Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash waste product from coal power stations (Earth bound!)

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Here's my advice, if you've never actually gone to the moon yourself, then don't assume others have gone. Because there's too many holes surrounding the apollo event.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


I didn't say that it cost them $100B to do it, when it only cost them $20B. I said in 2000s dollars it would have cost $100B. There was a comparison to how the Apollo program cost $20B in the 1970s, but the shuttle was $450M+ per launch in the 2000s. If they are going to be compared, then you have to account for inflation, and put the prior program into modern dollars to do so.


But why? why would you do that. what do 2000's dollar bills have to do with 70's bills, i just don't see the sense in doing it. So how much did the shuttles cost in 1981? 450 million dollars, how much would they cost today? 450 million dollars, i just don't get it, i am sorry it's just so irrelevant.

and i have to say sorry, it costs roughly 1.6 billion dollars per flight for the shuttles
(today's currency) which would put them in total of around 210 billion dollars since 1981. (that's inflation added, since you wanna go there)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 




Look, back in the 70's you could buy a lot more with a dollar than you can today, a whole lot more.




Exactly, so today's missions are actually more expensive then in the 70's, which i think is a waste of money, they could have don't a lot more with that kind of budget then send shuttles into orbit doing maintenance which has seen no major break through since the moon landing.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by rolfharriss

We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



NO what we have established is that Moon Hoax believers really believe the BS they spout and try to convince themselves by repeating it and it also seem that science was not a subject at the schools they attended!



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Why are they incapable of any movement?


Heres what happened in a nutshell.

Moon landings proved impossible
Naughty Kennedy promised the world it could be done
Bang Bang Kennedy
Got to fake it.. and promise the astronauts it is a temporary measure to beat the soviets.
Astronauts did low earth orbit flights.
Moon footage filmed in vacuum chambers using scale models and dummies. Some shots used suit testers to be filmed in the dangerous vacuum chamber.. some met a messy end.

Public bored of space.. but # we didn't get to the moon yet!
Kill everyone and then kill their dogs. Bribe and control the rest.

It's 2012 and they still believe we went to the moon in 1969!? This is getting awkward.. How do we explain in 2020 when we get to the moon that it is completely different to the previous trips?! Well... delete old footage and start assimilating new information into the previous experience.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by rolfharriss

We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



NO what we have established is that Moon Hoax believers really believe the BS they spout and try to convince themselves by repeating it and it also seem that science was not a subject at the schools they attended!


Same goes for the believers, unless you were with the man that landed on the moon, you can't say they DID IT as fact, you would have to witness it first hand in order to make such a claim.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by rolfharriss

We have already established a scale model was used for the the lunar rover footage, so the size of the vacuum chamber is not as important.



NO what we have established is that Moon Hoax believers really believe the BS they spout and try to convince themselves by repeating it and it also seem that science was not a subject at the schools they attended!



This is not a science story it is a propaganda one. The sooner it is revealed the sooner we get to the moon but it should be a joint international mission not another propaganda coup



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Wrong on so many levels.

We are dealing in matters of verified data, verified by countless hundreds of thousands of academics and scientists worldwide since the sixties. Hoax believers are dealing in speculation, misconception, lack of comprehension(your failing to grasp what inflation means is a good example), pseudo science, and liars.

Do you know how many people worked on the Apollo missions?

edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Apollo was a joined international effort. Scientists from all over the world worked on the program. I find a certain fact about moon hoax believers becomes plainly evident time after time in these debates, that fact is this: they usually know very little about the Apollo space program at all.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by rolfharriss
 


Apollo was a joined international effort. Scientists from all over the world worked on the program. I find a certain fact about moon hoax believers becomes plainly evident time after time in these debates, that fact is this: they usually know very little about the Apollo space program at all.


It's possible that they did go to the moon, who knows. But those videos they show us are fake. So if they went and are trying to use those as there evidence it's not working as there's too many holes in them. Could it be possible that maybe, just maybe they went but that the footage was terrible or the film wouldn't work properly in those tempuratures so they redid the footage in a studio which made for much more suitable moon landing video?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


If they went and the footage sucked then it sucked, do you think the whole program was about getting good film footage?

Most of the people who believe the hoax theories can be summed up by this photograph:



Sorry it had to come to this.

Read though this thread from the beginning r2. You will see that the OP is either a troll or a bit mad, he ignores arguments, dodges questions and then makes statements like "so it's been established".

Put yourself in an unbiased position for a moment and think about it. Have any real arguments for faked landings been put forward by the OP?


edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Wrong on so many levels.

We are dealing in matters of verified data, verified by countless hundreds of thousands of academics and scientists worldwide since the sixties. Hoax believers are dealing in speculation, misconception, lack of comprehension(your failing to grasp what inflation means is a good example), pseudo science, and liars.

Do you know how many people worked on the Apollo missions?

edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


They are not verified, they even state that all the data is THEORETICAL and that they made ASSUMPTIONS, every scientist does this before they release something, because if they were to say IT"S A FACT, and new evidence were to prove them wrong, that would be very bad for them, but stating that it's an educated guess means there is room for error, and the publisher wont be at fault, that picture of the monkey's apply to both, and no matter how many scientists worked there they didn't all go to the moon, 12 people out of 400 000 hired employees, YIKES. and that also doesn't include you or me or anyone else on this website.

So unless you also have evidence of being with them on the moon, you cannot claim it be a fact also.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


So are you saying that when a scientist from some university somewhere gets to study a lunar rock sample he is forewarned that these are not real rocks but THEORETICAL ones?

You really don't have a grasp on this subject at all.

edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


So are you saying that when a scientist from some university somewhere gets to study a lunar rock sample he is forewarned that these are not real rocks but THEORETICAL ones?

You really don't have a grasp on this subject at all.

edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)


No that is not what i am saying, any study's he publishes on the rock are stated as assumptions or educated guesses, not that the rock is theoretical but what that rock stands for, and how it got there and formed ect ect...

you make claims as fact's which are not even yours to begin with.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


What "claims" have I made?



edit on 5-11-2012 by seabhac-rua because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


What "claims" have I made?


That the moon footage is real, you seriously asking me that?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


What "claims" have I made?


That the moon footage is real, you seriously asking me that?


Show me where on this thread I claimed the footage was real?

I have simply refuted the OP assertions that the footage was filmed in a 100 foot chamber, amongst other things. I have not come on here and made "claims" that the footage is real, I personally do believe it is real, but I have made no claims as such.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


No it wouldn't cost $450M today. It would cost a lot more. Look at ANYTHING that compares something from earlier, to now, and they adjust for inflation. As was said a few posts ago, all you have to do is look at how far a dollar would go in 1970 as compared to 2010. It doesn't go nearly as far, because of inflation.

Notice how this article compares Apollo to now.


Everybody knows that the Apollo program costs $20 billion in 1970s dollars—the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s money.


And Mercury and Gemini to now.


Project Mercury spanned five years (1959–1963) and cost $277 million in 1965 dollars, which translate into $1.6 billion in 2010 dollars. Since six Mercury piloted missions were flown, that amounted to $265 million per flight in today’s money.

As for Gemini, the program costs $1.3 billion in 1967 dollars during its six-year lifespan (1962–1967). In today’s money, it would amount to $7.3 billion, or $723 millions for each of its 10 piloted missions. We thus could say that a Gemini mission cost twice as much as a Mercury’s.


And Skylab.


After Apollo, there was the Skylab space station program, which cost $2.2 billion in then-year money ($10 billion in 2010 dollars) during its nine-year existence (1966–1974). Considering that three three-men crews spent a total of 510 person-days onboard Skylab, this mean that each day spent by a crewman costs $5.5 million. (We’ll compare this to living onboard ISS.)


www.thespacereview.com...

The value of the dollar changes daily. If you're going to compare how much something costs, you have to adjust for that change. What's so hard to understand about that?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriXThey are not verified, they even state that all the data is THEORETICAL ...


Add "theoretical" to the list of things you do not understand.

Scientific definition of theory


A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.
When used in non-scientific context, the word “theory” implies that something is unproven or speculative. As used in science, however, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning...


Gravity is a theory - yet it holds you in your chair.
Quantum mechanics is a theory, but if it were wrong, your computer would not work.
Relativity is a theory, but if it were wrong, GPS would not work.
The list goes on...



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


No it wouldn't cost $450M today. It would cost a lot more. Look at ANYTHING that compares something from earlier, to now, and they adjust for inflation. As was said a few posts ago, all you have to do is look at how far a dollar would go in 1970 as compared to 2010. It doesn't go nearly as far, because of inflation.

Notice how this article compares Apollo to now.


Everybody knows that the Apollo program costs $20 billion in 1970s dollars—the equivalent of $100 billion in today’s money.


And Mercury and Gemini to now.


Project Mercury spanned five years (1959–1963) and cost $277 million in 1965 dollars, which translate into $1.6 billion in 2010 dollars. Since six Mercury piloted missions were flown, that amounted to $265 million per flight in today’s money.

As for Gemini, the program costs $1.3 billion in 1967 dollars during its six-year lifespan (1962–1967). In today’s money, it would amount to $7.3 billion, or $723 millions for each of its 10 piloted missions. We thus could say that a Gemini mission cost twice as much as a Mercury’s.


And Skylab.


After Apollo, there was the Skylab space station program, which cost $2.2 billion in then-year money ($10 billion in 2010 dollars) during its nine-year existence (1966–1974). Considering that three three-men crews spent a total of 510 person-days onboard Skylab, this mean that each day spent by a crewman costs $5.5 million. (We’ll compare this to living onboard ISS.)


www.thespacereview.com...

The value of the dollar changes daily. If you're going to compare how much something costs, you have to adjust for that change. What's so hard to understand about that?



And i did, which came out to roughly 1.6 billion dollars per shuttle launch. which comes to 210 billion dollars roughly in the last 30 years.





top topics
 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join