|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 16, 2008 16:04:09 GMT -4
There is also a HB there who doesn't think that an electric charge can travel across a vacuum.
Guess he's never heard of vacuum tubes, the photoelectric effect, or cathode-ray tubes.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Mar 16, 2008 16:08:31 GMT -4
BTW, David, I think that "Truthers" are idiots, and I would quickly get myself banned over there. Why bother?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Mar 16, 2008 17:45:33 GMT -4
He gets banned from every forum he visits... you'd think he would eventually realize that he is the cause of the problem. I do not think the loose change forum will ban him unless he insults the forum admin. s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/index/Ranb |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 16, 2008 18:25:57 GMT -4
I still can't believe that HB think that NASA could do all these amazing things unnoticed but still not be able to actually land a man on the moon.
That's because the aim is not to prove that NASA was incompetent. It's to prove that NASA is evil. So the question for them is not which activity is more difficult, but which is more evil.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Mar 17, 2008 12:41:55 GMT -4
I have seen claims on various CT sites that NASA Chief Dan Goldin was interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994 and said that mankind cannot go beyond Earth orbit until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation.
Is there any evidence that this interview took place and that Goldin made this claim? Thanks.
Ranb
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Mar 17, 2008 13:14:06 GMT -4
I'd say he probably did make that claim (though I have no evidence for it to hand), but that the CTs misunderstand it in the usual way. When NASA talked of going beyond Earth orbit after Apollo they were talking about missions to Mars or extended lunar missions, just as they are now. The cosmic radiation problem is a problem precisely because of this extended duration, not an inherent problem of going beyond Earth orbit.
CTs don't get the relationship between time and radiation exposure effects, and don't get the fact that any future mission beyond LEO is not going to be a simple retread of Apollo. They twist and turn the words until they can interpret tham as 'beyond LEO is immediately lethal without huge amounts of shielding'.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 17, 2008 13:49:31 GMT -4
My recollection of the Goldin interview is that he said they couldn't go to Mars until they had solved the radiation problem. The conspiracy theorists mentally translated "to Mars" into "beyond Earth orbit." As Jason T. has said, they don't understand why Mars missions and extended lunar missions are so radically different from Apollo missions, and why a more general radiation defense is now necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 17, 2008 16:07:51 GMT -4
I'd also point out that since the Moon is in Earth orbit, Apollo never actually left it.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 17, 2008 18:55:18 GMT -4
PW _that_ was classic.
|
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 17, 2008 18:57:35 GMT -4
Speaking of outlandish HB claims, apparently, so I have been told, photographic film, and a TV pickup tube for that matter don't record reflected light. Boy are Sony and Kodak going to be angry.
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Mar 17, 2008 19:15:08 GMT -4
Um, what? Almost all light that has ever been recorded on those media is reflected light. That's definitely a howler.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 17, 2008 21:41:11 GMT -4
Speaking of outlandish HB claims, apparently, so I have been told, photographic film, and a TV pickup tube for that matter don't record reflected light. Boy are Sony and Kodak going to be angry. wow, where did you get that? This one HAS to be a nomination for a Stundie |
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 18, 2008 8:54:10 GMT -4
Speaking of outlandish HB claims, apparently, so I have been told, photographic film, and a TV pickup tube for that matter don't record reflected light. Boy are Sony and Kodak going to be angry. I'll third the WTF on that statement, it sounds like someone has been going to the Moon Man school of physics. |
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Mar 18, 2008 10:36:04 GMT -4
apparently, so I have been told, photographic film, and a TV pickup tube for that matter don't record reflected light. That's correct. Film records the quantity of dark remaining in a given area. Light bulbs and other similar apparatus suck the dark out of an area, and if you look at actual, exposed film you will see that those areas, where the dark has been removed, do not register at all on the film. Instead, areas where a lot of dark remains register significantly on the film (for example, if you take a picture of a light bulb, and then look at the actual exposed film, you will see that the film shows nothing at all where the bulb should be, but other areas of the image, where the dark has not yet been removed, do show up on the film). The process of developing film reverses this, producing a "negative" image that we call a photograph. |
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Mar 18, 2008 10:48:05 GMT -4
Hey, if we had "weather manipulation control" in 1969 then Global Warming isn't really a problem, is it?
|
|
