| | | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!??
| IDW
User ID: 313633
10/17/2007 1:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What a load of crap got posted to this thread in the past hour. Same old same old.How many times have I told you, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. WHo is making the extraordinary claim?
I presented my disqualification of the Apollo hoax systematically, covering each component of my arguement thoroughly ,and to date no proof has been presented that I am wrong. The burden of proof does not lie with NASA's critics, but with NASA.
I think that is what some here do not get.
No, you have it exactly backwards.
So, who is it that has the extraordinary believe here, and therefore the complete burdon of proof? Clearly, it is the HB's. Quoting: IDW
Arguing with a stupid fucker like you is about as productive as pissing on a bon fire. Your unbridled ignorance and outrageous backward thinking blaze forth in stupid self glorification, and defy reasonable debate.
Claiming you did the impossible is an outrageous claim, one that requires incontrovertable evidence to porve. Saying something that was impossible didnt occur requires NO proof, not that I havent provided volumes of it. If you think it is myself making the outrageous claim, youre a stupid motherfucker. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 74444
10/17/2007 2:05 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Lets say Columbus reached the New World first. Did England, Netherlands, Portugal, etc, stop heading there as someone else got there first? Uh, no. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
Okay -- but let's continue with the analogy. How long was it before Spain, or anyone else, set up the next expedition there, hm? How long did it take for the SECOND mission to the New World?
You're going to be surprised at the answer... |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/17/2007 2:08 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
What a load of crap got posted to this thread in the past hour. Same old same old.How many times have I told you, extrordinary claims require extrordinary evidence. WHo is making the extraordinary claim?
I presented my disqualification of the Apollo hoax systematically, covering each component of my arguement thoroughly ,and to date no proof has been presented that I am wrong. The burden of proof does not lie with NASA's critics, but with NASA.
I think that is what some here do not get.
No, you have it exactly backwards.
So, who is it that has the extraordinary believe here, and therefore the complete burdon of proof? Clearly, it is the HB's.
Arguing with a stupid fucker like you is about as productive as pissing on a bon fire. Your unbridled ignorance and outrageous backward thinking blaze forth in stupid self glorification, and defy reasonable debate.
Claiming you did the impossible is an outrageous claim, one that requires incontrovertable evidence to porve. Saying something that was impossible didnt occur requires NO proof, not that I havent provided volumes of it. If you think it is myself making the outrageous claim, youre a stupid motherfucker. Quoting: IDW 313633
You have provided exactly nothing to show that it did not happen as described. And it is YOUR ignorance which stands out. Was the LEM tested...yes or no?
BTW, your colorful language gives away your mentality. |
| IDW
User ID: 313674
10/17/2007 2:49 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Was the LEM tested...yes or no?
BTW, your colorful language gives away your mentality. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
I couldnt think of a more appropriately deraugatory thing to call you. Please feel free to submit suggestions.
Your lack of mentality is self evident. You have the brains of a squirrel.
NO, the lunar module was NEVER tested to make a controlled descent or ascent from the moon before A11.
The only real way to test it was using the exact configuration that was to be used, in the enviroment it was to be used. Astronauts may be test pilots , but to test an entirely new machine on it's maiden manned journey is not accpetable protocol.
Making a model of the LEM and trying to fly it has been attempted. In fact, back in the seventies , model rocketeers and RC hobbiests tryed to duplicate the controled landing by sophisticated remote control. Research it, find out what I knew back in 1972, that no such attempt ever succeeded
NO SUCH TEST EVER OCCURED, and the explanation for why is simple. They never intended to actually land a man on the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/17/2007 3:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
All these insults from the same guy who said ad hominems indicate no interest in the real truth. Unless the ad hominems are pointed to those who disagree with him, of course. |
| IDW
User ID: 313686
10/17/2007 3:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
All these insults from the same guy who said ad hominems indicate no interest in the real truth. Unless the ad hominems are pointed to those who disagree with him, of course. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
No one is more deserving of being insulted than one who lies to make a living at the expense of those he is lying to. You're a lying scumbag, and you know you are.
Call it whatever you like, the truth is not an ad hominem attack. That is the language of handbook propagandist who has been called what he is. Reviewing these threads proves who was involved in an organized propaganda campaign, and who was digging for the truth. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/17/2007 3:38 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Was the LEM tested...yes or no?
BTW, your colorful language gives away your mentality.
I couldnt think of a more appropriately deraugatory thing to call you. Please feel free to submit suggestions.
Your lack of mentality is self evident. You have the brains of a squirrel.
NO, the lunar module was NEVER tested to make a controlled descent or ascent from the moon before A11.
The only real way to test it was using the exact configuration that was to be used, in the enviroment it was to be used. Astronauts may be test pilots , but to test an entirely new machine on it's maiden manned journey is not accpetable protocol.
Making a model of the LEM and trying to fly it has been attempted. In fact, back in the seventies , model rocketeers and RC hobbiests tryed to duplicate the controled landing by sophisticated remote control. Research it, find out what I knew back in 1972, that no such attempt ever succeeded
NO SUCH TEST EVER OCCURED, and the explanation for why is simple. They never intended to actually land a man on the moon. Quoting: IDW 313674
Yes, indeed the LEM was tested to the fullest extent possible. It was tested in earth orbit on Apollo 9 and in lunar orbit on Apollo 10. In both test flights, it docked and undocked, tested maneauverability, the starting and restarting of engines, and staging. It flew to within 60,000 feet of the surface of the moon and returned to dock with the CSM. Since it was not designed to fly in full earth gravity, it could not possibly be tested in a powered descent on earth, but certainly was tested in a powered descent and ascent from just a few miles above the lunar surface. The final test came with the actual landing. Can you suggest any further testing in the actual lunar environment that could have been done?
Your ignorance in this subject seems to know no bounds. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 3:46 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Part from the silly usuall claims that has been debunked a thousand times, the multiple-angle shadows,waiving flag,no stars,radiation,no Crater at Landing Site,etc,etc...
It has all been explained with real science, and no, saying BULLSHIT to the explanations is not a counter arguement.
And part from the political realities of the time would have made a fraud of that scale impossible to pull off.
They were monitoring all the Apollo flights to the moon and back, as they did with their own orbiter and lander.
We went to the moon to beat the Soviets. If the Soviets had suspected that we faked these missions in any way, they would have been screaming at the top of their lungs.
We also have an entire world of scientists that agrees that the moon landing took place as the official report goes.
Then we have the HBs.
There is a growing belief in pseudoscience like aliens on Earth and astrology.
Oh yes, most of the moonhoax believers believe in more then just one of these silly conspiracies.
We live in a society where there is no law in making money in the promulgation of ignorance or, in some cases, stupidity. There are a lot of things you can say never happened. You can go as relatively quasi-harmless as saying no one went to the moon.
But you also can say that the Holocaust never happened.
Yes, there are people that really believe in their hearts that was a hoax aswell.
It went as far as some of these moonhoax believers sued Apollo 13 commander Jim Lovell, because he said YES, we went to the moon ...Of course, the courts threw it out.
The authorities also threw out the case involving Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin.
A much bigger and younger man was hounding the 72-year-old astronaut in Beverly Hills, California, calling him "a coward and a liar and a thief" and trying to get him to swear on a Bible, on camera, that he walked on the moon. Aldrin, a Korean War combat pilot, plugged him right in the face, and not hard enough if you ask me.
People believe in the weirdest stuff, the silly claim that humans never walked on the Moon, despite copious evidence to the contrary, is a perfect example. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/17/2007 3:48 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Those who make the HB claim are precisely those who know the least about the subject. IDW is a prime example. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 3:57 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The thousands of scientists around the world who have studied the Apollo samples agree... They could not have come from Earth.
How can the HBs say, -THEY ARE ALL WRONG!!??
Unlike Earth rocks, the lunar samples are totally devoid of water, even within their crystal structures. Their chemical compositions, in particular the ratio of iron and manganese, set them apart from any of Earths native rocks. They are extraordinarily ancient, some almost as old as the solar system.
Perhaps, most importantly, their surfaces show the effects of bombardment by high-speed micrometeorites and subatomic particles from the solar wind—neither of which can affect terrestrial rocks because our atmosphere screens them out.
These so-called "zap pits" would have also been wiped out had the rocks fallen to Earth as lunar meteorites; the tremendous heat generated by their high-velocity passage through our atmosphere would have erased any such surface features.
The Apollo samples must have been brought back from the Moon—and indeed they were hand-delivered.
But nooo, the HB is right and the thousands of scientists around the world are wrong.
How this can make sense to anyone is beyond me!
Some good may yet come of this. Hopefully, people who might be swayed by the skeptics will do a little research and learn the real story behind the Apollo missions. When they do, they will find out that the "Moon hoax" has no more substance than the vacuum of space. |
| HAZZARD
User ID: 308422
10/17/2007 4:06 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Those who make the HB claim are precisely those who know the least about the subject. IDW is a prime example. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 98001
True.
IDW is what I call a hardcore HB. He is not only wrong and closed minded, he is also rude and uneducated. He would rather die then admit that he has been wrong all these years. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:23 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
He goes on to say that "well, until their is motivation to do so blah blah"....Sure. Like no one is motivated to see a manned Mars mission. Or even a real moon mission.
The Russians know that, the Chinese know that, and anyone with any common sense can see that.
"Russias space agency chief said that a manned mission to Mars in the near future is realistic provided funding is adequate.
Perminov, who took over as space agency chief in a government reshuffle in March-04, said the project should be international.
It would be very difficult for one country to carry out such a program. Perminov said the Russian agency has discussed manned Moon and Mars projects with NASA, the U.S. space agency.
Earlier this year, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed a manned mission to Mars but did not set a timeline for such a trip, which American scientists believe would probably remain decades away."
[ link to www.space.com]
Decades away?? Big guy, we are already "decades away" from this hoax.
Mars should be like getting on a Jet Blue flight by now.
As for financing, there is no lack of financing.
THEY PRINT THE MONEY, SMART GUY, IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.
We foot the bill.
No Nasa program costs Nasa anything. Its all free.
"It would be very difficult for one country to carry out such a program."
And yet you claim one country did it almost 40 years ago. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:31 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
But you also can say that the Holocaust never happened. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
When all else fails, invoke the Holocaust.
Sure, it has no relation to the Apollo Hoax, but its best to tar your adversaries as Nazis.
This is at least the second attempt by Hazzard on this thread. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:34 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The thousands of scientists around the world who have studied the Apollo samples agree... They could not have come from Earth.
How can the HBs say, -THEY ARE ALL WRONG!!??
Unlike Earth rocks, the lunar samples are totally devoid of water, even within their crystal structures. Their chemical compositions, in particular the ratio of iron and manganese, set them apart from any of Earths native rocks. They are extraordinarily ancient, some almost as old as the solar system.
Perhaps, most importantly, their surfaces show the effects of bombardment by high-speed micrometeorites and subatomic particles from the solar wind—neither of which can affect terrestrial rocks because our atmosphere screens them out.
These so-called "zap pits" would have also been wiped out had the rocks fallen to Earth as lunar meteorites; the tremendous heat generated by their high-velocity passage through our atmosphere would have erased any such surface features.
The Apollo samples must have been brought back from the Moon—and indeed they were hand-delivered.
But nooo, the HB is right and the thousands of scientists around the world are wrong.
How this can make sense to anyone is beyond me!
Some good may yet come of this. Hopefully, people who might be swayed by the skeptics will do a little research and learn the real story behind the Apollo missions. When they do, they will find out that the "Moon hoax" has no more substance than the vacuum of space. Quoting: HAZZARD 308422
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 262563
10/17/2007 4:36 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
ARGH!!!!
IDW, I can't take you anymore!!!!
It's NOT "SELF-EVIDENT". It is *EVIDENT!* STOP misusing the self-evident fucking term over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER! It makes you look IDIOTIC!
THEY PRINT THE MONEY, SMART GUY, IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.
We foot the bill.
No Nasa program costs Nasa anything. Its all free. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
Proving IDW's grasp of ECONOMICS is about the same as all the REST of his fucking knowledge. As in NONE. He just makes it UP as he GOES! |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/17/2007 4:39 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Better example would be the South Pole. First reached in 1911. The next two expeditions failed. It was 1929 before anyone even flew over it; the next time someone set foot on the ice at the furthest southern tip of the Earth was in 1956.
(They didn't walk in, either. To my knowledge no-one has replicated Amundsen's journey, with the slight exception of a party a few years back that worked their way across part of the Ross Ice Sheet as a historical recreation.)
During that International Geophysical Year of 1956, the first year-round station was finally established at the Pole, and the pole has been continuously habited since, with a floating population often upwards of several hundred (although it falls below a hundred during "wintering-in."
(As a side note, a friend of mine turned down a chance to winter in at Amundsen-Scott while he was a physics grad student. Me, I'd take it up in a heartbeat.)
The South Pole, let us note, has water and air.
All of us futurists and space enthusiasts are sad and disappointed -- and even angry -- at how slow the movement out into space has been. When public attention turned from the Apollo Missions the program was scrapped, missions 18-20 canceled, the ideas of expanded lunar presence abandoned, the Saturn V discontinued. All in favor of the "leaner, smarter" NASA with that toy pick-up truck they called the Shuttle; good for putting a commercial satellite in orbit. Useless for serious work.
But we are realists enough to know its not as simple as magazines of the 60's had painted it. Space travel remains complicated, dangerous, energy-consuming, and almost unimaginably expensive. All those fine computers and advances in materials can do little to what is already mature technology.
The job of getting from surface to orbit requires brute force. Nifty slingshot orbits, ion drives, all the new stuff we've been playing with does dang-all to get you out of the Earth's massive gravity well. And minaturization -- so good for satellites and space probes -- doesn't work so well with flesh-and-blood astronauts.
(It has been suggested, however. Look up the history of "Jerrie" Cobb some time.)
To put it in perspective; the Saturn V was like a 1960's muscle car. Fuel injectors and electronic ignition can get us a few percent more horsepower, and a few more miles per gallon. All the rest of the crap under the hood of today's advanced, heavily computerized automobiles is pollution control and driver comfort.
We can make a rocket engine that's 10%, 20% more efficient than the great F1. We have fuels that are 5%, 10% more energetic. So we could fly to the Moon today.....
On a Saturn V that was a full ten feet shorter.
(We can, however, take a really nice X-Box to play with during the flight). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
THEY PRINT THE MONEY, SMART GUY, IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.
We foot the bill.
No Nasa program costs Nasa anything. Its all free.
Proving IDW's grasp of ECONOMICS is about the same as all the REST of his fucking knowledge. As in NONE. He just makes it UP as he GOES! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 262563
Yet tis true.
Nothing costs the government or Nasa anything.
The money is printed up, created out of thin air, and Voila!
Nasa never had to pay for anything. Its an agency created by the government. It doesnt "work for money".
It just exists and sucks money from the teat.
All free. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 98001
10/17/2007 4:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
He goes on to say that "well, until their is motivation to do so blah blah"....Sure. Like no one is motivated to see a manned Mars mission. Or even a real moon mission.
The Russians know that, the Chinese know that, and anyone with any common sense can see that.
"Russias space agency chief said that a manned mission to Mars in the near future is realistic provided funding is adequate.
Perminov, who took over as space agency chief in a government reshuffle in March-04, said the project should be international.
It would be very difficult for one country to carry out such a program. Perminov said the Russian agency has discussed manned Moon and Mars projects with NASA, the U.S. space agency.
Earlier this year, U.S. President George W. Bush proposed a manned mission to Mars but did not set a timeline for such a trip, which American scientists believe would probably remain decades away."
[ link to www.space.com]
Decades away?? Big guy, we are already "decades away" from this hoax.
Mars should be like getting on a Jet Blue flight by now.
As for financing, there is no lack of financing.
THEY PRINT THE MONEY, SMART GUY, IT COSTS THEM NOTHING.
We foot the bill.
No Nasa program costs Nasa anything. Its all free.
"It would be very difficult for one country to carry out such a program."
And yet you claim one country did it almost 40 years ago.
And folks, here we have the typical HB who knows less about reality than anyone. Thank you, IDW, for demonstrating your utter lack of brains for everyone to see. You make our point better than we ever could. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 262563
10/17/2007 4:41 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
You've NEVER adequately addressed the lunar samples, you dickhead. 800 pounds of unburnt samples. How'd they get them?
You have claimed they were retrieved robotically, with no positive evidence whatsoever. No designs. No quotes from people who worked on them, even on the craziest websites. No manuals. No photos. No robots themselves. No secret launches. No nothing.
You went so far as to say you could have designed them, and you would have used **vacuums** to hoover up lunar samples. Showing you don't know why vacuum cleaners work either.
Which is amazing, given that vacuum-cleaner salesman is likely the only job you qualify for. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Better example would be the South Pole. First reached in 1911. The next two expeditions failed. It was 1929 before anyone even flew over it; the next time someone set foot on the ice at the furthest southern tip of the Earth was in 1956.
(They didn't walk in, either. To my knowledge no-one has replicated Amundsen's journey, with the slight exception of a party a few years back that worked their way across part of the Ross Ice Sheet as a historical recreation.)
During that International Geophysical Year of 1956, the first year-round station was finally established at the Pole, and the pole has been continuously habited since, with a floating population often upwards of several hundred (although it falls below a hundred during "wintering-in."
(As a side note, a friend of mine turned down a chance to winter in at Amundsen-Scott while he was a physics grad student. Me, I'd take it up in a heartbeat.)
The South Pole, let us note, has water and air.
All of us futurists and space enthusiasts are sad and disappointed -- and even angry -- at how slow the movement out into space has been. When public attention turned from the Apollo Missions the program was scrapped, missions 18-20 canceled, the ideas of expanded lunar presence abandoned, the Saturn V discontinued. All in favor of the "leaner, smarter" NASA with that toy pick-up truck they called the Shuttle; good for putting a commercial satellite in orbit. Useless for serious work.
But we are realists enough to know its not as simple as magazines of the 60's had painted it. Space travel remains complicated, dangerous, energy-consuming, and almost unimaginably expensive. All those fine computers and advances in materials can do little to what is already mature technology.
The job of getting from surface to orbit requires brute force. Nifty slingshot orbits, ion drives, all the new stuff we've been playing with does dang-all to get you out of the Earth's massive gravity well. And minaturization -- so good for satellites and space probes -- doesn't work so well with flesh-and-blood astronauts.
(It has been suggested, however. Look up the history of "Jerrie" Cobb some time.)
To put it in perspective; the Saturn V was like a 1960's muscle car. Fuel injectors and electronic ignition can get us a few percent more horsepower, and a few more miles per gallon. All the rest of the crap under the hood of today's advanced, heavily computerized automobiles is pollution control and driver comfort.
We can make a rocket engine that's 10%, 20% more efficient than the great F1. We have fuels that are 5%, 10% more energetic. So we could fly to the Moon today.....
On a Saturn V that was a full ten feet shorter.
(We can, however, take a really nice X-Box to play with during the flight). Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313713
Take the X Box.
You will never get out of lower earth orbit.
Not now.
Not in the future. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:48 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread.
You've NEVER adequately addressed the lunar samples, you dickhead. 800 pounds of unburnt samples. How'd they get them?
You have claimed they were retrieved robotically, with no positive evidence whatsoever. No designs. No quotes from people who worked on them, even on the craziest websites. No manuals. No photos. No robots themselves. No secret launches. No nothing.
You went so far as to say you could have designed them, and you would have used **vacuums** to hoover up lunar samples. Showing you don't know why vacuum cleaners work either.
Which is amazing, given that vacuum-cleaner salesman is likely the only job you qualify for. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 262563
As I said, debunked numerous times in this thread.
And even if you believe they are off-earth origin...it means zilch.
The American Indians were fascinated with beads brought to the new world.
Yet they were worthless.
Nothing earth shattering about them, they had just never seen them.
So called "moon rocks" are evidence of nothing, certainly not a manned moon landing. (Even though we debunked the rocks earlier) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/17/2007 4:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
No one is more deserving of being insulted than one who lies to make a living at the expense of those he is lying to. You're a lying scumbag, and you know you are.
Call it whatever you like, the truth is not an ad hominem attack. Quoting: IDW 313686
Isn't that just awesome. I make a point, he proves my point right. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 4:52 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread.
You've NEVER adequately addressed the lunar samples, you dickhead. 800 pounds of unburnt samples. How'd they get them? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 262563
Irrelevant.
Anyone could approach me on the street, with a bag of rocks, and say , "analyse these, they are from Mars, they cant be found on Earth".
If I analyse them, and conclude they are nothing that I have seen on earth, it is zero proof of a manned Mars landing.
Where did he get them ? Who knows.
But it doesnt mean I believe he went to Mars to get them.
Get the picture? |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 5:27 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread.
you dickhead. You have claimed they were retrieved robotically, with no positive evidence whatsoever. No designs. No quotes from people who worked on them, even on the craziest websites. No manuals. No photos. No robots themselves. No secret launches. No nothing.
You went so far as to say you could have designed them, and you would have used **vacuums** to hoover up lunar samples. Showing you don't know why vacuum cleaners work either.
Which is amazing, given that vacuum-cleaner salesman is likely the only job you qualify for. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 262563
Just an aside, I am not a "dick-head", as you so eloquently put it.
But one question; why would a Brit be so fanatical about the Apollo program?
(Americans dont say "Hoover up")
Americans say " we vacuumed the room."
Brits say they "hoovered it"
Just saying. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/17/2007 5:33 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread.
You've NEVER adequately addressed the lunar samples, you dickhead. 800 pounds of unburnt samples. How'd they get them?
Irrelevant.
Anyone could approach me on the street, with a bag of rocks, and say , "analyse these, they are from Mars, they cant be found on Earth".
If I analyse them, and conclude they are nothing that I have seen on earth, it is zero proof of a manned Mars landing.
Where did he get them ? Who knows.
But it doesnt mean I believe he went to Mars to get them.
Get the picture? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
I bring some brass to a jewelrer and ask him what it is. The simple tests for gold come up negative. It obviously isn't silver. "It must be of alien origin," he says.
See how stupid that sounds?
Geologists have a deep understanding not just of the rock in their hand, but the history that led up to that rock. How did it form, what did the matrix in which it formed look like?
You hand them the lunar samples, or meteoric samples, or a chunk of stone you found in the park, and they will hand you back a hundred-page biography. In the case of lunar and meteoric material, parts of that biography do not match any known conditions on Earth.
Oddly enough, at the time samples were returned by Apollo (and the Soviets), the history described also did not match either of the prime competing theories of the Moon's origin. There was another theory, however. And that one fit very well with what the rocks revealed.
This was a story that no meteorite experienced. Mars did not experience. Earth did not experience. Only the Moon was capable of having that specific history.
Of course our poor geologists were not forced to analyze rocks just handed to them. They had photographs of the rock in situ, allowing them to see that it appeared to be part of a crater, or a lava extrusion, or folding, or other visible evidence of geologic process. In some cases they even had a core sample, which was almost as good as digging down themselves through all the strata and seeing how they lie.
(By the by, if you have a chance, go for a stroll with a geologist. They'll be pointing at what to you looks like just more rock and earth, and describing for you the great dance they can see so clearly indicated; of lava flowing and ancient oceans passing and the ground itself twisting and bulging and folding). |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 5:42 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Actually, that was debunked about 6 times earlier in this thread.
You've NEVER adequately addressed the lunar samples, you dickhead. 800 pounds of unburnt samples. How'd they get them?
Irrelevant.
Anyone could approach me on the street, with a bag of rocks, and say , "analyse these, they are from Mars, they cant be found on Earth".
If I analyse them, and conclude they are nothing that I have seen on earth, it is zero proof of a manned Mars landing.
Where did he get them ? Who knows.
But it doesnt mean I believe he went to Mars to get them.
Get the picture?
I bring some brass to a jewelrer and ask him what it is. The simple tests for gold come up negative. It obviously isn't silver. "It must be of alien origin," he says.
See how stupid that sounds?
Geologists have a deep understanding not just of the rock in their hand, but the history that led up to that rock. How did it form, what did the matrix in which it formed look like?
You hand them the lunar samples, or meteoric samples, or a chunk of stone you found in the park, and they will hand you back a hundred-page biography. In the case of lunar and meteoric material, parts of that biography do not match any known conditions on Earth.
Oddly enough, at the time samples were returned by Apollo (and the Soviets), the history described also did not match either of the prime competing theories of the Moon's origin. There was another theory, however. And that one fit very well with what the rocks revealed.
This was a story that no meteorite experienced. Mars did not experience. Earth did not experience. Only the Moon was capable of having that specific history.
Of course our poor geologists were not forced to analyze rocks just handed to them. They had photographs of the rock in situ, allowing them to see that it appeared to be part of a crater, or a lava extrusion, or folding, or other visible evidence of geologic process. In some cases they even had a core sample, which was almost as good as digging down themselves through all the strata and seeing how they lie.
(By the by, if you have a chance, go for a stroll with a geologist. They'll be pointing at what to you looks like just more rock and earth, and describing for you the great dance they can see so clearly indicated; of lava flowing and ancient oceans passing and the ground itself twisting and bulging and folding). Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 313713
Again. Rocks are irrelevant. As are beads brought by Europeans.
Having mysterious rocks means zero in relation to a manned moon landing.
"Look, I have cool rocks, this means we sent men 240,000 miles into space, landed, and came back"!
What it means, is, you have cool rocks, that can maybe mystify people for like 10 minutes.
It means nothing for proving anyone landed on the moon. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 289861
10/17/2007 5:44 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Again. Rocks are irrelevant. As are beads brought by Europeans.
Having mysterious rocks means zero in relation to a manned moon landing.
"Look, I have cool rocks, this means we sent men 240,000 miles into space, landed, and came back"!
What it means, is, you have cool rocks, that can maybe mystify people for like 10 minutes.
It means nothing for proving anyone landed on the moon. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 313560
It's pretty clear the rocks came from the moon, though. |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313560
10/17/2007 5:54 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Again. Rocks are irrelevant. As are beads brought by Europeans.
Having mysterious rocks means zero in relation to a manned moon landing.
"Look, I have cool rocks, this means we sent men 240,000 miles into space, landed, and came back"!
What it means, is, you have cool rocks, that can maybe mystify people for like 10 minutes.
It means nothing for proving anyone landed on the moon.
It's pretty clear the rocks came from the moon, though. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 289861
Apparently not.
The rocks were debunked numerous times.
Unless you have access to the moon, and can compare the rocks to "moon rocks", you have zero proof of where they come from.
The American Indians never saw beads.
I could tell them that these were from the moon, as they never saw them.
It would be a sham, but people did it.
But they might say " we never saw such things, they must be from the moon. They said so. "
And they would be being scammed.
As are you. |
| nomuse (NLI)
User ID: 313713
10/17/2007 5:56 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
The rocks say, to the international community of geologists, that they came from somewhere that looked a lot like the Moon (chemically and in geologic history), and that they were carried back from this place in a protected manner (not flung out from a meteor impact).
The chemical simularity to Earth, and the dating, are so close as to make it too steep a co-incidence to believe they came from any other body in the Solar System.
Their condition means they were delivered; by humans, by aliens, or by very sophisticated robots. Regardless of what you may think of the evidence that humans were there, there is much, much less evidence for either the aliens or the robots.
(A sideline. The Hoax Believers love to talk up the progress in technology in recent years, stating that many of the things done by Apollo should have been impossible for their "primitive" technology. They particularly like making comparisons of computer technology, to the extent that they claim fly-by-wire or pointing of antenna was impossible to achieve in the 60's. And yet, they are entirely willing -- if it supports their core contention -- to postulate robotics vastly more advanced than was seen even in the mid-70's, and that still would be a challenge today.)
(They also look askance at the problems of landing in a controlled fashion and lifting astronauts back to their spacecraft, and of the manner in which the Command Module burnt off velocity in the atmosphere and made it to the predicted pick-up point. They complain that the radios were not capable of the basic telemetry. They even complain that batteries could not be fashioned to supply the power described. Oh, and they also speak of ordinary cameras melting and being destroyed by the impossible conditions. Yet, somehow, none of these real-world design constraints -- power, telemetry, navigation, sample return, temperature control -- need apply to the fanciful and entirely hypothetical robotics they wish to employ to return lunar samples.) |
| Anonymous Coward
User ID: 313731
10/17/2007 6:01 PM | | Re: APOLLO MOON LANDINGS ------- FAKED OR REAL !!?? | Quote |
Nope. What was lost by the double trip to the moon and back was gained by the capsule being close to Earth.
Easy to handwave, hard to back up.
Do you know how bright the Apollo capsule was in LEO? It did two orbits of the Earth before being boosted on to the Moon, and people were looking out for it. It was far brighter than any satellite. If it had stayed in LEO, people would have noticed. Also, there are photos of it, taken by amateurs, showing the capsule en route after the Trans Lunar Injection burn that sent them on their way. Quoting: Barls Knarkley 177477
Did the photos show the astronauts in it as well??? :-) |
| | Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144 | |
|
