What's ammater with you people?
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/introduction.htm (http://history.nasa.gov/ap11ann/introduction.htm)
http://wechoosethemoon.com/ (http://wechoosethemoon.com/)
You know I asked a certain poster if he believed that the landings were faked, but sadly enough I received no reply. :'(
Not directly an answer (http://henningmusick.blogspot.com/2009/07/on-source-docs-space-edition.html) to Steve's neat-o thread . . . .
Well, we all know the truth. Don't we?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
Well, on that topic. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?ref=science)
Of course it was all fake. To get to the moon, you'd have to build some kind of ship capable of flying in space. What would that be called, a spaceship or spacecraft? Preposterous. It would have to perform life support functions, there would have to be advanced wireless communication equipment, advanced computational devices, and advanced navigation systems. Then, if you wanted to actually get out of the craft that delivered you to the moon, some kind of space-proof clothing (a spacesuit, or some such silliness) would be needed, with an even smaller life support system. No civilization has ever been able to create such advanced technology. It's just crazy talk.
The moon is a fake. Thought everyone knew that.
Back to cheese. ;D
Actually, here's a true story - one of my earliest clear memories. I can't remember how old I was, precisely, but certainly less than 5. Anyway, I was out at night, with my Dad, and there was a full moon - and this was the first stirrings of curiosity about the universe I guess, because I remember asking him what the moon was, and why was it different to the sun? And I remember him trying to explain. Of course I know now that he was trying to explain that we saw the moon only by reflected light, but what he actually said was something like 'the moon is really just a reflection'. And there was a period of time that followed, weeks, or maybe even months, when I was trying to figure out where the mirror could be. No kidding.
Indeed @ moon-fakery. Thank god we have some people willing to expose the truth, regardless of ridicule from the brain-washed sheep.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6787/stupidwomanonwhowantsto.jpg)
Quote from: Lethe on July 17, 2009, 12:05:23 PM
Indeed @ moon-fakery. Thank god we have some people willing to expose the truth, regardless of ridicule from the brain-washed sheep.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6787/stupidwomanonwhowantsto.jpg)
Well not necessarily. I mean, how big
was this Peanut?
Quote from: Elgarian on July 17, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
Well not necessarily. I mean, how big was this Peanut?
I've done some extensive research through peer-reviewed sources, and have discovered that the peanut
was larger than the kettle:
(http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2641/1243755777652022.jpg)
I wonder how deep the rabbit hole goes before our fragile grasp on this illusionary world comes crashing down. Then, apparently, the last laugh will be on us. Perhaps Sean and Rob will come out from behind the peanut and mock us for a few seconds before we're all harvested for bodyparts by the reptillian-masonic-zionist-capitalist-nazis...
Speaking of size reminds me of another story. There was this chap - let's call him Sam - who was unusually small for his age - I mean really small. And I walked into a room wherein were gathered several people - but not Sam.
'Where's Sam?' I asked.
'He couldn't come,' was the reply. 'He got trapped under a mentholyptus sweet.'
There was something about the absurd precision of this statement - the apparently crucial importance of the type of sweet that had caused his downfall - which made the thing seem incredibly funny. But I guess you had to be there.
Quote from: Lethe on July 17, 2009, 12:17:09 PM
I've done some extensive research through peer-reviewed sources, and have discovered that the peanut was larger than the kettle:
(http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/2641/1243755777652022.jpg)
That's not a peanut. That's the Moon!
You people are all just dupes of the media. There was only one fake landing. The rest were fake fakes.
This is old news. Everyone should know that by now.
You can find the proofs here:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
A friend of mine, Dr. Leo Ferrari, was President of the local Flat Earth Society and many documents of the society are stored in the university archives.
http://www.lib.unb.ca/archives/finding/ferrari/intro.html
http://www.lib.unb.ca/archives/finding/ferrari/s2.html
Quote from: Joe Barron on July 17, 2009, 11:05:08 AM
Well, on that topic. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/space/14hoax.html?ref=science)
Good article, Joe. Some excerpts relevant to another thread:
Ted Goertzel, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has studied conspiracy theorists, said "there's a similar kind of logic behind all of these groups, I think." For the most part, he explained, "They don't undertake to prove that their view is true" so much as to "find flaws in what the other side is saying." And so, he said, argument is a matter of accumulation instead of persuasion. "They feel if they've got more facts than the other side, that proves they're right."
Mark Fenster, a professor at the University of Florida Levin College of Law who has written extensively on conspiracy theories, said he sees similarities between people who argue that the Moon landings never happened and those who insist that the 9/11 attacks were planned by the government and that President Obama's birth certificate is fake: at the core, he said, is a polarization so profound that people end up with an unshakable belief that those in power "simply can't be trusted."
Adam Savage, the co-star of the television show "MythBusters," spent an episode last year taking apart Moon hoax theories bit by bit, entertainingly and convincingly. The theorists, he noted, never give up. "They'll say you have to keep an open mind," he said, "but they reject every single piece of evidence that doesn't adhere to their thesis."
Quote from: Ted GoertzelThey'll say you have to keep an open mind, but they reject every single piece of evidence that doesn't adhere to their thesis.
It's like he
knows Rob Newman. Spooky!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiktgzKGN14&feature=related
Go to one minute into this for Richard Hoagland talking about Nasa being the proponents in the background to this and keeping the Apollo hoax idea going (indeed some of its spokespeople are 'former' employees): the idea is to take the conspiratorial mind in the opposite direction to the real conspiracy going on, which is that many subsequent trips to the Moon have taken place- all classified.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
The Apollo 11 press conference with the three astronauts is one weird video: they're clearly lying their heads off and seriously don't want to be there. But it's likely not because they didn't go but because they had another agenda when they were there (says Hoagland et al).
Armstrong's other occasional speeches are also extremely cryptic.
I think that this is excellently put:
"The theorists, he noted, never give up. "They'll say you have to keep an open mind," he said, "but they reject every single piece of evidence that doesn't adhere to their thesis."
Mike
Quote from: Sean on July 17, 2009, 10:43:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
The Apollo 11 press conference with the three astronauts is one weird video: they're clearly lying their heads off and seriously don't want to be there. But it's likely not because they didn't go but because they had another agenda when they were there (says Hoagland et al).
Armstrong's other occasional speeches are also extremely cryptic.
Sean, they are pilots, not politicians, for f%^k's sake! They are not trained public speakers. By your standards, my cousin's best man at her wedding was in on some conspiracy because he f$#king stammered during his speech!
Have you ever watched a press conference after a soccer game? Have you ever seen a soccer player who sounded like he actually "wanted to be there"? No! Of course not! If this press conference is "evidence" for some alleged lies or conspiracies surrounding the Apollo program, then no soccer matches were ever played in the English Premier League or in the Bundesliga, because all their press conferences sound equally uncomfortable = they must be lying!
Quote from: Sean on July 17, 2009, 10:43:48 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro
The Apollo 11 press conference with the three astronauts is one weird video: they're clearly lying their heads off and seriously don't want to be there. But it's likely not because they didn't go but because they had another agenda when they were there (says Hoagland et al).
Convinces me!!! If I had just returned to earth from walking on the moon, I would have been much more thrilled to be sitting in a suit at an exciting and awe-inspiring press conference to relieve the boredom of the past few days.
:P ::) >:D ;D
Quote from: Szykniej on July 17, 2009, 04:49:16 PM
Good article, Joe. Some excerpts relevant to another thread:
Ted Goertzel, a professor of sociology at Rutgers University who has studied conspiracy theorists, said "there's a similar kind of logic behind all of these groups, I think." For the most part, he explained, "They don't undertake to prove that their view is true" so much as to "find flaws in what the other side is saying." And so, he said, argument is a matter of accumulation instead of persuasion. "They feel if they've got more facts than the other side, that proves they're right."
This is also the method of the Discovery Institute. They never say out loud what their alternative theory is, though in the DI case there are also legal/constitutional reasons for keeping mum. From my perspective all conspiracy buffs look dishonest at first blush, but on reflection it becomes clear that the real problem is incapacity. Thinking about traumatic events and the causes of them creates severe emotional constraints on the use of the logical/empirical methods that all finders of fact use whether they are practicing science, preparing a report on a disaster, conducting historical research, or finding the best route to Grandma's house. Emotional shocks can make you revert to a more primitive form of thinking/feeling where what matters most is who's with you and who's against you. So facts are not to be decided, since they are symbols for the side you're on. You are not really free to choose the best explanations, they are chosen for you by your prior commitments, a procedure that I always object to.
;D
The psychology is interesting. The typical profile of the conspiracy nut is an undereducated / underemployed white male who gravitates toward a narrative that provides him a feeling of control and superiority to compensate for the stigma he feels for his low social status. Also, have you all noticed (Sean & Rob Newman as cases in point) that no one seems to believe just one crackpot conspiracy
Quote from: drogulus on July 18, 2009, 07:12:35 AM
This is also the method of the Discovery Institute. They never say out loud what their alternative theory is, though in the DI case there are also legal/constitutional reasons for keeping mum. From my perspective all conspiracy buffs look dishonest at first blush, but on reflection it becomes clear that the real problem is incapacity. Thinking about traumatic events and the causes of them creates severe emotional constraints on the use of the logical/empirical methods that all finders of fact use whether they are practicing science, preparing a report on a disaster, conducting historical research, or finding the best route to Grandma's house. Emotional shocks can make you revert to a more primitive form of thinking/feeling where what matters most is who's with you and who's against you. So facts are not to be decided, since they are symbols for the side you're on. You are not really free to choose the best explanations, they are chosen for you by your prior commitments, a procedure that I always object to. ;D
Precisely! That is exactly what is so profoundly offensive about conspiracy theorists, especially those of the 9-11 kind: they nonchalantly abuse the memories of disaster victims for no other purpose than to feed the narcissistic beast inside them. They masturbate with dead people. By subscribing to abstruse conspiracy theories they can romantically convince themselves that they are so much smarter than the rest of us, that they are leading a valiant battle against the powers that be, against all odds. Indeed, that's why the goal isn't even really to persuade any of us. If their creed were the majority, the romantic appeal of subscribing to an oppressed minority view disappears.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 18, 2009, 06:36:29 AM
By your standards, my cousin's best man at her wedding was in on some conspiracy because he f$#king stammered during his speech!
Obviously, he's involved in a torrid affair with the bride. Or the groom. Possibly both.
Menschy, there are 1500 comments on that video and they're all right in saying there's something mightily odd about those three characters. Don't tell me you watch premier league football though- that is drivel for the masses. As for your crazed raving desire to support the official very very obviously manufactured uncritical official view of the world, whatever the goons at the media-governmental complex say it is to be, well minds like yours are sure in for a serious kick from behind. You think you know what art is? You're on the wrong forum.
bwv 1080- control, superiority, underemployed, uneducated: you wouldn't just quit the truly brainless inuendo stuff and look at the facts I suppose?
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
bwv 1080- control, superiority, underemployed, uneducated: you wouldn't just quit the truly brainless inuendo stuff and look at the facts I suppose?
the facts are so obvious one has to look elsewhere for explanations
The Apollo program wasn't faked (there's a great spoof fake documentary on Youtube somewhere about Nixon arranging a film set then having those involved tracked down and eliminated), but Hoagland is right to draw attention to some peculiar aspects of it.
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
Menschy, there are 1500 comments on that video and they're all right in saying there's something mightily odd about those three characters.
The mob says 'they're witches! Burn them!' They must be right. No doubt. ::)
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
Don't tell me you watch premier league football though- that is drivel for the masses.
No, I don't watch football or any other professional sport for that matter. But I've seen a sufficient enough amount of TV to know better than to place excessive weight on completely superfluous news conferences delivered by tired, inarticulate people who would rather be somewhere else than talk to the idiots that comprise the press corps.
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
As for your crazed raving desire to support the official very very obviously manufactured uncritical official view of the world, whatever the goons at the media-governmental complex say it is to be, well minds like yours are sure in for a serious kick from behind. You think you know what art is? You're on the wrong forum.
Last I checked, I am musically literate and you are not. Let's not even start comparing our academic accolades. But certainly, you, the critical thinker with a mind so open Korean culture found it as impenetrable as a 767 didn't find the WTC impenetrable, you who has no grasp of logic, you are the one to lecture the rest of us. ::)
Nice try Mensch- we're in parallel universes, one where we look at evidence and think like an independent human mind and another where you become a happy sponge. I'll take the 1500 over your millions of uttery passive zombies soaking and soaking up the unbelievable media white noise. I'm not even half trying to counter you here, it's not worth it; try Armstrong's speach where he compares the Apollo crews to parrots ie copying what's given them to say, and being poor fliers. Let's also see what he says on Monday...
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:01:13 AM
Menschy, there are 1500 comments on that video and they're all right in saying there's something mightily odd about those three characters.
Some of those comments are from people who have a problem with the U.S. flag appearing to fly in the vacuum of the moon. I remember as a kid of 14 watching the moon landing coverage on TV and having a commentator (probably Walter Cronkite who just passed away) explain that the flag to be planted was rigid and designed to stay unfurled because of the moon's lack of atmosphere.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 18, 2009, 07:26:37 AM
Precisely! That is exactly what is so profoundly offensive about conspiracy theorists, especially those of the 9-11 kind: they nonchalantly abuse the memories of disaster victims for no other purpose than to feed the narcissistic beast inside them. They masturbate with dead people. By subscribing to abstruse conspiracy theories they can romantically convince themselves that they are so much smarter than the rest of us, that they are leading a valiant battle against the powers that be, against all odds. Indeed, that's why the goal isn't even really to persuade any of us. If their creed were the majority, the romantic appeal of subscribing to an oppressed minority view disappears.
I don't think I can agree with your characterization entirely. Nonchalance is not part of it. There is more than a little hysteria involved. These people feel threatened. The theories are an attempt to reclaim control that's been lost. So I agree with you in part.
What an achievement really, it's amazing to think that they were able to do this 40 years ago, goes to show what you can accomplish when you've got the budgets, the motivation and a boatload (rocketload?) of brilliant minds of your side.
The current schedule is that they want to go back there in 10 years or so. There's many people worried about these projects though, some think that it might divert funding from more productive research opportunities.
the landing was a fake. i was there waiting for them and nobody showed up.
gloob
lunar govenor
Quote from: drogulus on July 18, 2009, 08:51:48 AM
I don't think I can agree with your characterization entirely. Nonchalance is not part of it. There is more than a little hysteria involved. These people feel threatened. The theories are an attempt to reclaim control that's been lost. So I agree with you in part.
Oh, I agree there is an excess amount of hysteria. With 'nonchalance' I was referring to the indifference with which they walk over the bodies of those who died in events like 9-11.
Quote from: Taxes- on July 18, 2009, 09:26:21 AM
What an achievement really, it's amazing to think that they were able to do this 40 years ago, goes to show what you can accomplish when you've got the budgets, the motivation and a boatload (rocketload?) of brilliant minds of your side.
It will seem even more amazing if you ever get a chance to visit Cape Canaveral and the Kennedy Space Center. I was there a few years ago and discovered I have more technology today in my garage than mission control did for those Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 18, 2009, 10:32:49 AM
Oh, I agree there is an excess amount of hysteria. With 'nonchalance' I was referring to the indifference with which they walk over the bodies of those who died in events like 9-11.
Indifference, yes.
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:29:20 AM
Nice try Mensch- we're in parallel universes, one where we look at evidence and think like an independent human mind and another where you become a happy sponge. I'll take the 1500 over your millions of uttery passive zombies soaking and soaking up the unbelievable media white noise. I'm not even half trying to counter you here, it's not worth it; try Armstrong's speach where he compares the Apollo crews to parrots ie copying what's given them to say, and being poor fliers. Let's also see what he says on Monday...
See, this is what you get. If everything the media says is a lie, you can't afford to consider normal human reactions among reporters, like the desire to excel at what they do and uphold high standards of truth and fairness, common values among journalists even though they are not always honored as they should be. And in order to maintain the viability of conspiracy thinking you can't easily give it up. How can these reporters be so honest and diligent concerning one great issue and then turn into dehumanized pawns the next day? No, the remorseless logic of conspiracy insists that
everything must be a conspiracy, and dishonesty must be total. The theorists can't afford to admit even once that the vast universe of enemies they imagine is composed of ordinary people and not monsters or robots.
drogulus, the media are commercial enterprises- meaning the customer's desires come first. Nothing else matters, not truth or fairness or any such high-minded notions. If the masses want prejudice and lies about the world to back up their little view of it, that's what the media necessarily gives them- they're just businesses. They have to give it them, and call it objective, or they don't exist for very long. If you want critical ethical journalism you need to set up an independently funded organization who have no interest in people's response to whatever truth they uncover about the world.
Sean, That is an absurd sweeping statement. How many Irish and Russian journalists have been shot in the last 15 years for investigative journalism? By the way, no one is suggesting that they were shot at the behest of their employers.
Watergate
Thalidomide
MP Expenses
Just because the newspapers do not have your von Daniken approach to world affairs, you dump them all into the bin.
Mike
I'm glad there is no thread here about how the moon landings were faked. To overcome solar radiation while travelling in space with minimal protection, to plant a flag on the lunar surface, to play golf there - these are achievements of the highest importance that restore our confidence in the mass media and in 'Popular Mechanics'. ::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HT3_X9Suec&feature=related
Quote from: knight on July 18, 2009, 11:22:22 PM
Sean, That is an absurd sweeping statement. How many Irish and Russian journalists have been shot in the last 15 years for investigative journalism? By the way, no one is suggesting that they were shot at the behest of their employers.
Those deaths were all faked to make the shell-world we live in seem more convincing 0:)
Quote from: Lethe on July 19, 2009, 02:56:24 AM
Those deaths were all faked to make the shell-world we live in seem more convincing 0:)
Luckily,
some of us know the truth!
I woke up today to find AOL has joined the conspiracy --
http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205 (http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205)
Quote from: knight on July 18, 2009, 11:22:22 PM
Sean, That is an absurd sweeping statement. How many Irish and Russian journalists have been shot in the last 15 years for investigative journalism? By the way, no one is suggesting that they were shot at the behest of their employers.
Watergate
Thalidomide
MP Expenses
Just because the newspapers do not have your von Daniken approach to world affairs, you dump them all into the bin.
Mike
Von Daniken!?
The point is, the media is customer-driven: maybe a few journalists have investigated a few governments in ways those governments didn't like, but they only did it from start to finish because they thought people would be interested and the media product would sell. Indeed if certain parts were spiced up and others downplayed that would increase sales further: all considerations beyond sales are irrelevant: it's a business just making a profit, nothing else. The media has no special interest in uncovering government corruption etc, and indeed is as much in Western politicians' pockets as anywhere.
Buzz Aldrin kicks some conspiracy nut ass:
http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/UUFO8AGMwic
That was awesome! How many were imagining Newman as the crazy guy? :D
Quote from: DavidW on July 19, 2009, 08:56:43 AM
That was awesome! How many were imagining Newman as the crazy guy? :D
Perhaps Newman is stalking Maynard Solomon and its just a matter of time
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 04:51:14 AM
Von Daniken!?
The point is, the media is customer-driven: maybe a few journalists have investigated a few governments in ways those governments didn't like, but they only did it from start to finish because they thought people would be interested and the media product would sell. Indeed if certain parts were spiced up and others downplayed that would increase sales further: all considerations beyond sales are irrelevant: it's a business just making a profit, nothing else. The media has no special interest in uncovering government corruption etc, and indeed is as much in Western politicians' pockets as anywhere.
Sean,
Why does Matt Taibbi unravel the inner workings of Goldman Sachs? Why did Seymour Hersh break the news about Abu Ghraib, My Lai, etc.? Why did the late Walter Cronkite call the US military on its deception and lies? What about Hunter S. Thompson? None of that ever made any money. Your over-generalizations are simply untenable.
BTW, you've got the whole media business wrong. It is not at all consumer-driven, it is advertising-revenue driven, which is why no profitable media outlet will ever broadcast/publish news that is embarrassing to any of its advertising clients.
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 04:51:14 AM
Von Daniken!?
....... all considerations beyond sales are irrelevant: it's a business just making a profit, nothing else. The media has no special interest in uncovering government corruption etc, and indeed is as much in Western politicians' pockets as anywhere.
Half truths are really just well dressed lies. You put spin on a situation like a true professional manipulator.
Mike
The fake moon missions are almost comically bad. They are full of badly faked images and come from a time when people were used to watching such stuff as 'Lost in Space'. The clumsy filming of these sequences is laughable. And yet people still believe them to prove man walked on the moon.
Question Number 1 - How did the Apollo crew overcome the intense solar radiation to which they were exposed beyond the Van Allen Belt and on the lunar surface. You know, the Van Allen Belt - which shields us here on Earth from being fried alive ?
Answer - You're just being critical !
Question Number 2 - How did the astronauts manage to walk around in lunar temperatures of several hundred degrees heat and how did they manage to cool their landing craft during the whole time they were exposed to the sun's rays ?
Answer - You're just being critical !
Question Number 3 - Why do people NOT believe man has walked on the moon and taken photographs there ?
Answer - Because they are just being critical. The cameras were kept from heating. As anyone knows who puts a hand held camera into a microwave oven and switches it on for a hour. The film will still work perfectly well.
Question Number 4 - Why do the lunar astronauts seem to be suspended on wires at different times of their 'moon walk' ?
Answer - You're just being critical again !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related
etc.
:o
::) ::)
I take this as evidence that Newman really is a troll and does not post things because he believes them, but because he wants to stir up a fight. I'd be willing to think that he thinks that Mozart is a fraud because he's one of those people. I could just see that he just might think that 9/11 was faked. But on top of all of that also thinks that lunar landing was faked? Crazy obsessions are overwhelmingly narrow in focus, obsessive crackpots tend to just fixate on one idiotic claim and not many. All of his posts must be a troll game to him, not evidence of madness. Ignore his posts, as I will now do. 8)
Fancy meeting you here, Rob!
Quote from: DavidW on July 19, 2009, 12:00:19 PM
I take this as evidence that Newman really is a troll and does not post things because he believes them, but because he wants to stir up a fight. I'd be willing to think that he thinks that Mozart is a fraud because he's one of those people. I could just see that he just might think that 9/11 was faked. But on top of all of that also thinks that lunar landing was faked? Crazy obsessions are overwhelmingly narrow in focus, obsessive crackpots tend to just fixate on one idiotic claim and not many. All of his posts must be a troll game to him, not evidence of madness. Ignore his posts, as I will now do. 8)
Of course you must ignore the NASA footage. Because the world makes no sense if you know reality, right ?
Brian,
Yes, isn't it great to exchange our views freely ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related
And some people still believe this stuff to be genuine !!!
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:06:11 PM
Brian,
Yes, isn't it great to exchange our views freely ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&feature=related
And some people still believe this stuff to be genuine !!!
rob, back to school with you! You don't even know the difference between mass and weight!
Hey Rob,
Who wrote Shakespeare's plays?
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2009, 12:15:30 PM
Hey Rob,
Who wrote Shakespeare's plays?
That's a very good question Brian and you might open a special thread ? The discussion would be interesting. One thing is quite certain - it was not William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon. There are many excellent evidences they were made by a group of writers. Similar, in fact, to Mozart's career in many ways. But there are numerous excellent books written on this question for over a century and there are even websites on the subject.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 12:14:38 PM
rob, back to school with you! You don't even know the difference between mass and weight!
You do, O Mensch, so the world is safely in your hands, right ? Did they teach you at school about solar radiation ?
;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:29:29 PM
You do, O Mensch, so the world is safely in your hands, right ? Did they teach you at school about solar radiation ?
;D
Wow, you really uncritically sop up every bit of conspiracy nonsense every self-anointed false prophet throws out there, don't you?
For the record (not that you would bother to absorb this factual information, since it is contrary to your warped dogma): the Apollo flights traversed the Van Allen belt at a speed of some 40,000 km/h, exposing the astronauts only to an approximate effective radiation dosage of 200 mSv. They didn't linger nearly long enough. But don't let the facts bother you too much. They never do anyway.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 10:11:22 AM
Sean,
Why does Matt Taibbi unravel the inner workings of Goldman Sachs? Why did Seymour Hersh break the news about Abu Ghraib, My Lai, etc.? Why did the late Walter Cronkite call the US military on its deception and lies? What about Hunter S. Thompson? None of that ever made any money. Your over-generalizations are simply untenable.
BTW, you've got the whole media business wrong. It is not at all consumer-driven, it is advertising-revenue driven, which is why no profitable media outlet will ever broadcast/publish news that is embarrassing to any of its advertising clients.
Your examples are from decades back, when journalism wasn't all piffle. Today media organizations are acutely aware that they must please the customer and tailor what they say very very closely to it. Most people are afraid of alternative interpretations of events of course, even when far more plausible than the offical view, eg 9/11, and only the official view is presented: at most you might get a couple of people arguing for different angles on the official view, to give a semblance of openness or democracy, when it's just conditioning and the cultural-reinforcement most people demand.
Rob, there's a Nasa website somewhere I'm sure you can soon find detailing carefully each of the hoax theory's claims and debunking them: it's perfectly convincing science (I'm with you part of the way on 9/11 but not here).
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 12:41:22 PM
Your examples are from decades back, when journalism wasn't all piffle.
No, siree. Matt Taibbi's article on Goldman appeared last week (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine).
And Seymour Hersh's articles on Abu Ghraib etc. all came out in the last few years and he continues to write in the New Yorker.
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 12:41:22 PM
Today media organizations are acutely aware that they must please the customer and tailor what they say very very closely to it. Most people are afraid of alternative interpretations of events of course, even when far more plausible than the offical view, eg 9/11, and only the official view is presented: at most you might get a couple of people arguing for different angles on the official view, to give a semblance of openness or democracy, when it's just conditioning and the cultural-reinforcement most people demand.
Once again, you simply ignore what I write. a) there still is plenty of journalism that is deeply critical of the powers that be, yet you have no explanation for it. b) what the media presents has *nothing* to do with audience preferences, but everything to do with advertising revenue.
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 12:45:09 PM
Rob, there's a Nasa website somewhere I'm sure you can soon find detailing carefully each of the hoax theory's claims and debunking them: it's perfectly convincing science (I'm with you part of the way on 9/11 but not here).
Woohoo! Good to see you haven't completely lost your senses. There still is hope. BTW, wikipedia also does a nice job of debunking and linking to their sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 12:36:33 PM
Wow, you really uncritically sop up every bit of conspiracy nonsense every self-anointed fals prophet throws out there, don't you?
For the record (not that you would bother to absorb this factual information, since it is contrary to your warped dogma): the Apollo flights traversed the Van Allen belt at a speed of some 40,000 km/h, exposing the astronauts only to an approximate effective radiation dosage of 200 mSv. They didn't linger nearly long enough. But don't let the facts bother you too much. They never do anyway.
Er, where did you get your 'facts' from O Mensch ? 'Popular Mechanics', perhaps ?
The Van Allen Belt, just for your information, PREVENTS solar radiation from striking the earth. Right ? It's beyond the Van Allen Belt that solar radiation is NOT restricted. So the question is -
QUESTION - What precautions were taken by the Apollo mission to prevent the deadly impacts of solar radiation frying the Apollo crew during the several days they were flying to the moon and back again ? Solar radiation comes (as its name suggests) from the Sun, right, O Mensch ??? ::)
P.S. Don't let facts bother you, will you ? :)
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 12:50:43 PM
No, sireee. Matt Taibbi's article on Goldman appeared last week (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine).
And Seymour Hersh's articles on Abu Ghraib etc. all came out in the last few years and he continues to write in the New Yorker.
Once again, you simply ignore what I write. a) there still is plenty of journalism that is deeply critical of the powers that be, yet you have no explanation for it. b) what the media presents has *nothing* to do with audience preferences, but everything to do with advertising revenue.
Woohoo! Good to see you haven't completely lost your senses. There still is hope. BTW, wikipedia also does a nice job of debunking and linking to their sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_landing_hoax_conspiracy_theories
Yes, and several years before the Apollo missions it was declared by Von Braun (head of rocket technology at NASA) that it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get to the moon. So said NASA themselves. Guess that fits, right ? And you will tell us about solar radiation and the precautions taken by the Apollo crew and their rocket designers, won't you ?
Manned space travel is a fiction. The solar radiation is so intense even before a rocket gets to the Van Allen Belt. Just a few facts for you my friend.
Okay Mensch. Not sure about deferring media characteristics to advertising though, when advertising is still dependent on the customer, but no worries. Actually though I'm quite interested in the idea that the Apollo hoax is a smokescreen for clandestine space exploration programs: while some people wonder if people ever went to the Moon, the reality is that they've been back a whole bunch of times since...
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:51:01 PM
Er, where did you get your 'facts' from O Mensch ? 'Popular Mechnics', perhaps ?
The Van Allen Belt, just for your information, PREVENTS solar radiation from striking the earth. Right ? It's beyond the Van Allen Belt that solar radiation is NOT restricted. So the question is -
QUESTION - What precautions were taken by the Apollo mission to prevent the deadly impacts of solar radiation frying the Apollo crew during the several days they were flying to the moon and back again ? Solar radiation comes (as its name suggests) from the Sun, right, O Mensch ??? ::)
P.S. Don't let facts bother you, will you ? :)
You're sadly very mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt
Even the late Dr. James Van Allen himself said this bullsh!t about radiation dosages perpetrated by conspiracy theorists is a pile of nonsense.
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:54:50 PM
Yes, and several years before the Apollo missions it was declared by Von Braun (head of rocket technology at NASA) that it would take a rocket the size of the Empire State Building to get to the moon. So said NASA themselves. Guess that fits, right ? And you will tell us about solar radiation and the precautions taken by the Apollo crew and their rocket designers, won't you ?
I've highlighted the key term in your statement. I'm sure a few years before that he thought the rocket would have to be twice the size of the ESB because technology simply wasn't that advanced yet. BTW, the Saturn V isn't exactly puny.
Quote from: Sean on July 19, 2009, 12:57:18 PM
Okay Mensch. Not sure about deferring media characteristics to advertising though, when advertising is still dependent on the customer, but no worries. Actually though I'm quite interested in the idea that the Apollo hoax is a smokescreen for clandestine space exploration programs: while some people wonder if people ever went to the Moon, the reality is that they've been back a whole bunch of times since...
Sean,
When somebody can talk sensibly about solar radiation and space travel I will agree with you. But so far it's sheer nonsense. Man CANNOT travel in space without being fried alive by the solar radiation. So my question remains how, in 1969, when scientists knew very little about the van Allen Belt, could the Apollo crew have withstood massive solar radiation in outer space ?
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 01:00:01 PM
You're sadly very mistaken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt
Even the late Dr. James Van Allen himself said this bullsh!t about radiation dosages perpetrated by conspiracy theorists is a pile of nonsense.
I've highlighted the key term in your statement. I'm sure a few years before that he thought the rocket would have to be twice the size of the ESB because technology simply wasn't that advanced yet. BTW, the Saturn V isn't exactly puny.
O Mensch,
Tell us how the astronauts survived solar radiation for days in visiting and returning from the Moon. We are still waiting. Since the levels are vastly higher in outer space than they are within the earth's atmosphere.
And please tell us about how the astronauts could operate hand held cameras using film in temperatures high enough to destroy the film they were using ?
And please tell us how they avoided being fried alive in their space suits while walking on the lunar surface and how their module did not heat to several hundred degrees temperature ?
Thank You
Gee, those batteries NASA made must be really good, right ? ;D ;D - Ever put a Hasselblad camera inside an oven hot enough to cook a chicken for several hours complete with film ?
LOL ;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:00:29 PM
When somebody can talk sensibly about solar radiation and space travel I will agree with you. But so far it's sheer nonsense. Man CANNOT travel in space without being fried alive by the solar radiation. So my question remains how, in 1969, when scientists knew very little about the van Allen Belt, could the Apollo crew have withstood massive solar radiation in outer space ?
Yet again you counter reality with the flat assertion that it cannot be true, despite the fact that you exhibit total ignorance in all aspects of physics and can't string together even a half-coherent argument that wouldn't cause even a 5th grade physics teacher to pi$$ all over himself of laughter.
Since you never bother to follow the links I post, here a few helpful explanations from wiki:
Quote
The spacecraft moved through the [Van Allen] belts in just 30 minutes, and the astronauts were protected from the ionizing radiation by the aluminium hulls of the spacecraft. In addition, the orbital transfer trajectory from the Earth to the Moon through the belts was selected to minimize radiation exposure. Even Dr. James Van Allen, the discoverer of the Van Allen radiation belts, rebutted the claims that radiation levels were too dangerous for the Apollo missions. Plait cited an average dose of less than 1 rem, which is equivalent to the ambient radiation received by living at sea level for three years.[51], pp. 160–162 The spacecraft passed through the intense inner belt in a matter of minutes and the low-energy outer belt in about an hour and half. The astronauts were mostly shielded from the radiation by the spacecraft. The total radiation received on the trip was about the same as allowed for workers in the nuclear energy field for a year.[60]
The radiation is actually evidence that the astronauts went to the Moon. Irene Schneider reports that thirty-three of the thirty-six Apollo astronauts involved in the nine Apollo missions to leave Earth orbit have developed early stage cataracts that have been shown to be caused by radiation exposure to cosmic rays during their trip.[61] However, only twenty-four astronauts left earth orbit. At least thirty-nine former astronauts have developed cataracts. Thirty-six of those were involved in high-radiation missions such as the Apollo lunar missions.[62]
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:54:50 PM
Manned space travel is a fiction. The solar radiation is so intense even before a rocket gets to the Van Allen Belt. Just a few facts for you my friend.
Interesting statement. Do you believe there are no people in the International Space Station at this very moment? Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini space flights were faked also?
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:03:54 PM
And please tell us about how the astronauts could operate hand held cameras using film in temperatures high enough to destroy the film they were using ?
And please tell us how they avoided being fried alive in their space suits while walking on the lunar surface and how their module did not heat to several hundred degrees temperature ?
Thank You
Gee, those batteries NASA made must be really good, right ? ;D ;D - Ever put a Hasselblad camera inside an oven hot enough to cook a chicken for several hours complete with film ?
LOL ;D
Wow, you keep exhibiting your ignorance in ever new areas by the minute! Did you know the moon has no atmosphere? I bet that is news to you. I bet you also don't know that in the absence of an atmosphere there is nothing to transmit the heat from the surface of the moon to the camera.
You do at least know how humans reproduce, right?
Again:
QuoteThere is no atmosphere to efficiently couple lunar surface heat to devices such as cameras not in direct contact with it. In a vacuum, only radiation remains as a heat transfer mechanism. The physics of radiative heat transfer are thoroughly understood, and the proper use of passive optical coatings and paints was adequate to control the temperature of the film within the cameras; lunar module temperatures were controlled with similar coatings that gave it its gold color. Also, while the Moon's surface does get very hot at lunar noon, every Apollo landing was made shortly after lunar sunrise at the landing site. During the longer stays, the astronauts did notice increased cooling loads on their spacesuits as the sun continued to rise and the surface temperature increased, but the effect was easily countered by the passive and active cooling systems.[51], pp. 165–67 The film was not in direct sunlight, so it wasn't overheated.[63]
Quote from: Szykniej on July 19, 2009, 01:08:13 PM
Interesting statement. Do you believe there are no people in the International Space Station at this very moment? Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini space flights were faked also?
Hi there Szyknie,
The International Space Station is only in low orbit around the Earth - i.e. around 220 miles above the Earth around the start of the Van Allen Belt. The Van Allen Belt starts approximately 200 miles and extends to around 800 miles above the Earth. Beyond which distance is nothing but unrestricted attack on any manned craft from Solar Radiation.
Quote from: DavidW on July 19, 2009, 12:00:19 PM
Ignore his posts, as I will now do. 8)
Here is wisdom.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 01:11:07 PM
Wow, you keep exhibiting your ignorance in ever new areas by the minute! Did you know the moon has no atmosphere? I bet that is news to you. I bet you also don't know that in the absence of an atmosphere there is nothing to transmit the heat from the surface of the moon to the camera.
You do at least know how humans reproduce, right?
Again:
Wrong again. Solar radiation does not come from the 'surface of the moon'. Er, it actually comes from the Sun. And you have still not told us how the astronauts escaped the massive Solar Radiation on their travels. Nor on the lunar surface. Maybe next time you will finally answer us ?
The Sun is not the Moon. And the temperature on the Moon is hot enough when the sun shines there to melt camera film - i.e.. when the Sun is shining on the lunar surface. Right ?
here it goes again... If you people are this interested by these scientific issues, we can talk about them without having to deal with Newman's nonsense, you know.
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:19:09 PM
Wrong again. Solar radiation does not come from the 'surface of the moon'. Er, it actually comes from the Sun. And you have still not told us how the astronauts escaped the massive Solar Radiation on their travels. Nor on the lunar surface. Maybe next time you will finally answer us ?
The Sun is not the Moon. And the temperature on the Moon is hot enough when the sun shines there to melt camera film - i.e.. when the Sun is shining on the lunar surface. Right ?
... E X C E P T T H A T T H E R E I S N O A T M O S P H E R E T O T R A N S M I T T H E H E A T ! ! !
Stop using the royal "we". You are neither royal, nor do you have any support here now that Sean has bailed on you.
I am now starting to understand the astonishing extent of these conspiracies.
1. Man did not go to the moon.
2. Mozart did not compose his music.
3. Shakespeare did not write his plays.
etc....
and so, extending these ideas to their logical conclusion:
Who is really writing robnewman's posts?
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 01:26:49 PM
... E X C E P T T H A T T H E R E I S N O A T M O S P H E R E T O T R A N S M I T T H E H E A T ! ! !
Stop using the royal "we". You are neither royal, nor do you have any support here now that Sean has bailed on you.
QUESTION FOR O MENSCH - Solar Radiation comes from -
a) The Moon ?
b) Pluto ?
c) Mount Everest ?
d) The Sun ?
e) Ronald McDonalds ?
And please tell us how did the Apollo crew escape being bombarded by deadly amounts of SOLAR RADIATION for days on their way to the moon, during the time they were there, and on their return back over several days to Earth.
Answers on a postcard to -
The Editor
Popular Mechanics
Spinville
c/o NASA Propaganda Department
Space Station X
Andromeda
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Elgarian on July 19, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
Who is really writing robnewman's posts?
I think it's Joyce Hatto. Or possibly Elvis. :)
Quote from: Elgarian on July 19, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
Who is really writing robnewman's posts?
A bot, which is why questions are never answered.
Mike
radiation transmits energy through vacuum. However, on the camera issue (http://blog.alexgalmeanu.com/2006/04/the-first-camera-on-the-moon/).
There's a funny video of the moon walk where one of the Kliegel lights crashes into the frame.
Quote from: Elgarian on July 19, 2009, 01:28:38 PM
Who is really writing robnewman's posts?
;D
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
I think it's Joyce Hatto. Or possibly Elvis. :)
;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:35:39 PM
robnewman, you're in no position to make any demands. I have responded to all your nonsense above. You simply ignore it and repeat lies and ignorance, hoping Goebbels-style that repetition will make it true. You're the one who has failed to meet any evidentiary standards and provide a positive theory of the whole crime. I.e. who did it, why, how and why for f&%k's sake in over 40 years were we unable to find even one person among the thousands and thousands who must have been involved to leak even one bit of inside information, despite the fact that such leakage would have led to instant fame and wealth.
Quote from: Taxes- on July 19, 2009, 01:43:19 PM
radiation transmits energy through vacuum. However, on the camera issue (http://blog.alexgalmeanu.com/2006/04/the-first-camera-on-the-moon/).
Yes, but he keeps moving the goalposts. You can easily shield a camera from the bit of background radiation you will have on the moon. But I was responding to his claim that the film and the camera would have melted, which is nonsense. His response to that was the non sequitur about solar radiation.
'I am safe', said the chicken, wrapping himself in aluminium foil as he entered in to the oven.
Solar Radiation is more dangerous than a hot gas oven. Right ?
So, the question remains -
What protection did the Apollo crew have to VERY INTENSE SOLAR RADIATION that exists in outer space during the Apollo mission to the moon and on their way back other than aluminium ?
Er.........../PAUSE/Cornflakes ad/PAUSE/Rustle of Papers/Another Cornflakes Ad/More Rustling of papers.....etc. etc.
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2009, 01:40:20 PM
Or possibly Elvis. :)
Huh! Don't get me started. You don't believe Elvis
really sang all those songs, do you?
And you do realise, I hope, that Hatto actually
did play on all those recordings, but adjusted them all so that they looked like fakes when expertly analysed?
Just facts, Brian.
Quote from: knight on July 19, 2009, 01:40:41 PM
A bot, which is why questions are never answered.
Yes, but who is writing the script for the bot that is faking newman's posts?
47 unspecified individuals.
Mike
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 01:45:51 PM
;D
;D
robnewman, you're in no position to make any demands. I have responded to all your nonsense above. You simply ignore it and repeat lies and ignorance, hoping Goebbels-style that repetition will make it true. You're the one who has failed to meet any evidentiary standards and provide a positive theory of the whole crime. I.e. who did it, why, how and why for f&%k's sake in over 40 years were we unable to find even one person among the thousands and thousands who must have been involved to leak even one bit of inside information, despite the fact that such leakage would have led to instant fame and wealth.
Yes, but he keeps moving the goalposts. You can easily shield a camera from the bit of background radiation you will have on the moon. But I was responding to his claim that the film and the camera would have melted, which is nonsense. His response to that was the non sequitur about solar radiation.
But there TWO issues you have not answered.
1. You have NOT told us how the Apollo crew withstood the constant and unbroken bombardment of solar radiation during the days to and from the Moon, have you ? That is, beyond the Van Allen Belt. Please tell us and stop delaying the reply.
2. The temperature on the Moon when the sun shines there is several hundred degrees - hot enough to fry a chicken. Right ? Hot enough to melt boots. And hot enough to require an air conditioning system which would have needed to be larger than the astronauts own size. Since the astronauts are WALKING in contact with the lunar surface are they not ? And how was this air conditing system of each astronaut powered ? How about keeping the space module cool ? It would need an enormous building of its own. Maybe it was powered by penlight batteries, right ? Or a solar generator, right ?
Gee !!!!!! ::)
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:52:50 PM
1. You have NOT told us how the Apollo crew withstood the constant and unbroken bombardment of solar radiation during the days to and from the Moon, have you ? That is, beyond the Van Allen Belt. Please tell us and stop delaying the reply.
I don't have to. The Apollo missions lasted only a few days to two weeks. Those guys were never out there long enough to absorb a meaningful dosage.
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:52:50 PM
2. The temperature on the Moon when the sun shines there is several hundred degrees - hot enough to fry a chicken. Right ? Hot enough to melt boots. And hot enough to require an air conditioning system which would have needed to be larger than the astronauts own size. Since the astronauts are WALKING in contact with the lunar surface are they not ? And how was this air conditing system of each astronaut powered ? How about keeping the space module cool ? It would need an enormous building of its own. Maybe it was powered by penlight batteries, right ? Or a solar generator, right ?
For f&%k's sake! Does anything I write ever penetrate that ball of meat you wear on your shoulders? Can you please explain to the rest of us how you think that heat is transmitted from the lunar surface to the other objects
in a vacuum? Never mind that all landings occurred during the lunar "morning" which lasts several days, so the temperature was nowhere near the lunar "midday" top heat.
A turnip has greater mental capacities than you! Now go wank off somewhere else if all you're gonna do is continue reproducing the same nonsense just to massage your narcissistic ego about your presumed intellectual superiority to the rest of us "sheep".
Quote from: snyprrr on July 19, 2009, 01:44:25 PM
There's a funny video of the moon walk where one of the Kliegel lights crashes into the frame.
;D ;D ;D
I'm very sorry, but I couldn't resist this.
PROOF that the moon landings were real!!!
Quote from: Elgarian on July 19, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
And you do realise, I hope, that Hatto actually did play on all those recordings, but adjusted them all so that they looked like fakes when expertly analysed?
Just facts, Brian.
*smacks forehead*
It's all so simple!!!!!!!
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 01:45:51 PM
Yes, but he keeps moving the goalposts. You can easily shield a camera from the bit of background radiation you will have on the moon.
Are you even surprised? There's no point arguing with the guy.
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 01:46:26 PM
'I am safe', said the chicken, wrapping himself in aluminium foil as he entered in to the oven.
No, but the tin foil hat safely protects you from all truth, evidence and logic.
and to think I launched this thread to really focus on the anniversary of Apollo 11, thinking that there could not possibly be anyone stupid enough here to really believe in the faked moon landing conspiracy theories.
So fuck you Newman - you are a petty, worthless loser - nothing you or your ilk can come up with can tarnish the accomplishment that so many devoted and risked their lives for
(http://z.about.com/d/history1900s/1/7/Q/C/1/apollo11.jpg)
(http://www.paranormalknowledge.com/articles/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/apollo-11.jpg)
(http://www.kaigriesbacher.de/HumanSpaceFlight/images/content/pics/Apollo_11_moon.jpg)
Quote from: robnewman on July 19, 2009, 12:28:01 PM
One thing is quite certain - it was not William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon.
One thing is quite certain - no one here invests your opinion on such a question with even the least weight.
Check the olive oil!
Quote from: Elgarian on July 19, 2009, 01:46:55 PM
Huh! Don't get me started. You don't believe Elvis really sang all those songs, do you?
Elvis is not dead.(http://www.cowshell.com/uploads/drawergeeks/elvis.jpg)
He just went home.
Is that Andy Kaufman? ;D
Breaking news bulletin: Rob Newman is crazy because his water contains fluoride!
Quote from: Brian on July 19, 2009, 07:06:38 PM
Breaking news bulletin: Rob Newman is crazy because his water contains fluoride!
...and he was given too many vaccines as a child.
As long as he keeps posting his links, we might as well attach this on the bottom of every post:
http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205
Did anyone else here watch episode 104 of MythBusters? It's based "on the urban legend/conspiracy theory which claims that NASA never landed men on the moon, and instead the achievement was intentionally faked for one reason or another." Some of the comments posted there at the end sound like some people will still go on believing that NASA never really landed on the moon. Check it out here: http://mythbustersresults.com/episode-104-nasa-moon-landing
How could the astronauts have survived the INTENSE SOLAR RADIATION? Well, probably the same way we haven't all been broiled by our microwave ovens.
Quote from: knight on July 19, 2009, 01:50:49 PM
47 unspecified individuals.
Exactly so. Thanks Mike. 47 unspecified individuals programmed the bot that fakes newman's posts. However, I can now reveal that they are unspecified because of a CONSPIRACY of silence. Recent careful research has shown that they are all failed lunar astronauts, de-frocked Mozart scholars, and Flat Earth Society members.
Or so they want us to think.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 19, 2009, 03:01:54 PM
One thing is quite certain - no one here invests your opinion on such a question with even the least weight.
Even less so, on the moon, Karl. About 83% less.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 19, 2009, 02:02:39 PM
I don't have to. The Apollo missions lasted only a few days to two weeks. Those guys were never out there long enough to absorb a meaningful dosage.
For f&%k's sake! Does anything I write ever penetrate that ball of meat you wear on your shoulders? Can you please explain to the rest of us how you think that heat is transmitted from the lunar surface to the other objects in a vacuum? Never mind that all landings occurred during the lunar "morning" which lasts several days, so the temperature was nowhere near the lunar "midday" top heat.
A turnip has greater mental capacities than you! Now go wank off somewhere else if all you're gonna do is continue reproducing the same nonsense just to massage your narcissistic ego about your presumed intellectual superiority to the rest of us "sheep".
O Mensch,
All we need now are a few volunteers to go into outer space protected by a sheet of aluminium for several weeks from deadly solar radiation. Fools !
Look - the Van Allen Belt is NOT the source of Solar Radiation. Get it yet ? In fact, the Van Allen Belt is a belt of dust and other material that PROTECTS the Earth FROM Solar Radiation. Right ??????
Which part of this message do you NOT understand ???
Solar Radiation (like sunlight) comes from..................................THE SUN..................OK ???????
2. Regardless of when the Apollo crew landed on the moon the Solar Radiation (which would already have fried them alive in outer space) would continue to fry them alive BECAUSE THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON.
Hello !!!!! ?
3. The sunlight on the lunar surface would heat up the lunar surface by several hundred degrees. Right ????? That means that anything in contact with the lunar surface would be heated by several hundred degrees.
If you don't believe me try this -
Temperatures on the Lunar surface vary widely on location. Although beyond the first few centimeters of the regolith the temperature is a nearly constant -35 C (at a depth of 1 meter), the surface is influenced widely by the day-night cycle. The average temperature on the surface is about 40-45 C lower than it is just below the surface.
In the day, the temperature of the Moon averages 107 C, although it rises as high as 123 C. The night cools the surface to an average of -153 C, or -233 C in the permanently shaded south polar basin. A typical non-polar minimum temperature is -181 C (at the Apollo 15 site).
The Lunar temperature increases about 280 C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. Average temperature also changes about 6 C betwen aphelion and perihelion
(Source - http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:RluTGknzo1MJ:www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html+lunar+temperatures&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)
Now, will you tell us how the Apollo crew withstood the intense bursts of SOLAR RADIATION they would be subjected to in outer space between the Earth and the Moon ? And will you tell us how they and their landing craft were not boiled during daylight on the moon ?
Let's see, maybe it was a special kind of aluminium cooking paper, right ???? Hollywood Paper, perhaps ??? ::) ::)
:o :o :o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkB3raSbyo&feature=related
I'm not entering into a dialogue here, but duty compels me to provide a way out for innocent visitors to the thread.
The issues concerning solar radiation and their effect on astronauts aren't simple, and the radiation takes a variety of forms. Some forms are easily blocked; some less so. Duration of exposure is a crucial factor (as with exposure to radioactivity, or X-rays, for instance). The dangers of high intensity radiation at times of solar flare activity are recognised, though not fully understood. There's no 'conspiracy' evidence in all this. Some easily googled material can be found here, from what seem to be reliable sources:
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980119b.html (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/980119b.html)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11011-moon-astronauts-face-xray-danger.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11011-moon-astronauts-face-xray-danger.html)
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/stereo_astronauts.html)
robnewman here as well????
Well I should have guessed that 2 conspiracies wouldn't be enough.
GMG is surely now the Nr1 classical music/conspiracy forum of all time! I can't remember the moon landing issue generating such a discussion anywhere else. I venture the Kennedy assassination as the next topic, in fact both Kennedy assassinations! ;D
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 03:34:31 AM
GMG is surely now the Nr1 classical music conspiracy forum of all time! I can't remember the moon landing issue generating such a discussion anywhere else. I venture the Kennedy assassination as the next topic, in fact both Kennedy assassinations! ;D
Let's not forget the holocaust - I'm sure Rob can offer some new and interesting dimensions on this.
Quote from: Lethe on July 20, 2009, 03:54:19 AM
Let's not forget the holocaust - I'm sure Rob can offer some new and interesting dimensions on this.
Yes, I offer the controversial view that it (the Holocaust) took place. That the FACT of the Holocaust has been swept under the carpet by Catholic Poland and by the wider world because it exposes, or tends to expose, the evils of our society and the lengths to which men in high places can live in denial of it. The Holocaust proves beyond reasonable doubt that men can and will believe anything. That they can live in denial of such a massive reality. And often do. The denial of the Holocaust is proof positive of man choosing, often, to be ignorant. It's a wicked thing that men should waste their time denying what is so clearly documented from so many angles and what was, undoubtedly, one of the greatest crimes against humanity. Testimony too, to the power of the mass media, and of the need for an independent media.
Quote from: Lethe on July 20, 2009, 03:54:19 AM
Let's not forget the holocaust - I'm sure Rob can offer some new and interesting dimensions on this.
I am
so pleased for Newman. He is thoroughly in his element here 8)
Check the olive oil!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on July 20, 2009, 04:41:49 AM
I am so pleased for Newman. He is thoroughly in his element here 8)
Check the olive oil!
Professor Karl Henning is pleased for me. Yes, I am in my element here in exposing the frauds and deceptions that are so much a part of the modern world. Holocaust denial is a kind of insanity.
Since this thread is on the Faked Moon Landings the following is dedicated to Prof. Karl Henning, that champion of common sense -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkB3raSbyo&feature=related
:)
That proves that the moon landings didn't happen? That's not even Neil Armstrong's voice. This video was even mentioned earlier in this thread because of how hilarious it was (is).
http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205 (http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205)
Quote from: Lethe on July 17, 2009, 12:05:23 PM
Indeed @ moon-fakery. Thank god we have some people willing to expose the truth, regardless of ridicule from the brain-washed sheep.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6787/stupidwomanonwhowantsto.jpg)
Some moons
are smaller than an elephant. Just not our own. >:D
Quote from: Wanderer on July 20, 2009, 05:59:09 AM
Some moons are smaller than an elephant. Just not our own. >:D
Such small sub-elephant sized bodies in space would not be recognised as 'moons' by any official astronomical organisation or authority, hence Pluto is now not officially regarded as a planet for similar reasons despite, as far as I recall, being bigger than an elephant.
Quote from: Joe_Campbell on July 20, 2009, 05:33:28 AM
That proves that the moon landings didn't happen? That's not even Neil Armstrong's voice. This video was even mentioned earlier in this thread because of how hilarious it was (is).
http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main|htmlws-main|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205 (http://news.aol.com/article/apollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar/577205?icid=main%7Chtmlws-main%7Cdl1%7Clink3%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fapollo-landing-sites-spotted-by-lunar%2F577205)
Joe Campbell,
This film comes from NASA. Where else do you think it comes from ?????????? It comes from a time when these events were being set up. Rehearsed.
Answers on a postcard please ?
LOL
Does THIS help, perhaps ????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 04:24:28 AM
the Holocaust has been swept under the carpet by Catholic Poland
I wonder how much time will pass until Newman finally gets to the crux of the matter: Rome is the whore of Babilon and the Pope is Satan...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 06:09:34 AM
Such small sub-elephant sized bodies in space would not be recognised as 'moons' by any official astronomical organisation or authority...
It all depends on definitions, really, unofficial, quirky ones being
de rigueur in this thread. >:D
More importantly, though, I'm now authorized to reveal that yet another GMG-based conspiracy, which would require you to sell out your beliefs by admitting adherence to those deceitful official organizations and authorities you despise so much, has succeeded.
Kudos to the conspirators! And shame on you. It didn't need much effort.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 06:09:34 AM
...hence Pluto is now not officially regarded as a planet for similar reasons despite, as far as I recall, being bigger than an elephant.
I'm sure this last fact weighed much to the IAU's decision. :-*
Quote from: Wanderer on July 20, 2009, 07:06:22 AM
It all depends on definitions, really, unofficial, quirky ones being de rigueur in this thread. >:D
More importantly, though, I'm now authorized to reveal that yet another GMG-based conspiracy, which would require you to sell out your beliefs by admitting adherence to those deceitful official organizations and authorities you despise so much, has succeeded.
Kudos to the conspirators! And shame on you. It didn't need much effort.
I'm sure this last fact weighed much to the IAU's decision. :-*
The 'Spin Machine' goes in to overtime ! So, here, once again, (just in case you missed it) is a post on the fake moon landings -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Any comments ?
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: erato on July 20, 2009, 03:31:43 AM
robnewman here as well????
Well I should have guessed that 2 conspiracies wouldn't be enough.
3, he talked about the Shakespeare one a few pages ago. Actually 4, there was the September 11 one, also.
He hasn't said if his water's got fluoride in it yet, though.
Quote from: Lethe on July 17, 2009, 12:05:23 PM
Indeed @ moon-fakery. Thank god we have some people willing to expose the truth, regardless of ridicule from the brain-washed sheep.
(http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/6787/stupidwomanonwhowantsto.jpg)
Sara, I hate to one-up you, but...
(http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/fail-owned-constestant-fail.jpg?w=500&h=375)
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 07:13:55 AM
3, he talked about the Shakespeare one a few pages ago. Actually 4, there was the September 11 one, also.
He hasn't said if his water's got fluoride in it yet, though.
Brian,
I know it's real hard for you. But this thread is about the faked moon landings. So, stop adding fluoride to your tea/coffee and think of opening a thread on 'Shakespeare'. Because this one is about....................the faked moon landings. OK ?
Have we gone too fast for you Brian ??
::)
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:21:24 AM
Brian,
I know it's real hard for you. But this thread is about the faked moon landings. So, stop adding fluoride to your tea/coffee and think of opening a thread on 'Shakespeare'. Because this one is about....................the faked moon landings. OK ?
Have we gone too fast for you Brian ??
::)
You've gone too fast for some of us! We're just counting the number of conspiracy theories you believe.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 02:39:08 AM
O Mensch,
All we need now are a few volunteers to go into outer space protected by a sheet of aluminium for several weeks from deadly solar radiation. Fools !
Look - the Van Allen Belt is NOT the source of Solar Radiation. Get it yet ? In fact, the Van Allen Belt is a belt of dust and other material that PROTECTS the Earth FROM Solar Radiation. Right ??????
Which part of this message do you NOT understand ???
Solar Radiation (like sunlight) comes from..................................THE SUN..................OK ???????
2. Regardless of when the Apollo crew landed on the moon the Solar Radiation (which would already have fried them alive in outer space) would continue to fry them alive BECAUSE THERE IS NO ATMOSPHERE ON THE MOON.
Hello !!!!! ?
I'm posting the following more for the benefit of others than you, since you have already exhibited yourself as being utterly illiterate when it comes to all aspects of physics. But for the record:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
You also seem utterly unaware that the Van Allen Belts posed the far greater radiation exposure threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts
See also: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
But what's the use? You never read anything that is contrary to your wanker's dogma.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 02:39:08 AM
3. The sunlight on the lunar surface would heat up the lunar surface by several hundred degrees. Right ????? That means that anything in contact with the lunar surface would be heated by several hundred degrees.
If you don't believe me try this -
Temperatures on the Lunar surface vary widely on location. Although beyond the first few centimeters of the regolith the temperature is a nearly constant -35 C (at a depth of 1 meter), the surface is influenced widely by the day-night cycle. The average temperature on the surface is about 40-45 C lower than it is just below the surface.
In the day, the temperature of the Moon averages 107 C, although it rises as high as 123 C. The night cools the surface to an average of -153 C, or -233 C in the permanently shaded south polar basin. A typical non-polar minimum temperature is -181 C (at the Apollo 15 site).
The Lunar temperature increases about 280 C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. Average temperature also changes about 6 C betwen aphelion and perihelion
(Source - http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:RluTGknzo1MJ:www.asi.org/adb/m/03/05/average-temperatures.html+lunar+temperatures&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)
Now, will you tell us how the Apollo crew withstood the intense bursts of SOLAR RADIATION they would be subjected to in outer space between the Earth and the Moon ? And will you tell us how they and their landing craft were not boiled during daylight on the moon ?
Let's see, maybe it was a special kind of aluminium cooking paper, right ???? Hollywood Paper, perhaps ??? ::) ::)
From this site: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Quote
How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space.
This is true, to a point, however spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits were equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat.
The cooling system consisted of a cooling garment worn by the astronaut, a heat exchanger, and a porous plate sublimator. Water was circulated through tubes in the cooling garment where it absorbed heat from the astronaut’s body and then carried it to the heat exchanger in the backpack. As water passed through the heat exchanger, heat was transferred to a layer of ice on the surface of the porous plate sublimator causing the ice to sublimate and the resulting gas carried away the unwanted heat. The ice was replaced by continually seeping a small amount of water through holes in the metal plate of the sublimator. When the water was exposed to the vacuum of space, the sudden drop in pressure caused it to immediately freeze onto the plate’s surface.
See also: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Baked_Film.htm
Quote
The temperatures on the moon reach 280 degrees Fahrenheit. Wouldn't this have baked the photographic film until it frizzled?
This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.
The Apollo missions were timed to take place during lunar mornings. The temperatures are at their most hospitable then, so the astronauts themselves were at not going to overheat.
The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moon's surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible. So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches.
You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon. So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldn't even pick up much conducted heat from them. So that's no convection, little radiation, little conduction. There are no other methods of receiving heat.
Your grasp of physics is simply inadequate for this subject, robnewman. Why don't you entertain us a bit with your thoughts about chemtrails and the illuminati.
Quote from: Wanderer on July 20, 2009, 07:06:22 AM
It all depends on definitions, really, unofficial, quirky ones being de rigueur in this thread. >:D
More importantly, though, I'm now authorized to reveal that yet another GMG-based conspiracy, which would require you to sell out your beliefs by admitting adherence to those deceitful official organizations and authorities you despise so much, has succeeded.
Kudos to the conspirators! And shame on you. It didn't need much effort.
I'm sure this last fact weighed much to the IAU's decision. :-*
Well actually I believe there is no 'official' unified declaration on what
is the minimum size of a moon, but I suspect sub-elephant size would be a bit small for most astronomers. But again I repeat the only authority I have cast an accusatory gaze concerns the development of the irrational 'cult' of JS Bach amongst the musical establishment. Recognition of this phenomenon is hardly new and has been written about often, however in relation to my previous posts on this 'cult' it will surely have not escaped the minds of GMG readers that Mr Newman is a JS Bach super-fan. What does it all mean I wonder..?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 06:09:34 AM
as far as I recall, [Pluto is] bigger than an elephant.
That's just what they
want you to think $:)
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 07:22:46 AM
You've gone too fast for some of us! We're just counting the number of conspiracy theories you believe.
I think the evidence suggests you believe in more conspiracy theories than I do. Let me list them -
1. You believe in the 'OFFICIAL' 9/11 Report (which is, officially, in its own text, a 'conspiracy'). That's ONE, Brian.
2. You believe Apollo moon landings were factual, even although the mass of the evidence shows they are fiction. That's TWO, Brian.
That's two, to start with. Right ?
But, since this thread is on how the Apollo moon landings were faked, and since I've gone too fast for some of you by special request here is some more help -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
::)
Always remember - the media needs to be de-foxified !! ;D
Quote from: Elgarian on July 17, 2009, 12:03:38 PMActually, here's a true story - one of my earliest clear memories. I can't remember how old I was, precisely, but certainly less than 5. Anyway, I was out at night, with my Dad, and there was a full moon - and this was the first stirrings of curiosity about the universe I guess, because I remember asking him what the moon was, and why was it different to the sun? And I remember him trying to explain. Of course I know now that he was trying to explain that we saw the moon only by reflected light, but what he actually said was something like 'the moon is really just a reflection'. And there was a period of time that followed, weeks, or maybe even months, when I was trying to figure out where the mirror could be. No kidding.
Well, it's not your fault. Your dad wasn't being clear.
This story reminds me of the time I tried to explain to my elderly aunt just what stars are. Sweetest woman in the world, but she went to work quite young and didn't have much beyond an eighth-grade education. (She was born in 1903). We were sitting in her living room once, I recall, and she said she and her father used to look up at the stars and wonder what they were. And I, being a college grad with two 100-level astonomy courses under my belt, told her they were suns, and that the sun itself is a star. Then why are they so much smaller, she wanted to know. Because they are so much farther away. I think I lost her when I tried to describe the size of galaxies, because I don't think she knew what galaaxies were. I keep thinking what a wonderful thing education is, even a little education. It gives you some context for our own existence. Some people, I find, can't say why the days are longer in summer than in winter. I enjoy explaining that to them.
My column this week will be on the moon landing's 40th anniversary. Will post a link when it's printed.
I remember when I was a kid seeing a sci-fi movie called "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun." The premise was that we disvcover another earth on the other side of the sun that we hadn;t noticed yet because the sun was in the way. It's an exact duplicate of our own earth. Everyone here has a counterpart there, and everything that happens here is happening there at the same time, except that everything is backwards. They read right to left, etc. I forget when, either at the time or when I starteted studing astronimy, but eventually I reailzed it couldn't work exactly: we could not have the same experiences at the same time, because the night sky on each planet would be different. If Polaris was the north star on each earth, then the seasons would be out of phase. If, on the other hand, the planets' axes tilted in opposite directions so that the seaons lined up, then the contellations would be way off, and astronomers and star gazers on each earth would be looking at and talking about different things at the same time. Good movie, though.
This stuff keeps me up nights.
Real conspiracies are analogue. And official conspiracies are digital. ;D
Quote from: O Mensch on July 20, 2009, 07:24:13 AM
I'm posting the following more for the benefit of others than you, since you have already exhibited yourself as being utterly illiterate when it comes to all aspects of physics. But for the record:
http://www.braeunig.us/space/69-19.htm
You also seem utterly unaware that the Van Allen Belts posed the far greater radiation exposure threat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_Belts
See also: http://www.wwheaton.com/waw/mad/mad19.html
But what's the use? You never read anything that is contrary to your wanker's dogma.
From this site: http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
See also: http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Baked_Film.htm
Your grasp of physics is simply inadequate for this subject, robnewman. Why don't you entertain us a bit with your thoughts about chemtrails and the illuminati.
O Mensch,
Take a deep breath. And face the facts. You have less knowledge of physics than a cheeseburger.
As for discussing other conspiracy theories, sure, why not open one for each ? As I've often suggested. Because this one is on the fake moon landings. A subject which includes the following -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Any comments ?
LOL. Can people really be so, 'dumbed down' ???
::)
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 07:31:32 AM
But again I repeat the only authority I have cast an accusatory gaze concerns the development of the irrational 'cult' of JS Bach amongst the musical establishment. Recognition of this phenomenon is hardly new and has been written about often, however in relation to my previous posts on this 'cult' it will surely have not escaped the minds of GMG readers that Mr Newman is a JS Bach super-fan. What does it all mean I wonder..?
That Handel is the superior composer, obviously.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 07:31:32 AM
Well actually I believe there is no 'official' unified declaration on what is the minimum size of a moon, but I suspect sub-elephant size would be a bit small for most astronomers.
There is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet) a an official declaration on the characteristics needed for something to be a planet. It's still controversial, but it seems to have been done adequatly to me. And on the minimum size requirements, the
hydrostatic equilibrium part pretty much provides that, they mention that a diameter of around 800 km is needed for a rocky planet.
Quote from: Lethe on July 20, 2009, 07:32:46 AM
That's just what they want you to think $:)
Exactly. Why, I've seen elephants that were even bigger than the very largest peanuts. And by some margin.
There is a species of peanut which eats whole elephants. I saw it on FOX news so it must be true.
From this week's New Yorker:
Mr. Newman, here is a description of the cooling system used for the astronaut suits. Are you so kind to show us what's wrong with it and why it wouldn't work? Thank you.
How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space.
This is true, to a point, however spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits were equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat.
The cooling system consisted of a cooling garment worn by the astronaut, a heat exchanger, and a porous plate sublimator. Water was circulated through tubes in the cooling garment where it absorbed heat from the astronaut's body and then carried it to the heat exchanger in the backpack. As water passed through the heat exchanger, heat was transferred to a layer of ice on the surface of the porous plate sublimator causing the ice to sublimate and the resulting gas carried away the unwanted heat. The ice was replaced by continually seeping a small amount of water through holes in the metal plate of the sublimator. When the water was exposed to the vacuum of space, the sudden drop in pressure caused it to immediately freeze onto the plate's surface.
This thread is really funny and sad at the same time.
There was also the problem of moon dust. If you've ever seen the commercial where they show an astronaut leaving a footprint on the moon, you'll see a swirl of dust. This is proof it was done in a studio: on the airless moon, any dust kicked up by a footstep would drop back to the surface like a fistful of lead pellets, which is exactly what you see on tapes of the moon walks. Well, I guess they could have sucked the air out of the studio ...
But Christ, I hope Rob is kidding.
Quote from: Taxes- on July 20, 2009, 07:52:45 AM
That Handel is the superior composer, obviously.
Well I think I have demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt, if not here then elsewhere, but that is not the logical deduction from this conundrum. You guys make Rob out to be something of a loon, and Rob is a JS Bach super-fan. Is there a connection between the two?
Quote from: Florestan on July 20, 2009, 07:56:03 AM
Mr. Newman, here is a description of the cooling system used for the astronaut suits.
I'm afraid Mr Newman isn't likely to be interested in actual physics - witness his seemingly wilful ignorance of the radiation problem, despite the offerings of myself and Mr Mensch in that regard. I think it's the new discipline, 'Conspiracy Physics', that attracts him.
With this, Sean's various threads, the chemtrail thread and the Mozart madness probably soon to be unlocked again, we desperately need an option to mark threads as "do not show". Any hope before this forum is totally derailed?
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:52:10 AM
Take a deep breath. And face the facts. You have less knowledge of physics than a cheeseburger.
That quote is priceless!
But either way, my cheeseburger level mental acuity is still more than sufficient when my interlocutor is a peanut.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:52:10 AM
As for discussing other conspiracy theories, sure, why not open one for each ? As I've often suggested. Because this one is on the fake moon landings. A subject which includes the following -
I did. I eagerly await your learned contributions on the subject of chemtrails. 8)
Quote from: O Mensch on July 20, 2009, 08:21:12 AM
That quote is priceless!
But either way, my cheeseburger level mental acuity is still more than sufficient when my interlocutor is a peanut.
What's the potential quantum computing power of a cheeseburger? it may be a complement
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 20, 2009, 08:03:37 AM
Well I think I have demonstrated that beyond reasonable doubt, if not here then elsewhere, but that is not the logical deduction from this conundrum. You guys make Rob out to be something of a loon, and Rob is a JS Bach super-fan. Is there a connection between the two?
Well, we must think of all the false attibutions to Bach over history - perhaps even his most famous work (BWV 565) is a fake, or "cartoon". He is certainly the product of several composers working under the name J.S. Bach, with the real Bach himself being only a minor talent.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:36:27 AM
I think the evidence suggests you believe in more conspiracy theories than I do. Let me list them -
1. You believe in the 'OFFICIAL' 9/11 Report (which is, officially, in its own text, a 'conspiracy'). That's ONE, Brian.
2. You believe Apollo moon landings were factual, even although the mass of the evidence shows they are fiction. That's TWO, Brian.
That's two, to start with. Right ?
Okay, that's two to start with. But you're up to 4. 9/11, moon landings, Shakespeare, and let's not forget, Mozart.
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
Okay, that's two to start with. But you're up to 4. 9/11, moon landings, Shakespeare, and let's not forget, Mozart.
Just reading Newman use the phrase
the mass of the evidence is a day-long belly-laugh :D
Maybe Rob Newman himself is a conspiracy theory. I don't know for what, yet, though- maybe one for the good this time, since whenever I read his posts and think of how much my life sucks, I start thinking, "wait, I could be this guy..."
Quote from: Florestan on July 20, 2009, 07:56:03 AM
Mr. Newman, here is a description of the cooling system used for the astronaut suits. Are you so kind to show us what's wrong with it and why it wouldn't work? Thank you.
How could the astronauts survive in the heat of the Moon's day? Objects that are heated cannot be cooled by space.
This is true, to a point, however spacesuits can radiate heat. All objects above absolute zero radiate heat; therefore some of the heat energy received from the Sun is radiated back into space as infrared rays. Also, much of the Sun's radiant energy can be reflected away. The astronaut's spacesuits were white because this color reflects the most radiation, thereby minimizing the amount absorbed. Finally, the spacesuits were equipped with a cooling system that utilized water as a medium to carry away excess heat.
The cooling system consisted of a cooling garment worn by the astronaut, a heat exchanger, and a porous plate sublimator. Water was circulated through tubes in the cooling garment where it absorbed heat from the astronaut's body and then carried it to the heat exchanger in the backpack. As water passed through the heat exchanger, heat was transferred to a layer of ice on the surface of the porous plate sublimator causing the ice to sublimate and the resulting gas carried away the unwanted heat. The ice was replaced by continually seeping a small amount of water through holes in the metal plate of the sublimator. When the water was exposed to the vacuum of space, the sudden drop in pressure caused it to immediately freeze onto the plate's surface.
And the power source of this amazing cooling system for lunar astronauts walking on the surface of the moon was what ?
(We can then do a mathematical calculation on the power that would be required for such a system. It's sheer nonsense).
Quote from: Greg on July 20, 2009, 12:02:27 PM
Maybe Rob Newman himself is a conspiracy theory. I don't know for what, yet, though- maybe one for the good this time, since whenever I read his posts and think of how much my life sucks, I start thinking, "wait, I could be this guy..."
Yup, you watch these films of the moon landings being faked in a studio and you think to yourself, 'wait, I could be this guy'. You are so right !
Greg IS a conspiracy theory ! He genuinely can't see what is in front of his nose !! And it's amazing. What shall we show him next ?
Ah, yes !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWiJQhaajA&feature=related
and also -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE&feature=related
Quote from: Elgarian on July 20, 2009, 08:11:14 AM
I'm afraid Mr Newman isn't likely to be interested in actual physics - witness his seemingly wilful ignorance of the radiation problem, despite the offerings of myself and Mr Mensch in that regard. I think it's the new discipline, 'Conspiracy Physics', that attracts him.
Elgarian believes that in 1969 the Apollo astronauts spent days in outer space resisting being cooked alive by Solar Radiation by using a thin sheet of aluminium. It's laughable, but hey, if you can't see it's nonsense, that it lacks any common sense, even after seeing studio film of Apollo fakery, what can one say ?
We hope that Elgarian can recover from his Apollonian daydream. ;D
Maybe he believes the Van Allen Belt is the SOURCE of Solar Radiation ???? ::)
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 11:13:49 AM
Okay, that's two to start with. But you're up to 4. 9/11, moon landings, Shakespeare, and let's not forget, Mozart.
Brian,
If you can tell us why William Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon wrote the plays attributed to him you could make a lot of money here in England giving lectures. Men like you are very rare. Honest !!! They never show up.
As for Mozart, well, you can speak first....... ::) - a fair and open debate on the subject would be amazing. Just set it up Brian - I'll be there as you like. It would be great for audiences to judge.
Quote from: Greg on July 20, 2009, 07:58:51 AM
This thread is really funny and sad at the same time.
Yes Greg,
It gets funnier and sadder all the time !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:52:10 AM
O Mensch,
Take a deep breath. And face the facts. You have less knowledge of physics than a cheeseburger.
Don't misunderestimate the cheeseburger, please.
Some of them come from the (what was it?) the Royal School of Music - you can look it up.
Oh no, you can't!
Quote from: Herman on July 20, 2009, 01:14:57 PM
Don't misunderestimate the cheeseburger, please.
Some of them come from the (what was it?) the Royal School of Music - you can look it up.
Oh no, you can't!
Herman can't stop diverting us from the Fake Moon Landings. It's very sad. He's having a bad day at the office.
Try this Herman -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Its obvious the moon landings were fake - here is definitive proof from the great Dharmic Religion:
http://krishna.org/man-on-the-moon-a-colossal-hoax-that-cost-billions-of-dollars/
QuoteThe Vedic account of our planetary system is already researched, concluded, and perfect. The Vedas state that the moon is 800,000 miles farther from the earth than the sun. Therefore, even if we accept the modern calculation of 93 million miles as the distance from the earth to the sun, how could the "astronauts" have traveled to the moon–a distance of almost 94 million miles–in only 91 hours (the alleged elapsed time of the Apollo 11 moon trip)? This would require an average speed of more than one million miles per hour for the spacecraft, a patently impossible feat by even the space scientists' calculations.
Another important reason why the manned moon landing must be a hoax is that, according to the Vedas, each planet has its particular standard of living and atmosphere, and no one can transfer from one planet to another without becoming properly qualified. This means that if someone wants to go to Mars, for instance, he has to give up his present gross material body and acquire another one suitable for life on that particular planet. Vedic knowledge teaches that the living being doesn't die with the death of the body, but that he is an eternal spirit soul. As Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita, "As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death" (Bhagavad-gita, 2.13). At the time of death the human being transfers to another material body according to the desires he cultivated and the work he performed during his lifetime. Therefore, since the moon has a particular standard of life and atmosphere, if one wants to travel there he has to adapt his material body to the conditions of that planet.
Even on the earth planet these restrictions hold true. For example, a human being cannot possibly live in the water nor can a fish live on land. These are the rigid conditions of life, and any attempt to defy them is artificial and will fail. Similarly, just as you have to change your dress if you want to go from India to Europe, where the climatic conditions are different, so you also have to change your physical "dress" if you want to go to the specialized atmosphere of the moon. In other words, if you want to go to the moon or the sun or any other higher planet, you can keep your finer dress of mind, intelligence, and ego, but you have to leave behind your gross dress (your physical body) made of earth, water, fire, and other material elements, and acquire a body suitable for your destination.
Of course, none of this will help you solve the real problem of life–entrapment in the vicious cycle of birth and death. As Krsna states in the Bhagavad-gita, even if one transfers in his next life to a very elevated position in the highest planet in the universe, Brahmaloka, he will still have to experience birth and death. The goal of human life is to free the soul from its continuous transmigration among different species of life on various planets, and to transfer to the spiritual planets, where life is eternal. To reach these planets, a complete change of both gross and subtle bodies is necessary, for one can reach the spiritual sky only in a spiritual form. We will elaborate on this a little later, but our point here is that you cannot simply force yourself onto another planet without the proper qualification.
The dunces keep changing the subject. Guess they don't like the documentary evidence.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 01:21:04 PM
The dunces keep changing the subject. Guess they don't like the documentary evidence.
You wouldn't recognize the concept of documented evidence if it bit you in the ass.
Some of us here in England know that Columbus's discovery of America was faked. The New World doesn't really exist and the USA is a myth created to maintain the balance of power between Europe, the Russians and the Chinese.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 12:28:33 PM
(We can then do a mathematical calculation on the power that would be required for such a system. It's sheer nonsense).
Please do! I would like to see your work!
Quote from: Sean on July 18, 2009, 08:25:30 PM
drogulus, the media are commercial enterprises- meaning the customer's desires come first. Nothing else matters, not truth or fairness or any such high-minded notions.
No, it isn't like that. People who work in the news business are motivated like other people, to do a good job. You have to dehumanize everyone, not just the dishonest minority, in order to believe that everyone lies all the time. Your psychology is bad, and the world would fall apart in a matter of hours if everyone was a fake. This is so obvious that it prevents most people from buying the global conspiracy thesis. Not only would the world fall apart, all the honest people would somehow be prevented from seeing that planes don't fly, power companies don't deliver electricity, wars aren't being fought and the people who are supposed to die in the planes that don't fly would have to be housed in camps run by other people who have to be deceived about their purpose. So everyone would have to be in on the conspiracy to deceive themselves! The problem is that this is too much work, and how would you ever find a population high-minded enough to run such a scam on themselves without violating the Non Disclosure Agreement they all signed?
Quote from: drogulus on July 20, 2009, 02:26:06 PM
No, it isn't like that. People who work in the news business are motivated like other people, to do a good job. You have to dehumanize everyone, not just the dishonest minority, in order to believe that everyone lies all the time. Your psychology is bad, and the world would fall apart in a matter of hours if everyone was a fake. This is so obvious that it prevents most people from buying the global conspiracy thesis. Not only would the world fall apart, all the honest people would somehow be prevented from seeing that planes don't fly, power companies don't deliver electricity, wars aren't being fought and the people who are supposed to die in the planes that don't fly would have to be housed in camps run by other people who have to be deceived about their purpose. So everyone would have to be in on the conspiracy to deceive themselves! The problem is that this is too much work, and how would you ever find a population high-minded enough to run such a scam on themselves without violating the Non Disclosure Agreement they all signed?
Sounds kinda like The Matrix... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Berlin PO / Bychkov Katia & Marielle Labèque - Semyon Bychkov - 'Mozart' - K 316a 365 Concerto #10 in Eb for 2 Pianos 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: Joe Barron on July 20, 2009, 08:02:54 AMWell, I guess they could have sucked the air out of the studio ...
But if you maintain that, you have to give up the argument that the US flag is "flapping" in some kind of breeze.
Quote from: Ten thumbs on July 20, 2009, 01:53:01 PM
Some of us here in England know that Columbus's discovery of America was faked. The New World doesn't really exist and the USA is a myth created to maintain the balance of power between Europe, the Russians and the Chinese.
Actually, a few years ago I stumbled on a webpage that claimed that Idaho didn't exist and was part of a conspiracy by cartographers.
The proof: "Have you ever met somebody from Idaho?
We didn't think so!"
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 03:26:57 PM
Actually, a few years ago I stumbled on a webpage that claimed that Idaho didn't exist and was part of a conspiracy by cartographers.
The proof: "Have you ever met somebody from Idaho? We didn't think so!"
Have you actually seen a sunrise? Do you remember the last time you've even seen the sun? Not just a distance memory, but like yesterday or last week?
(http://i44.tinypic.com/2u9stqs.jpg)
;D
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 03:26:57 PM
Actually, a few years ago I stumbled on a webpage that claimed that Idaho didn't exist and was part of a conspiracy by cartographers.
The proof: "Have you ever met somebody from Idaho? We didn't think so!"
I saw convincing evidence of the same thing about Belgium! Has ME believin' it... ;)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Berlin PO / Bychkov LaBeque Sisters - K 365 Concerto #10 in Eb for 2 Pianos 1st mvmt - Allegro
Here you go. Argue with THAT!
http://zapatopi.net/belgium/
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Berlin PO / Bychkov LaBeque Sisters - K 365 Concerto #10 in Eb for 2 Pianos 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 20, 2009, 04:32:32 PM
Here you go. Argue with THAT!
http://zapatopi.net/belgium/
8)
I have a sudden urge to buy one of their T-shirts.
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 04:48:28 PM
I have a sudden urge to buy one of their T-shirts.
Well, they're NOT made in 'Belgium"... ;)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Berlin PO / Fricsay Clara Haskil - K 459 Concerto #19 in F for Piano 1st mvmt - Allegro
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on July 20, 2009, 02:33:45 PM
Sounds kinda like The Matrix... :-\
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Berlin PO / Bychkov Katia & Marielle Labèque - Semyon Bychkov - 'Mozart' - K 316a 365 Concerto #10 in Eb for 2 Pianos 1st mvmt - Allegro
The Matrix was supposed to be a documentary, but I know the truth! That's just the outer shell of the real conspiracy.
OK, I'm out of gas.....how do you parody a parody? I guess you can't really do much better than Thomas Pynchon in
The Crying of Lot 49 and
Gravity's Rainbow. Now, if only I can find one of those W.A.S.T.E.* baskets, that would be the proof I need.
* We Await Silent Tristero's Empire :D
Quote from: Brian on July 20, 2009, 03:26:57 PM
The proof: "Have you ever met somebody from Idaho? We didn't think so!"
I
knew something was up when
Napoleon Dynamite was supposedly set in "Idaho"!
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 12:51:29 PM
Yup, you watch these films of the moon landings being faked in a studio and you think to yourself, 'wait, I could be this guy'. You are so right !
Greg IS a conspiracy theory ! He genuinely can't see what is in front of his nose !! And it's amazing. What shall we show him next ?
Ah, yes !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TWiJQhaajA&feature=related
and also -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUOItuKm5UE&feature=related
Thanks for that- anyone what Penderecki piece is that, btw at :50 in the first video? He recycles the same themes so many times that it's hard to tell.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 04:24:28 AMThat the FACT of the Holocaust has been swept under the carpet by Catholic Poland and by the wider world because it exposes, or tends to expose, the evils of our society and the lengths to which men in high places can live in denial of it.
Oh wow, so there is an alternate world where only a few conspiracy nuts believe the Nazis exterminated millions of "inferior" humans? My head hurts.
Quote from: Joe Barron on July 20, 2009, 07:39:35 AMMy column this week will be on the moon landing's 40th anniversary. Will post a link when it's printed.
I remember when I was a kid seeing a sci-fi movie called "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun."
Produced by the great Gerry Anderson IIRC, whose
Space 1999 series would give a headache to any physicist or astronomer.
Since you like explaining science stuff, could you explain to me how our seasons are attributable to the pitched axis of the Earth, and not to its elliptical orbit around the sun?
(Or are the seasons a conspiracy to make us buy more clothes?)
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 06:39:31 AM
Joe Campbell,
This film comes from NASA. Where else do you think it comes from ?????????? It comes from a time when these events were being set up. Rehearsed.
Answers on a postcard please ?
LOL
Does THIS help, perhaps ????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTMAhOvXgsg
Wrong. These are
recently taken photographs, so long after the fact that there's no way they are linked to your imaginary conspiracy. You failed. Again. Are you sure you aren't Dan Brown? Oh wait. He actually published a book. ::)
Very appropriate music for the video link you posted: Crystal Method - Busy Child. You somehow managed to summarize all of your feeble efforts and their possible catalyst AND the bogus "proof" video in one link! Kudos!
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 07:21:24 AM
Brian,
I know it's real hard for you. But this thread is about the faked moon landings. So, stop adding fluoride to your tea/coffee and think of opening a thread on 'Shakespeare'. Because this one is about....................the faked moon landings. OK ?
Have we gone too fast for you Brian ??
What's so funny is this was a spoof topic, opened by someone who wanted to poke fun of conspiracy theorists, and now mr Newman is acting as if he's the moderator of this topic, urging people to stay on topic and take it seriously. Including the use of the authoritative "we".
Wow! It looks like this has turned into the "Rob Newman Show" which is actually a rerun that I have seen on other classical music forums. Eventually, on those other forums, the "Rob Newman Show" was canceled. I wonder how long it will be before they pull the plug on the RNS here... (http://4fxearth.net/phpBB2/smilies_mod/upload/d6954bbe44b0aa08f2efed9c7284ce9f.gif)
Quote from: O Mensch on July 20, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Please do! I would like to see your work!
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on July 20, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
Second that. The physics that I studied at university (Oxford, class of '76) included a great deal of thermodynamics (more than I would have wished, to be perfectly honest) and many of my textbooks are on the shelves behind me now. I would be more than happy for you to take me through any calculations in support of your arguments.
Thirded. I am very interested in seeing the mathematics and physics that support your hypothesis.
Quote from: robnewman on July 20, 2009, 12:28:33 PM
We can then do a mathematical calculation on the power that would be required for such a system.
Quote from: O Mensch on July 20, 2009, 02:02:11 PM
Please do! I would like to see your work!
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on July 20, 2009, 02:24:38 PM
Second that. The physics that I studied at university (Oxford, class of '76) included a great deal of thermodynamics (more than I would have wished, to be perfectly honest) and many of my textbooks are on the shelves behind me now. I would be more than happy for you to take me through any calculations in support of your arguments.
Well now, Mr Newman - as you see we are queueing up here. I have a degree in physics, and a degree in radio astronomy also, so I too would be interested in checking through your calculations. Come, show us what you're made of, Sir. Dazzle us with your mastery of the intricacies of heat transfer, radiation theory and its associated mathematics.
Come on everyone - Mr Newman is going to show us some detailed mathematics to support his claims. Don't miss it! In years to come, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren: 'I was there.'
Quote from: Florestan on July 20, 2009, 11:28:52 PM
Thirded. I am very interested in seeing the mathematics and physics that support your hypothesis.
Oh look!
Four of us! (Never were so many so doomed to disappointment by so feeble a promise.)
Having a M SC in Electrical Engineering with specialization in Microwaves and the Electrical Properties of Materials, as well as being an part-time Associate Professor of Mathematics in the local business school (my main job is in Finance) I am also looking forward to it. Would unmitigated glee be an understandable English expression?
Quote from: erato on July 21, 2009, 12:13:22 AM
Would unmitigated glee be an understandable English expression?
Indeed! It's looking like a party!
Five breathlessly waiting scientists ....
My credentials are those of M.SC. in Mechanical Engineering with specialization in Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics.
Please pass the popcorn, gentlemen!
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2009, 12:42:24 AM
My credentials are those of M.SC. in Mechanical Engineering with specialization in Heat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics.
Please pass the popcorn, gentlemen!
I can hardly wait for Navier-Stokes to be applied to a vacuum.
Edit: Or in rob's case;
by a vacuum.
Quote from: erato on July 20, 2009, 01:50:20 PM
You wouldn't recognize the concept of documented evidence if it bit you in the ass.
Well, Erato, documented evidence of the Apollo moon landings is still to be presented. Why not post it here ? Since 40 years have passed you might accept that 'Houston has a few problems' ! ;D
Who would believe grown adults would still believe this nonsense ? Isn't it embarassing ?
Quote from: Elgarian on July 20, 2009, 11:55:39 PM
Well now, Mr Newman - as you see we are queueing up here. I have a degree in physics, and a degree in radio astronomy also, so I too would be interested in checking through your calculations. Come, show us what you're made of, Sir. Dazzle us with your mastery of the intricacies of heat transfer, radiation theory and its associated mathematics.
Come on everyone - Mr Newman is going to show us some detailed mathematics to support his claims. Don't miss it! In years to come, you'll be able to tell your grandchildren: 'I was there.'
Thank you Elgarian,
I accept the challenge. But first, please give us your own. After all, you claim man walked on the lunar surface in space suits which were cooled by a system built in to their suits ! You say people are crazy who do not believe it. That their landing craft withstood (like them) the bombardment of the sun's rays and of solar radiation. And that in later missions they even played lunar golf ! Yeh, right ?
In 1969 lots of people believed this stuff. That was the generation of 'Lost in Space' - complete with cardboard rocks and alien monsters. Today is 2009. Is it not time you stopped making a fool of yourself ?
Yes, let's see the details of this cooling system in their suits and in the landing craft. This is going to be really interesting. The whole system driven by torch batteries, right ? Hahahaha - it's hilarious !!!
::) ::)
I'm going to quote (selectively) from the GMG Guidelines, just to suggest that from day one mr Newman has been in violation. Admittedly the idea is to confine him to a limited nr of threads, but still I don't see what good comes from his participation - which obviously is no participation whatsoever, but just a serial attempt to irritate and hector other members.
Quote from: admin on April 03, 2007, 07:40:26 PM
Posting Guidelines for the GMG Forum
We have developed a set of Guidelines to make GMG a pleasant and informative place for everybody. Please take the time to read through these Guidelines before you begin posting on the forum.
The GMG Golden Rule
Please treat other members of this forum with courtesy and respect. By all means, discuss and argue the topic at hand, but do not make personal attacks, belittle, make fun of, or insult another member.
Don't be a Forum Troll
A forum troll is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or inflammatory messages about sensitive topics in an online discussion forum with the deliberate intent to bait users into responding. This can range from very subtle jibes to outright personal attacks. The sensitive topic can be anything from a member's ethnic origin, religious beliefs, or any deeply held view, including opinions about certain pieces of music.
Again, by all means discuss the issues presented, but do not try to deliberately provoke another member into an ill-natured argument. Trolls will not be tolerated, and any trolling activity will be dealt with.
Spam and Advertising
Spamming refers to posts that contribute nothing to the content of the forum, but aim to advertise or promote the posters own product or viewpoint. These are usually unrelated to the forum's theme.
Please make sure that you are posting for the good of the community, not just for the sake of self-promotion.
Quote from: Herman on July 21, 2009, 01:37:26 AM
I'm going to quote (selectively) from the GMG Guidelines, just to suggest that from day one mr Newman has been in violation. Admittedly the idea is to confine him to a limited nr of threads, but still I don't see what good comes from his participation - which obviously is no participation whatsoever, but just a serial attempt to irritate and hector other members.
On the contrary - this thread is dealing with how the Moon landings were faked. And you have promised to show us differently in respect of the air conditioning systems of the astronauts and their landing craft. It's hilarious. While we are waiting here are a few more emabrassing facts -
1. Blueprints and design and development drawings of the rockets and the landing craft of the Apollo missions are mysteriously missing. Apollo 11 data tapes containing telemetry and the high quality video (before scan conversion) of the first moonwalk are also amazingly missing.
(Source - NASA)
2. On July 16, 2009, NASA went in to lunatic mode. It indicated that it must have erased the original Apollo 11 moon footage years ago 'so that it could reuse the videotape.'. ;D ;D
3. The air conditioning units that were supposedly part of the Apollo astronauts' spacesuits simply could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere because there is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere.
During Earth training these astronaut suits used by the Apollo crews became so hot to moving astronauts they had to be subjected to intensely cold external air conditioning after more than a few minutes.
So we wait for your description of how this system of air conditioning worked and how it was powered.
This is hilarious, for sure ! :) :) Time for a cornflakes ad ? And all of this within the context of a lunar environment whose surface temperature ranged several hundreds of degrees during a single day. Not forgetting the bombardment of solar radiation, of course ! ;D
This is real fun !
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 01:52:41 AM
The air conditioning units that were supposedly part of the Apollo astronauts' spacesuits simply could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere because there is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere.
So, according to your caloric theory, if you heat a body up to 500 degree Celsius (932 Fahrenheit) and then suspend it in a vacuum, it will stay at that temperature forever, right?
Besides, if your theory were true, it would invalidate your own allegations, because how then could the Sun transmit his tremendous heat to the Moon in the absence of an atmosphere?
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 01:52:41 AM
3. The air conditioning units that were supposedly part of the Apollo astronauts' spacesuits simply could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere because there is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere.
Funny how I found virtually this very same passage on the net...
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/spacesuit.html
"The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere. There is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere."To which there is the response on the same page...
"This is simply wrong. While heat conduction requires an atmosphere, thermal radiation does not. (The latter process is how heat from the sun can reach the Earth through the vacuum of space.) All objects irradiate. In the case of Apollo, the space suits had no air conditioning units; instead, one of the many layers was the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment), essentially a pair of long-johns embedded with a network of thin plastic tubes. The excess heat was picked up by water circulating through the tubes. The water was pumped into the backpack, where it was cooled by means of a heat-exchanger, then pumped back into the circuit (closed-loop system). The water-based heat exchanger comprised an open-circuit system, its warmed feedwater being expelled in the vacuum through a sublimator unit in the backpack. There was a 12-pound feedwater reserve, which provided some eight hours worth of cooling. Radiative cooling, although allowing for a much simpler system, is a process too slow to be of any practical use in a spacesuit. RTGs, for example, use radiative cooling because the volume constraints (required for the large heat-radiating fins) are not as tight as those for a spacesuit."
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2009, 02:27:41 AM
So, according to your caloric theory, if you heat a body up to 500 degree Celsius (932 Fahrenheit) and then suspend it in a vacuum, it will stay at that temperature forever, right?
Besides, if your theory were true, it would invalidate your own allegations, because how then could the Sun transmit his tremendous heat to the Moon in the absence of an atmosphere?
Well, thanks for the diversionary question. But (in case you've missed the point) we want to know about the air conditioning of the Apollo astronauts during their time walking on the lunar surface. We're still waiting. It promises to be much fun. Please tell us how the variations in temperature (which the Apollo designers supposedly compensated for) were fuelled and overcome by astronauts walking around in space suits. And please tell us how the lunar module was itself cooled and regulated between these extremes of hundreds of degrees in a single day. Not forgetting, of course, the solar radiation.
Maybe they carried penlight batteries ?
You see, let me make it so simple that even you can understand it. If an astronaut is walking around on Earth in his space suit he will quickly heat up. That's why, during the Apollo training, they needed very cold air conditioners, so that training of men in suits could occur. OK ?
Well, on the moon, there are NO air conditioners so the astronauts quickly heated up in their space suits. Please tell us how this problem was overcome in their suits and how it was overcome in the lunar module itself. Since the extremes of temperature are huge on the moon. And there is still the problem of the solar radiation.
Maybe we will get an answer this time ?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 02:36:48 AM
To which there is the response on the same page...
He never pays attention to any factual response he gets, nor does he answer any specific question he's been asked. He just repeats
ad nauseam his
big mantra.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 02:36:48 AM
Funny how I found virtually this very same passage on the net...
http://www.bigmantra.com/man_on_moon/spacesuit.html
"The air conditioning units that were part of the astronauts' spacesuits could not have worked in an environment of no atmosphere. There is no way to dissipate heat without being able to transmit energy through an atmosphere."
To which there is the response on the same page...
"This is simply wrong. While heat conduction requires an atmosphere, thermal radiation does not. (The latter process is how heat from the sun can reach the Earth through the vacuum of space.) All objects irradiate. In the case of Apollo, the space suits had no air conditioning units; instead, one of the many layers was the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment), essentially a pair of long-johns embedded with a network of thin plastic tubes. The excess heat was picked up by water circulating through the tubes. The water was pumped into the backpack, where it was cooled by means of a heat-exchanger, then pumped back into the circuit (closed-loop system). The water-based heat exchanger comprised an open-circuit system, its warmed feedwater being expelled in the vacuum through a sublimator unit in the backpack. There was a 12-pound feedwater reserve, which provided some eight hours worth of cooling. Radiative cooling, although allowing for a much simpler system, is a process too slow to be of any practical use in a spacesuit. RTGs, for example, use radiative cooling because the volume constraints (required for the large heat-radiating fins) are not as tight as those for a spacesuit."
Yes Rod, facts are everywhere and we are not couch potatoes. We refer to facts when we are making a point. It may seem 'strange' to you but that's what conversations are all about. Right ??? :)
Tell us how the air conditioning systems of the lunar lander and the astronauts themselves were powered. This should be really interesting. And how the solar radiation was overcome by aluminium foil. That will be really interesting.
Nobody can accuse you Rod of being 'dumbed down', right ? ;D - as you say -
In the case of Apollo, the space suits had no air conditioning units; instead, one of the many layers was the LCG (Liquid Cooling Garment), essentially a pair of long-johns embedded with a network of thin plastic tubes.Ah !!! That's the answer !!! Hi tech stuff like that to overcome hundreds of degrees of temperature fluctations on the Moon and which can withstand solar radiation bombardment.
Wow !!!!!! Where's John Wayne when you need him ? ;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 02:47:47 AM
Yes Rod, facts are everywhere and we are not couch potatoes. We refer to facts when we are making a point. It may seem 'strange' to you but that's what conversations are all about. Right ??? :)
Tell us how the air conditioning systems of the lunar lander and the astronauts themselves were powered. This should be really interesting. And how the solar radiation was overcome by aluminium foil. That will be really interesting.
Nobody can accuse you Rod of being 'dumbed down', right ? ;D
I'm not dumb, but I'm no expert in this field either yet it took me less than a minute to find information that successfully refutes your position on the spacesuit. Now to the lunar lander issue...
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 02:55:02 AM
I'm not dumb, but I'm no expert in this field either yet it took me less than a minute to find information that successfully refutes your position on the spacesuit. Now to the lunar lander issue...
Er, no.
Back to the drawing board Rod.
ON EARTH a man in a space suit heats up - FAST. During the Apollo training the astronauts heated up, FAST. They needed EXTERNAL air conditioners to operate. FACT.
Now, on the Moon, where the temperatures range several hundreds of degrees the suits heated up FAST. Right. But there were NO air conditioners on the Moon, were there Rod ? Not only that, but the astronauts were being bombarded by solar radiation (and had been for days). Tell us how a system of water pipes could have cooled them down. This is hocus pocus. And what was the power source ? You will tell us, won't you ? ;D
Was it -
a. A nuclear power station ?
b. A car battery ?
c. A paraffin heater ?
d. A log fire ?
e. A coal fire ?
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 02:43:30 AM
Well, thanks for the diversionary question.
Two things, Mr. Wiseguy.
First, a sound theory is one that applies not only to a particular situation, but to a whole range of phenomena. In this case, you came up with a theory of heat transfer that doesn't hold any water. You have been repeatedly pointed to some basic sources of information regarding this subject which is obviously as mysterious to you as the other side of the Moon (pun intended in the context) and you chose to ignore them.
Second, it's your zillionth non-answer to a specific question.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 02:43:30 AM
You see, let me make it so simple that even you can understand it. If an astronaut is walking around on Earth in his space suit he will quickly heat up. That's why, during the Apollo training, they needed very cold air conditioners, so that training of men in suits could occur. OK ?
Not OK at all. Do you fancy that their training and the testing of the spacesuits (cooling system included) was done in open air? The controlled environment for their training simulated the temperature and vacuum conditions on the Moon, this is just elementary common-sense which you seem to be lacking. Youtube may be a good source for fun but if that's where you learned your physics and scientific method you're in big trouble when talking to even an average 8-grader.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 02:43:30 AMWell, on the moon, there are NO air conditioners so the astronauts quickly heated up in their space suits. Please tell us how this problem was overcome in their suits and how it was overcome in the lunar module itself.
You have been told that repeatedly. You never paid any attention.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 02:43:30 AM
Maybe we will get an answer this time ?
Coming from you, this is the top of ridicule. Are you really that fond of making such a pathetic fool of yourself?
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2009, 02:59:50 AM
Two things, Mr. Wiseguy.
First, a sound theory is one that applies not only to a particular situation, but to a whole range of phenomena. In this case, you came up with a theory of heat transfer that doesn't hold any water. You have been repeatedly pointed to some basic sources of information regarding this subject which is obviously as mysterious to you as the other side of the Moon (pun intended in the context) and you chose to ignore them.
Second, it's your zillionth non-answer to a specific question.
Not OK at all. Do you fancy that their training and the testing of the spacesuits (cooling system included) was done in open air? The controlled environment for their training simulated the temperature and vacuum conditions on the Moon, this is just elementary common-sense which you seem to be lacking. Youtube may be a good source for fun but if that's where you learned your physics and scientific method you're in big trouble when talking to even an average 8-grader.
You have been told that repeatedly. You never paid any attention.
Coming from you, this is the top of ridicule. Are you really that fond of making such a pathetic fool of yourself?
Florestan is going to tell us about the power source for this nonsense -
Florestan, was it
a) A coal fire ?
b) A nuclear reactor ?
c) A Paraffin heater ?
d) A 10 Ton Battery ?
e) A log fire ?
f) A piece of aluminium foil ?
This should keep Rob busy for a while..
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage4.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage5.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 03:07:44 AM
This should keep Rob busy for a while..
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
Rod, just tell us, at the 7th consecutive request, the POWER source for the air conditioning system you believe the Apollo spacemen had in their suits when walking on the moon.
A simple question and we still don't have a straight answer. All the fake films and now this ? All the lost 'data' and now this. Now, Rod, save the mission. On behalf of NASA please answer the question (drum roll.........)
Rod Corkin, NASA hero, PLEASE tell us the power source of the suits used by the Apollo astronauts on the moon !!!!!
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:04:00 AM
Florestan is going to tell us about the power source for this nonsense -
Florestan, was it
a) A coal fire ?
If you refer to the power source for circulating the water in the garments (which is just about the only power source for such a system) you might be closer to truth than you fancy. Have you ever heard of Thermosiphon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon)?
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2009, 03:13:05 AM
If you refer to the power source for circulating the water in the garments (which is just about the only power source for such a system) you might be closer to truth than you fancy. Have you ever heard of Thermosiphon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon)?
Great. Now you will tell us the actual power source, right ? Thermosiphon is NOT a power source, is it Florestan ?
So, at the 8th consecutive time of asking, Florestan -
'In the name of NASA, John Wayne, and all couch potatoes in the world, please tell us .....(drum roll) - WHAT IS THE ACTUAL POWER SOURCE used to cool the astronauts who (supposedly) walked on the Moon' ?????????
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:11:47 AM
Rod, just tell us, at the 7th consecutive request, the POWER source for the air conditioning system you believe the Apollo spacemen had in their suits when walking on the moon.
A simple question and we still don't have a straight answer. All the fake films and now this ? All the lost 'data' and now this. Now, Rod, save the mission. On behalf of NASA please answer the question (drum roll.........)
Rod Corkin, NASA hero, PLEASE tell us the power source of the suits used by the Apollo astronauts on the moon !!!!!
You never requested anything from me 7 times, I've only been dipping in to this topic. Here is some info about the Apollo space suits I found in 15 seconds. There is a section in there on the back pack including the power source...
http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/spacesuite.htm
Now regarding the links I posted above..?
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 03:21:00 AM
You never requested anything from me 7 times, I've only been dipping in to this topic. Here is some info about the Apollo space suits I found in 15 seconds. There is a section in there on the back pack including the power source...
http://apollomaniacs.web.infoseek.co.jp/apollo/spacesuite.htm
Now regarding the links I posted above..?
Rod, the discussion is taking place HERE on this thread. Don't you know that ?
I am asking the question (now for the 9th time) to readers of this thread to specifically tell us the actual POWER SOURCE.
Since you claim you know, please tell us right here on this thread.
Or shall I ask the question 10 consecutive times without direct reply ?
You see, quoting things off the thread is not very helpful, is it ? Your direct statement will be much appreciated and NASA will send you a badge as a hero of the APOLLO missions ;D
Your source (which is written in rather poor English) says -
Two 16.8 volt battery provided electrical power. These battery were 4 pound weight each
Is THIS the power source, Rod ??
;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:19:49 AM
Great. Now you will tell us the actual power source, right ? Thermosiphon is NOT a power source, is it Florestan ?
So, at the 8th consecutive time of asking, Florestan -
'In the name of NASA, John Wayne, and all couch potatoes in the world, please tell us .....(drum roll) - WHAT IS THE ACTUAL POWER SOURCE used to cool the astronauts who (supposedly) walked on the Moon' ?????????
Your reading comprehension skills and your power of inference are even lower than I thought.
Ok, let's take it step by step.
Think about your home refrigerator. It has the same idea behind it as the system in the spacesuits and as all cooling systems: to take heat from somewhere and dissipate it elsewehere. Now, the refrigerator needs power for two equipments: the pumps for circulating the cooling agent and the water-glycole solution and the compressor for compressing the gaseous cooling agent.
Now, in the spacesuits cooling system there is no compressor and the circulating pump is replaced by the thermosiphon. What power source do you need anymore and for what?
Of course things are much more complicated than this, but that's the basic idea behind them.
Quote from: Florestan on July 21, 2009, 03:31:19 AM
Your reading comprehension skills and your power of inference are even lower than I thought.
Ok, let's take it step by step.
Think about your home refrigerator. It has the same idea behind it as the system in the spacesuits and as all cooling systems: to take heat from somewhere and dissipate it elsewehere. Now, the refrigerator needs power for two equipments: the pumps for circulating the cooling agent and the water-glycole solution and the compressor for compressing the gaseous cooling agent.
Now, in the spacesuits cooling system there is no compressor and the circulating pump is replaced by the thermosiphon. What power source do you need anymore and for what?
Of course things are much more complicated than this, but that's the basic idea behind them.
Florestan......(drum roll)..............the POWER source was..........(increasing drum roll)...................
Two 16.8 volt battery provided electrical power. These battery were 4 pound weight eachIs THIS the POWER source Florestan ??
With an emergency backup system of lots of HORSE MANURE supplied in copious quantities by NASA
::)
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:35:14 AM
Florestan......(drum roll)..............the POWER source was..........(increasing drum roll)...................
Two 16.8 volt battery provided electrical power. These battery were 4 pound weight each
Is THIS the POWER source Florestan ??
::)
Are you asking how the batteries were charged? Or what?? Write in plain English and stop making yourself look even more odious that you already appear.
At the 3rd time of asking I want your response to all the points raised here...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage4.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage5.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 03:41:15 AM
Are you asking how the batteries were charged? Or what?? Write in plain English and stop making yourself look even more odious that you already appear.
At the 3rd time of asking I want your response to all the points raised here...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage4.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage5.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html
You are saying that 2 batteries of 16.8 volts (weighing 4 pounds each) supplied the power to run the cooling system of astronauts on the Moon in temperatures well above the boiling point of water on the earth , right ?
And I am saying this is Hollywood nonsense. I am saying this is sheer HORSE MANURE. The fake films, the glaring and crude mistakes, the impossibilities of the story, the missing data, the hype - these are all features of science fiction/propaganda movies. The Moon Landings are for kids of the late 60's. Why not grow up and admit that it was all sheer nonsense ? For a thousand simple reasons. Some of them already given.
As for Solar Radiation, let's just forget it. Since nobody here wants to accept that it would have fried them alive before they ever arrived at the Moon.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:47:31 AM
You are saying that 2 batteries of 16.8 volts (weighing 4 pounds each) supplied the power to run the cooling system of astronauts on the Moon in temperatures well above the boiling point of water on the earth , right ?
And I am saying this is Hollywood nonsense. I am saying this is sheer HORSE MANURE.
You're no more an expert on this that I am, I'm sure there is an answer to such things but I'm at work and can spend no more time on the matter today. Maybe you can find what you are looking for in one of these...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage4.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage5.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html
I hope by the next time I visit this thread you have refuted all the comments made in the above links (or have agreed with them!), at the 4th time of asking. If you can't then I recommend the topic is closed. It is about time
you started to answer some questions Rob.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 03:52:36 AM
You're no more an expert on this that I am, I'm sure there is an answer to such things but I'm at work and can spend no more time on the matter today. Maybe you can find what you are looking for in one of these...
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage3.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage4.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage5.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/neil.haggath/apollopage6.html
I hope by the next time I visit this thread you have refuted all the comments made in the above links, at the 4th time of asking. If you can't then I recommend the topic is closed. It is about time you started to answer some questions Rob.
Rod, you can't even quote your own material. It's hilarious. You are just a sucker for NASA fiction. Not having an answer to solar radiation you just ignore it. Now you want us to believe in being cooled by an air conditioning system that weighs less than half a car battery on the surface of the moon with temperatures that vary by hundreds of degrees.
Rod, you ARE the weakest link........ ;D
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:47:31 AM
You are saying that 2 batteries of 16.8 volts (weighing 4 pounds each) supplied the power to run the cooling system of astronauts on the Moon in temperatures well above the boiling point of water on the earth , right ?
And I am saying this is Hollywood nonsense. I am saying this is sheer HORSE MANURE. The fake films, the glaring and crude mistakes, the impossibilities of the story, the missing data, the hype - these are all features of science fiction/propaganda movies. The Moon Landings are for kids of the late 60's. Why not grow up and admit that it was all sheer nonsense ? For a thousand simple reasons. Some of them already given.
As for Solar Radiation, let's just forget it. Since nobody here wants to accept that it would have fried them alive before they ever arrived at the Moon.
The batteries didn't have to cool anything, they only had to circulate the cooling fluids to a radiator. And the notion of a temperature in a vacuum is false, thinking about temperature in earthly terms are just due to mislead you. Thermal radiation works differently. If you reflect 100% of incoming thermal radiation there will be no temperature increase. It's not like you are moving around in a 200C atmosphere.
But I must be even more stupid than you rob, wasting time typing this, well aware that these facts (a word you love) are far beyond your powers of comprehension.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:56:25 AM
Rod, you can't even quote your own material. It's hilarious. You are just a sucker for NASA fiction. Not having an answer to solar radiation you just ignore it. Now you want us to believe in being cooled by an air conditioning system that weighs less than half a car battery on the surface of the moon with temperatures that vary by hundreds of degrees.
Rod, you ARE the weakest link........ ;D
Rob you need help. Considering you are not prepared to respond to any of the counter claims I seriously recommend the topic is closed unless someone else is prepared to do so.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:35:14 AM
Two 16.8 volt battery provided electrical power. These battery were 4 pound weight each[/b]
Is THIS the POWER source Florestan ??
And if it is, so what? I didn't claim thermosiphon was the exact mechanism used (remember "things are much more complicated than that"?); I just pointed out that they wouldn't need huge power sources to circulate the water --- and, as proof, two 16.8 batteries were enough.
Quote from: robnewman on July 21, 2009, 03:47:31 AM
You are saying that 2 batteries of 16.8 volts (weighing 4 pounds each) supplied the power to run the cooling system of astronauts on the Moon in temperatures well above the boiling point of water on the earth , right ?
You promised us to show, by physical reasoning and calculations that this is impossible. We're still waiting.
Quote from: erato on July 21, 2009, 04:01:50 AM
The batteries didn't have to cool anything, they only had to circulate the cooling fluids to a radiator.
This has already been pointed out to Rob, there is no point continuing with this thread.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 04:02:02 AM
Rob you need help. Considering you are not prepared to respond to any of the counter claims I seriously recommend the topic is closed unless someone else is prepared to do so.
Disagree. GMG needs help from its mods.
Quote from: Herman on July 21, 2009, 04:09:24 AM
Disagree. GMG needs help from its mods.
GMG's mods are around too much when you don't need them, and not around at all when you do.
Quote from: Rod Corkin on July 21, 2009, 04:08:34 AM
This has already been pointed out to Rob.
Yes, but he's been too busy building bridges and had no time for learning how a refrigerator or an air-conditioner work.