| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:57 am Post subject: |
 |
|
You know what I didn't see in your post?
Any of those "legitimate questions." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
GoshiwonGuy
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
They're all on my personal data cd's. That I view on my computer. There's only about 5 hours of footage regarding the issue.
Would you like me to send you copies?
Friend rate.
[Absolutely free of charge]. 
*serious offer*
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snoopyd
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Location: South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
one question ...why are there no satellites orbiting the moon?
and back to the topic
...oh great another place to dump Nuclear waste ...assuming they did really land, they already left four nuclear powered seismic stations during the Apollo project to collect seismic data about the interior of the Moon...
also just remember ...if the surface Temperature on the moon is 107�C in the day and -153�C at night ...dont forget to take your A/C! at least you wont need to worry about harming the ozone! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'll answer on topic too. Getting back to the moon by 2030 is easily done; the moon is really close. The only thing necessary for a trip to the moon is the will to do it. The problem with the moon is that there's no real reason to go there - the atmosphere is too small to count for anything, and that also means that the dust on the moon is really really sharp, unlike soft Earth dust that has been rounded by contact with other objects as it gets blown about here and there. What people are interested in is not just going somewhere but also making it a little more like home (ie terraforming). If there were a perfect cave somewhere on the moon then it might look a bit more fun - a place that's basically already sealed off that only requires a bit more work to create a pressurized environment. But that's a lot of work. Venus, followed by Mars are better environments for humans to live in. If only the moon had had a bit more gravity... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh right, there are a few good things about the moon too, such as delta-v when launching from the moon to other parts of the Solar System - ie, you can get to other places in the Solar System faster going from a lunar orbit than you can from Earth.
For tourism, for the time being I would prefer something that goes to the moon, around it a few times without landing, and then back. Going within a few dozen kilometres of the surface and then back would certainly be worth paying a lot of money for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leslie Cheswyck wrote: |
| Yes. Good food, but no atmosphere. |
YES!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoshiwonGuy wrote: |
^
They're all on my personal data cd's. That I view on my computer. There's only about 5 hours of footage regarding the issue.
|
Let me guess- you're the only person in the world to have done this and you didn't bother to put anything on the internet...
| Quote: |
Would you like me to send you copies?
Friend rate.
[Absolutely free of charge].
*serious offer* |
If you have any footage that wasn't officially and publicly released, I'd love to see it.
Something like take 3 on the set, with Neil standing on the moonscape with his helmet off, have a smoke or a cup of coffee, would do nicely.
Or one of the director yelling "cut! Neil, you're supposed to be on the moon!!! Put a little more bounce in those first steps!"
So, your legitimate questions stem from watching hours of footage?
Public domain footage?
Now I know you've heard this before, but maybe one day it'll sink in and you'll realize the idiocy of the belief you hold:
So this conspiracy is so insidious and clever that not one single person, out of hundreds (probably thousands) has ever broken the code of silence, has never spilled to his family or friends, never had a deathbed confession, never sought to cash in by breaking the conspiracy wide open...
furthermore, no concrete piece of physical evidence has ever been uncovered...
and yet the perpetrators of this ingeniously intricate and complex conspiracy were stupid enough to forget to check footage that might give everything away to amateurs before releasing it to the public?
And you truly believe this?
All I can say is- I have a Nigerian friend who knows this prince who has $3 million dollars he needs to quietly move out of the country... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoshiwonGuy
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^
| Quote: |
If you have any footage that wasn't officially and publicly released, I'd love to see it.
Something like take 3 on the set, with Neil standing on the moonscape with his helmet off, have a smoke or a cup of coffee, would do nicely.
Or one of the director yelling "cut! Neil, you're supposed to be on the moon!!! Put a little more bounce in those first steps!" |
How about a segment of astronauts putting a transparecy over the shuttle window to make it look like they a much further from earth than they actually were?
| Quote: |
So, your legitimate questions stem from watching hours of footage?
|
I'll clarify, all of the questions I hold are also held on the Cd's; and the inconsistencies are also explained in detail.
Far better than I can here.
[And can you imagine the time it would take me to cover the material here?]
| Quote: |
| Public domain footage? |
The videos are all on the internet. Which is public domain.
I just burned them onto CD.
GG
PS. The moon is very far from earth. About 600 (?- will confirm on next break) times futher than most astronaust typically travel into space. And it's getting through the radiation of the Van Allen belt that is the real difficulty; not only the time involved to travel to the moon, among other issues... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GoshiwonGuy wrote: |
^
How about a segment of astronauts putting a transparecy over the shuttle window to make it look like they a much further from earth than they actually were? |
Holy crap!!! The Space Shuttle never landed on the moon?!?! Why didn't you say so???
| Quote: |
PS. The moon is very far from earth. About 600 (?- will confirm on next break) times futher than most astronaust typically travel into space. And it's getting through the radiation of the Van Allen belt that is the real difficulty; not only the time involved to travel to the moon, among other issues... |
"Typically"?
Uh, okay professor... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Goshiwon Guy: Just reaching Earth's escape velocity gives you a trip to the moon of only a few days. Usually three.
Here's the distance between the two:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
there's a good possibility that we're getting three new planets next week.
from http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/563
who cares about the moon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GoshiwonGuy
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bulsajo wrote:
| Quote: |
| Holy crap!!! The Space Shuttle never landed on the moon?!?! Why didn't you say so??? |
*yawn*
Pedant.
The sentence more or less speaks for itself.
| Quote: |
| Uh, okay professor... |
Better than 'nut' and 'jackass', but still a childish swipe. 
mithridates wrote:
| Quote: |
| Goshiwon Guy: Just reaching Earth's escape velocity gives you a trip to the moon of only a few days. Usually three. |
That is interesting info. I will look more into it.
Thanks
| Quote: |
| Here's the distance between the two: |
It's hard to tell from a picture...but I read that the moon was approximately 240,000 miles from earth.
And this is an interesting claim on the issue;
| Quote: |
The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude.The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.
Linky: http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp?ID=7
|
I have an old news segment that reports, post 'moon landing', on astronauts approaching the Van Allen belt but having to return to earth due to the effects.
In "Astronauts Gone Wild" it is also alot of fun listening to the various astronaust conflicting accounts of passing through the Van Allen Belt.
"Oh, did we?"
"We'll, I didn't feel a thing, haha"
And again, it was classic seeing a few of the astronauts who claimed to have gone to the moon punch out, knee, or threaten to beat (or sue) the reporter for the questions he was asking and the information that he was presenting.
These are not the words or deeds of people who did what they say they did. Because even if someone contradicts or questions a truth, you don't, you don't react violently against it.
People with something to hide are usually the ones who try to suppress discussion; with words or violence.
If I went to the moon I'd have just answered a few questions and then laughed the reporter off.
But I'm 'nuts'.
GG |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The moon is 240,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude.The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind. |
That makes sense. The Space Shuttle just orbits in LEO so there's no reason to go up into the Van Allen Belts. If you're going to the moon though you start in LEO, finalize your trajectory and then kick into escape velocity, which gets you through the belts in about 30 minutes. The amount of radiation you get from that is about 4% of the lowest level at which people start to show any signs of having received radiation, or 2 ...whatever those units are called. REMs, I think. There are no symptoms until you reach about 50 REMs of exposure. It's kind of like a quick dash across a few metres of really hot sand. Just because you don't want to sit on the sand all day (like the Space Shuttle) doesn't mean you can't make a quick run down to where the waves are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Lemon
Joined: 11 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 18, 2006 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
f you have any footage that wasn't officially and publicly released, I'd love to see it.
Something like take 3 on the set, with Neil standing on the moonscape with his helmet off, have a smoke or a cup of coffee, would do nicely. |
More evidence the landings were real: had there been the opportunity for more than one take, Armstrong wouldn't have botched his big line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
