|
Post by nomuse on Jan 7, 2006 18:28:31 GMT -4
I had a Mustang II back in '83. By your logic I should be driving a Ferrari now. They exist, and I still have a valid license. What possible connection might there be between my lack of a Ferrari and NASA's lack of a current Lunar base?
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 7, 2006 18:34:53 GMT -4
I had a Mustang II back in '83. By your logic I should be driving a Ferrari now. They exist, and I still have a valid license. What possible connection might there be between my lack of a Ferrari and NASA's lack of a current Lunar base? lack of a lunar base you said it ,that is sad,i just had to brag about my Fords thats all,I think i should try to build my own Ford Rocket to the moon some day,I am sure it will make it
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 7, 2006 19:05:31 GMT -4
Ivan, you seem unable to decide whether the technology was miraculous or inadequate. You argue that the technology then could not have achieved something as grand as a lunar landing, then complain that if it did manage it the results were not spectacular enough. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 7, 2006 19:43:18 GMT -4
Dear nitwit...
That's uncalled for.
what I beleive is the fact that they havn't sent man farther then 500 miles up in the past 30 years.
That is true. However, it doesn't mean that it's true for the reasons you say.
As has been said, we have the technology to make cars that go 240 miles per hour right off the assembly line. Why doesn't everyone's car go that fast? Your problem is that you look only at one enabling factor for Apollo: technology. You neglect the very important aspects of funding and political will. All the necessary factors have to line up to make something happen, not just the one or two factors you choose to look at.
nasa should of blasted or drilled the moon with much updated tools by now
They had planned to. The Nixon administration put a stop to it.
they have enough bank to do it..
No, they don't. NASA doesn't get to spend money on whatever it wants. NASA can only spend money on what Congress tells it to. And Congress has not, until recently, directed NASA to work on manned moon missions again.
but just not the brains to get there with men...
Hogwash. The scientific and technical records from Apollo still exist and can still be examined by qualified experts today. We can examine those records and the surviving examples of the equipment and determine whether NASA indeed had the brains to get there. And it is my professional opinion that they did. Bart Sibrel and the other conspiracy theorists have absolutely no technical understanding that would enable them to arrive at an intelligent opinion rearding Apollo feasibility.
is it possible that the rocks supposedly from the moon were sand blasted to remove traces of rentry like the rocks found in Antartica have...
How do you remove the evidence of sandblasting?
then weathered by chemicals or by other means?
Please give the details of a "chemical" or "other means" process that would mimic the effects of millions of years of exposure to the space environment. If you wish to contend that this was done, or even that it is possible, then you have the burden of proof to show how.
Your method is quite obvious here: you have simply decided not to believe in the moon landings, and now you're scrambling and speculating to find some sort of pseudo-intellectual justification for your belief. That's not how it works. You're literally asking, "Can you find any facts that would seem to make my existing belief true?" You're supposed to look at the facts before you arrive at your belief!
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 7, 2006 21:18:33 GMT -4
i guess you all are some hard headed women......will never make me a beleiver Does anyone else appreciate the irony of this statment?
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 7, 2006 21:45:54 GMT -4
I think the fallacy of forming a predisposed opinion and subsequently looking for evidence to support it is a prerequisite to being a CT
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 7, 2006 22:13:38 GMT -4
In 1953 a craft called the Trieste was build. In 1960, it is claimed that it was used to travel to the depest point in the ocean, the Challenger Depths, a depth of nearly 11km where pressures reach an unbelievable 8 ton per square inch. Since then, in 46 years, this depth has never been repeated, in fact today we still have no craft capable of such depths, the best we have can only do 3km and most are unable to do more than 300m!!!! How could something built in 1953 travel nearly four times the depth of our best submersibles today? How can it have travelled over 36x as deep as the best Nuclear Subs in the world today? Since we don't have one that can do it today, how can they have done it then? Even in the time since the Trieste the best craft built was the Sea Cliff, but its best depth was only 6km, half of the dive by the Trieste, and that involved major engineering and re-engineering of a craft built in 1970. It was retired 8 years ago. Was then the Trieste and its trip into the Challenger Depth a Hoax? After all no-one has been able to repeat the feat, or even come close to it. The best subs today can't do it, most are unable to go more than 300m!!!! By your arguments about Apollo, surely this trip too must have been complete hoax. They want us to believe that they had the technology to withstand 8 tons per square inch back in 1953 when they don't have it today. They want us to believe that this craft dived to a depth 36 times deeper that the best Nuclear Submarine can get too. How can such a thing possibly be true? It doesn't make sense!
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 7, 2006 23:57:09 GMT -4
Holes in the roof of the hangar. Can you explain the logical problem with an organization sophisticated enough to fool an entire world full of scientists (of course YOU, being the free thinker that you are just see right through the lies, but that is another story, right?), but stupid enough to let sunlight through holes in the roof of the hanger show up in officially-released images supposedly taken on the moon?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 8, 2006 1:41:51 GMT -4
I sort of doubt it since margamatrix got himself banned a few months back.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 8, 2006 11:23:12 GMT -4
I sort of doubt it since margamatrix got himself banned a few months back. Yea, I know, but I need the debunking practise... ;D
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 8, 2006 18:10:26 GMT -4
Ivan asked:
No. When the Apollo rocks were first given to scientists around the world, they were subjected to all sorts of tests. These tests would have revealled any contamination. The processes you describe would leave their own traces. Since then, the Apollo rocks have been subjected to tests which have been developed since 1969. In other words, the nature of those tests couldn't have been predicted when the rocks were "prepared."
The other problem is that most of the Apollo rocks were photographed in place before collection. If these rocks were actually collected in Antarctica, the photographs of them in situ would have had to be staged. This would mean placing them on a set of some sort, which would again contaminate the rocks. As this sort of contamination would have been easy to detected, but has never been detected, it's reasonable to assume the rocks weren't prepared this way.
Finally, scientists from around the world have looked at the Apollo rocks, including scientists from countries hostile to the USA. If there was any fakery involved, they'd have no reason to protect NASA.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 9, 2006 12:36:24 GMT -4
Holes in the roof of the hangar. Can you explain the logical problem with an organization sophisticated enough to fool an entire world full of scientists (of course YOU, being the free thinker that you are just see right through the lies, but that is another story, right?), but stupid enough to let sunlight through holes in the roof of the hanger show up in officially-released images supposedly taken on the moon? scientists around the world sh#t fart and sneeze like everyone else,they are not gods,when first presented with these so called moon rocks,it was probably their their first time examining stripped rocks from Antartica,didn't know what were they were looking for comparison,tests,and only listened to Nasa scientists for advice and info,,yeah i beleive Nasa has no funding thats funny or political will support but there is political will tons of money for a war killing thousands of moms and dads in Iraq,soldiers that are only teenagers,it is sad sad sad
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 9, 2006 12:39:15 GMT -4
Can you explain the logical problem with an organization sophisticated enough to fool an entire world full of scientists (of course YOU, being the free thinker that you are just see right through the lies, but that is another story, right?), but stupid enough to let sunlight through holes in the roof of the hanger show up in officially-released images supposedly taken on the moon? scientists around the world sh#t fart and sneeze like everyone else,they are not gods,when first presented with these so called moon rocks,it was probably their their first time examining stripped rocks from Antartica,didn't know what were they were looking for comparison,tests,and only listened to Nasa scientists for advice and info,,yeah i beleive Nasa has no funding thats funny or political will support but there is political will tons of money for a war killing thousands of moms and dads in Iraq,soldiers that are only teenagers,it is sad sad sad What is sad is that you have nothing to offer except ideologically-biased rhetoric. You must be a blast at parties.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 9, 2006 13:14:41 GMT -4
scientists around the world sh#t fart and sneeze like everyone else,they are not gods,when first presented with these so called moon rocks,it was probably their their first time examining stripped rocks from Antartica,didn't know what were they were looking for comparison,tests,and only listened to Nasa scientists for advice and info,,yeah i beleive Nasa has no funding thats funny or political will support but there is political will tons of money for a war killing thousands of moms and dads in Iraq,soldiers that are only teenagers,it is sad sad sad What is sad is that you have nothing to offer except ideologically-biased rhetoric. You must be a blast at parties. aw don't be sad and mad they are not going back,dam i missed Elvis's b- party yesterday,he said on his email he missed me and thanked me very very much anyway for being a good friend
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 9, 2006 13:46:32 GMT -4
scientists around the world sh#t fart and sneeze like everyone else,they are not gods,when first presented with these so called moon rocks,it was probably their their first time examining stripped rocks from Antartica,didn't know what were they were...
No. Now you're just trying to argue that geologists don't know their business.
looking for comparison,tests...
Why do you assume geology is comparative?
...only listened to Nasa scientists for advice and info...
You've got the cart before the horse. That's not the way the business of science works. You seem to think that the academic scientists who studied the samples were just getting "leftovers" and that the "real" science was to be done by "NASA scientists". In fact, NASA really had no on-staff geologists and relied upon the outside scientists to provide the real science. The first-line geology was done by these people, not by "NASA scientists."
Again, you're simply manufacturing a fantasy world in which evil NASA geologists can simply dictate to the rest of the geological world what moon rocks should be like, and that these people will simply agree with it and/or have no way of determining on their own whether NASA's claims make sense. You're denying reality and substituting your own.
i beleive Nasa has no funding thats funny or political will support but there is political will tons of money for a war killing thousands of moms and dads in Iraq...
Yes, it is sad. However, it is the case. We're not asking you to agree with politics, just to acknowledge that politics is, and will be, a factor in government-sponsored space exploration.
|
|