Aug 24 podcast, Elon Musk & SpaceX; Donald Trump

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
My immediate response is that Microsoft is an alias for IBM and even though Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust lawsuit, and a resultant slap on the wrist, the whole operation is still IBM's, the point being IBM could really get nailed in the courts if it wasn't hiding behind an "autonomous" company- Consider, Saxe-Coburg und Gotha became Windsor for political reasons in 1917- Legal hurdles can be jumped in the same way, I reckon-
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
If that's the case, the question would be: how does IBM control Gates and Microsoft and reap any benefits from its alias? It could be true, but the mechanisms are not obvious.
 

Tyrone McCloskey

Active Member
Gates could be just another front (insert gatekeeper pun here). My first target would be the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Like Carnegie and Rockefeller, the Gates Foundation would be one place to redirect profits into "projects" that may exist only on paper, the funding going into anonymous stock portfolios or off shore banks. Corporate profits are probably accessible to the chosen few, operating much like the Venitian fondi of old, and these few may have shares of a sort that pay dividends in a completely separate economy. Granted, this is speculative, but I doubt that the fiat script that we normals use has anything to do with their medium of exchange which may hide behind the paper and key strokes of the public currency.
 
As to the question of why would we do to the moon again, we absolutely would in some form or fashion if the research about ice formations near the moon's southern pole is accurate or to be believed. One plan I heard a few years ago was to build a hydrogen conversion station on the moon and another transfer related point at a null gravity point between the earth and the moon with a moon tether to affect hydrogen transfers with the ultimate purpose of fueling missions to Mars.

The rationale I read was that this was really the only realistic way to have Mars missions be cost effective, because this would mean large portions of the missions could skip the huge process needed to get craft (and extra fuel) out of earth's gravity well and the only additional challenge would be either assembling craft in orbit or getting it there initially in some manner first to be fueled for a Mars trip.

Now there are a lot of what ifs with that, but the fuel station idea is pretty cool and novel, and would solve lots of issues; mainly how do you get all this girl into space when getting anything into orbit is such a huge financial and logistics nightmare, including extra fuel for a second mission beyond the first one to just get the draft into space to begin with.

I suppose a second big moon mission concept could be some sort of DOD defense related Dr. Strangelove craziness, but not sure that even makes sense.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
The Russians the English and the American bomb europe back to the Stone Age Then let Europe starve to death. Who killed who? Then the victors write the history. Then blame it on the victims. The people of Europe were site up for the big fall.

Here is a interview with author; -dr-nick-kollerstrom-the, when where what who why how
time to look at new information;
As if you know nothing to learn about what people are saying then make a decision!

The holocaust of people is evil is it going on today? Genetically modified food pesticides vaccine loss of bees herbicides Chemtrail plastic touching your food and drink, The rich can eat organically, making it illegal to use wood burning stove let you freeze like in England because CO2 is so bad for you . If you live within 50 miles of a nuclear power plants you are living in a cancer cluster and waiting for all help to break out like Fukushima. The death of the ocean it is not because of too many people it's because of a few people who've done terrible things continue to do them today the same ones that believe there's too many people seem to be doing something about it the same ones who control history same ones who control the media same one who control our schools, genocide is their answer to the problems of the world. Listen to this and decide for yourself! LH

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/rb…..t-7132015/
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/mega-rich-rocket-ships-escape-earth


What if the mega-rich just want rocket ships to escape the Earth they destroy?

Jess Zimmerman
 
Last edited by a moderator:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/16/mega-rich-rocket-ships-escape-earth


What if the mega-rich just want rocket ships to escape the Earth they destroy?

Jess Zimmerman
Seems to me if we can take robots to the Mars we certainly have robot on the moon now.

2001: A Space Odyssey Official Re-Release Trailer (2014) - Stanley Kubrick Movie HD - YouTube
▶ 2:01
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjIqQBsPjk

Oct 21, 2014 - Uploaded by Movieclips Trailers
... A Space Odyssey Official Re-Release Trailer (2014) - Stanley Kubrick Movie HD 2001: A ...

2001: A Space Odyssey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay, written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, ...
Budget‎: ‎$10.5–12 million
Box office‎: ‎$138–190 million
Starring‎: ‎Keir Dullea; Gary Lockwood
Release dates‎: ‎April 2, 1968 (Uptown T...


http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ba0120.jpe

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html
They could also use giant telescope Hubble to see the landing site, I guess were not supposed look at that.


I don't believe they went to the moon. The photograph showing underneath the lander the soil not being disturbed and there's no dust all over the craft, makes no sense.


2001 movie, 1 year before was to get us ready, to believe in the new religion! "science". Who better to rule the world. Then The scientific elite. Pre programming to believe we can go to the moon. What's that odds that movie with come out then. Just After dr strange love showed how you can fake airplanes flying by using a projector of plane flying out the window.
More proof we didn't go is When landing they talk normally over the radio where the engine they're sitting on would be so load they wouldn't be able to speak or hear.

I believe Joe is right that we was cannot leave the safety of the earths shield, at 30, ooo feet in a airplanemy radation counter was going crazy.

O ya Then they want use to believe they could bring a car and gulf clubs, to the moon, who kidding who? 4
LH
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
Seems to me if we can take robots to the Mars we certainly have robot on the moon now.

2001: A Space Odyssey Official Re-Release Trailer (2014) - Stanley Kubrick Movie HD - YouTube
▶ 2:01
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjIqQBsPjk

Oct 21, 2014 - Uploaded by Movieclips Trailers
... A Space Odyssey Official Re-Release Trailer (2014) - Stanley Kubrick Movie HD 2001: A ...

2001: A Space Odyssey (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_(film)
2001: A Space Odyssey is a 1968 epic science fiction film produced and directed by Stanley Kubrick. The screenplay, written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, ...
Budget‎: ‎$10.5–12 million
Box office‎: ‎$138–190 million
Starring‎: ‎Keir Dullea; Gary Lockwood
Release dates‎: ‎April 2, 1968 (Uptown T...


http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality_files/08ba0120.jpe

http://www.thelivingmoon.com/45jack_files/02archives/Apollo_Reality.html
They could also use giant telescope Hubble to see the landing site, I guess were not supposed look at that.


I don't believe they went to the moon. The photograph showing underneath the lander the soil not being disturbed and there's no dust all over the craft, makes no sense.


2001 movie, 1 year before was to get us ready, to believe in the new religion! "science". Who better to rule the world. Then The scientific elite. Pre programming to believe we can go to the moon. What's that odds that movie with come out then. Just After dr strange love showed how you can fake airplanes flying by using a projector of plane flying out the window.
More proof we didn't go is When landing they talk normally over the radio where the engine they're sitting on would be so load they wouldn't be able to speak or hear.

I believe Joe is right that we was cannot leave the safety of the earths shield, at 30, ooo feet in a airplanemy radation counter was going crazy.

O ya Then they want use to believe they could bring a car and gulf clubs, to the moon, who kidding who? 4
LH
Just recently NASA gave a little YouTube show talking about going to Mars one day, ... if only they could figure out how to get through the Van Allen Belts. But I repeat myself. (Actually, I repeat what the science guy said into the camera; once they solve that problem...)

Subject: What you know
There are known knowns.
There are known unknowns.
There are unknown unknowns.
But there are also unkown knowns. That is to say, things that you think you know, that it turns out you did not."
-Donald Rumsfeld, from the Errol Morris documentary "Unkown Knowns"

Here's what Donald Rumsfeld won't say.
An effective understanding of classical logic is indispensable in the identification of "unknown knowns". That is why it has been suppressed.
The sequel to this film is "Astronauts Gone Wild"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAbpW...
And I suppose we didn't go to the moon, either?: The Beatles, the Holocaust, and other mass illusions (Save the World, Resist the Empire )
byJim Fetzer

http://www.amazon.com/And-suppose-didnt-moon-either-ebook/product-reviews/B010MQQOHO/ref=cm_cr_pr_btm_link_next_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=recent&reviewerType=all_reviews&formatType=all_formats&filterByStar=all_stars&pageNumber=2
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
February 17, 2004: NASA has a mystery to solve: Can people go to Mars, or not?

"It's a question of radiation," says Frank Cucinotta of NASA's Space Radiation Health Project at the Johnson Space Center. "We know how much radiation is out there, waiting for us between Earth and Mars, but we're not sure how the human body is going to react to it."

NASA astronauts have been in space, off and on, for 45 years. Except for a few quick trips to the moon, though, they've never spent much time far from Earth. Deep space is filled with protons from solar flares, gamma rays from newborn black holes, and cosmic rays from exploding stars. A long voyage to Mars, with no big planet nearby to block or deflect that radiation, is going to be a new adventure.

Right:
"Distant Shores." NASA artwork by Pat Rawlings/SAIC. [Larger image]

NASA weighs radiation danger in units of cancer risk. A healthy 40-year-old non-smoking American male stands a (whopping) 20% chance of eventually dying from cancer. That's if he stays on Earth. If he travels to Mars, the risk goes up.

The question is, how much?

"We're not sure," says Cucinotta. According to a 2001 study of people exposed to large doses of radiation--e.g., Hiroshima atomic bomb survivors and, ironically, cancer patients who have undergone radiation therapy--the added risk of a 1000-day Mars mission lies somewhere between 1% and 19%. "The most likely answer is 3.4%," says Cucinotta, "but the error bars are wide."

The odds are even worse for women, he adds. "Because of breasts and ovaries, the risk to female astronauts is nearly double the risk to males."





Researchers who did the study assumed the Mars-ship would be built "mostly of aluminum, like an old Apollo command module," says Cucinotta. The spaceship's skin would absorb about half the radiation hitting it.
"If the extra risk is only a few percent… we're OK. We could build a spaceship using aluminum and head for Mars." (Aluminum is a favorite material for spaceship construction, because it's lightweight, strong, and familiar to engineers from long decades of use in the aerospace industry.)

"But if it's 19%… our 40something astronaut would face a 20% + 19% = 39% chance of developing life-ending cancer after he returns to Earth. That's not acceptable."

The error bars are large, says Cucinotta, for good reason. Space radiation is a unique mix of gamma-rays, high-energy protons and cosmic rays. Atomic bomb blasts and cancer treatments, the basis of many studies, are no substitute for the "real thing."

The greatest threat to astronauts en route to Mars is galactic cosmic rays--or "GCRs" for short. These are particles accelerated to almost light speed by distant supernova explosions. The most dangerous GCRs are heavy ionized nuclei such as Fe+26. "They're much more energetic (millions of MeV) than typical protons accelerated by solar flares (tens to hundreds of MeV)," notes Cucinotta. GCRs barrel through the skin of spaceships and people like tiny cannon balls, breaking the strands of DNA molecules, damaging genes and killing cells.

Above: An artist's concept of DNA battered by galactic cosmic rays. Credit: OBPR. [Larger image]

Astronauts have rarely experienced a full dose of these deep space GCRs. Consider the International Space Station (ISS): it orbits only 400 km above Earth's surface. The body of our planet, looming large, intercepts about one-third of GCRs before they reach the ISS. Another third is deflected by Earth's magnetic field. Space shuttle astronauts enjoy similar reductions.

Apollo astronauts traveling to the moon absorbed higher doses--about 3 times the ISS level--but only for a few days during the Earth-moon cruise. GCRs may have damaged their eyes, notes Cucinotta. On the way to the moon, Apollo crews reported seeing cosmic ray flashes in their retinas, and now, many years later, some of them have developed cataracts. Otherwise they don't seem to have suffered much. "A few days 'out there' is probably safe," concludes Cucinotta.

Right:
Apollo command modules were well-enough shielded for quick trips to the Moon and back. [More]

But astronauts traveling to Mars will be "out there" for a year or more. "We can't yet estimate, reliably, what cosmic rays will do to us when we're exposed for so long," he says.

Finding out is the mission of NASA's new Space Radiation Laboratory (NSRL), located at the US Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York. It opened in October 2003. "At the NSRL we have particle accelerators that can simulate cosmic rays," explains Cucinotta. Researchers expose mammalian cells and tissues to the particle beams, and then scrutinize the damage. "The goal is to reduce the uncertainty in our risk estimates to only a few percent by the year 2015."

Once the risks are known, NASA can decide what kind of spaceship to build. It's possible that ordinary building materials like aluminum are good enough. If not, "we've already identified some alternatives," he says.

How about a spaceship made of plastic?

"Plastics are rich in hydrogen--an element that does a good job absorbing cosmic rays," explains Cucinotta. For instance, polyethylene, the same material garbage bags are made of, absorbs 20% more cosmic rays than aluminum. A form of reinforced polyethylene developed at the Marshall Space Flight Center is 10 times stronger than aluminum, and lighter, too. This could become a material of choice for spaceship building, if it can be made cheaply enough. "Even if we don't build the whole spacecraft from plastic," notes Cucinotta, "we could still use it to shield key areas like crew quarters." Indeed, this is already done onboard the ISS.

Left:
Bricks of reinforced polyethylene--the building blocks of future spacecraft? [More]

If plastic isn't good enough then pure hydrogen might be required. Pound for pound, liquid hydrogen blocks cosmic rays 2.5 times better than aluminum does. Some advanced spacecraft designs call for big tanks of liquid hydrogen fuel, so "we could protect the crew from radiation by wrapping the fuel tank around their living space," speculates Cucinotta.

Can people go to Mars? Cucinotta believes so. But first, "we've got to figure out how much radiation our bodies can handle and what kind of spaceship we need to build." In labs around the country, the work has already begun.

Stay tuned to Science@NASA in the weeks ahead for more installments in our continuing series about space radiation. Next up: "Watch out for Solar Flares."
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
  • James Van Allen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Van_Allen
    Early years. Van Allen was born on 7 September 1914 on a small farm near Mount Pleasant, Iowa, the second of four sons of Alfred Morris and Alma Olney Van Allen.Van Allen Probes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Probes
    The Van Allen radiation belts swell and shrink over time as part of a much larger space weather system driven by energy and material that erupt off the Sun's surface ...

  • More importantly here is NASA describing the Van Allen belts as deadly. The original post is from here.
    They were the subject of perhaps the first scientific discovery of the Space Age, and yet we still don't know much about them. The radiation belts that surround Earth are home to killer electrons, plasma waves, and intense electrical currents that can disrupt and destroy the electronics on satellites. But the behavior of the Van Allen Belts—named for James Van Allen, who led the team that discovered them in 1958—is wildly unpredictable.
    This artist's conception shows the radiation belts (green), which are two doughnut-shaped (torus) regions full of high-energy particles that fill the near-space around Earth. The blue and red lines between and around the belts depict the north and south polarity of the planet’s magnetic field. The inner belt, a blend of protons and electrons, can reach down as low as 1,000 kilometers (600 miles) in altitude. The outer belt, comprised mainly of energetic electrons, can swell to as much as 60,000 kilometers (37,000 miles) above Earth’s surface. Both rings extend to roughly 65 degrees north and south latitude.
    The radiation belts were discovered during the flight of the very first American satellite. Van Allen and colleagues had installed a Geiger-Müller tube on Explorer 1 to detect cosmic rays, and as the satellite made its eccentric orbit around the Earth, the readings periodically went off the top of the counter’s scale. It happened again during the flight of Explorer 3 several months later. Several followup missions proved that the space around Earth was not empty, but instead enriched with electrons, protons, and energy created by interactions between Earth's magnetic field (or magnetosphere), the solar wind, and (occasionally) cosmic rays arriving from beyond the solar system.
    Fifty-four years later, NASA has embarked on a missions designed specifically to understand the space weather in the dynamic and erratic Van Allen Belts. At 4:05 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on August 30, 2012, the Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP) were launched into orbit on a United Launch Alliance Atlas V rocket that lifted off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. (Watch video of the launch here.) The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) built and will operate the twin RBSP spacecraft for NASA’s Living With a Star program.
    The identical twin spacecraft will fly in separate orbits across the inner and outer Van Allen radiation belts. The mission is starting near the height of the Sun’s 11-year cycle, or solar maximum. Activity on the sun influences the behavior of the radiation belts, though scientists are puzzled by that behavior. Sometimes a solar storm can swell the belts with particles and energy, creating havoc for Earth-orbiting satellites by accelerating electrons (aka, “killer electrons”) and creating electrical currents. Other times, the radiation belts grow very calm and depleted during Sun storms. Occasionally, no change is detected at all.
    The RBSP satellites are designed to observe how and when killer electrons are energized, to sample the electrical and magnetic fields in Earth’s space, to count particles, and detect plasma waves of different frequencies. The ultimate goal is to improve the prediction of space weather; that is, how solar activity can cause geomagnetic storms that upset telecommunications and electronics.
    1. Further Reading
    2. Carlowicz, M., and Lopez, R. (2002) Storms from the Sun: The Emerging Science of Space Weather. The Joseph Henry Press. Accessed August 30, 2012.
    3. Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (n.d.) Radiation Belt Storm Probes Accessed August 30, 2012.
    4. NASA (2012, July 18) The Electric Atmosphere: Plasma Is Next NASA Science Target. Accessed August 30, 2012.
    5. NASA (n.d.) RBSP News. Accessed August 30, 2012.
    6. Science@NASA (2012) ScienceCasts: The Radiation Belt Storm Probes. Accessed August 30, 2012.
    Image by T. Benesch and J. Carns for the NASA Science Mission Directorate. Caption by Mike Carlowicz.
    Nearing 3000 Comets: SOHO Solar Observatory Greatest Comet Hunter of All Time
    07.30.15 – In 1995, a new solar observatory was launched. A joint project of ESA and NASA, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory – SOHO – has been sending home images of our dynamic sun ever since. SOHO was planned to open up a new era of solar observations, dramatically extending our understanding of the star we live with…and it delivered.

    But no one could have predicted SOHO's other observational triumph: In the last two decades, SOHO has become the greatest comet finder of all time. In August 2015, SOHO is expected to discover its 3000th comet. Prior to the SOHO launch, only a dozen or so comets had ever even been discovered from space, and some 900 had been discovered from the ground since 1761.
http://lws.gsfc.nasa.gov/The LWS Program provides missions to improve our understanding of how and why the Sun varies, how the Earth and Solar System respond, and how the variability and response affects humanity in Space and on Earth.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm

"Apollo and the Van Allen Belts - an estimate of the dose received" by Robert A Braenig

The conclusion is that the astronauts would have received a dose of about 32 millirem (320 microsievert) from the Van Allen belts. This is similar to the radiation dose from a mammogram x-ray.

Quote:

Radiation is a favorite topic of many moon landing hoax theorists. No matter how badly they may lose the debate on other issues, they believe that space radiation is the one thing that trumps all others. If it were impossible for spacefarers to survive the Van Allen radiation belts then Apollo was hoaxed regardless of what all other evidence suggests. The argument typically goes like this:

Radiation is bad + There is radiation in space = Space is bad

That's generally all you'll get because that's all they know. It's no secret that space radiation exists, and we all know radiation can cause death, so, to the conspiracy theorist, the only conclusion is that space is a maelstrom of deadly radiation that will fry any outbound astronaut. Unfortunately this is a very simplistic and naive way of looking at the problem. Radiations vary dramatically in strength and intensity, with some being dangerous and some being harmless background radiation. Whether or not a human will experience illness or death is related to the radiation dose received. It is a problem with a very real answer that can be determined quantitatively.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
On the podcast, I think I mentioned an argument that the Saturn V rocket was afflicted by a pogo-stick vibration problem. The claim came from this article, which is one of the best I've seen from the Apollo skeptic point of view:

http://www.aulis.com/moonbase.htm

[The problem] -- structural vibrations in the body of the rocket, caused by the vibration of the thrust chambers of the first stage engines – was found at the second-ever trial of the Saturn V, after its unmanned launch on 4 April 1968, known as Apollo 6. The so-called pogo vibrations were found to be so large that they were recognized as a threat to the health and survival of the crew and to the integrity of the payload, including the Lunar Module (LM). Even at the time it was admitted: 'Had there been men on board Apollo 6, the crew probably would have aborted the mission during the pogo, when they would have been so violently banged around that they couldn’t have operated the spacecraft.' (Apollo, 1989 p.314)

However, without any further test launches since the problematic trial in April, in December 1968 the Saturn V, according to NASA reports, successfully took Apollo 8 to fly around the Moon with a human crew. Much later, during the third unmanned launch of the Saturn V with Skylab on board, the vibrational problem returned. During the launch on 14 May 1973, the Skylab station was heavily damaged due to the severe vibrations of the first stage of the rocket. One solar panel was torn away from the station body and severely dented it as a result. For some period of time, due to the damage, the station was treated as lost.

Yet it begs the question: how did the Saturn V manage to run perfectly from 1968 through to 1972 and then, some six months after the end of the Apollo missions succumb to the same problem that it had at its birth? For it was between the second and the third unmanned launches of the Saturn V that all the apparently successful missions to the Moon occurred.
However, for every conspiracy theory, there are debunkers. The 'Clavius' website is devoted to demonstrating that the Apollo moon missions really did happen. Their reply is that the pogo stick problem was well understood, and gradually brought under control over the course of the project.

http://www.clavius.org/techsvpogo.html

...there was no one single mission before which pogo was a serious problem, and after which it wasn't. Pogo occurred in the Saturn V all the way up to Apollo 17. But during the program engineers took a series of steps to make pogo less of a problem for each successive mission.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
.[/QUOTE]

Faking the Moon Landing - Stanley Kubrick & NASA’s Noble Lie with Bart Sibrel

as joe said nasa said we cant get passed the van allen belt watch this for more


Published on Sep 18, 2015
Was the moon landing faked by NASA and Stanley Kubrick in an effort to cover up the failure to execute John F. Kennedy’s bold desire to have a man on the moon before the end of the 1960s? We discuss the theory with Bart Sibrel, who shares unedited NASA footage of the mission, and explains the reasons why the lunar landing was not possible in this uncensored Buzzsaw interview hosted by Sean Stone.

GUEST BIO:
Bart Sibrel is an award winning filmmaker, writer and investigative journalist who has been producing movies and television programs for thirty years. During this time he has owned five production companies, been employed by two of the three major networks and produced films shown on ABC, NBC, CNN, TLC, USA, BET, as well as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. To discuss his films, he has appeared and been interviewed on The Daily Show, Geraldo, NBC, CNN, FOX, Tech TV, Coast to Coast, and The Abrams Report. Articles featuring Mr. Sibrel's films have been published in Time Magazine, USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L.A. Times and many others. His top awards from the American Motion Picture Society include "Best Cinematography", "Best Editing" and "Top Ten Director". Mr. Sibrel has also taught about twenty workshops on Acting, Filmmaking, Editing, and Writing; privately and for The Screen Actor's Guild. In his youth he brought to the stage several original theatrical productions, hosted a cable television talk show, and appeared as a seasoned actor on the stage himself over 500 times. "I was making movies when this competition started way back in 1930. I do not ever recall anyone entering three motion pictures and winning a top award on all three. But you have!" Jack Ruddell - American Motion Picture Society, Chairman

ADD’L LINKS:
http://sibrel.com/
http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/consp...
https://www.youtube.com/user/BartSibrel1
http://thelip.tv/
http://thelip.tv/show/buzzsaw/
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
NASA's explanation is that Armstrong wore big, heavy “EVA boots" over his space suit, and these boots were left behind on the lunar surface. However, they claim that Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan’s boots were brought back home and are now in a museum.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123793469@N02/15726501374

And here are the quality control X-rays of Armstrong’s boots.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/6366973807

The other story (about the Chinese skeptics) is said to come from Beijing Daily Express by way of World News Daily Report. As far as I can find from the Internet, there is no such paper as Beijing Daily Express. But, World News Daily Report is a satire site, seems to be a send-up of World Net Daily. Here’s their disclaimer:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.
In this context, it's also worth mentioning that NASA claims that their "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter" has captured images of the Apollo lunar landing sites. Of course they could be fakes, we would need an independent citizen funded satellite to know for sure.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
NASA's explanation is that Armstrong wore big, heavy “EVA boots" over his space suit, and these boots were left behind on the lunar surface. However, they claim that Apollo 17 astronaut Eugene Cernan’s boots were brought back home and are now in a museum.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/123793469@N02/15726501374

And here are the quality control X-rays of Armstrong’s boots.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/6366973807

The other story (about the Chinese skeptics) is said to come from Beijing Daily Express by way of World News Daily Report. As far as I can find from the Internet, there is no such paper as Beijing Daily Express. But, World News Daily Report is a satire site, seems to be a send-up of World Net Daily. Here’s their disclaimer:

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/disclaimer/

WNDR assumes however all responsibility for the satirical nature of its articles and for the fictional nature of their content. All characters appearing in the articles in this website – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional and any resemblance between them and any persons, living, dead, or undead is purely a miracle.
In this context, it's also worth mentioning that NASA claims that their "Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter" has captured images of the Apollo lunar landing sites. Of course they could be fakes, we would need an independent citizen funded satellite to know for sure.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-11.html
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/news/apollo-sites.html

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I challenged Dave McGowan several years ago, to debate his views on the Apollo mission, at the discussion forum at Chris Martenson's website. He told me he would accept my challenge, but never showed up. Meanwhile, others from the apollohoax forum did come around, and we had a pleasant discussion.

In the end, we felt that the best evidence that the Apollo missions did happen, is that an entire generation of astro-geologists cut their teeth studying moon rocks brought back to earth by the missions. Many peer reviewed scientific publications were written documenting distinctive features of these rocks, and if they were fake, no one ever detected this. I'm not enough of a geologist to evaluate this literature myself, so I can't say the argument is definitive. See:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/forum/moon-landing-hoax/34935

I will say that none of the arguments advanced by McGowan seem persuasive to me.
 
Last edited:

taylor

New Member
I consider any individual possessing the most basic level of engineering know how and/or common sense knows without any question whatsoever, that the supposed way these Space X rockets are landing themselves is a CGI hoax.

From an engineering perspective, it would be nigh impossible to achieve on a whole range of levels.

It would therefore appear that the whole of Space X (and similar projects) are just a massive scam and hoax - without any merit whatsoever.
 
Top