It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 17
8
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Here's a fun little webpage.

www.epa.gov...

The DOE limits for whole body exposure are 5 Rem/year, TJNAF's control for whole body exposure is 1 Rem/year. The limits are much higher depending on where you're exposed. Extremities/skin/organs are 50 Rem/year. The lens of the eye is 15 Rem/year.

www.jlab.org...




posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

You're neglecting the shielding provided by the spacecraft and spacesuits while traversing the belts.

Please. What "shielding" was that? Aluminum? I hate quoting Wikipedia like they're the ultimate end-all to every debate, but this is based on a NASA research abstract:


Material shielding may be partially effective against galactic cosmic rays in certain energy ranges, but may actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation. The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.



A number of years ago I underwent radiotherapy. I don't exactly recall the dosage I received but it was in the neighborhood of 3,000 RADS over a period of a few months. It wasn't deadly. It put my cancer into remission and saved my life.

Cancer treatments routinely use hundreds of rads of radiation, but the area involved is very small and the entire body is not exposed to radiation.


BTW, can you provide a source for that 25 RAD limit?

What 25 RAD limit was that? You posted the response from physed.org like it was some kind of gotcha. I simply pointed out that both physicists agreed that the astronots were exposed to a minimum of 25 RADs just from the inner Van Allen belts, five times the ANNUAL federal limit. How much radiation is contained in the outer Van Allen belts is anyone's guess. It's not even clear to NASA, who initiated a series of cosmic radiation experiments last year.

BTW, 1 RAD is equivalent to 1 REM.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The problem with discussions like this is that they invariably get bogged down with minutiae and line-by-line rebuttals, which I find particularly juvenile and distasteful.

When one takes the time and effort to examine the totality of information, as someone like Jim Marrs has done, then conclusions about whether we've gone to the moon or not becomes readily apparent. Unfortunately, very few people have the time or inclination to venture outside their consensus reality comfort zone.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


It seems that you are one of those bringing up the details for discussion. Now you expect the claim to just be accepted wholesale? The devil is in the details. When the threads start to break, the whole cloth falls apart.

BTW, another "detail"; my entire thorax was irradiated (below my waist to my neck), not a "very small area".

[edit on 3/27/2009 by Phage]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage The devil is in the details. When the threads start to break, the whole cloth falls apart.

Indeed. The threads of the Apollo Moon Hoax have been slowly unraveling for decades.

But I'm glad to hear you're eager to discuss the big picture.

Let's start with the points in this video (the red font is annoying and hard to read.)


Why is there undisturbed sandy soil and pebbles beneath the LEM's rocket engine? The only responses so far have been, "the rocket engine was throttled down" and "those don't look like like pebbles to me."


Why are there no lunar rover tracks when there are boot prints all around it? No responses.

What about the hundreds of photo anomalies that show artificial lighting, fake backgrounds and fake boulders? There are other photos of position crosshairs behind the images and even a rock with a carved "C" on it (claimed to be a stray piece of hair on the negative, but the "C" was later airbrushed out by NASA.)

When you're done with that, we can move on to this video of the Apollo 11 astronots faking footage of the earth:


The only response has been, "that's just test footage." Test footage of what? Test footage of how to fake shots of the earth?

When you're done with that, please explain how NASA could've "lost" 13,000 original tapes of EVERY Apollo mission.

A bit sloppy for a historic event billed as "mankind's greatest achievement", dontcha think?

The only responses have been, the tapes were found in Australia (false), only Apollo 11 tapes were lost (false), and my favorite, a quote from the AP article about the "lost" tapes:


The tapes aren't lost, insists the NASA official put in charge of the search. But he doesn't know where they are.




[edit on 28-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

The lunar regolith is composed of compacted material containing various sized bits and chunks. The dust was blown away from the harder surface leaving this chunky surface exposed.

There are tracks. If you look at other photos of the rover taken at that position you will see them. How do you propose the "faked" rover got there? How do you account for "no tracks"? Crane? Helicopter? Why go through the trouble? We know the "fake" rover worked. There are "faked" videos of it running. Why not just drive it to the spot? Why risk having the "fraud" exposed?

Do you expect me to explain each of "hundreds of anomalies"? Sorry, I don't have the time. There are no fake backgrounds, there are no fake boulders.

The Apollo 11 transmission "expose` is the fruit of Bart Sibrel's lies and distortions. The link I posted earlier makes that clear. You can ignore it if you want. There was no "leaked footage". All of the footage is available on the DVD. The test footage was to test the system prior to the live broadcast. You know, they wanted to make sure it worked. "Testing, 1,2 3, check..check."

Yes original tapes are missing, most likely somewhere in the thousands of cases of similar boxes of similar tapes. I don't really care, the converted tapes are all present and accounted for. What's so special about the originals anyway? You'd just call them fakes too.

You can keep asking the same questions as many times as you like. But I'm done.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 02:30 AM
link   
The sad thing here is

THE SIDE OF HUMANITY THAT LACKS FAITH

People don't believe we can colonize other worlds and when you wish to not believe something you can find all the evidence in the world to back up your opinion and vice versa when you do believe.

We did go to the moon.

and as people sit here and we just spent Trillions on a war, we could already have left the planet

while leaders plan Eugenic like policies and population reduction...

we could have just gone

so when Humanity fails and nature must start over

it will be only because of...for lack of a better world Our Dark Side

The part of us that invented the word "Can't"

Pity some of you are so jaded and hopeless



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 

The lunar regolith is composed of compacted material containing various sized bits and chunks. The dust was blown away from the harder surface leaving this chunky surface exposed.

But as you can plainly see in the video above, the dust and pebbles weren't blown away. If it had been, the "dust" and soil beneath the LEM wouldn't be level with the surrounding surface that has inch-thick boot prints.

And I'm supposed to explain why there are no rover tracks and why they went through the trouble of faking everything? You'd have to ask NASA those questions.

You say you don't have the time to explain the hundreds of photo anomalies? Well, that's an honest answer, but you seemed to have enough time to defend NASA during this entire thread.

So you think the second video above is just "test footage?" Is that why the tapes were slated with exact Apollo mission dates and labeled as real footage? Why were they "testing" how to fake shots of the earth? Don't you mean, "testing, testing, apply cut-outs to windows, check, check, shoot phony footage of earth, 1,2,3, remove cut-outs from windows?"


Yes original tapes are missing, most likely somewhere in the thousands of cases of similar boxes of similar tapes. I don't really care, the converted tapes are all present and accounted for. What's so special about the originals anyway?

Oh, not much:


The entire world watched fuzzy, ghostlike images of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. But only a handful of technicians saw the good stuff live, sharp enough to see Armstrong's reflection in Aldrin's faceplate, said Stan Lebar, the retired Apollo television camera manager.

"The quality ... is two, three or four times better than we ever saw," said Richard Nafzger, a senior engineer at Goddard who on Tuesday was put in charge of the search effort.



Originally posted by mopusvindictus
The sad thing here is

THE SIDE OF HUMANITY THAT LACKS FAITH


...and as people sit here and we just spent Trillions on a war, we could already have left the planet

while leaders plan Eugenic like policies and population reduction...

I'm glad you have faith. I used to have faith too. But then I started looking into 9/11, which created those trillion-dollar wars, with depleted uranium, "smart bombs" and a ravaged infrastructure causing a million Iraqi and Afghani genocide victims that are part of the population reduction plans you've noted.

Then I started looking into other American wars. Like the Spanish-American war. Remember the Maine? Spain didn't blow it up. To this day, the sinking of the Maine remains unsolved.

Remember WW I? The Lusitania was purposefully sent into German-patrolled waters with a load of armaments, in violation of the Neutrality Act, then abandoned by her British naval escort and sunk by U-boats. Germany tried to warn the American public not to travel on the Lusitania by attempting to place newspaper ads, but U.S. officials managed to block every ad except one.

Remember WW II? FDR knew every detail of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor weeks in advance. FDR even fired the commander who objected to basing the navy fleet in Hawaii and provoked the Japanese into attacking with a naval oil blockade in Japanese territorial waters, all of which was outlined in the eight-point McCollom Memo. All of this has been documented in declassified top-secret Army and Navy Pearl Harbor review board reports and historical books like "Day of Deceit."

Remember Gulf of Tonkin? Never happened. LBJ is quoted in NSA archives as saying, "those Navy boys were shooting at a bunch of flying fish!"

Remember "Operation Northwoods?" The USS Liberty? JFK? RFK? MLK? Waco? Oklahoma City? TWA 800? WMDs in Iraq? Wall St. bankster bail-outs, an imploded economy, ten trillion-dollar deficits, 2400 public officials under FBI investigation, with a destroyed currency and hyper-inflation on the horizon?

Yes, I used to have faith. But then I woke up.




[edit on 28-3-2009 by GoldenFleece]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:09 PM
link   
pasted from the excellent www.clavius.org Jay Utah's personal hosted (non government paid or sponsored web site)
ENVIRONMENT
here comes the sun







If you have not yet read the radiation primer, you are invited to do so. We have discussed the Van Allen belts in a separate page. This page discusses only solar events. It should be noted that most conspiracist arguments confound the two, although they are very different phenomena posing very different hazards.

There are lots of published sources which say that solar particle radiation is a hazard to astronauts.

And it is, but a hazard is not necessarily an insurmountable obstacle. Wet roads are a hazard to drivers, but people drive on them anyway. There are many hazards in a voyage to the moon. Care is taken to minimize them, but in the end it's still a dangerous thing to do. Just as there are people willing to brave the hazards of mountainclimbing, there are those willing to brave the hazards of outer space.

By repeating ad nauseam the statement that radiation is hazardous, the conspiracists attempt to instill the notion that it's unavoidably fatal or always there. It's not. Remember, this is the same area of space where dozens of countries operate sensitive communications satellites.

Experts say, "During a solar maximum, about 15 flares per day emit detectable X-ray energies." [David Wozney]

The source cited by Wozney for this claim is no longer at the web URL he gives. But we must distinguish carefully between a major event and a detectable event. Just because our instruments can detect the radiation of a solar event doesn't mean it presents a health hazard to a lunar astronaut. We could draw the parallel between a detectable earthquake and a catastrophic earthquake. Seismometers can measure earthquakes so gentle that people don't even notice them. This would be a detectable seismic event, and they occur all the time.

According to records, more than 1,400 solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions.

This number represents the total number of detectable solar events, not major flares that would have posed a danger to the astronauts. The records also show that no major solar flares occurred during the Apollo missions, but the conspiracists don't care to look that closely. The impressively large number is all they're interested in. The closest call came when the Apollo 12 spacecraft's external radiation sensors detected a minor flare, but the interior sensors did not indicate that any appreciable amount of this radiation penetrated the spacecraft hull.

Major solar events last for hours, or sometimes even days. [David Wozney]

Strangely enough, Mr. Wozney provides no reconciliation for his two claims. On the one hand we're told these major events occur 15 times a day. Now we're told they can last for days. Fortunately we at Clavius can offer a reconciliation. Major events can in fact last for hours or days. The events that occur 15 times a day during peak activity are the low-level events which pose no particular hazard to astronauts. They're strong enough to trigger our detection instruments, but not strong enough to warrant concern.

Solar flares produce huge amounts of radiation. One source says 3,000,000 REM for a one-year continuous exposure. Another source puts it at 100 REM per hour. NASA web sites say the radiation approaches 10 million electron volts! [David Wozney]

Is ten million electron volts a high energy level? The reader isn't told. It sounds like a big number. Put a nine-volt battery on your tongue and you'll get an unpleasant but harmless jolt. You see sparks from a 12-volt battery when you jump-start a car. We take great pains to shield ourselves from the 110-volt current in our houses because we know it can kill us. So ten million electron volts must be an enormous amount of unquestionably fatal energy. Right?

Well, no. The "electron volt" (eV) is not equivalent to the common "volt" that measures household electricity. Instead it's the amount of energy picked up by a single electron as it passes through an electrical potential of one volt. We realize that's not a very helpful definition to the layman, but it takes the equivalent energy of about 620,000,000,000,000 million electron volts (MeV) per second to light up a 100-watt light bulb. The figure is obviously cited because it's a big scary number, but it's like saying an automobile weighs 2.3 billion milligrams. A large number, but a small unit. The very large figure given for the light bulb is explained by knowing that each individual electron that participates in the operation of a light bulb has a fairly small energy level, but there are billions and billions of electrons involved. In radiation terms this is called a high "flux". In space the individual electrons can have very high energy levels, but there aren't as many of them. The flux is much smaller.

But solar events do in fact produce dangerous radiation. They have been known to knock out communications satellites and even disrupt terrestrial communications. But in order to correlate the conspiracists' numbers with the likely threat, we have to know what kind of particle the number refers to. A 10 MeV electron is relatively harmless, while a 10 MeV proton might be a cause for concern. But again, the energy level is only half the story. You also have to know the particle flux.

The dosage figures, which take into account both energy and flux, are likely to be fairly accurate. But the conspiracists make the fundamental error of multiplying these worst-case exposure characteristics by the 15-per-day figure, or 1,400 total figure, representing the number of merely detectable events, thereby arriving at what they believe to be the exposure level of a typical mission to the moon. If we stick with the earthquake analogy, it would be like counting the dozens of microquakes that occur on a daily basis and multiplying that number by the 7.0 or 8.0 Richter magnitudes for a single major earthquake, and then presuming that massive devastation must have taken place during those microquakes.

Various regulatory bodies have established the maximum safe dosage for the general public as 1 millisievert (mSv) per year, and 5 mSv in special circumstances. The Apollo astronauts would have been exposed to several orders of magnitude more radiation than these figures allow. [David Wozney]

First it must be understood that this claim is based on the improperly computed dosages described above. And if you read the radiation primer you'll learn that it's very difficult in practice to compute dosages. Radiation dosages are measured rather than computed. The Apollo astronauts wore dosimeters to measure how much radiation they were exposed to. And sensors both inside and outside the spacecraft measured radiation.

Average Radiation Exposure
For Apollo Flight Crews
Apollo
Mission Skin dosage
(rads)
7 0.16
8 0.16
9 0.20
10 0.48
11 0.18
12 0.58
13 0.24
14 1.14
15 0.30
16 0.51
17 0.55
(Bailey, J. Vernon, "Radiation Protection and Instrumentation",
in Biomedical Results of Apollo, Johnson Space Center.)
Second, Mr. Wozney misrepresents the legal limits. Whole-body exposure limits are summarized here in the primer.

The table at right gives the average skin dosages for the Apollo astronauts as measured by their dosimeters during the trip. Skin exposure is not as drastic as exposure in blood-producing organs, and since those organs like deep within the body, they receive as much as 40% less exposure than the skin.

In 1971 the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission's limits on exposure were as they are today. (Standards for Protection Against Radiation. 10 CFR § 20, rev. July 15, 1971.) Without detailed flux data we cannot provide precise dose equivalents for the figures in the table. But we know the spacecraft hulls provided excellent shielding against protons, except for the most high-energy protons and cosmic rays.

The highest exposure is for Apollo 14, and the dose equivalent is about 2.85 rem (28.5 mSv), or about ten times the amount of normal background radiation per year, half the allowed yearly dosage for occupational radiation exposure, or 1/140 the lethal dosage.

In some places on earth, natural radiation supplies up to 28 rems (280 mSv) per year. No adverse effects from this dramatically increased background dose have been observed. We understand from this data that the limits imposed by the law are quite stringent, and may even derive from a sort of radiophobia among the general public. One can receive several times the legal limit of radiation dosage and still have no observable effects. Thus the legal limit is not an accurate measure of what a harmful radiation dosage might be.

Experts say 'High energy protons travel at the speed of light so there is no time to get under cover.' [David Wozney]

The source, Humans in Space, is a health and biology site, so we can forgive them for not understanding that only massless particles (e.g., photons) can travel at the speed of light. Particles such as protons which have mass cannot.

The hulls of the Apollo spacecraft were ultra-thin.

The hulls were "ultra-thin" compared to the tons of concrete the layman believes is necessary to shield against radiation. The protection was adequate for the Van Allen belts and normal particle flux from the sun, but probably not enough to protect against a major solar event. It would have indeed been prohibitive to supply the Apollo spacecraft with the shielding necessary to ward off solar event radiation entirely. But with the shielding provided, the astronauts would have been able to withstand a major solar particle event for as long as two hours without receiving a lethal dose.

But protection against radiation isn't always a matter of piling up enough material to weather the storm. Sometimes it's a matter of planning and evasion.

A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning. It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted. But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission should a solar event have started boiling up from the depths of the sun.

Statistical probability was the main protection for the Apollo crews. The forecasters would have been able to rule out major events during the first few days of the mission. And so out of a nine-day mission that might only leave five or six days of vulnerability. The chances of a major solar event occurring within a given five-day period is quite remote, even during periods of exceptional activity.

Solar events are directional. They don't fan out from the sun in concentric rings; they're more like cosmic shotgun blasts. And so if an event should occur, it's more likely to throw particles in some other direction rather than toward the earth and its moon.

NASA says that solar event is the single biggest danger astronauts would have to face on a mission to Mars. Why wouldn't it also have been a grave danger to lunar missions?

A mission to the moon lasting at most two weeks has good odds of avoiding solar events. A mission to Mars lasting two years or more has very little chance of avoiding a major solar event.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


You are doing an excellent job of exposing the moon hoax and of chewing up the silly arguments and lame excuses of the space cadets. Considering the number of paid full-timers there are here working for NASA, with all the support of NASA, cheat-sheets, whatever, that is no mean feat.

The good guys always work for free, but can hold off an army of the paid minions and outdo the multimillion dollar efforts of the paid liars, as we see Alex Jones single-handedly taking on the New World Order, and if he doesn't prevail against the Luciferians, it will still be a close contest. In the end, the good guys win.

Truth stands on its own. It's easy to win a debate when you are on the right side.





[edit on 28-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 

Thank you very much.

To be honest, a few years ago I thought the Apollo Moon Hoax was a conspiracy that was too ridiculous to investigate. My own brother says he would "bet his life" that we really went to the moon.

After spending thousands of hours investigating, all I can say is be very careful what you'd bet your life on in this world.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


These guys say they are "scientific," but they want us to swap out our lead aprons for aluminum and think it's perfectly normal to fly astroNOTs to the moon in a tree house made of ripped roofing paper and scotch tape held up by spider legs on foil-wrapped foot pads.

Literally. (see links to NASA pics posted earlier)

And the design is something that a 12-year old in Special Ed might come up with.

What kind of miraculous steel knee-joints and springs were put in that spider contraption that would absorb its spider body, and be able to withstand bouncing and skidding across the moon's surface on the sharp pointed rocks one of the NASA agents told us is all over the moon. I read an account of one of the astroNOT's of his supposed harrowing landing they made coming in for a landing on a side angle and how they skidded along on the spider legs. Yeah, right.

Too bad they couldn't have used that same metal they used for the moon lander's spider legs to build the Twin Towers, right? Then the towers would not have gone SPLAT at the speed of gravity because of a couple fires that were going out in the upper floors and Bldg. 7 not even hit by anything whatever. Instead of building the towers with some kind of silly putty reenforced steel and concrete that crumbles at the slightest provocation, they should have consulted NASA on their miraculous material used to build those spider legs and the pie plates that remained intact under any and all conditions of landing. For that matter, what did they make that gold foil out of that it could withstand a landing and takeoff from the "mother ship" to the moon and back.

The only damage to these craft, even to their gold foil, was the roofing paper ripped up. Other than that, the thing was indestructible far as I can see.

I'd still like to know where they stored 10 days worth of film footage on the spaceship, and at least 20 cameras set to go off with "lanyards" as one NASA agent explained to us on this thread. There was enough film to have constant film footage, from any and all angles, and without one inch of film melting or going bad. And how many cameras did they have set up to be able to catch everything as well as if they had an actual cameraman following them around (which of course they DID have not only one cameraman but several).

Also, did you notice in the NASA agent's film clip posted on the first page how professional and impartial the newscaster was who interviewed Sibrel and the NASA guy Phil Plait (sp?) who runs Bad Astronomy? Isn't it nice to know these guys only report the news and never try to influence our opinions?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

I'm being so mean here the mods will probably have to come in and fine me and rescue the poor debunkers (ie "threadkillers so-called) working here for NASA. Don't you feel sorry for them?

It's not nice to be mean to the nice paid NASA disinformation agents.



[edit on 29-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]

[edit on 29-3-2009 by Salt of the Earth]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Please. What "shielding" was that? Aluminum? I hate quoting Wikipedia like they're the ultimate end-all to every debate, but this is based on a NASA research abstract:

I showed you that aluminum is not only adequate but IDEAL for shielding against the kind of radiation contained in the van allen belts. You didn't have a problem with wikipedia until it tore a huge hole in your argument.

www.radprocalculator.com...

The above proves wikipedia correct. Try 1.5cm of aluminum and then lead for a given amount of radiation. See how much bremsstrahlung you get. Aluminum provides several times the shielding that lead provides against particle radiation for panels of reasonable thickness.



Material shielding may be partially effective against galactic cosmic rays in certain energy ranges, but may actually make the problem worse for some of the higher energy rays, because more shielding causes an increased amount of secondary radiation. The aluminum walls of the ISS, for example, are believed to have a net beneficial effect. In interplanetary space, however, it is believed that aluminum shielding would have a negative net effect.


You changed horses. A minute ago your problem was with the van allen belts, this article is referring to high energy cosmic ray strikes. Cosmic rays are orders of magnitude less important than the van allen belt when it comes to short missions. Cosmic rays don't become a concern until you consider long term missions in interplanetary space. In fact, as your article points out, aluminum shielding is beneficial even for some cosmic rays in less than the highest energy ranges. Van allen belt radiation will naturally be far lower in energy than the highest energy ranges of cosmic rays, thus your article proves me right.


I simply pointed out that both physicists agreed that the astronots were exposed to a minimum of 25 RADs just from the inner Van Allen belts, five times the ANNUAL federal limit.

Already debunked through prior quantification to be less than 7 rads.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 





I'd still like to know where they stored 10 days worth of film footage on the spaceship, and at least 20 cameras set to go off with "lanyards" as one NASA agent explained to us on this thread.


Storing the film, moon rocks etc, Isn't a problem as they had the empty storage area where the moon buggy and the experiment packages were placed for the journey to the moon. Since they were left on the moon there would be ample space to store their gear.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit
Listen, Salt-of-the-Earth,

I'm new here, and, as online communities go, I'd say ATS is one of the more judiciously moderated forums I've seen, with very high standards of conduct and, I think, very little tolerance for trolling and flame wars.

Out of respect for ATS, and a desire to be a valued contributor of ideas, I feel I should really avoid getting into it with you any further.

You are, however, clearly a person who is so filled with beliefs about things that there's no room left in your head for actual knowledge of those things.

Belief is a poor, poor substitute for knowledge, and whatever whacko, quasi-Christian, covert-racist claptrap belief system you've bought into is a poor substitute for real spirituality, patriotism, or dissent.

And now I will try to be done with you, as I came here to poke fun at Bart Sibrel, as opposed to burdening you with the knowledge that you're making yourself look hateful and silly. I'm embarrassed that I'm even stooping to the level of writing these words. So...

Good day to you, Sir.


Brilliant - couldn't have said it better myself
10 points.

namaste.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

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


These guys say they are "scientific," but they want us to swap out our lead aprons for aluminum

As pointed out to you, the x-rays you get in a dentist office are not emitting the same kind of radiation you get from the van allen belts. Particle radiation is totally different from EM radiation. See the link in my last post and find out just what happens to your radiation dose when you replace aluminum in a spacecraft's airframe with lead.


and think it's perfectly normal to fly astroNOTs to the moon in a tree house made of ripped roofing paper and scotch tape held up by spider legs on foil-wrapped foot pads.

Literally. (see links to NASA pics posted earlier)

And the design is something that a 12-year old in Special Ed might come up with.

It's a dedicated spacecraft, it doesn't have to be aerodynamic or look sleek. In fact, all it had to do was hover and gently land in 1/6th of earth's gravity. The gold foil was for thermal protection, not structural support. Contrary to your preconceptions, biases, and assumptions, ungainly looking rocket-powered craft with spider legs can make for great landers.
media.armadilloaerospace.com...



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Salt of the Earth
 


Salty, I gota say , bringing up the Twin Towers , well thats just low. If you did a bit of digging you would find that it wasnt two planes hitting the buildings that bought them down, but controled internal destruction rigged , primed, and perfectly timed by the Powers That Be. Have a look around the old internet for a few days, you are bound to trip over the truth eventualy. Now THATS a conspiracy I can get behind.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 08:40 AM
link   

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


Salty, I gota say , bringing up the Twin Towers , well thats just low.

Acutally it's off-topic baiting and off-board. If you want to discuss 9/11 conspiracy theories there is, conveniently, an entire board dedicated for that purpose:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
If I wanted to hear those theories debated I'd go there. I can't contain my anger when I get onto that subject so I choose to stay off of it so that I don't get myself banned. This is not an invitation to bait me, this is a request that we remain on-topic and at least on-board.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by ngchunter]



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Check out www.apollovideos.bravehost.com


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



posted on Apr, 7 2009 @ 05:58 PM
link   
Great web page and links. I think we can honestly say without a shadow of doubt, those dodgy Moon missions were realy faked. Seems everbody was "faked out" by them in the 60's


-


Posted Via ATSmobile (BETA v0.3)


-



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join