Bart Sibrel on Coast To Coast AM last night: Wow! Just... Wow!

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
There's no gamma rays in space you say?

I do know that the atmosphere of earth filters out harmful rays from the sun. I also know that once past the atmosphere, all this filtering protection is gone. The moon has little to no atmosphere and we keep hearing how the sun was blazing, the temp close to 300F, the reflection from the moon so great the astroNOTs couldn't see the stars because of the strong reflection -- but what kind of magical, high-tech substance was used in the astroNOTs' face shields to protect the astroNOTs?

If you have an answer to this, great, and it will be amusing and of some interest to hear it. But nothing will ever explain away the wires or the lunar lander and its roofing paper and scotch tape and spider legs.

I never said there weren't. But the biggest exposure by FAR to the astronauts were Alpha and Beta particles. Gamma particles won't kill you instantly unless you're exposed to a HUGE dose. That's why all those x-rays you had for years that didn't have a lead shield haven't killed you yet.

It would take 5,000+ Rems to kill you within 48-72 hours. 400-600 Rems has a 60% fatality rate after 30 days. The astronauts on Apollo were exposed to less than 5 Rems, which is the yearly dose that a worker that handles radioactive material averages.

As for the eye protection, that gold visor does nicely. That gold lining is also used on fighter cockpits to help protect the pilots in the event of a nuclear flash.

whizzospace.com...

reply to post by Salt of the Earth


Moon rocks are extremely jagged, its one of the reasons that the surface of the moon can retain a foot print so well. You really ought to do a little research on such spurious accusations before you make them. Its just making you look foolish now. Between your total lack of understanding of orbital mechanics, basic radiation knowledge, and engineering, I really cant see how you can think you are informed enough to get out of bed in the morning let alone comment on extra atmospheric space travel.
If you saw a rounded rock from the moon, its probable that it was retrived or pictured near, an impact crater. The heat given off by an impacting object would probably account perfectly well for any smoothing you might have seen. Its all pretty simple observable science. Hell its not like black hole theories we are talking about! This is simple physical mechanics here. The way you talk its as if you question the entire physical workings of the universe as a whole !!
You know, Im pretty glad that of all the people who could be debunking the most interesting scientific event of the last hundred years, its you , because if it was someone with a shred of supportable science to back them up, I might have a more difficult time squaring all the arguments down. As it is you are making it far to easy to laugh at you.
Either get some education on the subject, and come back to us when you understand reality , or leave it , you are utterly out of your depth, and are beginning to look like you are drowning in a current of your own ignorance.

Originally posted by TrueBrit
reply to post by Salt of the Earth

 

Moon rocks are extremely jagged, its one of the reasons that the surface of the moon can retain a foot print so well. You really ought to do a little research on such spurious accusations before you make them. Its just making you look foolish now. Between your total lack of understanding of orbital mechanics, basic radiation knowledge, and engineering, I really cant see how you can think you are informed enough to get out of bed in the morning let alone comment on extra atmospheric space travel.
If you saw a rounded rock from the moon, its probable that it was retrived or pictured near, an impact crater. The heat given off by an impacting object would probably account perfectly well for any smoothing you might have seen. Its all pretty simple observable science. Hell its not like black hole theories we are talking about! This is simple physical mechanics here. The way you talk its as if you question the entire physical workings of the universe as a whole !!
You know, Im pretty glad that of all the people who could be debunking the most interesting scientific event of the last hundred years, its you , because if it was someone with a shred of supportable science to back them up, I might have a more difficult time squaring all the arguments down. As it is you are making it far to easy to laugh at you.
Either get some education on the subject, and come back to us when you understand reality , or leave it , you are utterly out of your depth, and are beginning to look like you are drowning in a current of your own ignorance.

The pictures of the moon landscape, to my memory, have ordinary roundish rocks. Nothing at all special about them in the pics. Show me some examples? I really don't devote my life to this topic, although I find it interesting. I'm just going by memory of what I've looked at previously, and I don't have time to do a lot of searching for pics. I have interests in about 100 other subjects besides this one.

And BTW, while you're having a good laugh at me and my lack of scientific knowledge as you say, I will be laughing at all you gullible people who think any sane man would climb in one of those spider legged things made of roofing paper (torn) and scotch tape and spider legs and attempt to land on the moon in it.

What I may lack in scientific knowledge I make up for with common sense, so the laugh is on you, not me.

The whole thing has a blatant and general air of hokeyness.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

reply to post by TrueBrit

Moon rocks are extremely jagged, its one of the reasons that the surface of the moon can retain a foot print so well.

Er, I have never seen a jagged rock on the moon and I've looked at an awful lot of moon pics. As far as I'm aware the incessent meteoric bombardemnt and the constant radiation which is battering the moon has , over the ions, left the moon smooth and rounded. No cliffs no jagged rocks just sculptured smooth rounded hills.

reply to post by Mintwithahole.


Im am reffering to the individual objects which make up a vista, not the full effect of the image itself. If you look closely at a single rock , or for that matter moondust, you will see that thier surfaces are NOT smooth but very much like high grit sandpaper.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
The pictures of the moon landscape, to my memory, have ordinary roundish rocks. Nothing at all special about them in the pics.

A whole bunch of jagged rocks, especially to the right:
history.nasa.gov...

And BTW, while you're having a good laugh at me and my lack of scientific knowledge as you say, I will be laughing at all you gullible people who think any sane man would climb in one of those spider legged things made of roofing paper (torn) and scotch tape and spider legs and attempt to land on the moon in it.

Frankly I don't care what you personally think of my great uncle's hard work (also the hard work of many other people). I only care about what you can prove.

What I may lack in scientific knowledge I make up for with common sense, so the laugh is on you, not me.

"Common sense" is no match for real physics.

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

Moon rocks are extremely jagged, its one of the reasons that the surface of the moon can retain a foot print so well.

Er, I have never seen a jagged rock on the moon and I've looked at an awful lot of moon pics. As far as I'm aware the incessent meteoric bombardemnt and the constant radiation which is battering the moon has , over the ions, left the moon smooth and rounded. No cliffs no jagged rocks just sculptured smooth rounded hills.

Constant radiation melting the rocks? Umm, not according to the other moon hoax debunkers here who say it's next to nothing, just a tiny smitch. I didn't know radition could round rocks. Can it?

You say the meteors are incessant? Would that round the stones or crush and break them? Rain and snow and hail and wind will round them, as will water running over them, but meteors?

Anyway, I'm glad you agree that the pics of the rocks on the moon show rounded rocks, not jagged ones.

Originally posted by ngchunter
"Common sense" is no match for real physics.

Yes, they compliment each other. Where one is missing usually the other is too, especially when it comes to "common sense," what we have seen and observed with our own two eyes as to how things work and what they do and don't do.

Governments who are really going to the moon don't build things like that lunar lander, with a hand scrawled sign and flag, and put them on with scotch tape. They just don't.

And I can tell when somebody is on wires, and some of the footage of the astroNOTs shows them obviously to be on wires, with their feet barely touching the ground sometimes, and using the wires to hold them up when they would bend over to look at something so their pose defined the laws of gravity, even the little bit of gravity on the moon.

The government obviously likes to scam people and tell a lot of lies and play the populace for fools. They outdid themselves with 9/11 and looking back they also outdid themselves with the moon landing hoax.

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
Yes, they compliment each other. Where one is missing usually the other is too, especially when it comes to "common sense," what we have seen and observed with our own two eyes as to how things work and what they do and don't do.

Your expectations of the way things work in a 1g 1atm environment on earth do not apply at all to the moon. You've shown quite clearly that you have no understanding of the physics involved. When will you admit that this lack of understanding should equally guide you to the conclusion that the ISS and shuttle are fake?

Governments who are really going to the moon don't build things like that lunar lander, with a hand scrawled sign and flag, and put them on with scotch tape. They just don't.

I guess you figure you'll just play this stupid game of trying to get under my skin since you know my great uncle helped design and build the LEM. The fact is you have no proof to offer in backing up your expectations and assumptions. The fact is you can simulate the LEM's performance capabilities and they prove to be sufficient.

And I can tell when somebody is on wires, and some of the footage of the astroNOTs shows them obviously to be on wires,

Again, mythbusters already showed what it's like when a fake astronaut is on wires and it's nothing like the real moon footage.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by Zaphod58



The straw that truly breaks the camels back for me in the whole did we go to the moon debate is the most obvious and simple.

Before and after the apollo missions, we never left earth atmosphere, yet during the apollo missions we travel SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES FARTHER than we had previously travelled, or since have travelled.... then we land on a rock, and then take off and fly that same distance back home again.

Thats like me running to the end of my driveway everyday for a year in training for a marathon, then one day I run a 25 mile marathon, and then for the rest of my life I just keep running to the end of my driveway.

Does that make any sense?

Originally posted by king9072
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

The straw that truly breaks the camels back for me in the whole did we go to the moon debate is the most obvious and simple.

Before and after the apollo missions, we never left earth atmosphere,

Are you seriously suggesting mercury and gemini were faked too?

yet during the apollo missions we travel SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES FARTHER than we had previously travelled, or since have travelled.... then we land on a rock, and then take off and fly that same distance back home again.

So the fact that the feat was new makes it impossible? There's no good stopping point between the earth and moon, what were they supposed to do, go halfway there and spend fuel to turn around as practice just to meet your preconceptions? Once you're on a lunar trajectory you don't need to spend more fuel to get there until you brake into orbit. They DID gradually work their way up to the moon though in terms of complexity; ever hear of Gemini? They practiced everything they'd need to do: EVA, rendezvous, communications and tracking, week long duration missions, etc. Furthermore, they didn't land on the first manned trip to the moon or even the second. They practiced everything else first thoroughly. They also practiced landing using a variety of simulators and unmanned probes.

Does that make any sense?

What you're saying doesn't match historical fact.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by king9072

Before and after the apollo missions, we never left earth atmosphere, yet during the apollo missions we travel SEVERAL HUNDRED TIMES FARTHER than we had previously travelled, or since have travelled.... then we land on a rock, and then take off and fly that same distance back home again.

What?

Before the Apollo program:
The Mercury program put 6 astronauts beyond the atmosphere, 4 of them into orbit.
There were 10 Gemini missions, putting 20 astronauts into orbit.

Apollo 7 was an Earth orbital mission. Apollo 8, 9, and 10 orbited the Moon without landing.

Is it really that easy to ignore history? With this level of ignorance it's no wonder people can believe Sibrel and his ilk.

[edit on 3/25/2009 by Phage]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I notice that you didn't bother to source your quote for that. NASA and LM have always known how to make AVCOAT, but they've had to change the formula due to some of the materials being banned. One of the two materials that was being considered for Orion was an updated version of the exact same material that was used on Apollo.

You mean the source for this?

... according to the Orion program executive the Orion project originally intended to use the heat shield from the Apollo program as a fallback technology for the Orion thermal protection system, but was unable to recreate the Apollo material.

GAO: NASA Ares I and Orion Project Risks and Key Indicators to Measure Progress

But you already knew that, didn't you?

Originally posted by Salt of the Earth
What are the credentials of the people who claim to know so much? Far as I'm concerned you are all paid by the government to post here. The way it looks to me they are just rattling off a bunch of oftentimes lame excuses and rationales for the anomalies from your fact sheet.

Indeed. Isn't it curious that it's always the same few individuals who spend all their free time rushing to NASA's defense and trying to convince people that the Apollo missions weren't faked?

Except they still avoid the question as to how NASA could've "lost" 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission. First they lie and say the tapes were found. When that deception is countered, they say only the Apollo 11 mission tapes were "lost."

Gus Grissom's family believes he was murdered for being too vocal about the shoddy contractor manufacturing processes (hanging a lemon on an Apollo simulator during a press conference) and the impossibility of going to the moon by the end of the 60s. 40 years later, the GAO says,

"Currently, nearly every major segment of Ares I and Orion faces knowledge gaps in the development of required hardware and technology and many are being affected by uncertainty in requirements."

It's obvious we're dealing with a few experienced disinformation and spin specialists.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by Zaphod58
I notice that you didn't bother to source your quote for that. NASA and LM have always known how to make AVCOAT, but they've had to change the formula due to some of the materials being banned. One of the two materials that was being considered for Orion was an updated version of the exact same material that was used on Apollo.

You mean the source for this?

... according to the Orion program executive the Orion project originally intended to use the heat shield from the Apollo program as a fallback technology for the Orion thermal protection system, but was unable to recreate the Apollo material.

GAO: NASA Ares I and Orion Project Risks and Key Indicators to Measure Progress

But you already knew that, didn't you?

As a matter of fact, no I didn't know where it came from. But it doesn't matter, because as I showed they have access to several of the Apollo heat shields, and have made an improved version of it, without using some of the materials that were banned.

You guys seem to think that it is easy to just take the Apollo capsule and make it bigger, and it's going to work just fine. If it's that easy, design your own and send it to NASA then.

reply to post by Zaphod58

LOL -- looks like you've got your own posse who are following your every utterance and showering your explanations with stars -- 9 stars in 10 minutes. Very impressive!

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Indeed. Isn't it curious that it's always the same few individuals who spend all their free time rushing to NASA's defense and trying to convince people that the Apollo missions weren't faked?

Isn't it curious that it's always the same few individuals who spend all their free time rushing to attack NASA and trying to convince people that the Apollo missions were faked?
The sword doth cut both ways.

Except they still avoid the question as to how NASA could've "lost" 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission. First they lie and say the tapes were found. When that deception is countered, they say only the Apollo 11 mission tapes were "lost."

I've answered this many times already on this thread, you just keep repeating the lie anyway having full knowledge of the truth. I said some of the telemetry tapes were found, then you distorted the truth by selectively quoting to make it seem like they weren't
www.cosmosmagazine.com...
and now you refuse to admit that these were Apollo 11 tapes, most of which were telemetry and data, and that none of the other later missions required the same conversion from slow scan tv.
en.wikipedia.org...
Keep repeating that lie, maybe eventually someone sitting on the fence will believe you. I can only hope not.

It's obvious we're dealing with a few experienced disinformation and spin specialists.

I've had it with the paranoid accusations. Let's see you prove it. Fortunately I know I'm not what you accuse me of, so I know for a fact that you're wrong. It's the undecideds that you're mistreating by spreading this lie.

[edit on 25-3-2009 by ngchunter]

reply to post by GoldenFleece


Yeah, it's amazing how that happens when you use things like logic and facts. Of course what that has to do with the topic I have NO idea but whatever.

As for Orion, the heat shield and other technologies might LOOK similar to Apollo but they're not. They're much more advanced than they were back then, and the capsule has been scaled up pretty significantly.

[edit on 3/25/2009 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

LOL -- looks like you've got your own posse who are following your every utterance and showering your explanations with stars -- 9 stars in 10 minutes. Very impressive!

I noticed that too. I wonder what kind of conspiracy that alludes to?
It's so contrived that it makes me wonder about the whole thing. They almost had me leaning to the official story but now the BS meter is cranking up.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

LOL -- looks like you've got your own posse who are following your every utterance and showering your explanations with stars -- 9 stars in 10 minutes. Very impressive!

A mere $10,000 per star, taxpayers expense!

NASA has always been a liar and a fraud. Why should they stop now. They are worse than they ever were, trying to convince us now that aliens are alive on Mars. I'm sure NASA is in on the torture, breeding underground DUMBs too.

Bunch of creepy Freemasons and Nazis that think the rest of us are so stupid that we think astroNOTs actually landed on the moon in that spider-legged thing and tooled around in a moon buggy and collected rocks and admired the flag -- that we can't see that they are on wires in some footage and in slow motion in others, and that NASA was too cheap to even build a decent movie set to fool us with. And that they expect us to believe they had a full time photographer following them around taking constant snapshots on a Haselblad while wearing pressurized gloves.

Do they have the lunar lander in the Space Museum, I wonder?

[edit on 25-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]