| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
GazeboflossUK
Validated Poster
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 312
Location: County Durham, North-East
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 1:49 am Post subject: Google backs private Moon landing |
 |
|
| Quote: | Google backs private Moon landing
Search giant Google is offering a $30m prize pot to private firms that land a robot rover on the Moon.
The competition to send a robot craft to the Moon is being run with the X-Prize Foundation.
More cash will be given for snaps of old equipment left on the Moon
To claim the cash, any craft reaching the lunar surface must perform a series of tasks such as shoot video and roam for specific distances.
Firms interested in trying for the prize have until the end of 2012 to mount their Moonshot.
High flier
In a statement announcing the competition, Google and the X-Prize Foundation said it had been created in a bid to stimulate research into low-cost robotic exploration of space.
The top prize of $20m will be given to the private firm that soft lands a rover on the Moon which then completes a series of objectives.
These include roaming the lunar surface for at least 500m and gathering a specific set of images, video and data.
A prize of $5m will be given to the second firm that manages to reach the Moon with a rover that roams the surface and shoots some pictures.
Google said it would give bonuses of $5m if the rovers complete other objectives such as travelling further on the Moon, taking pictures of Apollo hardware, finding water-ice and surviving the freezing lunar night.
Rovers taking part must be fitted with high-definition video and still cameras.
"We are confident that teams from around the world will help develop new robotic and virtual presence technology, which will dramatically reduce the cost of space exploration," said Dr Peter Diamandis, chairman of the X-Prize Foundation in a statement.
Great test
The $20m prize will be on offer until 2012. After that a smaller sum of $15m will be offered and, if the cash goes unclaimed, the competition will end in 2014.
The rocket plane SpaceShipOne claimed the Ansari X-Prize
Sending a robot rover to the Moon is a formidable task - involving far greater hurdles than the first X-Prize competition. Indeed, sending any sort of craft to the Moon would normally require the funding support of national or international space agencies.
The prize is the third offered and administered by the X-Prize Foundation.
The first was run to encourage private space travel. The $10m (£4.9m) Ansari-sponsored prize was won in October 2005 when the SpaceShipOne rocket plane climbed to an altitude of 100km twice inside seven days.
In October 2006, the X-Prize Foundation created the $10m Archon X-Prize for Genomics, which will be given to the first private research group to sequence 100 human genomes in 10 days.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6993373.stm |
"More cash will be given for snaps of old equipment left on the Moon"
Should be interesting... 
_________________
www.myspace.com/garethwilliamsmusic |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
It sounds good
finally we may be able to say we sent a probe to the surface of the moon.
Dont people who control us realise that this is rather finally admitting that buzz aldrin and neil armstrong are nothing more than a couple of conmen and 130 Billion was stolen from the american taxpayer in what was the most expensive hollow-wood block buster of all times.
Nobody has ever walked on the moon
Buzz and Neil are astrozeros
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
The reason there is no longer any evidence of equipment on the moon is because after 40 years of the moon being bombarded with space dust and meteorites, what has not been smashed by impact has been covered. You only have to see what damage falling debris did to WTC7 to realize what destruction can occur. Add to that the effect of alternating extreme heat and cold plus radiation and man made materials soon degrade. Move along now - nothing to see here.
(being a "critic" is quite a fun pass-time. You get to talk any * and make out you are serious!  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 6:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
News at 11: Cool bit of space-related news brings out oddities who think moon landing was faked
...oh, wait, that's not news.
*sigh*
Do people still seriously think the landings were faked? Really? I mean, there are legitimate conspiracies and decidedly silly shit, and this definitely falls under the latter category...
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | The reason there is no longer any evidence of equipment on the moon is because after 40 years of the moon being bombarded with space dust and meteorites, what has not been smashed by impact has been covered. You only have to see what damage falling debris did to WTC7 to realize what destruction can occur. Add to that the effect of alternating extreme heat and cold plus radiation and man made materials soon degrade. Move along now - nothing to see here.
(being a "critic" is quite a fun pass-time. You get to talk any * and make out you are serious! ) |
Whilst I acknowledge the position of your tongue in relation to your cheek, if a privately financed probe/whatever landed on the moon at exactly the location of an Apollo landing site and found the cupboard to be bare - how do we anticipate that this would be explained away? Not forgetting that the three laser reflectors left there to measure distance still 'work perfectly'.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | News at 11: Cool bit of space-related news brings out oddities who think moon landing was faked
Do people still seriously think the landings were faked? Really? I mean, there are legitimate conspiracies and decidedly silly shit, and this definitely falls under the latter category... |
i am surprised that you are a person who does not believe in God
yet you believe in a fairy story than man walked on and drove a car on the moon 38 years ago.
But i will be gentle with you, You probably have not looked at the facts yet, i suggesting you do, because learning that the moon landings are fake is an essential stage in freeing yourself of the lies and brainwashing we all go through.
Think about these facts. Before digital watches and calculators were invented, when a computer mainframe occupied a whole building we are told this story that somehow a rocket took off which only a standard amount of fuel and flew 250,000 miles through the Van Allen radiation belts with no lead shielding, landed on the moon with just tin foil to protect its passengers from 200+ degree temperatures.
Everything is 100% fake
except the $130 Billion in todays money it all cost and that money was to a large degree stolen.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 11:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
certainly today it is 100 times easier to go to the moon.
It may not still be possible but 38 years ago it was flying pigs possible = today it is whether they can develop adequate shielding
i would say today it is still impossible but less so than 1969
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ukginger
Minor Poster
Joined: 04 Sep 2007
Posts: 68
Location: Leicester
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is a waste of our energy, the sort of tactic used by security forces.
_________________
Paranormal Investigator
Ghost Scene Investigations
Any serious Occult / Illuminati Questions ... ask |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 14, 2007 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ukginger wrote: | | This is a waste of our energy, the sort of tactic used by security forces. |
nobody is forced to read or post on topics they feel are a waste of time, regardless of if its a tatic used by security forces or not.
but regardless of if it is or not does not mean that is the intention of this thread.
if people should not talk about this subject or are not allowed to post on it then forum rules should be made clearer, as other controversies implies other controversal subjects other than 9/11 which this subject fits under.
its like having a section called the bigger picture, and then someone posts something they believe is a part of the bigger picture, then people turn up and complain, and its like well why have a section called the bigger picture then??  oh, wait that does happen dos'nt it.
i'd just like it to be clear about what can be posted and what cannot, rather than forum sections saying one thing then members complaining about the opposite.
is this site just a 9/11 site or not, i think people need to decide, so that when someone gives information related to the section header they aint accused of shilling or have it implied they are shilling for doing so.
everybody haves differant opinons, on what they consider to be part of the bigger picture or linked to 9/11 etc, so nobody is going to agree on every subject, but the point is, are people allowed to share what information they believe is linked or not?
if not then don't shoot the messenger while ever sections like "other controversies" and "the bigger picture" exsist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
i dont think it is a waste of our energy
you see there are still some people who believe in 911 and 7/7 truth who have not woken up to the fact that the moon landings were fake.
There are also some people who are the reverse.
myself i realised several years ago that the moon landings were faked and that knowledge made me more receptive to other truths such as 911 and 7/7.
So it is good for us to discuss these matters freely as there are people like TMCmistress for whom the penny still hasnt dropped.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 15, 2007 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: |
i would say today it is still impossible but less so than 1969 |
I will to a tele here and draw the analogy 'getting a litle bit pregnant'
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rodin wrote: | | I will to a tele here and draw the analogy 'getting a litle bit pregnant' |
I am not here to have my literary witticisms almost plagiarized, stop it immediately.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can go a little way up the road without reaching your destination.
the moon is 250,000 miles away making a journey of 500,000 miles.
The furthest we have gone is about 150 miles
Big difference, but yes a little bit of the way.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bossgator
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I for one, am thrilled this little competition is to take place. The big issue that will have to be delt with is how will they "prove" these private firms accomplished the mission? I see opportunity for the doubters to question these landings as they do the claims of the Apollo missions.
stelios,
I fully support your right to draw your own conclusions. Your belief and understandings are a healthy counter, and can play a vital role in getting people to really think for themselves. All I ask is that yourself or anyone else, while begging to differ, not get combative or be condescending towards those that don't agree with you. Otherwise, by all means have at it.
We'll prove this moon thing once and for all soon enough. Let's just try to keep our emotions in check, and not let them cloud the topic at hand.
So, that said, my personal position is one of undecided as to whether man has been to the moon. The only reason for that is I myself have no way to prove or disprove the claims. I do however propose a possible way to prove we have been there...
Can we use an earth-based telescope to scan the surface for evidence? Astronomers have all these fancy hightech telescopes they use to supposedly look deep into space, so it seems to me reasonable we could easily take a very close look at the moon surface.
If what these space pros say is true, then there will be evidence. While there is plenty of what seems to be quality efforts to prove it a hoax, I feel the big effort should be in proving it true, for if it is true man has been there, then the evidense will speak for itself.
This angle is the same as here in the States on the subject of whether or not our Federal Income tax is legal. It's my position is that it is the burden of the IRS to prove the law by showing the law. So far, they have not, but of course that is another topic for another time.
We Americans take great pride in our claims of space ventures, and any attempt to prove the claims to be true has got my full support!
_________________
In the end, all you have is the truth - Bossgator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bossgator wrote: | | Can we use an earth-based telescope to scan the surface for evidence? Astronomers have all these fancy hightech telescopes they use to supposedly look deep into space, so it seems to me reasonable we could easily take a very close look at the moon surface. |
You are asking a telescope to magnify an object a quarter of a million miles away measuring a few feet across to the point you can make out what it is?
Not even the most powerful telescopes ever made are able to see these objects.
The flag on the moon is 125cm (4 feet) long. You would require a telescope around 200 meters in diameter to see it. The largest telescopes in use don't measure much more than 10meters in diameter. Even the Hubble Space telescope is only 2.4 meters in diameter. Resolving the lunar rover, which is 3.1 meters in length, would require a telescope 75 meters in diameter.
So, the answer to your query is absolutely not.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bossgator
Minor Poster
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Posts: 11
Location: Arizona USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting! Now that I think about it, all these images they take via a telescope are, correct if I'm wrong, done with radio telescopes, which are far different than an optical telescope? And a computer is used to "assemble" the images based on frequencies versus physical matter?
I don't doubt what you say about the size of a telescope nessasarily, but I would need some references/sources to better explain what your saying. It just seems with all of man's technical advances, it's somewhat hard to believe we can't physically see stuff on the moon's surface. But that's my own ignorance on the subject speaking!
Bear with me, I'm a tab dense at times!
_________________
In the end, all you have is the truth - Bossgator |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Even if man made objects are on the moon it still does not prove that man has set foot there. It isn't doubted that the technology existed to send rockets to the moon, and a long way beyond, and land robots. Whether humans could survive/be protected from the radiation and extreme temperature range is another matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 11:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| blackcat wrote: | | Even if man made objects are on the moon it still does not prove that man has set foot there. It isn't doubted that the technology existed to send rockets to the moon, and a long way beyond, and land robots. Whether humans could survive/be protected from the radiation and extreme temperature range is another matter. |
I doubt anyone even landed robots.
I mean...
[quote]The initial design iteration had the LEM with three landing legs. It was felt that three legs, though the lightest configuration, was the least stable if one of the legs were damaged during landing. The next landing gear design iteration had five legs and was the most stable configuration for landing on an unknown terrain. That configuration was too heavy and the compromise was four landing legs.[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
What a crock. Who made this up? 3 legs bad (in case one gets damaged) 4 legs good? If one of 4 legs gets damaged so as to stop providing support it's game over same as with 3. What if the lander ended up on a slope? etc etc.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stelios wrote: |
i am surprised that you are a person who does not believe in God |
I'm not going to bother going through the whole explanation of my being agnostic again, but I will say this; it's a pretty arrogant presumption on your part to assume that just because I don't believe in the same idea of God as you that I don't believe at all.
| Quote: | yet you believe in a fairy story than man walked on and drove a car on the moon 38 years ago.
But i will be gentle with you, You probably have not looked at the facts yet, i suggesting you do, because learning that the moon landings are fake |
I already did, long ago. There is no CREDIBLE evidence that the moon landings were faked. There's certainly lots of nonsense evidence, which seems to be the hoax landing movements' stock-in-trade, but not a bit of it actually sticks. I suggest you look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Moon_Landing_hoax_accusations
there are good links provided that show why the hoax accusations are without merit. Only then will you learn that being contrary to the 'official version' of events does not always make something true.
Once again... not agreeing with you, stelios, doesn't make a person wrong, or mean that they haven't looked at the evidence.
is an essential stage in freeing yourself of the lies and brainwashing we all go through.
| Quote: | | Think about these facts. Before digital watches and calculators were invented, |
Two things. What relevence do digital watches have to this discussion at all, and the first calculator was put onto the non-commercial market in the early 1960's. By the end of that decade, several technology companies were already working on smaller, silicon chip-based models. So... you're wrong.
| Quote: | | somehow a rocket took off which only a standard amount of fuel and flew 250,000 miles |
What exactly are you calling a "standard amount of fuel"? No offense, but I've not heard this claim before, and I have yet to see you talk about any NASA credentials. It's not as though they stopped by the local BP or Shell station before they took off.
| Quote: | | through the Van Allen radiation belts with no lead shielding |
You do know it only took them about 1/2 an hour to get through those belts, right? The hull of the ship served as more than sufficient protection, and the astronauts didn't receive much bigger of a dose than they would have gotten standing next to a microwave waiting for their popcorn.
| Quote: | | , landed on the moon with just tin foil to protect its passengers from 200+ degree temperatures. |
Nevermind the heating and cooling systems in their suits, the fact that they timed the landings to occur shortly after lunar sunset, etc.
| Quote: | | Everything is 100% fake |
Except this butter! What's that you say? I can't believe it's not butter!
| Quote: | | except the $130 Billion in todays money it all cost and that money was to a large degree stolen. |
Rigggght... because the US government absolutely isn't known for massive expenditures of money. I'm reminded of a line from the movie Contact, where the character S.R. Hadden remarks on the up-to-that-point hidden existence of a 2nd space-traveling Machine, saying "That's the rule of government spending; why build one when you can build two at twice the price?"
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak
Last edited by TmcMistress on Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:39 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Me ol' buddy stelios wrote:
| Quote: | | somehow a rocket took off which only a standard amount of fuel and flew 250,000 miles |
Actually the rocket (Saturn V), dropped away in sections/stages as it climbed into orbit. There was no rocket that made the journey (assuming they went). The rocket was spent way way before the orbiter and lander alone made the journey (assuming they went).
Besides which, the engines supply thrust only for a very short period and once sufficient inertia is reached, then they do not fire again on the journey - being a vacuum, there is no loss of speed. So it is totally wrong to imply any rocket took off and went to the moon (assuming they went).
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:00 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
The recent focus on Mars and any subsequent 'trips' will potentially go a long way to highlighting the Moon as an impractical journey destination.
If going to the Moon is genuinely impossible, then Mars must be many times more so. Here;
'Ten gerbils took off from the Russian-run Baikonur space centre in Kazakhstan on Friday for a 12-day voyage to test the possible effects of a human mission to Mars, an official said Friday.'
http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/sc/022505marsnasa/im:/070914/ph otos_sc_afp/ff0db42974b49eca854346e1fed08432;_ylt=AuOds7RxbaRV.Y_E.q2n 4g5saMYA
Are we safe in the assumption that these unfortunate rodents did indeed pass safely through Van Allen due to the amount of shielding that could be got up into orbit as the dimensions needed would be relatively small compared to what humans would need? Or, they never went at all, or were simply fried?
The fact that NASA doesn't seem to have had a hand in this might mean that either another country will identify the impossibility of manned space travel given our current state of technology, or the reverse. Sending gerbils out into sapce for 12 days seems a bit daft as we have already done this with men and they walk the Earth today with impunity - what are they testing exactly?
What has changed since the first Apollo mission to allow such events, or put another way, is a trip to Mars simply impossible and is another huge con going to be enacted? Seems unlikely given such global participation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
How is going to the moon impossible again? And I'm looking for actual science here, not long-debunked crackpot crud.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: | | How is going to the moon impossible again? And I'm looking for actual science here, not long-debunked crackpot crud. |
You'll have to be a trifle more specific as to what constitutes 'crackpot crud'? The basic concepts are easy to research in terms of the amount of basic concepts that prohibit the safe journey taking place there and back.
However, in a nutshell;
The core belief here is that to travel through fields of concentrated radiation would be lethal given the amount of protection afforded by the vehicle the Apollo astronauts supposedly went to the moon and back (safely seven times). The problem here is that the payload was severely limited given the delivery system available at the time (Saturn V rocket), so getting a heavy object into orbit was cost prohibitive.
I however, personally dispute the premise it is 'as' impossible now as we have access to technology that allows multiple trips to orbit where a sectionalised vehicle could be assembled affording greater protection.
Hopefully the 'crud' was minimised and easy to comprehend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
The core belief here is that to travel through fields of concentrated radiation would be lethal given the amount of protection afforded by the vehicle the Apollo astronauts supposedly went to the moon and back (safely seven times). The problem here is that the payload was severely limited given the delivery system available at the time (Saturn V rocket), so getting a heavy object into orbit was cost prohibitive. |
To believe this, however, is to ignore several very important facts. The astronauts only spent a very limited amount of time in the belts, something around a half hour. The path of the spacecraft was chosen, in fact, to minimize the time spent in them. The metal hulls of the spacecraft were more than sufficient to protect the astronauts from the brunt of the radiation, and they received no worse a cumulative rad dose than they would have from a chest x-ray. The worst the astronauts have seen from their exposure is early-stage cataracts.
Read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Bad-Astronomy-Misconceptions-Revealed-Astrology/ dp/0471409766
Got anything else?
| Quote: | | Hopefully the 'crud' was minimised and easy to comprehend. |
Not really. I'm not trying to be rude, but the premise that the moon landings were faked is entirely silly and based on little more than an inherent distrust of the 'official' story for everything. Skepticism of the government line is healthy, and is by all means encouraged, but it desperately needs to be tempered by actual research and not the poorly-founded book deals of so-called 'experts'.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TmcMistress wrote: |
To believe this, however, is to ignore several very important facts. The astronauts only spent a very limited amount of time in the belts, something around a half hour. The path of the spacecraft was chosen, in fact, to minimize the time spent in them. The metal hulls of the spacecraft were more than sufficient to protect the astronauts...................................................else?
| Quote: | | Hopefully the 'crud' was minimised and easy to comprehend. |
Not really. I'm not trying to be rude, and not the poorly-founded book deals of so-called 'experts'. |
So you are saying your belief structure is centred upon what you are told by so-called 'experts'? Unless you are an expert and have access to information outside that in the public domain, in other words, that which you have uniquely researched yourself, then your information is just as 'flawed'.
Put another way, you rely on information that you are unable to substantiate by means other than quoting a third party.
You then ask people to obtain a copy of book from Amazon to back up your views? This is not proof, this is a book from Amazon written and printed by man - it means nothing.
The most puzzling factor you mention is;
| Quote: | | The astronauts only spent a very limited amount of time in the belts, something around a half hour. |
Well, it can hardly be claimed they spent lengthy periods of time in levels of lethal radiation for the obvious reasons - it is the ONLY claim that can officially be made. To cite this is a major misnomer as there cannot be any other claim is incongruous, there can be no other official line.
Besides which, what exactly is a 'very limited amount of time' - it is not just the time, it is the amount of radiation that is crucial. Perhaps you can supply proof of just how harmless the radiation levels were other than a 'read this' link to a book I cannot access without buying it? This would need substantial backup as to sources to substantiate being 'proof'.
Perhaps what you are missing is that whilst the Van Allen Belts themselves are something to be avoided, they protect our planet from the brunt of solar winds. Once through Van Allen, the ultra-thin hulls of the Apollo craft would afford zippo protection from solar radiation. You state 'metal' hulls' - what metal exactly, how thick, it means nothing without detailed and researched evidence - not books from Amazon?
But that aside.
You seem to have identified me as a protagonist, when in fact I am merely detailing the general CT concensus surrounding Apollo. Aspects of the conspiracy angle do not hold up to much scrutiny, but from what I have read from official sources, the levels of X-rays and radiation on the lunar surface are considerable.
So for example, here is an image I just lifted from the NASA site - an astronaut wanders across the lunar surface with the equivalent of a fishbowl between him and all those nasties, no sun visor, just glass - how is this possible?
When all is said and done, you rely on third-party obtained 'facts' for your views. When you look at the official line - they cannot say anything other than what puts them in the clear. They cannot even suggest Van Allen radiation is remotely dangerous, it would prick their balloon.
You have never been into orbit or sent a probe into space, so you are no more clued up than anyone else - you read books and form an opinion and it is no more valid than anyone else's, it is not evidence, they are not 'facts'.
So what makes your information any more pertinent than mine - got anything else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TmcMistress
Mind Gamer
Joined: 15 Jun 2007
Posts: 392
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2007 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: |
So you are saying your belief structure is centred upon what you are told by so-called 'experts'? Unless you are an expert and have access to information outside that in the public domain, in other words, that which you have uniquely researched yourself, then your information is just as 'flawed'. |
Could you possibly fish out a bigger red herring? I don't have to prove this, it's already proven. The existing evidence supports my case. You are the one making the claim that the moon landings were faked. You provided me with one argument as to why that is so. I showed you why you are wrong.
It's up to you to prove your point, not me. And you are failing spectacularly. It's like if you were to say "No one has ever been to the South Pole!" and I said "Well, here's all these pictures, and here's records of the ice samples they brought back, and here's satellite photos of the camps..." to which you reply "You're relying on faulty information!" Possible? Yes. But only at a stretch, and in defiance of common sense.
| Quote: | | Put another way, you rely on information that you are unable to substantiate by means other than quoting a third party. |
This is the most absolutely ridiculous argument I've ever heard. Am I not to believe in the Amazon Rain Forest just because I haven't actually, physically, seen it with my own two eyes? How about Alaska? I've never actually been there, so maybe we're being lied to! *gasp*
| Quote: | | You then ask people to obtain a copy of book from Amazon to back up your views? This is not proof, this is a book from Amazon written and printed by man - it means nothing. |
You do realize the whole moon hoax thing got started by a book of all things, yes?
| Quote: | The most puzzling factor you mention is;
| Quote: | | The astronauts only spent a very limited amount of time in the belts, something around a half hour. |
Well, it can hardly be claimed they spent lengthy periods of time in levels of lethal radiation for the obvious reasons - it is the ONLY claim that can officially be made. To cite this is a major misnomer as there cannot be any other claim is incongruous, there can be no other official line. |
Huh? Can you untangle that, please, and try again in English?
| Quote: | | Besides which, what exactly is a 'very limited amount of time' |
1/2 an hour.
| Quote: | | - it is not just the time, it is the amount of radiation that is crucial. |
Dr. James Van Allen (you know, the guy that discovered those belts in the first place) shot down claims that the astronauts recieved anything resembling a harmful dose. Also, look up the 'Radiation Plan for the Apollo Lunar Mission'. It shows that researchers were more concerned about solar flares than they were the belts.
| Quote: | | Perhaps you can supply proof of just how harmless the radiation levels were other than a 'read this' link to a book I cannot access without buying it? This would need substantial backup as to sources to substantiate being 'proof'. |
Would it do any good? Beyond the ones I've already posted, if I cite any of these sources to you, would you actually consider them or would you dismiss them as Zionist shills or what-have-you?
| Quote: | | Perhaps what you are missing is that whilst the Van Allen Belts themselves are something to be avoided, they protect our planet from the brunt of solar winds. |
What... does this have to do with anything?
| Quote: | | Once through Van Allen, the ultra-thin hulls of the Apollo craft would afford zippo protection from solar radiation. You state 'metal' hulls' - what metal exactly, how thick, it means nothing without detailed and researched evidence |
Once again, were I to quote NASA researchers, or anyone for that matter, would it do any good? And no, the belts do not protect our planet from the 'brunt' of solar winds. The majority of that job is accomplished by our ozone and our magnetic field. Oh, and a thin layer of aluminum serves as sufficient protection against solar rays. Cosmic radiation is a larger problem.
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/rad.htm
| Quote: | | You seem to have identified me as a protagonist, when in fact I am merely detailing the general CT concensus surrounding Apollo. |
Not so much, but you're the only one responding. And to be fair, your last couple of posts in this thread didn't go a long ways towards cementing your status as devils' advocate.
| Quote: | | Aspects of the conspiracy angle do not hold up to much scrutiny, but from what I have read from official sources, the levels of X-rays and radiation on the lunar surface are considerable. |
If they'd stayed up there for a significant amount of time, yes. But they didn't.
| Quote: | | So for example, here is an image I just lifted from the NASA site - an astronaut wanders across the lunar surface with the equivalent of a fishbowl between him and all those nasties, no sun visor, just glass - how is this possible? |
You're pretending that I'm claiming the radiation was not dangerous. There was a potential danger, but only in the case of a large scale solar event (which fortunately, there was not), or if they stayed up there a long time (which fortunately, they did not). But danger does not make something impossible. Or even improbable. See above, peruse the links at your leisure.
| Quote: | | They cannot even suggest Van Allen radiation is remotely dangerous, it would prick their balloon. |
.....
| Quote: | | You have never been into orbit or sent a probe into space, so you are no more clued up than anyone else - you read books and form an opinion and it is no more valid than anyone else's |
Sure it is. Because unlike some in this thread, I don't post reams of pointless rhetoric. Of course I've never been into orbit. But I would argue that I'm quite a bit more clued in than you bunch, mostly because I do read those 'books'. Lots of them. I'm going to say that makes my opinion a damn sight more valid than someone who posts long-since disproven anomalies and whose 'argument' consists mostly of telling me I listen to the wrong people. Try actually refuting anything I've said, and then I'll actually give this more of an effort.
| Quote: | | So what makes your information any more pertinent than mine - got anything else? |
Common sense, books, a keen eye for the obvious, more books, taking web-info with several thousand grains of salt, etc.
_________________
"What about a dance club that only let in deaf people? It would really only need flashing lights, so they'd save a lot of money on music." - Dresden Codak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
my left bollock
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 87
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 27, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Or, more accurately, all the 'proof' you need, eh, PAT?
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
