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: 516
377
<< 513  514  515    517  518  519 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
Your point about intuition is a good one, and I think it is at the crux of why this is such a wobbly debate. I think it applies equally on the science side as the wishful thinking side. We have a poor intuition about how things behave in a vacuum or under conditions of weightlessness or reduced gravity, or under light conditions outside the normal terrestrial range. There is some truly tricksy stuff, including the particular effect that causes the moon as seen from the earth to appear larger, or more uniformly lit than one would expect.


Intuition is a fine starting point for a line of inquiry. I have no problem with someone who looks at some of these things and says "Hey, that's odd". But the next words should be "What's happening here ?" not "AH HA the lying SOBs, I've got you now !!!". Most of the time hoax proponents have reached a conclusion before they've even had a chance to formulate a reasoned hypothesis re: the supposed anomaly. Now confirmation bias is a problem in any line of work, we all tend to accept at face value that which is in concordance with what we believe to be true. But the extent that I've seen by HB'ers, the disparity of scrutiny used to examine their "truths" vs accepted "truth" is too great to be explained by mere confirmation bias. It's become like a religion, wherein their viewpoint is to be accepted w/o critical thought or examination. No proof, beyond their word, is needed ... after all it's The Truth !

And all the while they neglect to see how tortuous any narrative would have to be to weave their "anomalies" into any reconstruction of what happened back then. While such a narrative might not be precluded by the known laws of physics (though it might be, hard to say until I see it), it's a lot less probable than the accepted story and all while lacking any defining proof. It wasn't sufficient for Relativity to be as good as Newtonian mechanics, it had to be shown to explain that which NM could not explain in order to become the prevailing, accepted theory. HB'ers need to find their equivalent of Mercury's precession.




posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lestweforget
The suspicious fire that killed Grissom, White and Chaffey combined with the obvious hit on Thomas Baron and his family stinks of a cover up.
The ten astronauts that died from "freak accidents" from 1964 to 1967 should be proof enough for any rational person the lengths to which the cover up went.
These men, murdered by those they served are the true heroes! Not these fakes paraded around by TPTB, liars!


Any rational person would tell you two things regarding your comment:

You are an idiot.

You should be ashamed of yourself.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priestis it emotionally important for the HB's to try to deny this accomplishment ? it's all very weird to me


Yes I believe it is ... at least it sure seems that way for JW. I don't understand how he gets from someone opposing his viewpoint being wrong to being branded as liar as quick as he has done it in the past, w/o it being of some fair level of emotional importance. Then again maybe it's all just a junior high debating tactic ... like most politics are these days ,.. brand your opponent as "bad" and then ignore his arguments.



posted on Jul, 14 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
This thread, almost certainly the longest in ATS history, has evolved from a discussion of the possibility that the Moon landings of the late 1960's - early 1970's were a "hoax" into a discussion of the very fundamentals of "Conspiracy Theory" and the requisite bar of evidentiary proof. Inadvertently well done!



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
You guys should check out these new moon hoax films just uploaded to youtube. They are awesome and worth watching! I just saw them and was stunned by them.

Apollo Zero

www.youtube.com...

Kubrick's Odyssey

www.youtube.com...

Apollo Zero makes some great logical points about why the moon landings were improbable and unproven. It is simple to follow and understand. It makes many compelling points and explains the psychology of scientists who face career suicide if they were to ever objectively question the authenticity of the moon landings. One of its valid arguments is that "If NASA is unable to send a man or monkey more than 400 miles above the Earth today, then how would it have sent men to the Moon 240,000 miles away in the late 60's and all the way back again?"

Kubrick's Odyssey is like a mind blowing thriller. In it, Jay Weidner shows many compelling clues that Stanley Kubrick left us in his film "The Shining" that tell the story of how he faked the Apollo moon landing footage and the turmoil he went through in his personal life when he made the deal with the US government that he regretted. That might sound crazy, but when you watch the clues unravel, your jaw will drop and you will be hooked. Whether you believe it or not, you will find it gripping and suspenseful. It is a masterpiece and has gotten rave reviews.

On Amazon.com, a reviewer wrote:



"5.0 out of 5 stars OMG! Your mind will be BLOWN! Kubrick was a genius, and so is Weidner!, April 16, 2011
By
PAPERCROSS - See all my reviews
This review is from: Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films (DVD)
This movie totally changed my mind on so many levels. The information is staggering. .

If you'd like to be broken out of the Matrix and see how far down the rabbit hole goes, buy this film and watch it three times at least? I am going to show this one to my friends to freak them out.

And another thing,
To see my favorite movie, "The Shining," taken apart and exposed as a series of secret messages from the director to the viewing audience was nothing less than brilliant, not to mention genius.
Multiple viewings are required to get all the info in this powerhouse of a documentary, it's super rich with great theories, visual evidence, and aha moments.
Every kubrick fan should own this film. I want the other two films to come out, NOW!?

The final word.....Awesome! "


Also, check out these interviews with Jay Weidner, producer of "Kubrick's Odyssey". They are mind blowing and way deep down the rabbit hole. What he says about Kubrick, Saturn, and the secrets of the elite will leave your jaw dropping, whether you believe them or not. They are very entertaining interviews and got me hooked. Totally out there.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
You guys should check out these new moon hoax films just uploaded to youtube. They are awesome and worth watching!


Why are they worth watching? Are they full of the same rubbish as the first set of video's you posted?



They are mind blowing and way deep down the rabbit hole. What he says about Kubrick, Saturn, and the secrets of the elite will leave your jaw dropping, whether you believe them or not.


No, they are just boring rubbish actually

You should get the title of this thread changed to "Young Aussie kid has no idea about the moon, physics or how things actually work and gets thrqshed by NASA"

as that is what is happening here!

Remember, Benneth is just a liar and a fraud.
edit on 15-7-2011 by spoor because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


More reviews from Amazon.com:


What was I thinking when I paid money for this steaming pile of [redacted]???
This film has no connection with the work of Stanley Kubrick. Using the name Kubrick is what lured me into purchasing and then wasting the 70 minutes watching it.
It is a desecration of the name, the work and the memory of a great artist.
If lunacy gets you off this should work.



I have a conspiracy theory of my own. Weidner faked the story of Kubrick's involvment in a lunar film hoax...because if Kubrick's name were not associated with Weidner's speculations, sales of his DVD would be negatively impacted. Bottom line: a big disappointment.



Perhaps Weidner's greatest leap of faith is taken in the first 5 minutes of the film, as he asserts that the Pentagon and U.S. government contacted Kubrick to fake the Moon landing. This assertion is based on two primary conjectures: (1) Because the B-52 scenes in Dr. Strangelove were so convincingly realized (at least for its time), Kubrick was the man for the job to fake the Moon Landing and (2) The U.S. wanted to fake the film evidence of the Moon landing so as not to reveal their state-of-the-art technology to the U.S.S.R. With this central premise, the rest of the film analyzes Kubrick's oeuvre in this light.

After making this audacious claim, Weidner sees no need to substantiate it with 3rd party evidence, and there are at least two ways in which Weidner could have easily bolstered his position: (1) If, as Weidner claims, the whole impetus for faking the film for the Moon landing was to conceal the technology from the Russians, why not get at least one of the presumably thousand of engineers that worked on the NASA equipment to state that the technology displayed on video and film broadcast to the public bared no resemblance whatsoever to the craft, etc., that they designed. (2) Kubrick's activity during the mid-to-late sixties is well-documented. Weidner suggests in the film that not only was Kubrick leading a double-life, privately faking the Moon landings, but that the time and effort required to convincingly fake the Moon landing was so labor-intensive as to drive him to the edge of madness. If this is so, show us the evidence that he was missing for long stretches of time, and make it certain that he was taking huge scheduling breaks from the pre-production and production phases of 2001, a movie that was known for it's extremely demanding schedule.


More here:
www.amazon.com...=cm_cr_dp_all_helpful?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&sortBy=bySubm issionDateDescending


edit on 15-7-2011 by DJW001 because: Edit to conform to T&C!



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable. They are obviously uncomfortable and depressed. Nearly every comment on YouTube below the video noticed the obvious. As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.

www.youtube.com...

Also, someone on my forum made this sensible valid point:

www.happierabroad.com...



There is no question in my mind that the lunar landings are fake, for one very important reason that many people often neglect. That is Cosmic Ray Radiation that is likely instantly fatal to astronauts. There is no material known to man that can shield these rays from the Sun should they take course towards our brave astronauts. Any means of detecting these rays would be useless, because by definition they travel at the speed of light, and there'd be no time to escape.

Astrophysicists today in articles make quotes such as, "it is amazing how NASA did this without adequate shielding..."

www.findingdulcinea.com...


Space Radiation Hinders NASA’s Mars Ambitions
September 17, 2009 02:45 PM (Click for citation)

by Anita Gutierrez-Folch
Faced with proposed budget cuts and a need for new technologies that would protect astronauts from radiation, NASA may have to put Mars exploration on hold.


NASA’s plans to send astronauts on an exploratory mission to Mars orbit may be shelved due to the threat of radiation. A White House panel set to review NASA’s human space flight missions “suggest[ed] sending astronauts to one of Mars's moons, Phobos or Deimos,” David Shiga reports for New Scientist. But the galactic cosmic rays outside low-Earth orbit “can slice through DNA molecules when they pass through living cells,” leading to cancer, Shiga explains.

(They never conquered the radiation problem. - )

According to the summary report of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee released last week, “Mars is not an easy place to visit with existing technology and without a substantial investment of resources.” Although the report referred to Mars as “the most scientifically interesting destination in the inner solar system”—echoing the sentiments of Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin at the 40th anniversary commemoration of the first moon landing—it concluded that Mars “is not the best first destination.”

If astronauts could reach Mars’ moons, they would be able to “use remote-controlled robots to explore the Martian surface and retrieve samples—from the planet as well as the moon itself—for later close-up study on Earth,” Shiga explains. Nevertheless, space radiation, composed mostly of protons and atomic nuclei, poses a real threat for astronauts. According to a study quoted by New Scientist in 2006, these particles actually “cause twice as much serious damage to DNA than [previously] expected,” exposing astronauts to grave risks of cancer and other diseases.

As Shiga explains, Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field protect people on the ground—and astronauts on the International Space Station—from the harmful effects of radiation. Radiation exposure during trips to the moon is also low: The missions are short and the moon itself offers protection from particles (how does the moon do this? A magnetic field of its own??). On the other hand, planets such as Mars, located beyond low-Earth orbit, are fully exposed to galactic cosmic rays and their destructive radiation. According to calculations made by Frank Cucinotta, chief scientist for radiation studies at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, a trip to Mars orbit would not comply with NASA’s safety rules for astronauts, which “aim to keep each astronaut's lifetime risk of fatal cancer from space radiation below 3 per cent,” New Scientist reports.




Here's a better article:

Space.com

www.space.com...

Lunar shields are necessary. Astronauts were extremely lucky.

Not like Apollo

Despite the apparent ease of past lunar exploration radiation-wise, such as NASA's successful Apollo moon landings, without adequate shielding long-term occupation of the moon and space exploration may remain out of reach, researchers said.

"A lot of people think about the Apollo astronauts, and that they didn't have much protection and were fine," Lane told SPACE.com. "But in Apollo, it was a very short mission and a lot of [size="6"]it was basically luck. I'm not sure how they managed to be so lucky, but I don't think you can count on luck on short missions for the future or trips to the planets."

Researchers have said that a major radiation event during the any of six Apollo moon landings could have been catastrophic to the astronauts who carried them out. But Apollo crews lived on the moon for days at most, while long-term mission will run much longer.

Radiation from galactic cosmic rays or solar particles, however, would be extremely likely to affect a long-duration stay on the moon, researchers said

In short, they still cant protect against this radiation. To me, that makes things questionable.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



You guys have got to see this one. Here is the one hour press conference after Apollo 11 returned to Earth. In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable. They are obviously uncomfortable and depressed. Nearly every comment on YouTube below the video noticed the obvious. As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.


As an expert in reading other people's facial expressions (and minds) what do you make of Jarrah White's?



Anger, frustration, fear, guilt... (And we're back on topic!)



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
In it, you can obviously see the sadness and guilt on the faces of Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they speak before reporters. It's undeniable.


What are you babbling about? There is zero sadness or guilt on their faces - why do you keep making this rubbish up?


That is Cosmic Ray Radiation that is likely instantly fatal to astronauts. There is no material known to man that can shield these rays from the Sun should they take course towards our brave astronauts


That would have to be one of the most stupid things you have posted, as if "no material can shield these rays from the sun" then how come humans live on the earth? This proves you have zero understanding of science or physics.


because by definition they travel at the speed of light,


Wrong again, why do you post that incorrect claim? How about doing some research before posting?


The velocity of cosmic rays can go from a small fraction of the speed of light up to about .999999999999 times the speed of light.

helios.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Astrophysicists today in articles make quotes such as, "it is amazing how NASA did this without adequate shielding..."

www.findingdulcinea.com...


You missed this bit, funny that!

Radiation exposure during trips to the moon is also low: The missions are short and the moon itself offers protection from particles


Again, do some research before posting



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 000063
 


That is nearly the exact definition of an Argument from Ignorance.


Are you sure? Foosm, at least in this case, isn't making an absolute claim. He's just saying that the picture isn't 100% proof that the weather patterns depicted in the Apollo footage were genuine. IMO, he's right, it's not.

There is a possibility that the picture was planted, however unlikely that might be.

There just isn't enough information available regarding the ATS III picture to make a definitive claim. Foosm isn't making any in this regard. I'm not sure this is a case of argument from ignorance . Is it?


The ATS III weather picture is yet more evidence, it isn't proof.

Note that those were my words you quoted, not Foosm.:

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.

His words can be found under the alias FoosMasoos in the video's thread on youtube.

I agree with MacTheKnife that if it were hoaxed, the hoaxers wouldn’t go through such lengths to pull it off. It’s not worth the risk and possible future exposure. In addition, it's expensive. If you were presumably faking a space program to provide funds for black ops, you would want the program to cost as little as possible. (The aim is to siphon off as much money as possible, no?)

edit on 15/7/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: clarity



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
As one comment said, these astronauts must have been under enormous pressure to go along with the hoax, because after what happened with the Apollo One fire, they knew that the consequences of non-compliance was death. So they had no choice but to go along with the charade.


Or they could have gone to the NY Times, like Ellsberg did a couple of years later, and said "Hey have we got a story for you !!!". So what would the NASA hit squad have done then ? Killed all 3 in some mysterious accident after the leak ? That wouldn't have looked suspicious, naaaaaah. Let's try to remember that these guys were willing to sit on top of what would have been the worlds largest conventional bomb should things go wrong. And things going wrong was not unusual in the early 60's, I doubt they'd have forgotten that. Someone threatening them would likely piss them off not scare them. (See I can invent other people's motivations too !)

So you can repeat this blather and maybe some sheeple will follow you but until you have something resembling evidence rather than pure conjecture, I won't be one of them.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Apollo Zero makes some great logical points about why the moon landings were improbable and unproven. It is simple to follow and understand. It makes many compelling points and explains the psychology of scientists who face career suicide if they were to ever objectively question the authenticity of the moon landings. One of its valid arguments is that "If NASA is unable to send a man or monkey more than 400 miles above the Earth today, then how would it have sent men to the Moon 240,000 miles away in the late 60's and all the way back again?"


You seriously consider the underlined to be a valid argument ? Seriously ?!? I'm unable to boat to England today. Not tomorrow either. But give me a year and send me some $$$$$s to buy a better boat and I'll do it. Sounds like an adventure. But my being unable to do it tomorrow doesn't mean someone else couldn't have done it years ago. It's not like it's an impossible task.

The question left unasked is "why". Why is NASA "unable" to return to the Moon today ? If you think it's because it can't be done due to some insurmountable technical hurdle, then state that hurdle. And support it with something stronger than innuendo.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by bansheegirl
reply to post by 000063
 
I will consider your points. They seem sensible. I will disagree with your characterization of Mr. White ( on the grounds that I suspect a milder explanation is in order for the discrepancies you perceive ) but will review the shielded / unshielded evidence again so as to be better informed.
Please do. DJ has a post on page 292 you may find illuminating.


Twice now you have put weight on how much time has elapsed since the landing. I will reaffirm that I consider quantity a poor measure for drawing conclusions.
Really? The sheer amount of scientists who have looked at the moon landings and found no problems with them vastly outweighs the hoax believers, who tend to have no real scientific training at all. On that evidence alone, the HBs start lagging.


A couple of examples may suffice to show why. It has been mentioned a few times in this post, and I believe rightly so, that there may be reluctance to explore the matter ( one way or the other ) while the astronauts involved in the mission still live, and while relations live who would suffer directly if those astronauts were discredited, or even dragged thrtough a pointless discussion that ends up proving the moon landings actually happened.
A nitpick. The commonly accepted narrative is that the landings happened. It's already "proven". What hoax believers are attempting to do is disprove it, and the burden of proof is on them. Bart Sibrel called Buzz Aldrin a liar to his face, and was punched in the face for it.


Also one would expect discriminations of discrepancies to build over time, not be equally apparent closer to the actual or purported events. One would expect a snowball effect of sorts and it can be hard to predict where on such a curve one is sitting.
And that has not happened. Many of Jarrah's talking points are the same ones, according to those who have been "mythbusting" longer than me, that have been used ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago. In fact, modern technology would likely be able to find more flaws in the official accounts, instead of confirming them, such as the JAXA missions have. There hasn't been one real whistleblower.



posted on Jul, 15 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by 000063
 


That is nearly the exact definition of an Argument from Ignorance.


Are you sure? Foosm, at least in this case, isn't making an absolute claim.
He does that all the time. He implies instead of stating, and when his implied point is defeated, he just dances away to a new one, asks loaded questions, or ignores it.


He's just saying that the picture isn't 100% proof that the weather patterns depicted in the Apollo footage were genuine. IMO, he's right, it's not.

There is a possibility that the picture was planted, however unlikely that might be.
Extremely. Less likely, in fact, than the missions having simply occurred.


There just isn't enough information available regarding the ATS III picture to make a definitive claim. Foosm isn't making any in this regard. I'm not sure this is a case of argument from ignorance . Is it?


The ATS III weather picture is yet more evidence, it isn't proof.
One more piece of evidence in a massive pile of it, yes.


Note that those were my words you quoted, not Foosm.:

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Since we can't establish that the weather pattern pic from the ATS III weather satellite were not also tampered with, they can't be used to prove the weather pattern 'fingerprint'.
Problem is, it can't be proven that they weren't tampered with, and it can't be proven that they were. Such tampering would not in any way prove the moon landings false, or prove that the other photos were altered.

Sorry if I sounded like I was jumping down your throat.


His words can be found under the alias FoosMasoos in the video's thread on youtube.

I agree with MacTheKnife that if it were hoaxed, the hoaxers wouldn’t go through such lengths to pull it off. It’s not worth the risk and possible future exposure. In addition, it's expensive. If you were presumably faking a space program to provide funds for black ops, you would want the program to cost as little as possible. (The aim is to siphon off as much money as possible, no?)

edit on 15/7/11 by ConspiracyNut23 because: clarity
I think someone worked it out, and opined that a fake landing would require more effort and expense to plan, execute, and cover up than a real one.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by 000063

Twice now you have put weight on how much time has elapsed since the landing. I will reaffirm that I consider quantity a poor measure for drawing conclusions.
Really? The sheer amount of scientists who have looked at the moon landings and found no problems with them vastly outweighs the hoax believers, who tend to have no real scientific training at all. On that evidence alone, the HBs start lagging.


You are very naive. It's been explained to you many times, that a scientist cannot say anything they want without consequences. If they challenge authority or the official version of things (e.g. global warming or evolution) they will ruin their career. So they tow the party line. Everyone knows that. Duh.

This is the real world, where power rules and determines censorship. Scientists depend on funding, and cannot say whatever they want without consequences. You are very naive if you don't understand that. See part 7 of the Apollo Zero film, where the narrator explains this.

www.youtube.com...

Ask Dean Radin. He will tell you about the many scientists who secretly confided in him that they believed in ESP but will not admit it publicly cause it will ruin their careers.

This is the real world dude.



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
He will tell you about the many scientists who secretly confided in him that they believed in ESP but will not admit it publicly cause it will ruin their careers.


garbage, there is no evidence for ESP, that is the reason scientists do not claim there is


This is the real world dude.


Yes, the real world, where proof is required by most people, where frauds like Benneth and Geller un away from the JREF $1million challenge as they know that they will lose.

The real world, where a woman who wants money to kiss you is a prostitute!



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 



You are very naive. It's been explained to you many times, that a scientist cannot say anything they want without consequences. If they challenge authority or the official version of things (e.g. global warming or evolution) they will ruin their career.


On the contrary, any scientist incompetent enough to believe in Creationism or deny the evidence of global warming (AGW is a separate issue, BTW) will find a much more lucrative career shilling for religious groups or political action committees funded by big business and other special interest groups. They can then have the prestige of being cited as an "expert", even as they reject the standards of their chosen discipline!



posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think the Japan Earthquake thread has more views, but yeah I agree


jra

posted on Jul, 16 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
You are very naive. It's been explained to you many times, that a scientist cannot say anything they want without consequences. If they challenge authority or the official version of things (e.g. global warming or evolution) they will ruin their career. So they tow the party line. Everyone knows that. Duh.


But not all scientists agree on global warming/climate change, so that pretty much kills your argument right there. I'm sure one can find more examples of scientists disagreeing on various subjects.


See part 7 of the Apollo Zero film, where the narrator explains this.


From the same set of videos that states: "If NASA is unable to send a man or monkey more than 400 miles above the Earth today, then how would it have sent men to the Moon 240,000 miles away in the late 60's and all the way back again?".

If the creator of this video series can't understand why we could go in the 60's, but not today, it really shows there ignorance on this subject matter. They might as well be arguing that the Concorde is a hoax, because we are unable to fly commercial passengers and supersonic speeds today.




new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 513  514  515    517  518  519 >>

log in

join