Science > Physics > Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some....
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Nomen Nescio" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2007 10:50:03 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, IbeDavid <norman706@gmail.com> wrote:
Ive seen a few DVD's on the reasons why we didnt, read a few articles,
been to websites, and watched a few compelling YouTube Documentary
Videos on the topic. Im pretty troubled on a few things. In
particular : 1. The brick visible with a 'c' inscribed on it . 2.
The USA flag being blown around when theres no atmosphere on the
moon. 3. No very deep marks left on the moons surface upon take off
from the ships jets. 4. The Allen belt with severe radiation that
theyd have to pass thru. 5. The shadow discrepancies and lighting. 6.
And no visible stars from the moons surface. And.. a few others too.
I think its very possible that the U.S. Government at the time duped
us and the rest of the watching world by sending up the SpaceCraft but
just had it circle the earth a few times before it returned to
earth...with all the great 'moon shots' being cleverly shot in the
desert. If youve researched this topic thoroughly, what do you
conclude ? Thanks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This subject's has been beaten to death. I saw some links earlier
this month (see below), only to discover there are _hundreds_ of
videos analyzing Big Brother's "NASA" film footage & photographs
right down to the gnat's *****! BB's so-called "manned moon shots"
were absolutely definitely hoaxed. Only the delusional Atheists
& other fundamentalist fanatics always believe everything their
Anti-Christian Atheist Government tells them to believe without
question. America really is infested by the most badly-educated,
brainwashed, weak-minded pussified milquetoasts on planet Earth.
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007, Hobo <dfgsdgt546456rtg@googlemail.com> wrote:
Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
Apollo Moon Hoax? Spotlights, Fall-off, Camera Angles
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
Apollo Moon Hoax? Sun or Spotlight?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
Nearly *four decades* have elapsed since 1969, thirty-five
years since 1972. The Apollo missions were all unmanned as
the evidence shows. A mere few hundred miles above sealevel
is as far above Earth's surface that JPL/NASA's "horseless"
carriages have ever been. Every "manned" moon landing back
in covered-wagon times was nothing but cold-war propaganda
for the unsuspecting masses...as the evidence demonstrates.
It's a proven fact NASA's six allegedly-manned half-million
miles per round-trip(!) missions to the Moon (1969-72) were
at best unmanned flights in competition with the U.S.S.R.'s
contemporaneous Soviet Luna/Lunakhod unmanned Moon missions.
"They couldn't make it so they faked it." Thus, the "manned"
portions of the missions were actually filmed under the top-
secret, heavily-guarded domed soundstages in the high desert
of Area 51, NV, perhaps around Pine Gap, AUS and maybe other
remote and publicly-inaccessible locations around the world.
Flags fluttering in the high-desert breeze, sand
buggies & actors running along in their deflated
monkeysuits-obviously recorded on highspeed film,
conspicuous absence of blast craters, impossibly
silent running under invisible exhaust emissions,
brazenly obvious backdrops which contrast sharply
against the nearby high-desert terrain ad nauseam
The Moon is far beyond the reach of manned spacecraft, to wit:
ALTITUDE COMPARISON CHART
SHUTTLE VS. MOON & MANMADE SATELLITES
(not to scale)
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| |
| |
| |
| |
~ ~214,000 MILES ~
~ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ ~
| |
| |
| |
x------High-altitude orbit ~25,000+ miles altitude------x
| |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
| |
| |
~ ~10,000 MILES ~
~ ~
| |
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
x------JPL/NASA Space Shuttle orbit ~300 miles altitude-x
x------Intl. Space Station orbit ~220 miles altitude |
x------Earth's sea level -0- miles altitude-------------x
To give you an idea of the scale involved, if each hard line
break in the chart below equals roughly 10,000 miles, to wit:
x------Moon's mean geocentric distance ~239,000 miles---x
| 230,000 |
| 220,000 |
| 210,000 |
| 200,000 |
| 190,000 |
| 180,000 |
| 170,000 |
| 160,000 |
| 150,000 |
| 140,000 |
| 130,000 |
| 120,000 |
| 110,000 |
| 100,000 |
| 90,000 |
| 80,000 |
| 70,000 |
| 60,000 |
| 50,000 |
| 40,000 |
| 30,000 |
x------Geostationary orbit ~22,300 miles altitude-------x
x------Mid-altitude orbit ~12,500 miles altitude--------x
x------Low-altitude orbit below ~1200 miles altitude----x
Thus the low-earth shuttle orbit would fit somewhere between
the center and baseline of the bottom 'x'--hardly visible at
all at this scale. And yet, that is the highest altitude any
manned flight has ever successfully sustained for any length
of time. But the "men to the moon" fairytale devotees don't
want to face up to these and other glaring facts in evidence:
*Altitude Comparison Chart of Shuttle vs. Moon & Manmade Satellites:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=A82FLEI038814.6969560185@anonymous.poster
*Apollo Moon Missions 1969-1972 Were At Best *Unmanned*:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=VTKA4X1O37500.9704861111@Gilgamesh-frog.org
*Quasi-Uncensored Apollo Moon Hoax Bookmarks:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7RL5KJIX37499.1691435185@Gilgamesh-frog.org
______________________________________________________________
Remember, because this particular evidence regarding the laser
reflectors (which are indisputably on the surface of the Moon)
has been repeatedly cited as "proof" that living human beings
have actually been to the Moon and back (i.e., only by badly-
educated cowards who were duped by NASA's propaganda machine),
but were in reality *unmanned* missions at best that occurred
nearly FOUR DECADES ago, I'll briefly address this issue one
more time for the benefit of conscientious lurkers out there:
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/spacecraft/lunakhod.html
"Lunokhod 1 was the first successful Soviet remote-
controlled moon rover that was carried to the Moon
by Luna 17. It was launched November 10, 1970. The
rover had eight wheels.
"The Luna 17 spacecraft landed on the moon on November
17, 1970. Lunokhod 1 weighed just under 2,000 pounds
and was designed to operate for 90 days while guided
by a 5-person team. Lunokhod 1 explored the Mare
Imbrium for 11 months and traveled 11km and relayed
television pictures and scientific data.
Lunokhod 2 moon rover was an improved version of
Lunokhod 1. It was carried to the moon on Luna 21
and landed on January 16, 1973. Lunokhod 2 was faster
and carried an additional television camera. It
travelled 37km in only 8 weeks." [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod1.htm
"Lunokhod 1 went to the Moon aboard Luna 17. Its
eight wire-mesh wheels each has its own electric
motor to allow manoeuvring in tight spaces, and so
failure of a single motor did not prevent it from
moving.
The lidded box at the left is a French-built laser
reflector. It was used to reflect back to Earth a
laser beam, making it possible to measure the
distance between the Earth and Moon to an accuracy
of twenty to thirty centimetres" [end quote]
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Lunokhod2.htm
"There is an additional high-level TV camera for
panoramic photography, and all lenses have
improved sunshades.
The small silver box between the front wheels is
an alpha particle emitter which can be lowered
onto the Moon to measure soil composition. Like
its predecessor, Lunokhod 2 carries a French
retro-reflector for use with a laser beam
transmitted from Earth. It allows the Earth-Moon
distance to be measured to an accuracy around 20
centimetres.
http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Luna16.htm
"the cone-shaped antenna keeps communication with
Earth while the drill arm sits in its rest position
on the right. The sample will be taken by rotating
the drill head by one hundred and eighty degrees,
lowering the drill arm to the surface and extracting
a core sample.
On returning to the rest position, the sample is
transferred to the return capsule and sent back to
Earth" [end quote]
Therefore the Soviet Lunokhod I/II-Luna XVII/XXI missions
both successfully landed their unmanned remote-controlled
lunar-rovers a.k.a. dune-buggies on the Moon: in the same
time frame as the alleged "apollo" missions were supposed
to have occurred. These remote-controlled Russian buggies
placed French- made laser reflectors on the Moon! Another
Soviet unmanned mission, Luna XVI, landed on the Moon and
returned a soil sample to the Earth by September 24, 1970:
from the Moon, unmanned, programmed and remote-controlled.
So laser-reflecting corner prisms were placed on the Moon
by unmanned probes and a 100g x 35 cm soil sample drilled
out from the lunar surface was sent back to Earth by this
earlier of these unmanned missions all in the early 1970s.
This completely and absolutely destroys any argument that
lunar soil samples or lunar laser reflectors "prove" that
men were on the Moon. Rather, as with all other evidences
cited allegedly supporting of the "apollo" missions, upon
precise examination the same evidence proves at least the
"manned" portions of these apollo missions were definitely
hoaxed. Men NEVER went to the Moon, because men have NEVER
achieved and survived sustained altitudes much above about
five or six hundred miles above Earth's sea level. Got it?
Remember, the Moon is almost a quarter million miles away--
that's *HALF A MILLION MILES ROUND TRIP*! Get the picture?
By contrast, the Russians proved that they did send their
unmanned probes to the Moon to wit: the presence of laser
reflectors left thereon by the aforesaid Lunokhod buggies.
It could be argued that the lunar soil samples were faked
somehow, but laser reflecting corner cubes are irrefutable
evidence that unmanned robotic probes put them there. See?
At least, the demonstrable presence of the "apollo" laser
reflectors proves the American space program successfully
sent some UNMANNED probes to the Moon -and- has continued
to launch many unmanned instruments into space ever since.
All these missions are UNMANNED. Why? The Sun, that's why.
That's why they NEVER send men into outer space. Not once.
Otherwise, they'd fry to a crisp in the intense radiation.
Happy Thanksgiving (Christians Are Praying for Armageddon),
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRz+yK5ljD7YrHM/nEQJbiACgqNRaoZr6/ypaaO7BmG4N4CGBfMUAoJKs
1fSC59zVpI6hkNYuQVnpIZW6
=ZsHa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "Scott Hedrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
24 Nov 2007 05:41:54 PM |
|
|
"Benj" <bjacoby@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:983e92f9-611c-40e9-9f59-80b3f615982d@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 9:16 am, wrote:
There are NO anomalies EXCEPT in the minds of those who want see
anomalies. Only the tinfoil hat brigade see anomalies.
Let's see if I understand your argument here: Everything those in
government tell us is absolutely true.
Oh, piffle. You aren't interested in *anomalies*, which are nothing more
than *unexplained* items. YOU are interested in what you think are
NON-anomalies, because they have definitely been identified by the
conspiracy whackos as alien cities, spaceships or what-have-you, and anyone
that doesn't support these unsupported claims is part of the conspiracy.
Hoagland didn't say "that's an interesting anomaly that should be further
investigated", he wrote a book describing the space aliens that build the
Human Face on Mars, with no evidence whatsoever to support such a claim.
He's even found howitzers and gyroscopes on the surface of Mars, and still
people buy his books.
*YOU* are not interested in finding out what some so-called "anomaly" is-
you want to prove they involve space aliens, which means you have already
come to a conclusion and are actively rejecting any evidence that does not
fit your preconceived notions. That is not the behavior of someone
investigating an "anomaly".
Not one person who talks about "anomalies" here has ever examined the
first-generation photographs. At best, they've seen 5th or 6th generation
photos, or, worse, jpegs, and make no attempt whatsover to actively discuss
the false artifacts that such copying can create. For example, the so-called
"C rock", a moon rock with a letter C on it, is clearly an ordinary photo in
which a hair or some other debris was on the duplicator. I've had it happen
to my photos. It's not present on the first generation copies, which can be
personally viewed, but nobody claiming the photo as proof the moon landings
were fake will bother to do so, because it would be blasphemy against their
religion (and they would simply claim the photo was faked).
Instead of pissing and moaning here, why not get together with your fellow
nutjobs and fund your own space mission?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
25 Nov 2007 11:48:33 PM |
|
|
"eddie" <ed1ward2@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:25e28b4b-a362-4a1d-930d-88b541ae0bf7@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
:I have a hypothesis:
:
: Some of the folks who think we didn't land on the Moon were not even
: alive on July 20, 1969.
:
: I was.
:
: How about you?
:
: Oh and just to catch the stragglers, if you were alive, how old were
: you and were you watching the moon landing? If you were old enough, if
: you weren't watching, what were you doing?
:
: I'm trying to be serious here...
:
: Let's see a show of hands:)
Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School tracking it.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
Of course Columbus never set foot in America, he'd have fallen
off the edge of the world if he'd tried and anyway he couldn't
possibly survive the Van-Atlantic storm belts in those little boats.
He sailed around the Isle of Wight, won the America's Cup and it
was filmed by Shepperton Studios.
http://www.sdsprops.com/
You can tell the American shore landings were faked, there are no
movie stars or McDonald's fast-food restaurants in any of the pictures.
Perhaps you can tell I wasn't alive in 1492.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 02:37:41 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School tracking it.
http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more detail.
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 06:42:12 AM |
|
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
: Androcles wrote:
: > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School tracking
it.
: > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: >
:
: I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
: Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more detail.
:
: Pat
Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin.html
Alan Shephard, first American in space.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least Russian
kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike American
spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
Look at the way the question is phrased.
"Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
the table.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
either.
Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
parochial American brat attitude. If the USA hadn't done it
the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the Russians
landed on the moon in 1970? "
Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin' ears
as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 11:43:35 AM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:220696e6-0592-4c49-a883-4e4144f3417c@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 26, 6:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
: > :
: > :: Androcles wrote:
: >
: > : > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School
tracking
: > it.
: > : > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: > : >
: > :
: > : I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
: > : Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more detail.
: > :
: > : Pat
: >
: > Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
: >
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin...
: >
: > Alan Shephard, first American in space.
: > http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
: >
: > Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least Russian
: > kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike American
: > spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
: >
: > Look at the way the question is phrased.
: > "Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
: >
: > First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
: > when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
: > as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
: > Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
: > the table.
: > http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
: > The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
: > the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
: > either.
: >
: > Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
: > parochial American brat attitude. If the USA hadn't done it
: > the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the Russians
: > landed on the moon in 1970? "
: >
: > Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin' ears
: > as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
:
: There are at least two videos showing and listening to Armstrong
: engaged in faking this thing.
:
: Of course, that's not good enough evidence- (what is?)
A single shuttle launch seen live is good enough evidence that
you are a disgusting idiot, although I doubt you've ever seen that.
I've seen several. Get back to pulling your ***** and get out of my
face, you pathetic dumbfuck, I was talking to Pat.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 03:29:03 AM |
|
|
"malibu" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:d3112608-8a0c-40d3-b27e-2a53484bd3a9@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, wrote:
: > On Nov 26, 11:32 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
: >
: >
: >
: > > On Nov 26, 6:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: >
: > > > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
: >
: > > >news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
: > > > :
: > > > :: Androcles wrote:
: >
: > > > : > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School
tracking
: > > > it.
: > > > : > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: > > > : >
: > > > :
: > > > : I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
: > > > : Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more
detail.
: > > > :
: > > > : Pat
: >
: > > > Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
: > > >
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin...
: >
: > > > Alan Shephard, first American in space.
: > > > http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
: >
: > > > Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least
Russian
: > > > kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike American
: > > > spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
: >
: > > > Look at the way the question is phrased.
: > > > "Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
: >
: > > > First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
: > > > when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
: > > > as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
: > > > Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
: > > > the table.
: > > > http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
: > > > The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
: > > > the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
: > > > either.
: >
: > > > Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
: > > > parochial American brat attitude. If the USA hadn't done it
: > > > the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the Russians
: > > > landed on the moon in 1970? "
: >
: > > > Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin' ears
: > > > as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
: >
: > > There are at least two videos showing and listening to Armstrong
: > > engaged in faking this thing.
: >
: > > Of course, that's not good enough evidence- (what is?)
: >
: > Provide us with documentation for this statement. I sure Armstrong
: > would like to sue for defamation of character,.
:
:
: Armstrong has made very few
: public statements over the years, and when
: he does, he seems more ashamed than anything.
: Here's one video- listen to his voice- got any
: voice recognition software?
: Compare the two tapes:
: http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg
: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously
misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular;
these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such
contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather than
to the author.
Recently, the word troll is also frequently used as a synonym for flamebait,
even though the two words have distinct meanings.
You are either so stupid as to be a troll or so stupid as to be a seriously
misinformed or deluded user, but either way, you are FUCKING STOOOPID.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 05:28:56 AM |
|
|
"Don Stockbauer" <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16d268a0-0d01-4269-af58-108ece037170@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: On Nov 27, 3:29 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a> wrote:
: > "malibu" <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
: >
: >
news:d3112608-8a0c-40d3-b27e-2a53484bd3a9@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Nov 26, 3:07 pm, wrote:
: > : > On Nov 26, 11:32 am, malibu <vega...@accesscomm.ca> wrote:
: > : >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > > On Nov 26, 6:42 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics_a>
wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > > "Pat Flannery" <flan...@daktel.com> wrote in message
: > : >
: > : > > >news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
: > : > > > :
: > : > > > :: Androcles wrote:
: > : >
: > : > > > : > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar
School
: > tracking
: > : > > > it.
: > : > > > : > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: > : > > > : >
: > : > > > :
: > : > > > : I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do
remember
: > : > > > : Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more
: > detail.
: > : > > > :
: > : > > > : Pat
: > : >
: > : > > > Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
: > : > >
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin...
: > : >
: > : > > > Alan Shephard, first American in space.
: > : > > > http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
: > : >
: > : > > > Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least
: > Russian
: > : > > > kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike
American
: > : > > > spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
: > : >
: > : > > > Look at the way the question is phrased.
: > : > > > "Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
: > : >
: > : > > > First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
: > : > > > when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
: > : > > > as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
: > : > > > Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
: > : > > > the table.
: > : > > > http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
: > : > > > The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
: > : > > > the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
: > : > > > either.
: > : >
: > : > > > Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
: > : > > > parochial American brat attitude. If the USA hadn't done it
: > : > > > the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the
Russians
: > : > > > landed on the moon in 1970? "
: > : >
: > : > > > Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin'
ears
: > : > > > as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
: > : >
: > : > > There are at least two videos showing and listening to Armstrong
: > : > > engaged in faking this thing.
: > : >
: > : > > Of course, that's not good enough evidence- (what is?)
: > : >
: > : > Provide us with documentation for this statement. I sure Armstrong
: > : > would like to sue for defamation of character,.
: > :
: > :
: > : Armstrong has made very few
: > : public statements over the years, and when
: > : he does, he seems more ashamed than anything.
: > : Here's one video- listen to his voice- got any
: > : voice recognition software?
: > : Compare the two tapes:
: > :http://www.gaiaguys.net/moontruth.mpg
: > :http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/a11v_1092338.mpg
: >
: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
: > Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously
: > misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a
regular;
: > these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. In such
: > contexts, the noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling, rather
than
: > to the author.
: > Recently, the word troll is also frequently used as a synonym for
flamebait,
: > even though the two words have distinct meanings.
: >
: > You are either so stupid as to be a troll or so stupid as to be a
seriously
: > misinformed or deluded user, but either way, you are FUCKING STOOOPID.
:
: Funny how usenet has developed all this terminology of its own,
: reminiscent of a Hofstadterian endlessly rising canon and emerging
: intelligent systems in general.
Truth is stranger than fiction... and funnier.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 01:06:50 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
: Androcles wrote:
: > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School
: > tracking
it.
: > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: >
:
: I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
: Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more detail.
:
: Pat
Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin.html
Alan Shephard, first American in space.
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least Russian
kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike American
spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
Look at the way the question is phrased.
"Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
the table.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
either.
Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
parochial American brat attitude.
The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial American
brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to its
before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues the
policy with a record number of lies.
So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie at
its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
important.
And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
sense. And a government that is able and ready to lie no longer qualifies
for the credit of the doubt in many people's minds.
Even on that excellent website link given earlier, some explanations did
sound a bit lame or contrived. Therefore, for some, all of it is suspect.
Perhaps you have never been personally involved with actual government
complicity and lies and therefore more trusting of government including
that of the US. Not everyone shares your lack of experience to some of the
dark side of government.
If the USA hadn't done it
the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the Russians
landed on the moon in 1970? "
Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin' ears
as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 01:56:11 PM |
|
|
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:474b194b$0$28850$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
: Androcles wrote:
:
: >
: > "Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
: > news:13kl1f51tltns91@corp.supernews.com...
: > :
: > :
: > : Androcles wrote:
: > : > Hell, I remember Sputnik in '57, with Kettering Grammar School
: > : > tracking
: > it.
: > : > http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm
: > : >
: > :
: > : I don't go back that far as far as memory goes, but I do remember
: > : Glenn's flight generally and the later Mercury flights in more detail.
: > :
: > : Pat
: >
: >
: > Yuri Gagarin well before Glenn... First man in space.
: >
: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/whos_who_level1/gagarin.html
: >
: > Alan Shephard, first American in space.
: > http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/shepard-alan.html
: >
: > Pity the Soviet Union didn't win the race to the Moon, at least Russian
: > kids have pride in their collective achievements...unlike American
: > spoilt brats who think the USA is the whole world.
: >
: > Look at the way the question is phrased.
: > "Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ?"
: >
: >
: > First the expression of doubt in the capitalization of "really",
: > when you and I KNOW it happened, we lived through it, cold war
: > as well with the shadow of a nuclear holocaust hanging over us.
: > Bay of Pigs, Khrushchev taking his shoe off and banging it on
: > the table.
: > http://www.newstatesman.com/200010020025
: > The USSR was a whole lot scarier than Al Qaeda. They HAD
: > the nukes AND the delivery systems and they we not hiding it
: > either.
: >
: > Second the "we", rather than "man" or "mankind", a typical
: > parochial American brat attitude.
:
: The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial American
: brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to its
: before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues
the
: policy with a record number of lies.
:
: So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie at
: its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
: important.
:
: And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
: science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
: sense. And a government that is able and ready to lie no longer qualifies
: for the credit of the doubt in many people's minds.
:
: Even on that excellent website link given earlier, some explanations did
: sound a bit lame or contrived. Therefore, for some, all of it is suspect.
:
: Perhaps you have never been personally involved with actual government
: complicity and lies and therefore more trusting of government including
: that of the US. Not everyone shares your lack of experience to some of
the
: dark side of government.
:
Take your paranoia and other psychotic ramblings to a psychiatrist who may
help you.
: > If the USA hadn't done it
: > the USSR would, then he'd be asking "Don't you think the Russians
: > landed on the moon in 1970? "
: >
: > Then... he wants to talk about it. I want to box his fuckin' ears
: > as his parents and schoolteachers should have done.
:
: --
: Later,
: Darrell Stec
Hope not.
*plonk*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 01:46:08 PM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial American
brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to its
before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues the
policy with a record number of lies.
Big difference here though... in the case of the Moon landings, it would
be the government claiming to do something it didn't do.
The Bush administration is constantly claiming not to have done the
things it did do. :-)
So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie at
its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
important.
Which doesn't answer the obvious question of why the Soviets didn't blow
the whistle on us if we were lying about it.
And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
sense.
I was thirteen years old when we did it; and I had no trouble
understanding it at all.
And a government that is able and ready to lie no longer qualifies
for the credit of the doubt in many people's minds.
Even on that excellent website link given earlier, some explanations did
sound a bit lame or contrived. Therefore, for some, all of it is suspect.
Well, I imagine if you are under thirteen years old...physically or
mentally that is, then it might seem suspicious.
But first, I'd examine the Tooth Fairy Hoax, because there are some
mighty suspicious things about that also.
For example; considering how many kids are putting their teeth under
their pillows on any given night, how can something as small as a fairy
carry that much money with her? The wing loading is going to be terrific!
Perhaps you have never been personally involved with actual government
complicity and lies and therefore more trusting of government including
that of the US. Not everyone shares your lack of experience to some of the
dark side of government.
Okay, I fess up!
The burning paper bag of dog poop on your doorstep was part of a CIA
operation code-named "Fido Fire".
You were getting too close to the truth so we knew it was time for a
"black bag" operation.
So back off now, or it'll be the itching powder in the underwear next time.
Castro still has a rash from the time we did that to him.
X
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 02:44:48 PM |
|
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13km8khuhn4o00@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
: Darrell Stec wrote:
: >
: > The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial
American
: > brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to
its
: > before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues
the
: > policy with a record number of lies.
: >
:
: Big difference here though... in the case of the Moon landings, it would
: be the government claiming to do something it didn't do.
: The Bush administration is constantly claiming not to have done the
: things it did do. :-)
:
: > So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie
at
: > its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
: > important.
: >
:
: Which doesn't answer the obvious question of why the Soviets didn't blow
: the whistle on us if we were lying about it.
:
: > And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
: > science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
: > sense.
:
: I was thirteen years old when we did it; and I had no trouble
: understanding it at all.
:
: > And a government that is able and ready to lie no longer qualifies
: > for the credit of the doubt in many people's minds.
: >
: > Even on that excellent website link given earlier, some explanations did
: > sound a bit lame or contrived. Therefore, for some, all of it is
suspect.
: >
:
: Well, I imagine if you are under thirteen years old...physically or
: mentally that is, then it might seem suspicious.
: But first, I'd examine the Tooth Fairy Hoax, because there are some
: mighty suspicious things about that also.
: For example; considering how many kids are putting their teeth under
: their pillows on any given night, how can something as small as a fairy
: carry that much money with her? The wing loading is going to be terrific!
:
: > Perhaps you have never been personally involved with actual government
: > complicity and lies and therefore more trusting of government including
: > that of the US. Not everyone shares your lack of experience to some of
the
: > dark side of government.
: >
:
: Okay, I fess up!
: The burning paper bag of dog poop on your doorstep was part of a CIA
: operation code-named "Fido Fire".
: You were getting too close to the truth so we knew it was time for a
: "black bag" operation.
: So back off now, or it'll be the itching powder in the underwear next
time.
: Castro still has a rash from the time we did that to him.
:
: X
The Tooth Fairy is not a hoax!
She swallows the tooth, applies the long lost art of alchemy
to bring about the transmutation of base material to heavy
metal in her stomach, regurgitates the copper and nickel and
uses her own teeth to bite the queen's or dead president's
head on it. Wing loading problem solved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 04:16:33 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
The Tooth Fairy is not a hoax!
She swallows the tooth, applies the long lost art of alchemy
to bring about the transmutation of base material to heavy
metal in her stomach, regurgitates the copper and nickel and
uses her own teeth to bite the queen's or dead president's
head on it. Wing loading problem solved.
Ah, but what about the conservation of mass? A quarter will probably
weigh more than the tooth it replaces.
Maybe she uses dark matter somehow to add the extra mass?
Wait a second...this isn't a Tooth Fairy, it's some sort of
intradimensional entity!
(Cut to scene of little Billy falling asleep with his tooth under the
pillow...as his snoring begins, one of the corners of the room suddenly
becomes eight dimensional, and a large tendril enters the room from the
sunken city of R'lyeh, places a quarter under the pillow, and takes the
tooth....and the tiny part of little Billy's soul it contains, a small
midnight snack for Great Cthulhu.)
Soon after, Billy awakes and finds the coin under the pillow...ignoring
the unwholesome slime that taints its appearance, he is delighted, and
heads for the bathroom to get a glass of water...unaware that there is
now a shoggoth deep in the sewage pipe under his house, moving a bit
closer to the toilet bowl with each flush.
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 05:27:10 PM |
|
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13kmhejmn3jmsb5@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
: Androcles wrote:
: > The Tooth Fairy is not a hoax!
: > She swallows the tooth, applies the long lost art of alchemy
: > to bring about the transmutation of base material to heavy
: > metal in her stomach, regurgitates the copper and nickel and
: > uses her own teeth to bite the queen's or dead president's
: > head on it. Wing loading problem solved.
: >
:
: Ah, but what about the conservation of mass? A quarter will probably
: weigh more than the tooth it replaces.
Not when mixed with saliva. Kids are snotty, too, and don't forget
the chewing gum left on the bed post overnight. That quarter will
be used to buy more, it's called recycling.
: Maybe she uses dark matter somehow to add the extra mass?
Well, yeah, of course, gum is dark matter.
: Wait a second...this isn't a Tooth Fairy, it's some sort of
: intradimensional entity!
But ALL fairies (except the gay kind) are intradimensional entities
unless they are extradimensional on Thursdays, which is magic
mushroom night when every fairy thinks up hoaxii to blame on
"the" Government's lies.
: (Cut to scene of little Billy falling asleep with his tooth under the
: pillow...as his snoring begins, one of the corners of the room suddenly
: becomes eight dimensional, and a large tendril enters the room from the
: sunken city of R'lyeh, places a quarter under the pillow, and takes the
: tooth....and the tiny part of little Billy's soul it contains, a small
: midnight snack for Great Cthulhu.)
No, no, no... the tooth has to be eaten first before it can become a
quarter or we are back to the wing loading problem. Remember
these are sci newsgroups, I expect all theories to be at least as
plausible as the Hollywood NASA team building Saturn V for
Universal Studios and Disneyland.
: Soon after, Billy awakes and finds the coin under the pillow...ignoring
: the unwholesome slime that taints its appearance, he is delighted, and
: heads for the bathroom to get a glass of water...unaware that there is
: now a shoggoth deep in the sewage pipe under his house, moving a bit
: closer to the toilet bowl with each flush.
George W. Bush is the chief shoggoth. (Paying lip service to
sci.space.policy)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 12:55:49 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
But ALL fairies (except the gay kind) are intradimensional entities
unless they are extradimensional on Thursdays, which is magic
mushroom night when every fairy thinks up hoaxii to blame on
"the" Government's lies.
On Sunday night they play Fizzbin once the day is over, the sun goes
down, and the dark comes up.
: (Cut to scene of little Billy falling asleep with his tooth under the
: pillow...as his snoring begins, one of the corners of the room suddenly
: becomes eight dimensional, and a large tendril enters the room from the
: sunken city of R'lyeh, places a quarter under the pillow, and takes the
: tooth....and the tiny part of little Billy's soul it contains, a small
: midnight snack for Great Cthulhu.)
No, no, no... the tooth has to be eaten first before it can become a
quarter or we are back to the wing loading problem. Remember
these are sci newsgroups, I expect all theories to be at least as
plausible as the Hollywood NASA team building Saturn V for
Universal Studios and Disneyland.
Ah, but you forget the rules of R'lyeh, where a building can have ten
exits but no entrances, and it's possible to fall up a staircase.
In such a place the more weight you carry the less you weigh, and the
fairies need always carry enough weight to remain buoyant, as the major
thereat the fairies face is becoming too light and crashing into the
ground by rising violently downwards.
: Soon after, Billy awakes and finds the coin under the pillow...ignoring
: the unwholesome slime that taints its appearance, he is delighted, and
: heads for the bathroom to get a glass of water...unaware that there is
: now a shoggoth deep in the sewage pipe under his house, moving a bit
: closer to the toilet bowl with each flush.
George W. Bush is the chief shoggoth. (Paying lip service to
sci.space.policy)
He's a big pile of something, but I don't think it's protoplasm. ;-)
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 04:09:04 AM |
|
|
"Pat Flannery" <flanner@daktel.com> wrote in message
news:13knfs7b2da4g96@corp.supernews.com...
:
:
: Androcles wrote:
: >
: > But ALL fairies (except the gay kind) are intradimensional entities
: > unless they are extradimensional on Thursdays, which is magic
: > mushroom night when every fairy thinks up hoaxii to blame on
: > "the" Government's lies.
: >
:
:
: On Sunday night they play Fizzbin once the day is over, the sun goes
: down, and the dark comes up.
:
:
: > : (Cut to scene of little Billy falling asleep with his tooth under the
: > : pillow...as his snoring begins, one of the corners of the room
suddenly
: > : becomes eight dimensional, and a large tendril enters the room from
the
: > : sunken city of R'lyeh, places a quarter under the pillow, and takes
the
: > : tooth....and the tiny part of little Billy's soul it contains, a small
: > : midnight snack for Great Cthulhu.)
: >
: > No, no, no... the tooth has to be eaten first before it can become a
: > quarter or we are back to the wing loading problem. Remember
: > these are sci newsgroups, I expect all theories to be at least as
: > plausible as the Hollywood NASA team building Saturn V for
: > Universal Studios and Disneyland.
: >
:
: Ah, but you forget the rules of R'lyeh, where a building can have ten
: exits but no entrances, and it's possible to fall up a staircase.
: In such a place the more weight you carry the less you weigh, and the
: fairies need always carry enough weight to remain buoyant, as the major
: thereat the fairies face is becoming too light and crashing into the
: ground by rising violently downwards.
:
Ah, now that reminds me of another fairy, the Norwegian troll.
"That is, we can reverse the directions of the frames
which is the same as interchanging the frames,
which - as I have told you a LOT of times,
OBVIOUSLY will lead to the transform:
t = (tau-xi*v/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x = (xi - v*tau)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or:
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
Cursory examination reveals that a small quantity is added to t
and the sum is then divided by a quantity less than one.
As a consequence the faster the troll flies, the longer it takes to get
there.
The troll is ASSistant professor Paul B. Andersen of
Agder College, Kristiansand, Norway.
The very same fairies -- those that call themselves "theoretical
physicists"
that the rest of us are paying to provide us with nuclear energy from
fusion --
at the same fairy trolls that call the engineering of the Moon landings a
hoax.
: > : Soon after, Billy awakes and finds the coin under the
pillow...ignoring
: > : the unwholesome slime that taints its appearance, he is delighted, and
: > : heads for the bathroom to get a glass of water...unaware that there is
: > : now a shoggoth deep in the sewage pipe under his house, moving a bit
: > : closer to the toilet bowl with each flush.
: >
: > George W. Bush is the chief shoggoth. (Paying lip service to
: > sci.space.policy)
: >
:
: He's a big pile of something, but I don't think it's protoplasm. ;-)
:
Perhaps he's a theoretical physicist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 05:35:00 PM |
|
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
sense.
I was thirteen years old when we did it; and I had no trouble
understanding it at all.
You were thirteen years old and you understood all the explanations
underlying the geology, all the explanations given as to film emulsions,
all the explanations on the photography and cinemagraphy, all the
explanations as to the computer technology and programming, all the
explanations for the rocketry? If so, you were one exceptional kid and one
out of a few 100 million people who could or can do so to this day. Few
experts have expertise in all those fields to understand every explanation
in all those fields.
Are you sure you just weren't accepting the explanation given by an
authority figure without actually understanding the minutia of all those
fields?
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 01:06:48 AM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average layperson's
science and technology grounding that partial truths sound like common
sense.
I was thirteen years old when we did it; and I had no trouble
understanding it at all.
You were thirteen years old and you understood all the explanations
underlying the geology, all the explanations given as to film emulsions,
all the explanations on the photography and cinemagraphy, all the
explanations as to the computer technology and programming, all the
explanations for the rocketry? If so, you were one exceptional kid and one
out of a few 100 million people who could or can do so to this day. Few
experts have expertise in all those fields to understand every explanation
in all those fields.
No, I understood that if you shot a sky rocket into the air it would go
way up.
And you could see the Moon way up there in the air.
So if you made a really, really big skyrocket it would go way-way-up in
the air and hit the Moon.
I had that figured out around age three; by age thirteen I had books on
space exploration all over the place, a model of a LM and CSM, a 100 mm
retractor telescope, maps of the Moon and Solar System up on the walls
and the experience of slamming my head into the ceiling after building
my lunar gravity simulator from the plans in "Boy's Life" magazine. and
letting my brother put too many bricks in the counterbalance box.
I assume something similar happened to you also.
Are you sure you just weren't accepting the explanation given by an
authority figure without actually understanding the minutia of all those
fields?
I believe his name was Issac Newton.
Pat
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 12:16:31 PM |
|
|
Pat Flannery wrote:
Darrell Stec wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
And a lunar landing is technically so far beyond the average
layperson's science and technology grounding that partial truths sound
like common sense.
I was thirteen years old when we did it; and I had no trouble
understanding it at all.
You were thirteen years old and you understood all the explanations
underlying the geology, all the explanations given as to film emulsions,
all the explanations on the photography and cinemagraphy, all the
explanations as to the computer technology and programming, all the
explanations for the rocketry? If so, you were one exceptional kid and
one
out of a few 100 million people who could or can do so to this day. Few
experts have expertise in all those fields to understand every
explanation in all those fields.
No, I understood that if you shot a sky rocket into the air it would go
way up.
And you could see the Moon way up there in the air.
So if you made a really, really big skyrocket it would go way-way-up in
the air and hit the Moon.
I had that figured out around age three; by age thirteen I had books on
space exploration all over the place, a model of a LM and CSM, a 100 mm
retractor telescope, maps of the Moon and Solar System up on the walls
and the experience of slamming my head into the ceiling after building
my lunar gravity simulator from the plans in "Boy's Life" magazine. and
letting my brother put too many bricks in the counterbalance box.
I assume something similar happened to you also.
No, my family was poor. I could never have afforded even a 10mm telescope.
And even now with a 60mm X 700mm telescope even the moon appears as nothing
but a shining white ball and the stars even worse. And I never
constructed a lunar gravity stimulator either because when I was young I
was busy blowing up the garage while making nitro and burning up the house
wiring making feedback amplifiers. By the time the space program was
underway I was either learning Latin, Greek or Hebrew or was teaching at a
university.
But I did manage to get a lot of those boards from the space program that
made it into the surplus electronics market.
Are you sure you just weren't accepting the explanation given by an
authority figure without actually understanding the minutia of all those
fields?
I believe his name was Issac Newton.
Why couldn't you have simply answered with a YES, that you have ACCEPTED an
answer from an authority figure rather than actually understood the
minituae of all the associated disciplines? You really probably did not
and do not have the background to understand the entire fields I mentioned
and therefore did not really understand the answers but rather accepted
them.
You mention Isaac Newton. Have you actually read him? I mean in his
original Latin? Few people have including those students who major in
physics.
The difference between you and those who embrace the conspiracy theory is
that you accept authority figures even those of government whereas many of
them have good reason to hold what government and those experts who support
them as suspect. They, like probably you and most, do not really
understand the explanations because of a lack of actual education in each
and all of the needed disciplines. You ACCEPT without understanding and
the conspiracists do NOT ACCEPT and are still like most (even those who
post here) do not understand.
Pat
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Flannery" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know thisis a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 02:37:50 PM |
|
|
Darrell Stec wrote:
No, my family was poor. I could never have afforded even a 10mm telescope.
I got mine for $100.00 via a catalog sent to the families of troops
serving in Vietnam, like my older brother.
Mind you telling the recruiting officer at the university he was
attending, and that his grades were mediocre, but he was a brown belt in
karate so very draftable indeed and ready to take on Charlie with his
bare hands, may have been a bit unethical as a way of getting a lower
price on a telescope, but science must march forward no matter what the
cost in lives, and anyway, it proved a interesting sojourn for him, and
certainly far better for him than getting a job as a geologist or
something, which would have been his fate otherwise. He still got to
study things underground, it's just in this case it was land mines and
pungi sticks.
And I let him look through the telescope when he returned.
And even now with a 60mm X 700mm telescope even the moon appears as nothing
but a shining white ball and the stars even worse.
You should try that green "Moon Filter" it came with; that thing will
work wonders; although it did confuse a lot of people about what color
cheese the Moon is made out of.
If you're trying to use the sun filter, that doesn't work at all well on
stars, even though they are suns.
Another common problem with faulty telescope viewing can be solved via
the two knobs sticking out of the sides of the base of the tube, right
ahead of the eyepiece, although nebula tend to look the same.
And I never
constructed a lunar gravity stimulator either because when I was young I
was busy blowing up the garage while making nitro and burning up the house
wiring making feedback amplifiers. By the time the space program was
underway I was either learning Latin, Greek or Hebrew or was teaching at a
university.
So, you're sort of the Heavy Metal/Anarchist/Intellectual type?
Let me guess, you have a Guy Fawkes mask hanging right under your Def
Leppard poster, don't you?
I'll see your nitroglycerin, and raise you one gunpowder explosion, and
a few other flubs with science.
From a past posting:
"By trying to reload a 175 mm siege mortar without swabbing out the
barrel; I had a one-pound can of gunpowder detonate in my right hand.
I wrote about this and some of my other world class screw-ups:
The foot-long plumbing-pipe rocket motor:
'I was standing in the Blockhouse (our enclosed porch) safely behind one
of the glass windows, when the countdown reached zero, and the plug of
the 20,000 volt furnace ignition coil went into wall socket, sending the
power to the spark plug located at the bottom of the rocket motor
(buried in the heap of mud to contain shrapnel in case of a casing
failure) and the little dab of You-Know-What that was applied over its
spark gap- in earlier tests, with a fuse igniter (which made the device
scarily resemble a pipe bomb). The grain was ignited at the bottom of
the central hole, leading to a second or so until full thrust was
achieved, as the fire propagated up the inside of the grain- but I knew
that that wasn't very effective, and would lead to a
slow liftoff when it had grown fins. The engine started nicely, blew the
buried sparkplug out of its hole (this making a_downward_ facing hole of
larger diameter than the upward facing exhaust nozzle), and then it,
like a Minuteman missile, rose majestically from it's mud pile, straight
up, breathing fire at both ends, finless, and rising rapidly out of my
field of vision through the window- this occurred as my father was
leaving in the family car to investigate the fire at a building we owned
and rented out. I didn't know how high it was going to go, or in which
direction, but the 'launch technicians'; my somewhat smarter friends,
cowering behind the concrete wall into the alley, saw it reach an
altitude of around 75 feet, and head on a trajectory toward the
departing car. My father saw the impact of the motor about thirty feet
from the car, as he waited at the corner yield sign, completely ruining
any chance of 'plausible deniability' of the incident. Around a half
hour later he got back from the fire, which had been minor, and had a
little talk with me.
But I had learned my lesson, and only did tests from then on when my
parents were far away from the house. After the flaming birch tree
incident caused by the fuze-ignited/gunpowder down center grain bore
boosted ignition strap-down test which shattered the fuel grain and led
to the giant blast of exhaust going up into to the tree above it (I
blamed the somewhat blackened condition of the upper branches on a
possible case of tree blight.), it was time to start the aerial tests,
from a shooting range at one of the local reservoirs, By then it was
winter, and the motor had aluminum fins, made from bookshelf
supports attached to it with the aid of two hose clamps. As it stood
there, in it's proud red primer paint scheme, ready to challenge the
heavens from the pie tin that was its launch pad and blast deflector
perched on a snowbank the hissing of the waterproof fuse gave
announcement of the beginning of a new age, as our launch team cowered
behind the families other, more beat up car. The fire slowly reached the
bottom of the rocket, and the cocktail straw full of gunpowder waiting
inside it, as we all cringed in gleeful expectation - A terrific roar!
A vast cloud of white smoke! Something traveling upwards hundreds of
feet in a blink of an eye; then the long futile search for the rocket,
which could give eternal evidence of my technical virtuosity...and
more importantly, could be used as evidence in a court of law if found
by someone 'not in the loop' of the experiments.
No luck, but I had learned my lesson - and swore that from now on, I
would wear gloves when handling my rockets, so as not to leave possibly
incriminating fingerprints on them. It was only when we examined the
pie-pad that we noticed an odd hole in the center of it, with three
rips, each 120 degrees apart, radiating from it. The body of the rocket,
minus its screw-on nose cap, was found about a foot under the pad.
Apparently, the high pressure gas of the burning propellant had seeped
out around the top threaded joint (I should have gotten in touch with
NASA about this: Cold Weather + Leaky
Joint On Solid Rocket booster = No Go.), 'lubricating' it with hot gas,
so that it unscrewed nearly instantaneously, or simply tore off the threads.
The Pipe Motor program ended on that embarrassing note, the one intended
to stay put having gone into the air; the one that was to have gone into
the air descending through the launchpad.
But I had learned my lesson- Gunpowder, not You-Know-What, was the wave
of the future- and my 100 mm cannon, 175 mm siege mortar, and trip to
the emergency room were just around the corner!'
The Great Big Cannons.
'Mine never blew- just lifted off backwards from the strap-down test
minus stabilizing fins, and unscrewed the nosecap on high pressure gas-
these were the 'Caramel Candy' variety... on the other hand I cannot
possibly stress the importance of swabbing out the barrel of a siege
mortar before you begin pouring black powder into it from a 1 pound
can...still it could have been
worse...it could have gone off when I was leaning over it putting the
projectile into it- making a 7 inch diameter hole through me, rather
than merely setting me on fire and partially blowing my thumb off.'
Lightning Death To The Ants.
Then there was the destruction of the anthill by driving the two rods
from the anode and cathode of the 20,000 volt furnace ignition coil into
the ground on either side of it, and letting the current flow through
the intervening ground; a plan that worked well until I reached down and
removed one of the rods; thereby allowing the current to flow through
the ground into my tennis shoes and out via my hand, which surprisingly
was not insulated by the oven mitt covered with the plastic bread bag as
I thought it would be...my friend said I cut a most striking figure as I
bounded down the boulevard, leaving lightning flashes each time my shoes
touched the ground, until the wires pulled off of the ignition coil; and
allowed the muscles in my hand to relax.
But it was after the siege mortar explosion that my friends started
referring to me as 'Wile E. Coyote', or 'Professor Fate'; and showed
their deep concern for my condition by eating two large pizzas between
the three of them as well as drinking a case of beer, before they
arrived at the hospital to visit me- laughing hysterically.'
The Bomb In The Basement Sink
'You can take a large empty tin for percussion caps, fill it with black
powder, put a length of waterproof fuze in it, and sink it to the bottom
of your forty gallon square shaped cast-concrete sink in the
basement...with a submerged air-filled glass Christmas tree ornament
next to it to demonstrate how depth charges destroy submarines by
shockwaves traveling through water...
The experiment will demonstrate many things:
1.) Water is basically incompressible.
2.) It is an excellent tamping compound for any explosive.
3.) Properly tamped, even a small amount of gunpowder packs a great deal
of energy.
4.) It is fully possible to move a cubic block of water of about forty
gallons volume in a vertical direction at high velocity while
maintaining it in an approximately cubic form.
5.) Glass Christmas Tree ornaments are far stronger that they would
appear to be... strong enough to rise up in a vertical column of
explosively driven water intact...but not so strong that the can survive
being driven into a ceiling joist at around a hundred miles per hour.
6.) As well as worrying about spilling water and have it leak through
the floor into the downstairs story, it is also possible to have
'spilled' water emerge _through_ the floor of the story above you.
7.) Barnes Wallis was quite correct when he realized that even small
explosions can crack concrete when the blast is tamped by water, and the
explosive is in direct contact with the concrete...such as the concrete
of the face of the Mohne dam...or the concrete at the bottom of a
cast-concrete basement sink. It only leaked around a pint or two a
minute after that- from the hairline cracks in the bottom."
But I did manage to get a lot of those boards from the space program that
made it into the surplus electronics market.
How would you know they were from the space program? Did they have dried
"Tang" on them or something?
Are you sure you just weren't accepting the explanation given by an
authority figure without actually understanding the minutia of all those
fields?
I believe his name was Issac Newton.
Why couldn't you have simply answered with a YES, that you have ACCEPTED an
answer from an authority figure rather than actually understood the
minituae of all the associated disciplines?
I don't need to understand the minutiae of all scientific fields to get
things to work (mind you, they sometimes don't work exactly as I expect
them to, but that's part of the Joy Of Learning).
You really probably did not
and do not have the background to understand the entire fields I mentioned
and therefore did not really understand the answers but rather accepted
them.
Here...now you hold on to this chromed-glass liner from the inside of
the thermos bottle.
This is something really fascinating to see...don't worry about that
flashing set of LEDs on the cap that are counting down from 100, those
are no concern to you at all...what's that smell? Oh, thats just a
little of the gasoline that's how filling the jacket where the vacuum
used to be... the one surrounding the inside there the gunpowder now is.
What's it going to do? Something fascinating, let me assure you...since
you are a teacher, it's time to play "new word of the week" This week's
new word is actually a acronym...it's "FAE". What does that mean? Oh,
I'll tell you after I go to that outdoor latrine over there...yes, the
one with the sandbags piled all around it... but don't worry, I'll be
back shortly. How long?
Well I'll bet it's going to take at least 78 seconds. Maybe a little
more, even.
You mention Isaac Newton. Have you actually read him? I mean in his
original Latin? Few people have including those students who major in
physics.
"They who are called forces, they move the apple?" What the hell is that
supposed to mean?
The difference between you and those who embrace the conspiracy theory is
that you accept authority figures even those of government whereas many of
them have good reason to hold what government and those experts who support
them as suspect. They, like probably you and most, do not really
understand the explanations because of a lack of actual education in each
and all of the needed disciplines. You ACCEPT without understanding and
the conspiracists do NOT ACCEPT and are still like most (even those who
post here) do not understand.
Wait a second, I found a better translation here:
"Iway avehay otnay asway etyay eenbay ableway otay iscoverday ethay
easonray orfay esethay opertiespray ofway avitygray omfray enomenaphay,
andway Iway oday otnay eignfay ypotheseshay. Orfay ateverwhay isway
otnay educedday omfray ethay enomenaphay ustmay ebay alledcay away
ypothesishay; andway ypotheseshay, etherwhay etaphysicalmay orway
ysicalphay, orway asedbay onway occultway alitiesquay, orway
echanicalmay, avehay onay aceplay inway experimentalway ilosophyphay.
Inway isthay ilosophyphay articularpay opositionspray areway inferredway
omfray ethay enomenaphay, andway afterwardsway enderedray eneralgay ybay
inductionway."
Okay, he just said he doesn't know much about what he's talking about,
and a lot of modern physicists would agree.
Pat
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 01:50:05 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:50 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial American
brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to its
before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues the
policy with a record number of lies.
So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie at
its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
important.
I'm fully prepared to believe that my government will lie at its
convenience. And does. But the simple fact that it is so often, and so
easily caught in those lies argues that the Apollo program was not a
lie. If a secret can't be kept longer than a few years when a handful of
people are involved, how can anybody rationally believe a conspiracy
involving thousands could be maintained for decades? It defies reason.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jar-Jar Binks" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 12:06:27 PM |
|
|
"Chris L Peterson" <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:gf8mk3dqcno2fkfr66f3gtslb8veo4vmr4@4ax.com...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:50 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
I'm fully prepared to believe that my government will lie at its
convenience. And does. But the simple fact that it is so often, and so
easily caught in those lies argues that the Apollo program was not a
lie. If a secret can't be kept longer than a few years when a handful of
people are involved, how can anybody rationally believe a conspiracy
involving thousands could be maintained for decades? It defies reason.
Yes, but we also need to consider the Roswell Incident. The government has
lied to us for many years about the crashed spacecraft and the Alien Bodies
that were recovered. If you listen to Art Bell and George Nory on
Coast-to-Coast AM, you would know this. :-)
Jar-Jar
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris L Peterson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
27 Nov 2007 12:21:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 10:06:27 -0800, "Jar-Jar Binks" <jarjar@nospam.com>
wrote:
Yes, but we also need to consider the Roswell Incident. The government has
lied to us for many years about the crashed spacecraft and the Alien Bodies
that were recovered. If you listen to Art Bell and George Nory on
Coast-to-Coast AM, you would know this. :-)
I live in a place with no radio or TV reception. Sometimes that's a
problem, but I see it has its positive aspects as well <g>.
_________________________________________________
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Do you think we REALLY landed on the moon in 1969 ? I know this is a hot topic, but lets talk some.... |
26 Nov 2007 05:24:23 PM |
|
|
Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:06:50 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
The doubt doesn't necessarily come from being a spoiled parochial American
brat. It comes from the fact that the American government has lied to its
before and got caught more than once, and this administration continues
the policy with a record number of lies.
So the thinking goes that if our government is willing and ready to lie at
its convenience then maybe it was lying then too when the stakes were so
important.
I'm fully prepared to believe that my government will lie at its
convenience. And does. But the simple fact that it is so often, and so
easily caught in those lies argues that the Apollo program was not a
lie.
I doubt that the government gets caught in even a tenth of the lies it
tells. And even when caught there is barely a penalty other than a raised
eyebrow and a shrug by the populace.
Those who think there is a cover-up maintain that being caught in a lie is
exactly what has happened and see their government trying even more
cover-ups with more blank faced lies.
And again I think far more people who accept the government at its word only
pretend to understand the scientific and technical explanations. They
parrot them without actually understanding them like an actor playing a
doctor or lawyer on tv. Very few people probably understand ALL the
technical reasons because very few people have that wide of a range
expertise in every related field such as computers, filmology,
photography, geology, radiation, communication, chemistry etc. It is seen
as normal to accept the experts explanation (almost as on faith). But
those who have had bad experiences, personal experiences with a government
that is less than truthful are too paranoid to accept everything on faith.
And other non expert but seemingly expert explanations are accepted far
more readily than an official one.
If a secret can't be kept longer than a few years when a handful of
people are involved, how can anybody rationally believe a conspiracy
involving thousands could be maintained for decades? It defies reason.
But the humdrum of the bureaucracy need not be let in on the truth. The
average technician only need to be concerned about the data on his own
radar screen (if that is the correct hardware designation) or computer
monitor. The engineer need only design a circuit that will perform in such
and such a manner as he is told by his group supervisor and when that
circuit board is tossed in the trash (hypothetically speaking), he need not
be aware of it. A programmer need only design that subroutine he is
assigned whether it operates on real data/readings or generated data from
another computer.
And the supervisors are too busy playing corporate politics and ***** kissing
to actual do anything real. I know Martin Marietta who produced the
Patriot missiles were designing them on computers that were virus ridden.
Engineers were taking plans home with them and working on them on their own
computers, resulting in both office and home computers with multiple
infestations. It amazes me any of those missles got off the ground
although later reports indicated that far too many of them got on the
ground far to early. And the supervisors for the company that let that
happen were teaching part time at local vocational schools. Except that
few of them could write programs that could display "Hello World" or
perhaps print the words. For the most part students taught students. I
can't imagine they knew any more at work. Their expertise lay in report
generation to impress their supervisors and in pencil pushing. Dilbert was
alive and well. Those engineering/programming supervisors would not need
to be included in the loop, in the first place. They had other and non
essential fish to fry. I cannot imagine they were any better at things
with the Apollo project.
I don't think as many people had to be fooled as is generally maintained.
And the conspiracy advocates simply point to the few that look to be in the
loop and ARE speaking out. Society labels them as kooks | | | | | | | |
