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

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

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...


Scientific theory:
"The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge."

Falsifiable predictions:
"In the philosophy of science, falsifiability or refutability is a quality or characteristic of a scientific hypothesis or theory. Falsifiability is considered a positive (and often essential) quality of a hypothesis because it means that the hypothesis is testable by empirical experiment and thus conforms to the standards of scientific method. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false, rather it means that if it is false, then observation or experiment will at some point demonstrate its falsehood`

that`s what i meant, it`s not always solid, sure it works for scientists to improve or create something new, but it always and does prove to be false one way or another (not all of it, but with time most theories are changed)




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Then if you did it for the shuttle, why is it so hard to do for Apollo? It's the same thing. If you don't adjust for inflation, you're comparing apples to oranges.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Then if you did it for the shuttle, why is it so hard to do for Apollo? It's the same thing. If you don't adjust for inflation, you're comparing apples to oranges.


Listen, i am on the page with you now since that`s the only way to get through to you guys, but that also proves that it costs almost just as much to send people into orbit as it did to send them to the moon, that`s what does not make sense.

6 missions to the moon costing 1.5 billion dollars each (today's currency), sending shuttles into orbit costs 1.6 billion each, just does not make sense.
edit on 5-11-2012 by XaniMatriX because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


The shuttles are also re usable, why does it cost just the same as the missions to the moon, where the whole damn thing had to be tossed away and built from scratch. just doesn't add up.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
... 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.


Your standard of evidence is absolutely ludicrous.

So, for the existence of Switzerland to be stated as a fact, you, me and anyone else on this website has to have been there? You could say that the existence of Switzerland is a fact, but that would not make it so. You could say that you have been there, but do you have irrefutable, unfakable proof that you have been there - or ANYWHERE for that matter?

By your standard of evidence, the existence of any place (let alone an Apollo landing site) cannot be stated as a fact because "you or me or anyone else on this website" have not been there.



Ridiculous.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saint Exupery

Originally posted by XaniMatriX
... 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.


Your standard of evidence is absolutely ludicrous.

So, for the existence of Switzerland to be stated as a fact, you, me and anyone else on this website has to have been there? You could say that the existence of Switzerland is a fact, but that would not make it so. You could say that you have been there, but do you have irrefutable, unfakable proof that you have been there - or ANYWHERE for that matter?

By your standard of evidence, the existence of any place (let alone an Apollo landing site) cannot be stated as a fact because "you or me or anyone else on this website" have not been there.



Ridiculous.


Well that is just a terrible example, in reality Switzerland doesn't exists since it is a Legal Fiction, or in other words a corporation, the land that that corporation (Switzerland) is occupying is real, since i have been on it and my friends were born there, and since i know my friends then it is a a fact for me (provided that they are alive), i cannot say the same to you unless you know someone or have been there for your self.

For example i know the moon is real since i can see it and everyone else also, but i cannot make claims as to what it is and what it is made of since i have not been there and i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts, do you? if the answer is no, and you claim that the moon landing is real with only seeing images of it, then you are making a false personal claim.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


It actually does make sense, because a large portion of the cost of the shuttle launches was in refurbishing after the flight. They have to basically rebuild the solid rocket boosters, build a new fuel tank, overhaul the engines on the orbiter, replace tiles etc. That generally took months to do, the costs of which was added to the launch cost.

The cost of each launch consisted of recurring and non-recurring costs. During FY04 to FY06, they spent $13B on the shuttle program, despite it being grounded for most of that time. The cost of all the upgrades to the shuttles after Challenger and Columbia was added to the launch costs, etc. When you're looking at the launch cost for the shuttle program, it covers everything that was spent in the program.

In 2009, NASA had $2.98B in the budget for 5 launches. This included $490M for program integration, $1.03B for flight and ground ops, and $1.46B for refurbishing between flights. All of those costs were added to launch costs.


Per-launch costs can be measured by dividing the total cost over the life of the program (including buildings, facilities, training, salaries, etc.) by the number of launches. With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program

en.wikipedia.org...

The per launch cost is for the entire 30 year life of the program. The cost of Apollo was spread out over many fewer launches. Apollo had something like 20 launches, where the shuttle had over 130. If Apollo had anywhere near as many launches you would see a cost disparity.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

For example i know the moon is real since i can see it and everyone else also, but i cannot make claims as to what it is and what it is made of since i have not been there and i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts, do you? if the answer is no, and you claim that the moon landing is real with only seeing images of it, then you are making a false personal claim.



That's your personal philosophy, fine. If you don't believe in something you can't personally experience yourself then your life must be just one very large question mark of uncertainty. Have you ever been on a ship and feared sailing off the edge of the Earth?

BTW why do you think that people who believe the landings were real take their stance based simply on images?




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



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


but it's still around 25 billion for every decade, and i know it includes labor and test flights and facilities and what not, but that was going further, a lot further with more risk and dangers, maybe labor costs went up (not sure about that one) but it wouldn't make really big difference, all im saying is with more then 230 billion dollars in budget over the last 30 years or so, they could have made a huge breakthrough, which they did not. i mean you give me 230 billion dollars and ill make Britney spears into a virgin again



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


That's because just like with regular aviation, we've plateaued. It's going to take some kind of big breakthrough to see a huge change in space travel, and in air travel. Just look at the next space vehicle. We're going back to an Apollo style capsule because it's safer, and it's cheaper to build.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX...the land that that corporation (Switzerland) is occupying is real, since i have been on it and my friends were born there, and since i know my friends then it is a a fact for me (provided that they are alive), i cannot say the same to you unless you know someone or have been there for your self.


As I said: That is an absolutely ludicrous standard of evidence.

You may be having fun playing semantic and philosophical games. I can play them too: How do you know that you have been to Switzerland? You went to a place, and someone told you that's where you were. Unless you lifted straight-up a few hundred miles so that you could see that you were above a certain mountainous region between the Rhine River and the Italian Peninsula, then you cannot state for a fact that you you have been there. Did you make such a flight? No? Then stop trying to deceive people by saying you have been to Switzerland.

Wasn't that fun? Did it sound clever or was it just BS? See, those kinds of stupid, BS games will not help you (or anyone else) learn about the the world around us. It is just jacking-off.


For example i know the moon is real since i can see it and everyone else also, but i cannot make claims as to what it is and what it is made of since i have not been there and i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts...


That's exactly what I mean. A while back, some people invented something called "writing". It enabled information to be recorded, archived and even transmitted to other people so that they could learn the information without having to talk to the originator directly. In other words, you didn't need to go to a place or even know someone who had been there to find out details about that place. Amazing, isn't it?

Of course, the information could be wrong, either through error, assumption or deliberate falsification. However, society in general, and scientist in particular have useful methods of determining the veracity of information that does not involve actually going to a place and/or knowing someone who had done so.

They use a reasonable standard of evidence. If that standard is not good enough for you, consider the possibility that either your understanding of the strength of the evidence is inadequate, or that your standard of evidence is not reasonable.

Oh, and one more thing...


Originally posted by XaniMatriX... i don't know on a personal level any of the scientists or astronauts, do you?


Yes. My father has been on a first-name basis with Jack Schmitt for. He went to the Moon, brought back samples, studied them and published scientific papers on his findings. He was also kind enough to sign one of his books for me and my son. Thus, if you insist on defending your standard of evidence, then - by your own standard - I can confidently state for a fact that yes, Apollo landed on the Moon.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Saint Exupery
 


I am not playing games, and the plane flies over Switzerland, jesus you are being rude on so many levels. why take my own view on life and how i perceive it so personal is strange, my life has nothing to do with yours and vise versa, it is up to me how i see this planet and information that i receive, no one else, including you.

So only you can accept the landing as a fact, but you cannot make it a fact to other's, other wise your not being very considerable about other people's opinions.

And wtf, honestly so touchy, did my point of view and opinion hurt you in some way? why is it ludicrous, you don't see the way i see things all of the sudden it's ludicrous? don't need to attack me and make claims on me beliefs, i never said you people are crazy for believing the moon landing, i clearly stated, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE FOOTAGE THEY SHOWED US, never said you people are wrong, why you would do that to me is questionable.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


That's because just like with regular aviation, we've plateaued. It's going to take some kind of big breakthrough to see a huge change in space travel, and in air travel. Just look at the next space vehicle. We're going back to an Apollo style capsule because it's safer, and it's cheaper to build.


That's what i mean, why did they choose to change it in the first place? if there was nothing wrong with it, why drop a successful project, there are things they did after the moon missions that are very suspicious, and again i am not saying they didn't go there, just the footage they showed us is questionable and has been since the day it was made public.

I have my own assumptions, and there is many out there, soviet base, Nazi base, alien spaceship wish is literally the whole moon ect ect.. or perhaps the footage was faked to hide the actual purpose of the mission is to set up a base (U.S base)

And again, to the very kind gentlemen claiming my way of thinking is ludicrous just because they don't see the world as i do, all those are assumptions, and my mind is open to multiple possibilities, but that ash does look a lot like the dust on the moon, like i said, the way it lifts up and lands is very similar, it's always a possibility.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
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)


Okay I hear you. Listen, there hundred upon hundreds of issues with the moon landing. But all I need is one. Where's the moon dust? It's not on the landers landing gear, not on the lander, not on anything. With all that dust you think that stuff would get like "dusty". But no, everything is picture perfect with no dust on anything anywhere at anytime. That only happens in a hollywood studio. Real life is dirty
edit on 6-11-2012 by r2d246 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by XaniMatriX
 


Because a shuttle can carry more, could build the ISS, etc. instead of having to completely rebuild a rocket package, they had most of it already done quickly.



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
posting

for

futher review on Video for sound



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Could some please explain to me this part of the thread title?:

"Moon dust confirmed to be Fly ash"

Did I miss the part of the OP where he confirmed this -- or even provided any evidence whatsoever supporting the specific hypothesis stated in the tile??


In short: he didn't.



I was thinking about the samples that NASA gave to other countries.

Would NASA really give other people ash and say it was moon dust?

Could they not look under a microscope and find out it was not lunar?

Once again a simple lesson in logic is all it takes to debunk the OP's ignorant post.

What a out our enemies at the time? Were they quiet about the "ash"?

Wtf man seriously, I feel sorry for my children's children. What will the next generation of ignorance look like.




Remember NASA is not the only ones with lunar samples .......m...Kay........

ETA• I just wanted to state that my sarcasm was aimed at the threads original post.
edit on 6-11-2012 by liejunkie01 because: Eta



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

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.


Sorry far TO MUCH EVIDENCE that they did do it just because SOME people can't or don't want to understand that doesn't make it false!



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by XaniMatriX

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.



Tracked going to the Moon, tracked landing on the Moon, photographic evidence,various videos hammer and feather,the pendulum, the fact that people have tried to prove fake by altering video speeds and it didn't work!

Documented evidence taken on missions that can NOW BE VERIFIED by the LRO pictures, distance and positions of objects very small craters and rocks!

Pictures taken 40+ years apart that match.

I wasn't around when dinosaurs were about but I am certain they existed, wasn't around when first settlers went to say USA or Australia but I am certain that happened , if we could take Hoax believers to the Moon they would still claim it was fake I am certain THAT would happen



posted on Nov, 6 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by r2d246
 


TOTAL and UTTER BS the pictures have been posted here many times will dig some out for the LAZY hoax believers!





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join