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: 80
377
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Fantastic, the hoaxers are now going round and round in circles in their attempts to avoid explaining exactly how a hoax could have been executed.
-------
Thats not necessarily our job.
Its NASA's job to explain inconsistencies in their claim in landing a man on the moon.
Its only one country, one organization that claims this, it has not been repeated in the last forty years. So they must offer irrefutable proof.

When someone makes a claim, they have to be ready to defend it
Its as simple as that.


I'll ask again: Explain how NASA faked the live TV feed that was broadcast from the moon. There were 4 radio telescopes/tracking stations that received the feed from the LM.
-----
How many?
What missions?
Where is your link?


One was not part of NASA's official network, while another received the feed without NASA's knowledge at the time. The press watched the live feeds coming in directly at these stations before being sent to NASA. The Australian stations were run by the CSIRO, and not NASA.
------
Im sorry but cite your sources on this.
Name the stations.

So go on, explain the mechanics of hoaxing the broadcast, given that the signal was clearly received from the moon.
-----
It appears you base this statement on the one station that was not run by NASA.
Ok, well what if it was? Then what?



In late 1968 NASA had asked for Parkes to be used in the Apollo 11 mission. The giant telescope would be the prime receiving station for the reception of telemetry and TV from the surface of the Moon. Using it also provided extra gain in signal strength from the Moon. This meant that during the tightly scheduled first moonwalk the astronauts would not have to spend time setting up a large antenna to get the necessary signal strength.

The then Director of the Parkes Observatory, John Bolton, insisted on a one-line contract with NASA: "The [CSIRO] Radiophysics Division would agree to support the Apollo 11 mission".

At 6:17 a.m. (AEST) on 21 July, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin landed their LM, Eagle, on the Sea of Tranquillity. It was still some seven hours before the Moon would have risen high enough to be seen from Parkes.

Using a less sensitive 'off-axis' detector, Parkes was able to receive the TV pictures just as the LM TV camera was switched on. Less than nine minutes later the Moon had risen into the field of view of the Parkes telescope's main detector. Because Parkes was a larger telescope, it captured more signal and so produced better pictures. Houston switched to Parkes and remained with those pictures for the rest of the 21/2-hour broadcast.

The signals were sent to Sydney via specially installed microwave links. From there the TV signal was split. One signal went to the Australian Broadcasting Commission (ABC) studios at Gore Hill for distribution to Australian television networks. The other went to Houston for inclusion in the international telecast. Because the international broadcast signal had to travel halfway around the world from Sydney to Houston via the INTELSAT geostationary communications satellite over the Pacific Ocean, a 300 millisecond delay was introduced to the signal. Australian audiences therefore witnessed the moonwalk, and Armstrong's historic first step, some 0.3 seconds before the rest of the world.

www.parkes.atnf.csiro.au...

Ok so Im assuming your talking about Parkes.
Well lets so how independent Parkes Obs. really was or is.



'The Radiophysics Division would agree to support the Apollo 11 mission'. Financial return was to be $3,500 per day to cover costs at Parkes, plus $15,000 to cover additional work on the telescope.

For the tracking operations at Parkes, NASA provided the S-Band front-end receiving equipment. Also provided were tape recorders and 'translating' equipment for converting the incoming signals into a TV picture so that the operators could check that everything was functioning correctly.


So these guys got paid, and their equipment was supplied by NASA. I dont call that "independent". Not like these guys did this on their own, with their own equipment.




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The "moon landing hoax" concept was started by a bunch of know-nothing boneheads, initially. Unfortunately, they were clever enough to use just a bit of what's known as 'junk' science ("science" that seems plausible, at a casual glance, to the ill-informed/amateur) to give themselves the veneer of 'crediblity'.

Once that mantle was taken up by another bunch of boneheads who lapped it up (because they seem to be pre-programmed to gravitate to anything that smacks, even a little bit, of "conspiracy") the 'movement' was on, and more and more innocent, and clearly gullible people went along with it.

It is human nature to feel 'smug', and feel as if YOU, and only YOU have the 'secret' answer, and everyone else is wrong. Hubris, at its finest.

WHICH brings up this quote:


Originally posted by FoosM
Thats not necessarily our job.
Its NASA's job to explain inconsistencies in their claim in landing a man on the moon.


No....."you" (as in the 'hoax' lovers) DO have the full weight on "your" shoulders in 'proving' "your" claims.

Because, there is NOTHING 'inconsistent' in anything that NASA has in the public arena, regarding the entire manned space program. NOTHING.

'Hoax' lovers got that tick under their skin years ago, based on INCORRECT, and unfounded/uinfettered imagination.


I didn't quote it, but you aslo suggest that NASA (et al) "must' offer irrefutable proof?
See above.....



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
Claim #6. The sixth significant claim in the Moonfaker series (IMO) regards Apollo 13

Generally speaking, the Apollo 13 craft was in the sun during times where the cabin(s) were reported to be cold. The explanation is that the craft was oriented in a way such that very little light could be absorbed into the craft. Without finding out exactly how the craft was oriented in relationship to the sun throughout the journey, no firm conclusions can be drawn. If it can be shown that the craft was oriented in a position to pick up plenty of sunlight during the times in question, that would in fact put into question whether the mission was a real one. If it can be shown the craft was oriented where the CM engine bell was directly pointed at the sun for these periods where the craft was cold, there isn't a significant inconsistency. The Moonfaker series author didn't do the research to find out how the craft was oriented, so he should not be so confident in his conclusion.



Well let me put it this way, if the Sun was not an issue, then why put the CM in a bbq roll?



At this point in the drama the crippled Apollo 13, with the help of the moon’s gravitational force was heading back to earth. The astronauts hadn’t slept for twenty- four hours and were long overdue for their six-hour rest period. The rest period would also mean that the crew would be utilizing less of the mission’s critical remaining oxygen supply. Lastly, the crew would have to be fully alert during the critical re-entry maneuvers, so a well rested crew was imperative. On the other hand, other members of mission control were strongly advocating an immediate PTC (Passive Thermal Control) roll. They felt strongly that the PTC roll was necessary because one side of the Apollo 13 had been pointing toward the sun and one side had been pointing out toward space for a prolonged period of time. If they didn’t do something soon, they would, “freeze half their systems and cook the other half.” Others, however, contended that the remaining power on Apollo 13 was so limited, that they needed to husband all of their electricity for re-entry. Therefore, they could not afford to use the power necessary to execute the PTC roll.

The three-way argument escalated for several minutes, with each point and counterpoint more fiercely asserted than the last. Kranz said little throughout, mainly listening to what his three superiors had to say. Finally, he held up his hand, and they stopped speaking.

“Gentlemen,” Kranz said, “I thank you for your input.” The discussion was over, his decision made: “The next job for this crew will be to execute a thermal roll.
www.gov.ns.ca...

So how did the astros keep warm in the first place?



Nine minutes later, oxygen tank No. 2 blew up, causing the No. 1 tank also to fail. The Apollo 13 command modules normal supply of electricity, light, and water was lost, and they were about 200,000 miles from Earth.

The trip was marked by discomfort beyond the lack of food and water. Sleep was almost impossible because of the cold.

When the electrical systems were turned off, the spacecraft lost and important source of heat.

The temperature dropped to 38 F and condensation formed on all the walls.


Ok, compare that to this:



However, a problem arose because the air trapped between the meteoroid bumper and spacecraft surface could not escape fast enough during ascent; a pressure differential built up which tore the bumper off. In the process, the thermal protection on the spacecraft surface was badly damaged, and one of the two big solar panels was torn off.

As a result, the electric power available for Skylab operation was substantially curtailed, and the interior of Skylab heated up to dangerous levels under the solar heat influx.

A frantic effort immediately began on Earth by Marshall, Johnson, and several of the industrial firms to repair the damage as far as possible. This work was organized and led by Rocco Petrone, at that time director of the Marshall Center. A sunshield was built that could be deployed by astronauts like a closed umbrella through one of the airlocks provided for scientific instruments. Launching of the first astronauts was delayed a few days, but they succeeded in bringing the temperature inside the overheated Skylab back to normal with the help of the sunshield, and they managed to get the normal operational procedures going on the reduced electric power level...

Besides all these accomplishments, there was the assurance for the space engineers that it is really possible to repair a badly damaged spacecraft in orbit (:puz
, and to restore it to almost normal functioning.
www.astrodigital.org...


So to summarize:



Space is supposed to be at absolute zero. Anything directly in the sunshine heats up incredibly. Skylab overheated when one of its solar panels failed to deploy properly, yet Apollo 13, in direct sunlight and in a lethal radiation zone, supposedly got cold! On the launch pad the ship is air conditioned from ground services. In space the ship is air conditioned (powered by fuel cells), if you turn off that air conditioner the ship gets cold!

At least that is what NASA's line of logic dictates. Apollo 17's LEM sat on the Moon in the direct sun for 75 hours straight. Without massive power and refrigeration units the only way to cool the LEM would have been with the explosive cooling of water. Many tons would have been necessary for that time period. The astronauts reported that the LEMs were "too cold to sleep in." How cold would your closed car be after 75 hours of direct sunlight (or even 1 hour)?



The russians had the same issue:



Laika was launched into space on November 3, 1957 and died a few hours later from overheating.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Thats not necessarily our job.
Its NASA's job to explain inconsistencies in their claim in landing a man on the moon.
Its only one country, one organization that claims this, it has not been repeated in the last forty years. So they must offer irrefutable proof.


What inconsistencies?

The only "inconsistencies" are those who have no background in astronomy, physics, photography, ect. who don't understand why things look different than they would expect.

Your lack of education is not NASA's fault.


So we are still waiting Foos, how were the Apollo mission transmissions faked? If you are going to claim they were "prerecorded", you'll have to get more in depth than just saying that.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin


So where are those "new arguments"??

I've read most of the "HOax!"-claims in this thread back in the 90's. I have not read one argument against the moon landings that hasn't been around since... ever...


Well you just wrote a useless post right?
You read MOST but you haven't read ONE.
Well keep on reading till you read ALL of it.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM


Well let me put it this way, if the Sun was not an issue, then why put the CM in a bbq roll?



The problem is that, a close as I can tell, absolutely nothing you posted after that statement is you own thoughts. It is all cut-and-pasted from one place or another, and therefore, have very little meaning.

Why not, for a change, tell us, in your own words, what the thermodynamic properties of Skylab and Apollo 13 both were, and how they mean anything to the discussion at hand?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   


There have been many books questioning the official story of a dead Moon, visited only by a few handpicked humans catapulted there in fancy tin cans.

Not necessarily in order of appearance, some of these titles are:

Somebody Else Is On The Moon by George H. Leonard, who claims huge mining machines are moving about on the lunar surface;

Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon and Secrets of our Spaceship Moon both by Don Wilson, who claims that the Moon is a giant artificial spaceship and is still inhabited;

The Moon: Outpost of the Gods by Jean Sendy, who claims that extraterrestrials used the Moon as an Earth observation post and became the gods of old as they interfered with human development;

Flying Saucers on the Moon by Riley Hansard Crabb, who claims that the Moon is a flying saucer base, and goes on to describe moving lights and changing craters recorded by orthodox astronomers in the 1700s and 1800s;

Moongate: Suppressed Findings of the U.S. Space Program by William L. Brian II, who claims that the Moon has a heavy gravity (75 percent of Earth's) and atmosphere, and that a top secret antigravity propulsion system was necessary to get on and off the Moon;

We Discovered Alien Bases on the Moon by Fred Steckling, which shows quite a number of startling NASA photos indicating vegetation, clouds and domed structures on the Moon. Steckling claims we discovered aliens already there when we got there, and that NASA just couldn't bear to tell us poor, common mortals this astounding news;

Extraterrestrial Archaeology by David Hatcher Childress, who claims that the Moon is long inhabited and that Mercury, Venus, Mars and some of the moons of the outer planets show signs of current or past inhabitation;

We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle! by Bill Kaysing and Randy Reid;

NASA Mooned America! by Rene, the last two books dealing with a mass of discrepancies in NASA's public output which the authors take to mean that the Moon shots were faked.


Why is this happening? Well because NASA's story about its adventures with Apollo just dont add up. Its causing all kinds of theories to pop up.

Take this extensive study for example, and I would like to see someone debunk it:
Video Analysis of an Anomalous Image Filmed during Apollo 16:



Abstract—Video data of NASA Film CL-862 showing a saucer-shaped object moving in an unusual trajectory above the moon is examined. It is alleged by Donald B. Ratsch that footage was taken by John W. Young, who was spacecraft commander during the Apollo 16 mission, as the spacecraft ap- proached the moon. Image analysis is performed to determine if the object in question is Earth as claimed by Karsten Voigt, even though James Oberg, who also thought it was Earth, has retracted that explanation because of work by Jack Kasher.

Our analysis indicates that the object is neither Earth, the command module, or debris. Our analysis shows that the footage was not obtained when Apollo 16 was approaching the moon. We have shown this by using the age of the moon in the film scene. We show that the footage was obtained when Apollo 16 was leaving the moon. This analysis is supported by corroborative data of metric camera images AS16-M-3051, -3052, and -3053, even though there were no metric photos taken at the same time as the CL-862 footage.

We believe that the object is a huge extraterrestrial artifact. This will be a controversial hypothesis. Although this is the only hypothesis that is consistent with the data, it may be at the same time seemingly unacceptable for most SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researchers because they tend to reject the idea that a UFO could be an extraterrestrial spaceship.

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...


Or what about the Blue-Glowing Astronauts ??



Here is a study done by James DeMeo, PhD



INTRODUCTORY NOTE: I wish to state from the very start, my deepest admiration and appreciation for the NASA engineers and scientists, and the astronauts themselves, who have opened the doors, and our imaginations... My discussion below will surely raise controversy in the scientific interpretation of several interesting NASA photographs as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission. However, my discussion and arguments here are no claim of any "conspiracy theory". So far as I can tell, there has been no effort at conscious concealment or hiding of anything by NASA. But there is very clear evidence that some of the blue colors photographed on the lunar surface were "unexpected", and later removed or "photoshopped" out for subsequent internet publication!

While it is true that we may not have firm evidence to conclusively prove that these two blue-glowing Apollo photos are evidence for a luminating plasma-like orgone energy "life-field" of the astronauts, it is reasonable to speculate that this is so. The case in favor of the life-energy-field explanation is strengthened in consideration that all of the various explanations offered by classical science -- of Sun glare, Lunar dust, water-vapors and dust-smudges -- fail upon closer examination.

But also I should say, and hope someone with authentic scientific knowledge in the Bad Astronomy group might read this, or pass it along to them: Authentic scientific discussions cannot take place within forums where the overwhelming majority of participants are hiding their real identity behind pseudonyms, and hence feel unrestrained to throw out contempt and ridicule. And no "scientist" or authentic student ever learned anything new by hanging out on internet forums with jackasses and hyenas... If Goddard was alive and doing his early experiments in rocketry today, would these same "Bad Astronomy" arm-chair experts be ridiculing, hee-hawing, and making the same kind of know-it-all put-downs of him? It appears so.
www.orgonelab.org...

Anybody want to debunk his findings?

I guess it was bad enough for NASA UFO debunker James E. Oberg back in 1979 to make a video presentation called "Photo Aberrations, Debris, and UFOs."
www.jamesoberg.com...

To put a spin on all these anomalies




posted on May, 30 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


The answer to your questions are easy did you ever look at the design of the command module vs sky lab. Do some research and all your questions will be answered. ill give you a clue if you like look at the accident it damaged the outer coating of skylab. Had this not happened there would have not been any heating issues .


Ps Skylab and the command module were designed to not retain thermal heat ill let you find out how.



[edit on 5/30/10 by dragonridr]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr
reply to post by FoosM
 


The answer to your questions are easy did you ever look at the design of the command module vs sky lab. Do some research and all your questions will be answered. ill give you a clue if you like look at the accident it damaged the outer coating of skylab. Had this not happened there would have been any heating issues .


Ps Skylab and the command module were designed to not retain thermal heat ill let you find out how.

[edit on 5/30/10 by dragonridr]


Save your pixels. Foos has proven time and again he is incapable of independent thought. Just look at his posts. Every one of them are either youtube or other videos, posted without comment, or cut-and-paste paragraphs taken from other hoax sites.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   




So if the moon landing was all faked, then these videos were faked too. There, de-bunked? Which is it? Did they go or not? You won't even commit to that question. All you do is quote other people all of whom contradict each other.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by zvezdar

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1


The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...


This is the suggestion i already provided in my post. So if they went to the trouble of landing the LM on the moon to fake the broadcast, why wouldnt they have stuck a couple of humans in it and landed for real?

NASA did not control the feed, as i already stated it was received by parties that were not NASA controlled or operated. The pictures broadcast in Australia did not go to NASA prior to broadcast.

Got anything else?


They wouldn't have had to land a LM on the moon to fake a broadcast. Maybe that's too simple for you to understand? No?

All the tracking stations were part of NASA's Deep Space Network. No independent verification, and NASA did control the feed and broadcasts. Perhaps you should watch Jarrah's latest video to get that through your head

And again, the reason they couldn't just put some men on the moon, in the first place goes back to the number one reason...RADIATION. Even Van Allen himself documented the fact that manned space exploration within and beyond the radiation belts would require the developing proper shielding. This is pretty simple stuff for anyone with the capacity to understand the dangers of radiation. Perhaps you should consult some elderly Japanese people, residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or even patients who have developed cancer from measly low-dose radiation treatments, or medical scans.

Doh!



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1


They wouldn't have had to land a LM on the moon to fake a broadcast. Maybe that's too simple for you to understand? No?

All the tracking stations were part of NASA's Deep Space Network. No independent verification, and NASA did control the feed and broadcasts. Perhaps you should watch Jarrah's latest video to get that through your head


Jarrah is completely clueless. There was plenty of independent tracking of the Apollo missions.

Telescopic Tracking of the Apollo Missions

Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station

Jodrell Bank Observatory

Numerous Ham Radio Operators

And I could go on, but your point is essentially nullified.


And again, the reason they couldn't just put some men on the moon, in the first place goes back to the number one reason...RADIATION. Even Van Allen himself documented the fact that manned space exploration within and beyond the radiation belts would require the developing proper shielding. This is pretty simple stuff for anyone with the capacity to understand the dangers of radiation. Perhaps you should consult some elderly Japanese people, residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or even patients who have developed cancer from measly low-dose radiation treatments, or medical scans.

Doh!


Before you embarrass yourself further, you might want to read a bit about radiation. You should start with the different types of radiation that exist.

Here's a hint: The radiation present in the VA Belts have nothing in common with the radiation present in atomic bombs or nuclear reactors.

Anybody who paid attention in high school physics class knows this.

Doh! Indeed.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Un4g1v3n1
 


BTW, you never bothered to answer how they could manage to prerecord an entire mission prior to launch. How, exactly did it work?



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I wont go into a long drawn out explanation for this. The reported UFO in the video was explained my NASA so ill just direct you to there page.
No ufo



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
Even Van Allen himself documented the fact that manned space exploration within and beyond the radiation belts would require the developing proper shielding.


And just to rub salt in the wounds, here is a quote on the claims made about the VA belts in regard to the Apollo missions by the very same Dr. Van Allen:


"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen


And at no time has Dr. Van Allen ever questioned the ability of the Apollo astronauts to get to the moon.

Live by argument by authority, die by argument by authority....

Doh! Again.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Erm. I think you may have missed the point of the post...
Linnia II



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by dragonridr
 


Erm. I think you may have missed the point of the post...
Linnia II


Sorry i replied to your post i know what you were getting at meant to reply to foos.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1

The answer is so obvious, I am amazed no one has yet supplied it. An unmanned craft with pre-recorded broadcasts. But since NASA controlled the feed, and broadcast to the general public, even that wasn't necessary.

Pretty simple stuff. I'm sure even the most loyal Apollogist should be able to GET IT...


I might if you'd be a bit more specific and fill in a few general details:

1. Which missions were faked this way? I would assume any missions that left Low Earth Orbit, so that would begin with Apollo 8, then include all missions from Apollo 10 to 17 ... 9 missions in all, right?

2. Which transmissions were faked? All of them? Or only the portions that are reported as being beyond Low Earth Orbit?

3. Where were the astronauts all this time? I've heard everything from 'they never left the pad' to 'they landed on the Moon and found ETs'. I take it you're making a case that they never left LEO ... at best ... but where DID they go?

4. If the astronauts didn't go to the moon, what did? Three Saturn-V stages, a CSM and a LM for each mission. Where did all that stuff end up?

If, as you say, it's 'pretty simple stuff', it shouldn't take you too long to come up with an outline that covers at least these basic details.

Thanks in advance. Really appreciate it.



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Nice response, especially the part about:


Here is a study done by James DeMeo, PhD


Which includes:


My discussion below will surely raise controversy in the scientific interpretation of several interesting NASA photographs as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission.


So Dr. Demeo states that these pictures were taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission. He has some claims to make about them, which I have no interest in discussing at this time. Nevertheless, let's refocus on:


as taken on the lunar surface during the Apollo 12 mission


So your own source states clearly that the landings were a reality. I have no interest in arguing orgone energy fields right now, but I'm impressed that the PhD ... PhD, mind you, and I'm sure you brought it up because of that 'qualification' ... that you quote as an authority bases his research on interpretations of photographs of astronauts on the moon.

You finally quoted someone with a doctorate, and he says the astronauts were on the moon. Any thoughts?

[edit on 31-5-2010 by torch2k]


jra

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Un4g1v3n1
They wouldn't have had to land a LM on the moon to fake a broadcast. Maybe that's too simple for you to understand? No?


Where would it go then? Because, if you wanted to fake a signal coming from the Moon you would want it on the surface. It wouldn't work if it were just coming from Lunar orbit, as you'd loose the signal for an hour every other hour. The EVA's went on with the audio for many hours straight. So it would need to land.


Perhaps you should consult some elderly Japanese people, residents of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, or even patients who have developed cancer from measly low-dose radiation treatments, or medical scans.


It's clear that you haven't looked into the different kinds of radiation that are out there. The radiation that comes from Nuclear bombs and reactors is not the same as the radiation in the Van Allen belts. You should really read up on the different kinds that are out there before making claims such as yours.


Doh!


"D'oh!" indeed...




top topics



 
377
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join