|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Have Americans landed on the moon? |
| Of course, numbnuts! |
|
73% |
[ 65 ] |
| Not a chance, it was faked! |
|
26% |
[ 24 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 89 |
|
| Author |
Message |
betchay
Joined: 23 Aug 2005
Location: Seoul
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| after seeing the documentary about the moon landing hoax, a friend referred this website to me http://www.clavius.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Yes, but how far in space? In a high Earth orbit?
This really doesn't prove anything. |
Could you be more specific? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
* Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions (example" the pic with a "C" on one of the rocks, a "C" used in film studios to signify the centre). Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? An explanation I've read for the "C"-rock is it's a hair, a hair nevertheless that was removed retrospectively thus giving credence to the observation of the C-rock in the first place.
* Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.
* Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue the makers of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" if they showed it to anyone. He also punched the director in the face.
* The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly left the moon with astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous.
* In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was a shambles. All of the problems were supposedly fixed just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit?
* All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon. This clip, shown in "Apollo 11 Monkey Business" and explained in "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon", proves they did not leave low-earth orbit. The Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled for some odd reason.
* it would have been impossible for NASA to have made it all the way to the moon. There is no way to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. We have to remember that this is the same Government organization that could not properly aim the Hubble Telescope without the aid of Space Shuttle astronauts, but expects us to believe that 32 years ago, on their first attempt, NASA was able to launch astronauts into space, put a man on the moon, and bring him back to earth safely.
* very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have "tens of thousands of people" working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event.
* What about the moon rocks? While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs in the world), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of a moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?)
* Why hasn't someone come forward? Would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscience is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.
* What about laser reflectors on the moon (allegedly left by Apollo) that scientists bounce light beams off? The reflectors were dropped there by unmanned probes. It should also be noted that the moon's surface will naturally reflect signals; communications were carried out as early as the 1950s by bouncing signals off of the moon.
* They claim to have gone 240,000 miles in 1969. However, since 1972 no one has gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. This is a case of the scientists of the world not doing their jobs. The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Never happened before, that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
some waygug-in
Joined: 25 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 11, 2005 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| some waygug-in wrote: |
Yes, but how far in space? In a high Earth orbit?
This really doesn't prove anything. |
Could you be more specific? |
Considering that there probably have been some improvements in the design and safety of spacecraft since the apollo days this really doesn't prove that they went any further into space at all. In fact, it is exactly what we would expect to see.
Crews from the Apollo missions were exposed to more cosmic radiation because they were in poorer designed, less safe craft. Doesn't it make you wonder why the shuttle crews don't go higher than 400 miles? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I'll play. This could be fun. 
| SPINOZA wrote: |
* Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions (example" the pic with a "C" on one of the rocks, a "C" used in film studios to signify the centre). Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon? An explanation I've read for the "C"-rock is it's a hair, a hair nevertheless that was removed retrospectively thus giving credence to the observation of the C-rock in the first place.
* Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect. |
I think it would be prudent to ignore any so-called "photographic" evidence of a conspiracy and concentrate on the non-photograpic aspects, because by now it's obvious to everyone that we're living in the era of Photoshop. Who knows how a photo's been doctored or what's been placed in it.
Besides, I know next to nothing about the physics of photography and lighting, especially in the space environment...and I suspect most of the conspiracy proponents know next to nothing about it as well...
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| * Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue the makers of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" if they showed it to anyone. He also punched the director in the face. |
That's a strange statement. It's either a mistake or an out-and-out lie. If you do a google search for "Neil Armstrong" and "interview", you can see dozens of links to interviews that Armstrong has done:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Neil+Armstrong+interview
Edwin Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face in 2002, when he was acting in self-defense:
| Quote: |
According to a combination of witness statements and snippets of videotape, Sibrel ambushed the unsuspecting Aldrin and Aldrin's daughter as they were coming out of the Luxe Hotel on Rodeo Drive. Sibrel then shoved a Bible at him demanding that Aldrin swear he had actually been to the Moon. This was all staged for the benefit of Sibrel's hired TV crew, apparently to be included in Sibrel's next hoax conspiracy reel for infotainment television.
Other witnesses said Sibrel used confrontational tactics such as calling Aldrin a fraud and a liar while shoving the Bible forward. Even the tape from Sibrel's own crew shows the taller Sibrel, age 37, menacing the shorter Alrin, age 72, as this supposed "journalist" shouts directly in Aldrin's face.
Witnesses and the tape agree that Aldrin punched Sibrel in the face. Aldrin said he acted in self-defense and most sane people would agree.
http://www.upi.com/inc/view.php?StoryID=20020928-120235-5603r |
You'll note in the above link that the LA DA's office declined to file a misdemeanor battery charge against Aldrin, saying that he acted in self-defense.
And in any case, how does Aldrin punching out a punk like Sibrel proof that he didn't go to the moon?
| Quote: |
| * The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly left the moon with astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. |
Is there some basis for your statement? I looked into your claim and found a very good discussion of the stability and flight characteristics of the LM Ascent Stage here:
http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html
| Quote: |
| * In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was a shambles. All of the problems were supposedly fixed just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit? |
Now you're contradicting yourself. You readily claim in the next paragraph that "All Apollo missions stayed in low-Earth orbit for the duration of the trip." Even if the Apollo missions had never left Earth orbit, by your own admission the problems WERE fixed just two years later.
| Quote: |
| * The Soviets did not have the capability to track deep spacecraft until late in 1972, immediately after which the last three Apollo missions were abruptly cancelled for some odd reason. |
Again, this not true. As early as 1966, the Soviet Union successfully soft-landed spacecraft on the moon, and indeed succeeded with their own robotic lunar sampling mission in 1970. In order to carry out that mission they needed the capability to track spacecraft in deep space. Link: http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Index.htm
| Quote: |
| * very few people were involved in the actual faking. NASA, indeed, did have "tens of thousands of people" working constructing the nuts and bolts of the project. One team worked on the spacecraft hatch, another on the astronaut's boot, yet none of them saw an overview of the entire project, only those at the very top of the bureaucratic pyramid. Apollo 11 was supposed to be the greatest event in human history, yet there were only three (government employee) witnesses and, for the first time ever, no independent press coverage of such an historical event. |
Really.
Well I remember watching the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) news coverage of the Apollo 11 mission when I was a kid. A news agency that was -- and is -- beyond the control of the US government. And there were literally hundreds of independent reporters from all across the world covering all aspects of the lunar missions. For example:
| Quote: |
On July 20, 1969, Joel Shurkin was chief of the Reuters news agency's team at Mission Control in Houston, Tex. "When Armstrong landed, we all listened to the raw air-to-ground and when he said the part about the 'small step' it was fuzzy — this was the unenhanced version, live — and it was not clear if he said 'a man' or 'man,' " he says, sharing his experience publicly for the first time.
Nor were the words perfectly clear for the more than a billion people listening and watching the televised broadcast as the lunar module Eagle touched down, and Mr. Armstrong and fellow astronaut Edwin (Buzz) Aldrin stepped out into what Mr. Aldrin described as "magnificent desolation."
Months after the lunar landing, in the book First on the Moon, which was billed as an "exclusive and official account . . . as seen by the men who experienced it," Mr. Armstrong recalls his famous words as: "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." He notes that Mission Control missed the "a" in the first phrase, writing that "tape recorders are fallible." However, for the dozens of journalists in Houston, the uncertainty left them feeling their own version of space sickness.
"It was one of the most important quotes in history and it wouldn't do to get it wrong and we didn't have time to pursue the matter," Mr. Shurkin wrote in a posting to a list-serv of the U.S. National Association of Science Writers. "Worse, it wouldn't do to have me say one thing, and the Associated Press another, or to be contradicted by The New York Times."
The journalists from the major wire services and newspapers gave up watching the live broadcast and huddled in the press room debating what to do. They decided that they would agree on what they heard and all file the same quote.
"We concluded that he did not say 'a man' and that's the way it went out to the world," says Mr. Shurkin, now a writer in Baltimore.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/onesmall.asp
|
| Quote: |
| * What about the moon rocks? While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs in the world), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of a moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?) |
First of all, any rock sample can be tested as to whether or not it's been exposed to atmospheric oxygen. Meteorites display distinct physical characteristics that can not be reproduced here on Earth. Second, meteories experience a degree of heating and metamorphic restructuring -- particularly the outer surface -- as they pass through the atmosphere; the lunar samples stored in the archives in Texas haven't. Third, geologists have examined the lunar samples and have found some of them have minerals that are not found anywhere on Earth. They've been examined by scientists from all over the world, all of which have concluded the samples are indisputably of extraterrestrial origin.
More than 800 pounds of lunar samples from the six lunar missions are stored at the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at the Johnson Space Center in Texas http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/tour/Welcome.htm. The samples include lunar rocks, pebbles, sand, and dust...as well as core samples that could could not have been obtained by a robotic probe. They could only have been obtained from somebody physically standing on the moon and mechanically hammering a coring tube into the lunar soil.
| Quote: |
* Why hasn't someone come forward? Would you want to be the one to ruin the international reputation of America? (Plus the likely blackmail, bribes, and death threats . . . to family members as well.) In addition, one astronaut coming forward to clear his own conscience is an inadvertent condemnation of all of the other astronauts as well. It is one thing to ruin your own life and reputation, yet what about others who are not willing to do so? All of them have built fame and wealth on their celebrity of having supposedly walked on the moon.
|
But you're assuming that the United States is the only country in the world. If the moon landings had been a hoax in the 1960s and 70s, it would have greatly benefitted the Soviet Union and some other countries -- indeed, it would have been the propaganda and public relations coup of all time -- to uncover the hoax and announce it to the world. The Soviet Union had no interest in keeping such a hoax secret. Quite the opposite, yet no such evidence has ever turned up in Soviet archives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Imbroglio
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: Behind the wheel of a large automobile
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| betchay wrote: |
| after seeing the documentary about the moon landing hoax, a friend referred this website to me http://www.clavius.org |
Good site betchay, good find. I spent the last hour reading this site, someone should show this to spinoza.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html
| Quote: |
| "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 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
That's a strange statement. It's either a mistake or an out-and-out lie. If you do a google search for "Neil Armstrong" and "interview", you can see dozens of links to interviews that Armstrong has done:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Neil+Armstrong+interview
Edwin Aldrin punched Bart Sibrel in the face in 2002, when he was acting in self-defense:
|
You're having a laugh, right? Did you bother to read any of the interviews you discovered on Google? Sure, there are plenty of interviews with Neil Armstrong, I'll give just 2 examples from your search's 1st page:
1. "Armstrong a Muslim?"
2. "GINO: Hey Neil, what's up?
NEIL: What's up homey?"
(interview with Neil Armstrong, a Hip-Hop artist apparently)
"NEIL: I'm a member and co founder, along with Daddy Dog and Roli Rho, of the 5th Platoon DJ crew as well as an eight-year turntablist veteran. These days, I'm known less for the battle stuff, and more for making mix tapes, while keeping a "turntablist" aesthetic."
What Neil Armstrong definitely refuses to do is give interviews to people who, not at all unreasonably, question the authenticity of the Apollo Missions. He rarely interviews at all. My statement: "Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject." Take more care with Google searches in future - try typing "Neil Armstrong + Moon Landings + interview" and you might actually limit your search results to relevant material. If that's the strength of the apologist side then I pity you, frankly.
Last edited by SPINOZA on Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:36 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Any psych majors in the crowd?
I'm curious if conspiracy theorists are obsessive-compulsives. If so, do they usually keep their disorder focused on one object or if it spreads out into other realms of life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
I think it would be prudent to ignore any so-called "photographic" evidence of a conspiracy and concentrate on the non-photograpic aspects, because by now it's obvious to everyone that we're living in the era of Photoshop. Who knows how a photo's been doctored or what's been placed in it.
|
Ignoring primary sources like photographic evidence of the relevant events isn't the best suggestion I've ever heard. |
But if the Apollo program was a hoax, as you suggested, it should be possible to demonstrate the hoax on non-photographic evidence alone. In fact the preponderance of the evidence would be non-photographic.
It's possible that NASA doctored their photos, but it's just as possible the conspiracy theorists doctored their photos as well. That's my point: it's preferable to look at the non-photographic evidence to see if the hoax theory stands up.
It's like the Pentagon 911 hoax theory. You can play with photographs all day, but in the end you have to explain what happened to the missing airliner if it didn't slam into the Pentagon.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| You're having a laugh, right? Did you bother to read any of the interviews you discovered on Google? Sure, there are plenty of interviews with Neil Armstrong, I'll give just 2 examples from your search's 1st page... |
Not so fast. YOU said, "Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject." Obviously that statement is false, because with a few mouse clicks anyone can see that Armstrong the astronaut has given many interviews on the Apollo program. He hasn't given VERY many for his own reasons. For example:
http://www.engology.com/engintarmstrong.htm
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/features/3437444.html
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I didn't say or even suggest it did. Although an improvement on your bringing to my attention the interview with Neil Armstrong the turntablist above, this is still a weak response. Aldrin punching a man who questioned the authenticity of the Moon Landing is of relevance but proves nothing - I didn't suggest it did! |
Then why mention it, if it has nothing to do with the claim that the moon landings were a hoax?
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Is there some basis for your statement? I looked into your claim and found a very good discussion of the stability and flight characteristics of the LM Ascent Stage here: http://www.clavius.org/techlmstab.html
|
You've only got to look at it to see it's a piece of poor 1960s science fiction. I wouldn't trust that thing to fly across the Irish Sea, never mind fly 1/4 of a million miles across space... |
Yes, you've claimed that already. As I asked earlier, what is the scientific or engineering basis for your statement?
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Now you're contradicting yourself. You readily claim in the next paragraph that "All Apollo missions stayed in low-Earth orbit for the duration of the trip." Even if the Apollo missions had never left Earth orbit, by your own admission the problems WERE fixed just two years later.
|
Weak, very weak. We're questioning the authenticity of the astronauts landing on the Moon, not the authenticity of them achieving and staying in low-Earth orbit for the duration of the 'Moon landing'. |
But you yourself said that "in 1967, after the Apollo fire, a senate committee decided the Apollo program was a shambles." If it was a "shambles" as you claim, how could the problems hve been fixed in so short a time as to put a crew of willing hoax conspiricists into space? I'm just pointing out the contradictions in your statements.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Again, this not true. As early as 1966, the Soviet Union successfully soft-landed spacecraft on the moon, and indeed succeeded with their own robotic lunar sampling mission in 1970. In order to carry out that mission they needed the capability to track spacecraft in deep space. Link: http://www.zarya.info/Diaries/Luna/Index.htm
|
I don't trust your links I'm afraid. |
Whatever. The link is only a recounting of archival and physical evidence that resides in Russia, a country beyond the control of the US government or any alleged hoax program. That archival evidence is what demonstrates that your statement is false.
I think it might be more correct to say you're unwilling to accept any evidence, even non-American evidence, that would show your preconceived notions are unsubstantiated.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| The Russians were unable to track the Apollo missions until 1972. |
The Russians were able to track objects smaller than the Apollo spacecraft to the moon and back as early as 1966. Otherwise it wouldn't have been possible for them to land their own probes on the moon, and it wouldn't have been possible for them to carry out their own robotic lunar sampling mission in 1970, bringing lunar samples successfully back to Earth.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Armstrong and co could've been anywhere for all they knew. This is, as far as I'm aware, unquestioned and is one amongst many points made by the seminal movie "A Funny Thing Happened....". This director spent $500,000 of his own money researching these issues and interviewed many important people who knew what they were talking about. I'm more likely to accept his view than a guy who does a feeble Google search and doesn't even bother to check the contents of the search results. |
The fact that anyone is able to disprove your statements with a few simple Google searches, simply shows how insubstantial your claims are.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
More than 800 pounds of lunar samples from the six lunar missions are stored at the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility at the Johnson Space Center in Texas http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/tour/Welcome.htm. The samples include lunar rocks, pebbles, sand, and dust...as well as core samples that could could not have been obtained by a robotic probe. They could only have been obtained from somebody physically standing on the moon and mechanically hammering a coring tube into the lunar soil.
|
How's that? Because you/that site says so or for some actual, empirically verifiable reason? |
You claimed that the lunar samples which were returned from the moon were in fact meteorites or ceramic fakes:
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| * What about the moon rocks? While it is possible that the moon rocks were manufactured (NASA has the best ceramics labs in the world), in reality these rocks are probably just meteorites that were retrieved on Earth. Von Braun, the director of the program, visited Antarctica a few months before the missions to retrieve these meteorites. (By the way, it is a federal crime for a civilian to be in possession of a moon rock, so how can there truly be independent verification?) |
| ..and in response, I wrote: |
| First of all, any rock sample can be tested as to whether or not it's been exposed to atmospheric oxygen. Meteorites display distinct physical characteristics that can not be reproduced here on Earth. Second, meteories experience a degree of heating and metamorphic restructuring -- particularly the outer surface -- as they pass through the atmosphere; the lunar samples stored in the archives in Texas haven't. Third, geologists have examined the lunar samples and have found some of them have minerals that are not found anywhere on Earth. They've been examined by scientists from all over the world, all of which have concluded the samples are indisputably of extraterrestrial origin. |
You were mistaken in claiming/assuming the only samples collected from the moon were rocks, when in fact they also include pebbles, sand, dust (terms all of which have precise definitions in geology), and core samples. Second, you claimed that the lunar samples have never been examined by independent scientists, when in fact the Lunar Sample Laboratory Facility lets independent scientists do research on the samples all the time.
I'm pointing out that it's physically impossible to manufacture fake lunar samples, because literally hundreds of scientists from all over the world have examined those samples. The samples bear the same physical characteristics as those recovered by Soviet robotic missions.
Last edited by Manner of Speaking on Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| * Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue the makers of "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon" if they showed it to anyone. He also punched the director in the face. |
Neil Armstrong has never felt comfortable with his celebrity and he generally doesn't grant a lot of interviews. Sadly "the stuff" that made him the best choice to land on the moon, also makes him a bit on the emotionally detached side. This is a guy who was nearly killed TWICE during training running up to Apollo 11. First he was nearly killed when he was testing an earthly version of the LEM. The "flying bedstead" went out of control and he punched out at the last second. And then during one of the tests of orbital rendezvous his ship went into a spin. He was nearly the first man lost in space. He nearly lost consciousness from his capsule spinning out of control. Only his cool head brought it under control. And then of course he had to land the LEM on the moon manually after the computer crapped out. He had about 2 seconds left of fuel when he touched down... That crap would have most people screaming like a school girl. He kept getting back on the horse. And people have the nerve to claim he's a bald faced liar about the moon mission. A guy nearly killed three times... geez.
Armstrong certainly does give public and semi-public talks. When there are a million school children, thousands of engineering grads, and all kinds of other people interested in space science, why waste your time talking to UFO freaks? Seriously. Amazingly Timothy Good actually managed to get Armstrong to answer a question about the often told story about Armstrong seeing a UFO crew watching him as he walked on the moon. Armstrong responded to Good "It never happened. I don't know where you get your information." Oddly, although Armstrong told him straight up it never happened, did Good believe him? Natch. Good's theory was the conspiracy must have gotten to Armstrong too. Denial of outrageous ideas is only proof of the reach of the conspiracy, you know...
Aldrin punched the guy (and was cleared by a judge) because the idiot was stalking him, harassing him at every step. When you're trying to get through airport security on a holiday with your family and you have some freak screaming in your face, punching him in the fucking nose is usually warranted.
| Quote: |
| All of the problems were supposedly fixed just two years later. With a third of a century of improved technology, why does it take longer between calamities to repair the Space Shuttle that only achieves Earth orbit? |
HA HA HA HA HA. Because at that point 20% of America's budget was devoted to the moon project and America generally viewed not getting to the moon would be the first major loss to the Soviets in the cold war. The space shuttle has far less funding, far fewer engineers working on it, and there isn't the national impetuous to get things done. Also remember the space shuttle is the single most complicated machine ever made. Ever. It makes an Apollo capsule look like a tinker toy.
| Quote: |
| There is no way to get through the Van Allen Radiation Belts. |
It's not a brick wall. There's radiation, yes. If you hung out in the belts for a couple days you'd regret it. But if you pass through it quickly you don't get a lethal dose. The fact is all the Apollo astronauts got exposed to more radiation than you want to get exposed to in a life time. They knew that risk, they took it. For us. Few, luckily, have died of cancer.
Last edited by mindmetoo on Tue Dec 13, 2005 5:31 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's just like the Pentagon 911 hoax theory. You can play with photographs all day, but in the end you have to explain what happened to the missing airliner if it didn't slam into the Pentagon.
In the same way, you can play with moon photographs all day, but in the end you have to explain how 800 pounds of lunar samples -- examined by independent scientists, which are impossible to fake, and some of which could only have been collected by a person physically standing on the moon -- ended up on Earth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2005 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No response? For two days.
Wow, that was easy.
Game, set and match. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
deleted
Last edited by SPINOZA on Mon Sep 10, 2007 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 4:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
What are Neil Armstrong's (the turntablist) views on the matter? Is Neil Armstrong - the relevant Neil Armstrong this time - a Muslim?
I'm factually convinced of my opinion on this and I've said my piece pretty much.
The fact that you're now being facetious demonstrates your desire for having revenge over me for embarrassing you over your laughable evidence that Armstrong gave interviews. Even the latest links aren't relevant.
Well I can see you've obviously given all this a great deal of thought, M-O-S.
| Quote: |
| HA HA HA HA HA. Because at that point 20% of America's budget was devoted to the moon project and America generally viewed not getting to the moon would be the first major loss to the Soviets in the cold war. |
Yes, it was the most expensive movie ever made. |
You can't be that stupid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| What are Neil Armstrong's (the turntablist) views on the matter? Is Neil Armstrong - the relevant Neil Armstrong this time - a Muslim? |
Oh come on. Any google search will turn up links that are not relevant to your intended search. Everybody knows that, and so do you. You're smart enough to see the important point is that there are links pertinent to the discussion. It remains true that you said "Armstrong (the astronaut) refuses to give interviews on the subject", and a simple google search demonstrated your statement was false.
| Quote: |
| The fact that you're now being facetious demonstrates your desire for having revenge over me for embarrassing you over your laughable evidence that Armstrong gave interviews. Even the latest links aren't relevant. |
Really? I thought I merely stated my reasoning, and refrained from ad-hominem attacks, such as...
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Your arguments thus far lack something pretty essential: thought. |
| Quote: |
| Well I can see you've obviously given all this a great deal of thought, M-O-S. |
Not really.
But I'll take that as your concession speech.   |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
