any planets.
Again, I don't expect to wake up one day and hear about the latest on an alien Howdy Doody, but I'm not gonna say there is NO life outside our solar system.
So, you have grossly incorrect assumptions of NASA. You feel that national heroes are criminals. You have no idea what radio telescopes are, nor what they are for. You find absolute proof for your theories in the singular failures of currently ongoing experiments. And, the moon must be made of cheese.
Good to know.
edited to remove image
But they did put men on the moon back when NASA was for real!
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee
As far as what the moon rocks consisted 0f- have you looked for that information? BTW, if you visit the Smithsonian in DC, there is a moon rock you can touch. As far as info from NASA being classified- nope. You guys ARE aware that all of NASA's info is open source by law- and there are MOUNTAINS of data out there.
But I am sure man did not land on the moon- because they brought back rocks, and everyone knows that the moon is made of cheese
It all boils down to who is telling the truth
and it is called "TRUST"
If u have a history of deceit, u are going to have this fighting
TRUST has to be EARNED, marriage, government or what ever
U can not buy "TRUST"
U can not go to Wal-Mart and ask, Give me a lb of TRUST
TRUST has to be EARNED
Now, if anyone does not understand this let me know and I'll draw up pic [:)]
Amish, this is the video your talking about, right?
All I see is a blue circle, surrounded by black,
At 3:20- 4:00, you can tell the person making the youtube video has zoomed in and cropped the image. Or it was just really zoomed in
At 6:00 I see a "fuzzy" edge that they claim is the result of a crescent shaped insert into the window... yea, right... sure - they offer no explanation as to how it would produce the fuzzy edge, nor is there any evidence that its not actually what NASA claims it is.
Nor does it explain why the edge away from the terminator is much brighter,
The light gradient can be explained by theimage encompasing an entire sphere, not by just viewing a small subset of the surface of a sphere.
Ie: their explanation for how it could be faked is insufficient, they offer nothing to show it is not genuine.
After all the non zoomed images, you still think they are just looking through a hole at an earth that takes up most of the screen? What, they had a super fisheye lens camera?
That smoothly zoomed in with no distortion?
You don't notice a few cuts in the video between when he says he has the camera at the window, and when it gets obscured?
The video claims it is an astronaut's arm. I can't determine this, maybe its his finger? Is it a lens that has its focus adjusted by rotating it? Like the old cameras without electric motors and automatic focus had?
At 8:30 their clais get really stupid
The earth looks too small?
Have you seen how small the moon is in pictures if you don't zoom in?
Your pictures do not show an earth that is the wrong size.
Its like the claims of non parallel shadows, its just a matter of how the photograph was taken (mythbusters has a very good demonstration of the proper perspective that causes this)
You guys simply chose not to believe it, and grasp at straws to justify your belief.
Something else is strange to me, I can understand a rocket having to get to 18/20,000 mph to leave the pull of gravity but why does a returning shuttle have to re-enter traveling so fast and run the chance of melting like what happen over Texas, why not slow down and let gravity do the work slowly ?
You could decelerate more before re entry, but that requires a lot more fuel.
If you want to hit the atmosphere at 0 mph relative speed, you need to carry almost as much fuel when you are finished with the mission as one starts with right now.
This doesn't mean 2x as much fuel, because now you need to accelerate all that fuel
If you use 10 pounds of fuel for every pound of stuff you get into orbit (the Saturn V used about 22 pounds of fuel for every pound of stuff sent to the moon).... then to de orbit, with almost no speed, your craft much be almost 10x heavier.
So now you need to lift 10x as much stuff into orbit, you need 100 pounds of fuel for every pound of craft that you bring back. Its just not feasible.
Especially since with that much fuel, you could pretty much get your entire craft to anywhere in the solar system, and back (as long as you don't land, but just enter and leave orbit - you could probably land on Ceres and take off again, or Mimas, but no way in heck are you going to be able to enter Jupiter's upper atmosphere, and then leave), if you just use a heat shield and let the atmosphere slow you down, rather than using rocket fuel to do so.
Every spaceflight would have to use a rocket bigger than the one that took us to the moon, if we didn't use atmospheric breaking and high re entry velocities.
"Never do wrong to make a friend----or to keep one".....Robert E. Lee