Yeah...it's terrible. This family is actually depriving their off spring of the cultural conditioning and the acceptable norms and standards that others are getting from marvelous sources such as the History channel and Larry King...
What about judge Judy and Oprah...great people who also know flat out we did go to the moon and would go back in a heart beat if only we had the money and did not spend so much money on taking care of people and making sure they had really good educations. Much of our top rated education even comes in the form of TV.
You know even Rush Limbaugh has a lot of wisdome and truth to share and these kids will never understand how the other people think. Sad.
A matter of perception, I guess. What I see is three uncomfortable men that avoid eye/camara contact. As if they were forced to do this interview and they just want to get over it.
I don't see them marveled, or proud or happy because of their incredible accomplishment. Just the opposite.
This series of videos completely blows a hole(pun intended) in the skeptics ridiculous claims that the lunar module would not have left a blast crater.
Since I can't see videos, how about you make the argument yourself? As it stands, the LEM had less than 1/10th the thrust of a harrier at landing, so why should there be a blast crater?
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 634208
Harriers don't land on soft dirt or dust, they land on a specially made, hardened surface.
A matter of perception, I guess. What I see is three uncomfortable men that avoid eye/camara contact. As if they were forced to do this interview and they just want to get over it.
I don't see them marveled, or proud or happy because of their incredible accomplishment. Just the opposite.
Quoting: blackcat66 348276
I see you didn't mention the fact that they had just gotten out of being cooped up in a 3 week quarantine. I had to do a press conference just a couple weeks ago and hated it - I avoided all eye contact as well, but I was just being honest and telling my personal story. Perhaps they hate the media as much as I do, but more importantly, they were probably depressed by being separated from their families for the last month.
Have your "sources" ever examined what was left immediately after a hydrogen bomb explosion? As far as I know, the military has never made a hydrogen bomb explosion site immediately available to souvenir hunters.
What we do know is that tektite, which appears among the "moon rocks," bears some resemblance to trinitite, produced by the plutonium bomb explosion at Trinity 1945.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 709162
Of course...because the fusion stage of a thermonuclear weapon is magical, so it can reshape the mineral content of a sample so it looks like it formed and cooled over tens of thousands of years in a completely arid environment -- and for an encore, it will speckle the outside of the sample with microscopic "zap pits."
That's about as sensible as saying, if I add a can of jellied gasoline to a block of semtex before setting it off against a steel girder, it will magically blow out fully formed blades of Damascus Steel.
A matter of perception, I guess. What I see is three uncomfortable men that avoid eye/camara contact. As if they were forced to do this interview and they just want to get over it.
I don't see them marveled, or proud or happy because of their incredible accomplishment. Just the opposite.
I see you didn't mention the fact that they had just gotten out of being cooped up in a 3 week quarantine. I had to do a press conference just a couple weeks ago and hated it - I avoided all eye contact as well, but I was just being honest and telling my personal story. Perhaps they hate the media as much as I do, but more importantly, they were probably depressed by being separated from their families for the last month.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 634208
Yeah and it really it takes a lot of a guy to be blasted with enought radiation for 1000 mri or whatever.
These valiant young men were terribly terribly stressed and did not know if they wuld even survive being the first to set foot on the moon. They are heros and they know it...that is why they cannot look up from the table.
Careful, there are a lot of them "idiots" here, too.
I am such an idiot. OP, listen to both sides, weigh it out, dig a bit outside the realm of the space program itself and you should also come to the conclusion that, indeed, something is amiss.
The article I posted does not take into consideration that the dust and the atmosphere are very different on the moon and that is why the rocket thrust did not disturb the soil or create a crater. This writer even thought the moon dust should have been turned to glass...what an idiot....where do we ever see soil turned to glass?
Anyway The earth surface is not the moon. Dust does not "coat surfaces" as it does here...
Mcgowan is an ignoramous.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714941
Interesting statement about the dust not covering surfaces as it does here, so would that mean that mars' atmosphere is the same as earths given that there are shots which show parts of at least one mars rover COVERED in dust.
With regards to your 'i didnt read the OP properly' glass comment, the guy in the article was referring to sand in the desert not soil, given the fact that one of the (if not the main) ingredient for glass is sand, then its quite plausable for the writer in the article (given his/her limited sci background) to suggest that the SAND would turn to glass (poor glass at that) under such temperatures from the rockets (or what ever they are), so you've already misread the article and thus laid claim that there is SOIL on the moon.
"This concerns the condition of the lunar surface directly beneath the landing module, also known as the Eagle. As was clearly visible in the photos and videotape beamed back to Earth, the moon's surface beneath the module was in pristine condition, as was the module itself."
Well of course the module will be "pristine," but the surface? Far from it; bits of dust and rock scoured the surface beneath the engine bell, leaving small grooves.
[link to history.nasa.gov]
"To which you may well respond: Duh ... why shouldn't the surface be undisturbed? Glad you asked. The answer is that the lunar module was not placed upon the moon by the hand of God. It had to actually land there. And in order for it to land there in one piece, it had to make use of immensely powerful reverse-thrust rockets."
This is why people who know nothing about rockets and astronomy should refrain from pretending to be experts on it. The engine that landed the LEM did all of its high thrust work high over the moon, far away from the surface. By the time it was hovering the throttle had been greatly reduced. It had also lost most of its mass by that point from burning nearly all of its descent fuel. That left a mass of about 7000kg to land. That means it only required about 2,500 pounds of force to keep it hovering over the moon. A harrier jet, on the other hand, produces about 10 times that much force to lift off, all without leaving a crater (and yes, I've personally seen a harrier land on grass and dirt before).
Yeah! that's right the LEM was hovering above the moon and had slowed way down....they were able to turn off the thrusters....so that is why the photos showed the astronaut's footprints but not the any trace of the high powered stuff required to break the fall...
see. this guy IS a complete idiot....
And of course, the Russians were happy to give up all the grief and expense of working on getting to the moon....they were broke.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714941
Well go find the crater from when they took off back to the shuttle, cos that aint there either and pull the gravity shit either cos they would have needed a load of thrust to get off the moons surface.
Stop chasing the dream of going to the moon, it didnt happen and wont happen in our lifetime (as far as public goes) unless these bastards in the black programs deperatments start releasing technology for the better of mandkind
Interesting statement about the dust not covering surfaces as it does here, so would that mean that mars' atmosphere is the same as earths given that there are shots which show parts of at least one mars rover COVERED in dust.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714257
Mars has a thin atmosphere, but it is enough to suspend dust particles. The Moon does not have sufficient atmosphere to do this.
Also, dust blown over a Rover by massive Martian storm systems lasting weeks, is not exactly the same thing as dust blown back towards the same spacecraft that raised it, during a relatively brief period of thrust from a single engine.
With regards to your 'i didnt read the OP properly' glass comment, the guy in the article was referring to sand in the desert not soil, given the fact that one of the (if not the main) ingredient for glass is sand, then its quite plausable for the writer in the article (given his/her limited sci background) to suggest that the SAND would turn to glass (poor glass at that) under such temperatures from the rockets (or what ever they are), so you've already misread the article and thus laid claim that there is SOIL on the moon.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714257
The material found at atomic blast sites has been given various names, including desert glass or bomb glass. It is glass-like. Tektites, which have also been mentioned in this thread, are similar glassy nodules thought to originate in high-energy (aka major meteorite) impacts. These are found world-wide, as well as on the Moon.
"Soil" is frequently used a description of the lunar surface material, and as such does not imply (any more than the term EVER implies this within geology) the presence of biotic materials.
The temperature and pressure of a rocket blast does not inevitably lead to formation of glass-like materials. Among the various claims that have been alluded to here is that glass-like deposits MUST be found under the LM, and their lack is proof the LM wasn't real.
But somehow this has gotten mixed up with a very different claim that since similar materials have been found in rock and soil samples returned by Apollo, to those found at the sites of atomic tests, that samples identical to those identified as having lunar origin might have magically appeared at the sites of thermonuclear weapons tests!
Well go find the crater from when they took off back to the shuttle, cos that aint there either and pull the gravity shit either cos they would have needed a load of thrust to get off the moons surface.
Stop chasing the dream of going to the moon, it didnt happen and wont happen in our lifetime (as far as public goes) unless these bastards in the black programs deperatments start releasing technology for the better of mandkind
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 714257
I've calculated the thrust and delta-V of the ascent from the Lunar surface. Have you?
(It falls well within the capability of the rocket motor and tankage provided.)
Incidently, the ascent stage used the descent stage as a launching platform. No crater involved. And there is no "shuttle" involved. The ascent stage of the LM makes a lunar orbit rendezvous with the CM/SM, the crew is transferred, and the LM is released. The SM engine is used to break lunar orbit and begin the journey back to Earth.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716019 7/1/2009 11:02 PM
Well go find the crater from when they took off back to the shuttle, cos that aint there either and pull the gravity shit either cos they would have needed a load of thrust to get off the moons surface.
Stop chasing the dream of going to the moon, it didnt happen and wont happen in our lifetime (as far as public goes) unless these bastards in the black programs deperatments start releasing technology for the better of mandkind
I've calculated the thrust and delta-V of the ascent from the Lunar surface. Have you?
(It falls well within the capability of the rocket motor and tankage provided.)
Incidently, the ascent stage used the descent stage as a launching platform. No crater involved. And there is no "shuttle" involved. The ascent stage of the LM makes a lunar orbit rendezvous with the CM/SM, the crew is transferred, and the LM is released. The SM engine is used to break lunar orbit and begin the journey back to Earth.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
yes! yes! exactly so! the lm was able to float gently so gently..even more gently than a footstep.like a gossamar parachute slowly descending without even disturbing any particles of dust whatsoever...of course it is obvious to all of us at mensa who, like yourself, routinely calculate thrust even for small projects such as mowing our lawn....
yes! yes! exactly so! the lm was able to float gently so gently..even more gently than a footstep.like a gossamar parachute slowly descending without even disturbing any particles of dust whatsoever...of course it is obvious to all of us at mensa who, like yourself, routinely calculate thrust even for small projects such as mowing our lawn....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Way back on page 1 I posted this photo showing how dust WAS disturbed by the landing and blown clear of the area underneath the engine bell. In fact, the dust and bits of rock left small radial grooves emanating away from the engine:
[link to history.nasa.gov]
If you want to make claims about the LEM's fuel being insufficient to lift off of the lunar surface, you had better first calculate the required and available delta-V. Obviously you posted without doing the basic math.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715991 7/1/2009 11:48 PM
Yeah and it really it takes a lot of a guy to be blasted with enought radiation for 1000 mri or whatever.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
"Or whatever"? Once again, you should do the math before making ridiculous unsupported statements. 7 rems ( [link to www.crystalinks.com] - 2500rems/year divided by 365 days). That's the max they would have sustained (without even accounting for the fibrous insulation they had to protect against particle radiation) going through the belts had they taken a full day to do it on the combined outbound and inbound journey. In truth, they crossed the most intense part in just a few minutes and sustained less radiation exposure than most ISS astronauts do. 7 rems will not make you sick and does not equate to "1000 mri or whatever" (MRI's use magnets and radio waves genius).
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716019 7/2/2009 12:03 AM
Yeah and it really it takes a lot of a guy to be blasted with enought radiation for 1000 mri or whatever.
"Or whatever"? Once again, you should do the math before making ridiculous unsupported statements. 7 rems ( [link to www.crystalinks.com] - 2500rems/year divided by 365 days). That's the max they would have sustained (without even accounting for the fibrous insulation they had to protect against particle radiation) going through the belts had they taken a full day to do it on the combined outbound and inbound journey. In truth, they crossed the most intense part in just a few minutes and sustained less radiation exposure than most ISS astronauts do. 7 rems will not make you sick and does not equate to "1000 mri or whatever" (MRI's use magnets and radio waves genius).
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
well...that's a relief...all this hoopla about space radiation and needing a foot or more of lead shielding is just...hoopla..the astronauts zipped through the radiation damger belts in just a few minutes due to the careful planning of the NASA tean to selecting just the right point for them to go through...and luckily there is very little, practically none, cosmic radiation and solar flares that could strike the moon's surface so they just were fine after that ....with very little protection. The film in the cameras too! that proves it.
good thing too, cause that means we'll be heading back up there any second....if not us,
well the chinese. They have all the money now...
could be next week sometime....we'll all see it in our lifetimes....
The big moonwalk come backs! can't wait.
yes! yes! exactly so! the lm was able to float gently so gently..even more gently than a footstep.like a gossamar parachute slowly descending without even disturbing any particles of dust whatsoever...of course it is obvious to all of us at mensa who, like yourself, routinely calculate thrust even for small projects such as mowing our lawn....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
I said "ascent," not "descent." These were different stages, and different rocket motors, even. I've never attempted to calculate the descent. I've only done the ascent (and only in first order, too).
And I've never said they didn't kick up dust. Heck -- you can see it in the clips! There is a bunch of crap blown out when the ascent stage lifts off (caught on video from the parked Rover). As for the descent; in the 16mm film taken during landing you can see during the last half-minute or so dust streaming out from under the spacecraft.
Heck, enough dust was blown out to leave a shallow crater. You can see it in some of the surface photographs. Dust was blown far enough, that it lightened the surface enough to see it from an orbiting spacecraft (Kaguya)!
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716019 7/2/2009 12:27 AM
yes! yes! exactly so! the lm was able to float gently so gently..even more gently than a footstep.like a gossamar parachute slowly descending without even disturbing any particles of dust whatsoever...of course it is obvious to all of us at mensa who, like yourself, routinely calculate thrust even for small projects such as mowing our lawn....
I said "ascent," not "descent." These were different stages, and different rocket motors, even. I've never attempted to calculate the descent. I've only done the ascent (and only in first order, too).
And I've never said they didn't kick up dust. Heck -- you can see it in the clips! There is a bunch of crap blown out when the ascent stage lifts off (caught on video from the parked Rover). As for the descent; in the 16mm film taken during landing you can see during the last half-minute or so dust streaming out from under the spacecraft.
Heck, enough dust was blown out to leave a shallow crater. You can see it in some of the surface photographs. Dust was blown far enough, that it lightened the surface enough to see it from an orbiting spacecraft (Kaguya)!
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
wow thanks for that! You're right...you did say thrust...and luckily we can see at about the 5:30 point below that the craters were there...just invisible...invisible blast craters from these great thrust calculations. Perfect.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716019 7/2/2009 12:34 AM
well...that's a relief...all this hoopla about space radiation and needing a foot or more of lead shielding is just...hoopla..
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Cut the sarcasm. The fact that you think lead shielding is an appropriate choice for the kind of radiation found in the van allen belts is proof you have no clue what the hell you're talking about. That's about the worst material you could choose to use due to the bremsstrahlung, which is why you need several feet of it for it to begin to be effective:
[link to www.radprocalculator.com]
Plug in 10000 Ci of activity at 1 meter and see how many rems/hr you get with 3mm aluminum vs 3mm lead.
the astronauts zipped through the radiation damger belts in just a few minutes due to the careful planning of the NASA tean to selecting just the right point for them to go through...and luckily there is very little, practically none, cosmic radiation and solar flares that could strike the moon's surface so they just were fine after that ....with very little protection. The film in the cameras too! that proves it.
Quoting: 716019
There were no bad solar flares directed towards earth during any Apollo mission, and the only significant one occurred while they were in the command module; they simply turned their engine bell and service module towards the sun to block most of the radiation. The electromagnetic forms of that radiation affect low earth orbit spacecraft just as badly as they affected Apollo. A few rems isn't going to fog film any more than it will hurt the crew. Oh and by the way, the money they're getting now is nothing compared to what they got back then, adjusted for inflation.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715991 7/2/2009 12:39 AM
wow thanks for that! You're right...you did say thrust...and luckily we can see at about the 5:30 point below that the craters were there...just invisible...invisible blast craters from these great thrust calculations. Perfect.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
I've done the calculations for descent - they burned about 8000kg of fuel by the time they reached final approach, leaving them with 2,500 lbf of thrust needed to hover. That's less than 1/10th of a harrier, which never leaves a crater. But hey, keep trying, maybe one day you'll learn something.
wow thanks for that! You're right...you did say thrust...and luckily we can see at about the 5:30 point below that the craters were there...just invisible...invisible blast craters from these great thrust calculations. Perfect.
I've done the calculations for descent - they burned about 8000kg of fuel by the time they reached final approach, leaving them with 2,500 lbf of thrust needed to hover. That's less than 1/10th of a harrier, which never leaves a crater. But hey, keep trying, maybe one day you'll learn something.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
oh good...that's out of the way too.Thanks for all you r hard work and lightening calculations! No danger of radiation and they had just enough thrust to gently hover and float down, leaving the surface soft and printable as we see in the numerous photos of the numerous footprints around the LM...
just as a I thought! What a marvel of engineering....
guess they just don't make 'em now like they used too....
too bad we had to use up all our money taking care of all the drowning folks in Katrina and all the homeless families drifting through our cities with nowhere to work and nothing to fo. That has cost us so much as well as providing good health care for the children. Now there's just nothing left.
That is the reason we don't have these engineering skills any longer and can't go and walk on the moon.
Well, like I said....should be any day now. I'm gonna book my reservation....
you?
Exquisitely timed hovering saves on dust every time....
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716019 7/2/2009 12:58 AM
oh and don't forget to bring your old fashioned cameras with the film that magically only gets ruined by high temperatures on earth...never on the moon. We see those cameras being carted all over the moon for hours at a time in the direct sun with no protection and still producing shot after perfect shot....
like I said, just don't make 'em like that anymore....
Anonymous Coward User ID: 715991 7/2/2009 12:59 AM
oh good...that's out of the way too.Thanks for all you r hard work and lightening calculations! No danger of radiation and they had just enough thrust to gently hover and float down, leaving the surface soft and printable as we see in the numerous photos of the numerous footprints around the LM...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
They had more than enough thrust available to hover, but why would they use too much thrust at the end of the approach when all they need to do is gently hover down to the ground? I've already shown you the photo proving that the engine blew the dust out from under the engine bell. You just keep pushing that strawman over hoping someone will fall for it. Considering there's no atmosphere on the moon it's odd that you seem to think the gas from the engine should collide with surrounding air molecules to push all the dust off the surface that isn't directly beneath the LEM... In the vacuum of the moon gas from an engine will travel in fairly straight arcs, bounce off the surface and not return.
oh and don't forget to bring your old fashioned cameras with the film that magically only gets ruined by high temperatures on earth...never on the moon.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
By all means genius, lets see you prove that the thermal qualities of the cameras they used would result in hot film. Or did you forget that space is the ultimate insulator and not intrinsically hot nor cold? Since radiative heating and cooling is the only way heat gets transferred in a vacuum, I fail to see why the film would overheat - it wasn't in direct contact with the surface of the moon.
We see those cameras being carted all over the moon for hours at a time in the direct sun with no protection and still producing shot after perfect shot....
like I said, just don't make 'em like that anymore....
Quoting: 716019
Actually they make them like that all the time over at NASA; how do you think astronauts floating around the ISS are able to take pictures and video? CCDs are also very sensitive to high temperatures. It's called making your camera white and reflective.
a good point is made....on the moon the exploding gases don't collide with air and so there is no thrust...
You are a genius...no wonder with people like you around that the human race did actually send a man to the moon and will be sending many more very very soon.
Like I said, there was no need to worry. the craters are there and who cares?
the thrust couldn't push the dust cause the thrust had no air to push against....only the moon. Good point.
a good point is made....on the moon the exploding gases don't collide with air and so there is no thrust...
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716019
Dear god you just failed physics 101. Thrust isn't created by engine exhaust colliding with air molecules, it's created simply by the fact that the engine exhaust rapidly leaves the spacecraft in a direction opposite the desired thrust; this is basic Newtonian mechanics. How else does the shuttle get thrust to perform rendezvous burns or deorbit burns in the vacuum of space?
Like I said, there was no need to worry. the craters are there and who cares?
Quoting: 71609
1/10th of a harrier does not result in a crater genius.
the thrust couldn't push the dust cause the thrust had no air to push against....only the moon. Good point.
Quoting: 71609
Assuming you mean the dust not directly in the path of the engine, you're right, Thanks.
oh and don't forget to bring your old fashioned cameras with the film that magically only gets ruined by high temperatures on earth...never on the moon.
By all means genius, lets see you prove that the thermal qualities of the cameras they used would result in hot film. Or did you forget that space is the ultimate insulator and not intrinsically hot nor cold? Since radiative heating and cooling is the only way heat gets transferred in a vacuum, I fail to see why the film would overheat - it wasn't in direct contact with the surface of the moon.
We see those cameras being carted all over the moon for hours at a time in the direct sun with no protection and still producing shot after perfect shot....
like I said, just don't make 'em like that anymore....
Actually they make them like that all the time over at NASA; how do you think astronauts floating around the ISS are able to take pictures and video? CCDs are also very sensitive to high temperatures. It's called making your camera white and reflective.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
of course..like I said, those cameras were simply marvelous.
Each picture a masterpiece, despite being hit by cosmic radiation.
Glad to hear the moon is neither hot or cold...and the sun might not be either.
I'm learning so much that explains what each of us knows deeply to be true....
We really did take that giant step on the moon that is neither hot nor cold and we will be taking it again very very soon, as soon as we can stop having to defend ourselves against all the horrible terrorists that persist in blowing up our buildings and making us invade countries around the world. If we didn't have to spend so much on bombs to make them stop hurting us we could go to the moon every day of the week even sunday...
soon soon we'll head back up. I'm saving for one of the new improved cameras you mention....can't wait.
Actually they make them like that all the time over at NASA; how do you think astronauts floating around the ISS are able to take pictures and video? CCDs are also very sensitive to high temperatures. It's called making your camera white and reflective.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715991
Here's a picture of a recent camera used during a spacewalk; note how like the Apollo cameras, special care is given to making it white like the spacesuit itself and reflective to sunlight:
[link to www.nasa.gov]
Glad to hear the moon is neither hot or cold...and the sun might not be either.
Quoting: 716019
Good job not reading what I said. The camera was not in direct contact with the lunar surface, so there was no way for heat to transfer directly to it from the surface - there's no convective heating in a vacuum and since the cameras were designed to be shiny and reflective, radiative transfers of heat from the sun were largely reflected and irradiated back out into space. Good job showing you know nothing about how heat transfer works in a vacuum. By your logic, the interior of ISS should be that of an easy bake oven.
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
