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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 176
377
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   
Another recent mission that yielded some useful data was the Chandrayaan-1 probe and in particular the RADOM experiment.
Now lets look at the Van Allen belts again by looking at the image linked below, so to refresh our memory we have the inner proton belt and the outer electron belt.



Now let's take a look at the RADOM data as it travelled through both belts:
(Apologies to everyone bar Foos for the lack of scientific notation, but I have to try and make it as simple for him as possible to visualise so do bare with me.)



Source - Chandrayaan Website

We're looking at a 2.5 hour snapshot here as it traveled through both belts in it's orbit (which was substantially different to that of Apollo).
During each half hour period it was in the intense inner proton belt the maximum doses reached an incredible 130000 uGy/hr !
But wait.... That's microGrays so that's actually only 0.13 Gy an hour in the most intense region of the belt which Apollo basically avoided, but as you can see it would be nowhere near life threatening even if they had not.
Then you have the Outer electron belt, where the dose was only 40000 uGy/hr or 0.04 Gy/Hr.
So as one can see, the data received from the Bulgarian experiment aboard the Indian Spacecraft clearly shows that the radiation in the Val Allen belts is not life threatening at all over a small period of time. You could spend about 24 hours in the intense inner proton region before even starting to experience radiation sickness and that's completely unprotected.

To reiterate, with no shielding the maximum dose rate was 0.13 Gy/Hour and Apollo actually avoided the belts as much as possible anyway so even that was not an issue. Remember Foos belts, it's not called the 'Van Allen Sphere' for a reason.

Luckily modern scientists have this wealth of information available to them so they don't have to rely on ancient articles written when new theories were just being explored. What's next Foos? The four humors? Epicycles?

To help you out Foos I've made a deliberate omission in the interpretation of the information given. It won't change the outcome in the long run but you'd be stupid to not pick up on it, if you know even the slightest thing about radiation it's staring at you right in the face, so come on Foos - what is it? Foos?

[edit on 22-8-2010 by AgentSmith]




posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


dayum. Now that was some good piece of evidence right there.

But funny it still makes me laugh that it took them 10 years to go to the moon. Yet, they couldn't do it with the constellation program with all that technology now at their disposal and it took them more than 10 years and then in the end the constellation program got cancelled.

I am still saying this earth is a prison planet to keep the bad element in.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by FoosM
 


dayum. Now that was some good piece of evidence right there.


Right where?


But funny it still makes me laugh that it took them 10 years to go to the moon.


Hilarious. Especially when I think of all the men, both in the US and USSR who died developing the technology.


Yet, they couldn't do it with the constellation program with all that technology now at their disposal and it took them more than 10 years and then in the end the constellation program got cancelled.


Which is it? They couldn't do it, or it was cancelled? It can't be both.


I am still saying this earth is a prison planet to keep the bad element in.


And I believe we have and again will fly to the stars.


High Flight

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds - and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of - wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov'ring there
I've chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air.
Up, up the long delirious, burning blue,
I've topped the windswept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or even eagle flew -
And, while with silent lifting mind I've trod
The high untresspassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand and touched the face of God.


Pilot Officer Gillespie Magee
No 412 squadron, RCAF
Killed 11 December 1941



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Are you really too stupid to read and understand the various pieces of evidence that show actual figures of the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts and in deep space? These are all pieces of evidence not supplied just by one nation but by several and they all show clearly that space travel both through and past the Van Allen belts is not of any serious risk on short term flights.
Please, feel free to argue the actual data and remember to state exactly how and why it is wrong.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by FoosM
 


dayum. Now that was some good piece of evidence right there.

But funny it still makes me laugh that it took them 10 years to go to the moon. Yet, they couldn't do it with the constellation program with all that technology now at their disposal and it took them more than 10 years and then in the end the constellation program got cancelled.

I am still saying this earth is a prison planet to keep the bad element in.




Good point, though I would also add the VABs etc are also there to keep the bad element out. Not just solar radiation...


THE aliens are out there and Earth had better watch out, at least according to Stephen Hawking. He has suggested that extraterrestrials are almost certain to exist — but that instead of seeking them out, humanity should be doing all it that can to avoid any contact.


Also, I see that there has been some talk about the flag moving again.
This was covered pages ago, or at least brought up. And I see that many of the video's are a bit old. So Im surprised nobody had posted JW's last video on the subject since this thread is related to his video series.

Lets compare:

Here was JW's first video on it: August 04, 2008

Going through the 6 various options on how the flagged could have moved.
And believer's initial reaction to it to the whole affair.

part 2


part 3


Say what you will, JW's videos are very informative.
A lot more so than videos from his detractors'.

The responses:
Moon flaggin': April 10, 2009


More Moon Stupidity - Apollo 15 Flag: November 12, 2009


Now the rebuttle-
MoonFaker: Flagging The Dead Horses. PART 1: April 28, 2010






And the very important-
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement: May 07, 2010




Regarding the pole:
Recent video asking why NASA didn't simply use a tri-pod?


And my question, how in the world could that pole stay in the ground?


I mean the astro easily just taps that pole right in, so the ground doesnt appear to be hard at all.

But this is just a minor observation.

The moving flag is the big red flag.


You know if that video were part of a hollywood production ala Capricorn One, you would say the flag movement was a special effects blooper. But because you want to believe that what you see is occurring on the moon, you have to come up with all kinds of theories, some outlandish to explain the movement.

What I find amusing is that Apollo believers need YouTube as much as anybody else for explaining many of these issues. So I ask:

What is NASA's official explanation for the flag moving?


You know, that organization with all the top thinkers and degree holders of the world. What is there official word on it? They must know, why are YouTube videos used to explain it?


Flag moving in a vacuum.
I also want to point out this video from Myth Busters.
Because whether you believe in the hoax or not, this video clearly
has been manipulated though editing. And thereby would raise questions why.


The first thing I noticed was how quickly they would cut away from the flag moving.
1:00 they are in Earth atmosphere and the flag is clearly still moving, the quickly cut away.

1:49
here they show how a flag moves in atmosphere. Their claim is that the flag becomes stationary. Now I guess what they mean is that it doesn't flap, because the flag is still obviously moving when they cut away.
Second issue, how could the viewer know when he actually stopped flapping the flag? We cant see him from inside the vacuum.

2:15
The vacuum test.
Same issue, they say the flag is moving alot, but they cut away.
We really cant see when he stopped manipulating the flag and also how much effort he puts in doing so.

Now when they do the side by side test:
2:30
What do we see, the vacuum shot obviously sways more, but... by the time
the cut away about six seconds later, you can almost see that the movements are becoming very similar between the two flags.

The worst part is the ending where they challenge anyone to find a video of flag moving without a person touching it... well thats Apollo 15. That's the video they should have been trying to debunk. And Im sure they knew about it.

But now here is the real problem...
And someone posted a response to that particular video:


Maybe I am the only one who remembers that they put wires into the flag to make it stiff but give it the impression that it is waving in the wind. It was designed to look like it was blowing in the wind. Note in the film footage that it actually does not move.  You guys are so smart that you can't think straight....Mythbusters--you are busted for not doing your homework


And this is how I remembered when I was younger (and a believer).


The wire mesh is sewn into the fabric so that the flag will appear to stand out straight in the absense of wind. But, a flag sticking straight out from the pole doesn’t look natural. So, the astronauts often would extend the flag and bend ripples into it so that it looked more like it were waving. Look at video of the astronauts moving around the flag. It looks like it is waving, but it is frozen in position as the astronauts move by. It doesn’t actually wave. As it turns out, the flag didn’t really unroll as smoothly on the Moon as it did in tests on Earth, so the astronauts didn’t have to do much work to make it look like it were waving. It tended to look crinkly anyway.


So when I look at this video:
The flag stops flapping very quickly after the Astro lets go of it.
Very similar to the 'flag in an atmosphere'
demonstration by Myth Busters.


So now the whole flag thing is full of contradictions.

One the one hand, the flag shouldn't wave because its in a vacuum.
On the other hand it has built in wire mesh to make it not wave if it were in an atmosphere.
And the reason for making it out of a wire mesh is to make it look like its flapping... but then, if you have the wire mesh, why would you nee the horizontal pole if you are in 1/6th gravity with no atmosphere?
Wouldn't the flag just stay still no matter what?
Wouldn't it take a lot of inertia to make it flap or move?

It doesn't make sense. Why would they need the horizontal pole and the wire mesh... when they are in the vacuum of space? And with all that, we still see the flag flapping?

You get the feeling they were trying to create on Earth how a flag would behave on the moon.





www.timesonline.co.uk...
astroprofspage.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:39 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Excuse me, you're the one flogging the dead horse here. Why are you avoiding the radiation issue all of a sudden? Why do you object to a commercial television program cutting away from something but don't mind it when Jarrah White completely alters a video when he is caught lying? Do you see the irony in mocking people for posting videos when you seem unable to understand explanations in verbal form, and then posting a raft of videos yourself? You do gain a couple of points by summarizing key concepts of the videos in your own words, so I guess you are improving. Now: please get back to AgentSmith's point or admit you're clueless.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


As predicted, Foos dumps a major pile of "change the subject" arguementum ad youtubum and completely forgets the entire discussion on radiation. Then runs away.

Foos, what's it like to have to have other people make your arguments for you?

Also, did any of those videos show a flag moving without an astronaut (or any other force) present?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Predictable Foos - Don't evade the evidence I have posted in relation to the radiation levels in the Van Allen belts and within our solar system. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say I'm very interested in hearing your views on the recent data presented? You were the one so keen on talking about radiation all the time, so now I've given you some hard figures from recent space missions I think it's only right you should enlighten us with your views.
I also left a deliberate omission in my presentation of the RADOM data which while not making any difference in the grand scheme of things, is certainly something you should be jumping on right now. It's so incredibly obvious I can't believe you're not trying to make something of it.
Come on Foos, I'm trying to help you out here, it's not just incredibly obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of radiation but I've even told you about it. You can narrow it down to something I've said in one post. Come on Foos, show even the slightest glimmer of understanding by telling us what it is!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



You got something to say then say it.
Dont bother telling me what to remember.
You have some facts and figures to help figure this out, then please do.
If you can demonstrate where I made a mistake, please do. But vague remarks will not move this discussion further.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You guys crack me up.
You're not adding anything but air to do this thread.
I think thats your mission, to derail it to the point of no return.

You think any of the readers really care if I screw up on a few points.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your just complaining that JW used 100rem/hr.
He could be wrong, he could be right.
Either way, you have not shown that he is wrong.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Since TomB is bugging me that I didnt answer a question, I went back to see what his question was. And truthfully, Im confused.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

My personal favorite:


Big difference.

Top down please top down.

*edit*
oops, just saw that there was a top down being shown.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Can we get back to the issue at hand, FoosM?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by FoosM
 

That LA Times article does not seem to be available but the Kp index for that period of time never reached 4 (it did reach 5, minor storm level on the 18th, briefly). The Kp index records the level of geomagnetic activity. If aurora had been visible in Louisiana the Kp index would have had to have been pretty high and there doesn't seem to be any reference to such an event other than that for which you did not provide a source. Maybe you can find a direct source for us. Are you sure you don't mean March 16th?

Aurora Lights are Visible in Deep South

Source


spidr.ngdc.noaa.gov...

Please provide evidence of a major solar flare occurring during any Apollo mission. How about a source for that "major flare" count as well.

[edit on 8/21/2010 by Phage]



Did I miss some links?
Sorry, had to much text and text was erased:
RADS on skin:
history.nasa.gov...


Major Flares defintion:
iopscience.iop.org...


For cycle 19, a major flare is defined as a flare with a CFI 􏰁 6; for cycle 20, a major flare is defined as a flare with a CFI 􏰁 7. A lower threshold is used for cycle 19 because observations for determining CFIs were less complete during cycle 19.


Your link for it being a March flare is compelling.
I checked out the LA TIMES archive myself and I found the March sightings listed on the 24th. Also, I did not find anything for May. I also saw that LA times has March shortened to Mar... so I think my source confused Mar with May. And since news spread slower in the 1960's, Im assuming that the LA times were a little late with their news. I will let this one go and say that sighting was in March and not May. Good job.


That doesn't mean there weren't any flares in May, because there were (Ill get to that later), but that particular event surely occurred in March.

But OK. A major solar event occurred in March and two months later NASA decides to have Apollo 10 fly. Question, were there any long term effects on the VABs? Was this event not a warning for NASA? And of course, say that this event occurred during Apollo 10, would it have been deadly?

And it wasn't one, there were three:


Solar flares in three broad EUV spectral bands have been observed from OSO-5 with a grating spectrophotometer. Results are given for three large flares of March 12, March 21 and April 21, 1969.

www.springerlink.com...

OSO

OSO 3, nicknamed the "Sun- shine Satellite," flawlessly slid into orbit today to sweep up new scientific knowledge of the sun and help protect astronauts from the deadly solar storms that may erupt during manned flights to the moon and planets.


That said, was there anything interesting happening in May?

The Forbush decrease, 2–3 May 1969 appears to be caused by the interplanetary shock wave that was associated with high-speed solar wind plasma, and whose arrival at Earth was marked by the SSC that occurred at about noon on 2 May 1969.

We also found that the interplanetary magnetic field shock wave, which originated from the solar flare that occurred at 40° East of the central meridian at 0500 UT on 12 May 1969 at McMath Plage 10088, was responsible for the major event, the Forbush decrease, 14–15 May 1969.

ooo... just missed the launch. But again, is it smart to launch a spacecraft to the moon, through the belts, right after a major solar event?

What is a Forbush decrease? Here is what I found:

A Forbush decrease is a rapid decrease in the observed galactic cosmic ray intensity following a coronal mass ejection (CME). It occurs due to the magnetic field of the plasma solar wind sweeping some of the galactic cosmic rays away from Earth.


As a reminder, a CME:

Coronal mass ejections release huge quantities of matter, magnetic fields and electromagnetic radiation into space above the sun's surface, either near the corona or farther into the planet system or beyond (interplanetary CME). The ejected material is a plasma consisting primarily of electrons and protons, but may contain small quantities of heavier elements such as helium, oxygen, and even iron. It is associated with enormous changes and disturbances in the coronal magnetic field.

When the ejection is directed towards the Earth and reaches it as an interplanetary CME (ICME), the shock wave of the traveling mass of Solar Energetic Particles causes a geomagnetic storm that may disrupt the Earth's magnetosphere, compressing it on the day side and extending the night-side magnetic tail. When the magnetosphere reconnects on the nightside, it releases power on the order of terawatt scale, which is directed back toward the Earth's upper atmosphere.



This process can cause particularly strong auroras in large regions around Earth's magnetic poles. These are also known as the Northern Lights (aurora borealis) in the northern hemisphere, and the Southern Lights (aurora australis) in the southern hemisphere. Coronal mass ejections, along with solar flares of other origin, can disrupt radio transmissions and cause damage to satellites and electrical transmission line facilities, resulting in potentially massive and long-lasting power outages.[3]

Humans in space or at high altitudes, for example, in airplanes, risk exposure to intense radiation. Short-term damage might include skin irritation. Long-term consequences might include an increased risk of developing skin cancer


Ok, but do we have anything during Apollo 10?

I found this:

19 20 May 1969, an example of type III emission during the impulsive phase of flares



The Types II, III, and IV emission are all indicative of an active Sun that can affect the Earth's magnetosphere as a result. Generally, the more of these bursts there are in a given period, the more likely it is that Earth will be affected.


If Im not mistaken, I believe the flares on the 19th and 20th were considered major flares.

Again, Apollo 10 was launched May 18, 1969.


articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
pqasb.pqarchiver.com...:AI&type=historic&date=Mar+09%2C+1967&author=&pub=The+Sun+(1837-1985)&desc= SOLAR+FLARE+LAB+ORBITED&pqatl=google
www.sciencedirect.com... canchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1438131680&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=d998611dd0cbf3e9771acc1e2e37647e< br /> en.wikipedia.org...
son.nasa.gov...



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Clearly Foos has forgotten to read the data I posted both on this page and the previous one showing actual data recorded, including during CMEs

Reading isn't your strong point is it Foos?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Did I miss some links?
Sorry, had to much text and text was erased:
RADS on skin:
history.nasa.gov...


Once again Foos walks headlong into a closed door by not reading the links he posts:


Solar Particle Events

No major solar -particle events have
occurred during an Apollo mission (fig. 1).
Although much effort has been expended in
the field of solar -event forecasting, individual
eruptions from the solar surface are
impossible to forecast. The best that can
be provided at this time is an estimate of
particle dose, given visual or radiofrequency
(RF) confirmation that an
eruption has occurred. A system of solarmonitoring
stations, the Solar Particle
Alert Network (SPAN), provides a NASAsponsored
network of continuous data on
solar -flare activity. The various components
of this network are described in the
appendix. Approximately 20 percent of the
largest solar flares (importance 2 bright
or larger) will result in particle fluxes in
the earth/moon region that can be related
in intensity to early RF or visual characteristics.
A warning interval of from less
than one to several hours (typically, 2 to 4 hours) is obtained between the RF/visual indication and the appearance of particles
in the earth/moon region. Because only approximately 20 percent of the flares result
in particle events, it is not necessary to change normal mission procedures on the
basis of RF or visual observations alone. Rather, radiation sensors on board solarorbit
and earth-orbit satellites, as well as on board the Apollo spacecraft itself, are
used to confirm the particle event. Only after the appearance of particles is confirmed
would action be taken to protect the crewmen. For a typical event, approximately
8 hours would be available from the time particles are confirmed to the time of peak
radiation dose.

In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well-shielded command module, even the largest solar-particle event on record (November 12, 1960) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember functions or ability of the crewmen to complete their mission safely. It is estimated that within the command module during this event
the crewmen would have received a dose of 60 to 100 rads to their skin and 10 to 30 rads
to their blood-forming organs (bone and spleen) (refs. 4 and 5). Other estimates have
indicated that skin dose from this event could have been as high as 270 rads. Radiation
doses to crewmen while inside the thinly shielded lunar module or during an extravehicular
activity (EVA) would be significantly higher for such a particle event. The radiation
specialists at the Mission Control Center Space Environment Console, with the
assistance of SPAN and the other monitoring system described in the appendix, must
advise the Flight Director and Flight Surgeon of the radiation risks that would be involved
with the event. If doses are projected to be detrimentally high, it would be advised
that the astronauts not stay in the lunar module or perform EVA during this type
of particle event. Rules that apply to lunar module stay or EVA during such an event
are indicated in table 11 under the mission phases "Lunar orbit" and "Lunar stay.


On page 6 there's even a table that lists every possible radiological event, mission time frame, and what rule would be followed in that event.

You know, its almost like they knew radiation was an issue and took the time to make plans to deal with all eventualities.

And for what must be at least a dozen times, Foos' own source contradicts him.

It's actually a great resource (although I believe it was posted about 100 pages ago), check out the dosimeter readings for each mission.

DOH!



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 

You are mistaken. The "typing" has nothing to do with the strength of the flare. It has to do with the type of radio frequency emissions. It gives a clue to the source of the radio burst.
www.ips.gov.au...

Please provide evidence of a "major solar flare" (much less a high energy particle event) occurring during an Apollo mission.



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


and you wonder why are you people blind as to why we haven't gone then to space flight? oh it is too "dangerous" they say, but they proved everybody that it sure isn't "dangerous" if they went to the moon and back.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dragnet53
 


Oh dear God are you really that dense? The problem is PROLONGED EXPOSURE. Do you understand? We're not talking about a short term mission like the Apollo program, we're talking about months or years in space. PROLONGED EXPOSURE.. Do you actually not understand or is this just a game to you?
Have you actually read any of the reports on the dangers of Space Radiation in respect to future missions? Clearly not or your would have read that the problem is PROLONGED EXPOSURE.
I'll say it one more time in the hope it imprints into that single neuron firing away inside your head.. PROLONGED EXPOSURE.


Cancer risk analysis is applied to several exploration mission
scenarios including lunar station, deep space outpost, and Mars missions of duration of 360, 660, and 1000 days. At solar minimum, the number of days in space where career risk less than the limiting 3% excess cancer mortality can be assured at a 95% confidence level is found to be only of the order of 100 days. The current uncertainties would only allow a
confidence level of less than 50% for a 1000-day class Mars mission, this is considered insufficient for assuring crew radiation safety at this time.
spaceflight.nasa.gov...


[edit on 23-8-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Tomblvd
 


Originally posted by Tomblvd


Originally posted by dragnet53
reply to post by FoosM
 



Yet, they couldn't do it with the constellation program with all that technology now at their disposal and it took them more than 10 years and then in the end the constellation program got cancelled.


Which is it? They couldn't do it, or it was cancelled? It can't be both.


They could not do it AND it was cancelled. Both.

www.tallgeorge.com...
cache.boston.com...
bigpicture.ru...
scienceblogs.com...



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


What's your point exactly? You've posted some pictures of failed tests and accidents and somehow the conclusion is they couldn't do it?

That's about as logical as posting this:



And saying they 'couldn't do' the Space Shuttle. Are you saying that the Space Shuttle doesn't exist?

[edit on 23-8-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

What's your point exactly? You've posted some pictures of failed tests and accidents and somehow the conclusion is they couldn't do it?

These are not conclusions, but facts:


Originally posted by bokonon2010

They could not do it AND it was cancelled. Both.

Pictures have been presented as illustrations to the facts and to help you with the logic:


Originally posted by bokonon2010

www.tallgeorge.com...
cache.boston.com...
bigpicture.ru...
scienceblogs.com...



Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's about as logical as posting this:


And saying they 'couldn't do' the Space Shuttle. Are you saying that the Space Shuttle doesn't exist?

Explain how's your off-topic fantasies about what I could or couldn't say
are related to the topic.



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bokonon2010

Originally posted by AgentSmith
reply to post by bokonon2010
 

What's your point exactly? You've posted some pictures of failed tests and accidents and somehow the conclusion is they couldn't do it?

These are not conclusions, but facts:


What "facts" are you talking about? All I see are assertions.


Originally posted by bokonon2010

They could not do it AND it was cancelled. Both.

Pictures have been presented as illustrations to the facts and to help you with the logic:


Originally posted by bokonon2010

www.tallgeorge.com...
cache.boston.com...
bigpicture.ru...
scienceblogs.com...


And what do these pictures prove, specifically?



Originally posted by AgentSmith

That's about as logical as posting this:


And saying they 'couldn't do' the Space Shuttle. Are you saying that the Space Shuttle doesn't exist?

Explain how's your off-topic fantasies about what I could or couldn't say
are related to the topic.


Do you agree that the Space Shuttle exists and has flown in space?



posted on Aug, 23 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by bokonon2010
 


Photographs can be faked, as you yourself keep pointing out. If photographs can be faked, they are not evidence. Where is your evidence?



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 173  174  175    177  178  179 >>

log in

join