|
Post by frenat on Nov 29, 2011 19:52:56 GMT -4
chew i have multiple degrees in science i know how it works With that horrible lack of punctuation? I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 28, 2011 22:32:50 GMT -4
so around and around we go, I'll stick with radiation dangerous. No one here is saying that radiation isn't dangerous. They're saying it wasn't dangerous enough to prevent astronauts from flying to the Moon and returning safely. Especially when they went around the majority of the belts anyway.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 28, 2011 22:30:54 GMT -4
laurel 9) how sure are you that the "space race" wasn't a way for the military to finance the research of rocketry and specifically ballistic missiles technology? Military had the bomb, they desired to have a delivery system that would reach any part of the globe. Which they had long before a man was ever put into space. Or did you forget about the satellites that were put into orbit?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 14:00:43 GMT -4
Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. It was on Groklaw for a week or so after the incident, but has since been removed as it is no longer relevant. In Sibrel's statement to the prosecuting attorney, he said that it was his plan to offer Sibrel an honorarium to appear on the program, and then accuse him on camera for being dishonest in taking an honorarium for something he never did. Thank you. I knew I'd read about it somewhere. Why would anyone want to deal with a person like that?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 9:38:53 GMT -4
frenat could you also give me a reference to the astronauts response to Sibrels requst? "The astronauts knew he was slime and didn't want to play along with his childish games" Why should there be a reference for something that wa likely word of mouth? while your digging for references please provide one for this statement also "Sibrel has even said that if they swore on the Bible he would call them liars and if they didn't he would would still call them liars" Read years ago from the court proceedings where Sibrel's case was thrown out because the Judge also thought he was a slimeball. I don't feel like looking it up because I'm sure you'll just handwave it away anyway. Are you physically unable to push the quote button so people know who you're talking to?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 27, 2011 9:35:21 GMT -4
frenat Could you give me the reference for "Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan" That was posted by Laurel. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 26, 2011 20:22:27 GMT -4
laurel because all the evidence should be included even Sibrel chasing the astronauts with a bible, a first impression is that it was nuts of Sibrel to do it, but in truth, not one astronaut would swear on the bible that they were on the moon, not one! Wrong again. Ed Mitchell did swear on the Bible, so did Gene Cernan. Sibrel just decided that they were lying when they swore. Exactly. Sibrel has even said that if they swore on the Bible he would call them liars and if they didn't he would would still call them liars. The astronauts knew he was slime and didn't want to play along with his childish games.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 26, 2011 20:15:27 GMT -4
the truth is you can't believe anything i say in my opinion, your absolute view point can't allow any possibility that anything i say could possibly be true. if anything i say causes you to question, then you will have to find answers. like i said before, i really do look at this website as the church of NASA, and not negatively meant. I do believe there is a lot of knowledge on this website, but it is not absolute. If you ever show that you can even begin to understand the subjects you've been spouting off about then you MIGHT approach truth. So far, all you've shown is you can fall for tripe from a badly written hoax site and not do the slightest bit of research on your own.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 26, 2011 20:08:51 GMT -4
b]he proceeds to Room 237, which is average distance to the moon... [/b]Kubrick telling you a story...[/quote] No it isn't. You just think it is because you swallowed some nonsense some hoax site told you without looking into it yourself. The Moon is closest at perigee at 225,290 miles. It is farthest at apogee at 251, 910 miles. The average of those is 238,600 miles.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 26, 2011 20:01:43 GMT -4
trebor in my opinion the truth of the Apollo missions will never be uncovered. there is probably no single definitive smoking gun. There is no smoking gun because they weren't faked. Your "truth" is nothing more than ignorance and handwaving.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 26, 2011 19:59:29 GMT -4
LunarOrbit from start to finish... simply put, we could not get to the moon, we can't get thru the radiation belts and live, and even if we tried space if filled with radiation. Prove it. How much radiation? You need more figures and less handwaving. You also need to consider the fact that they went around the majority of the belts and not through. the Apollo astronauts went into low earth obit and stayed there until they came down. Prove it. Why didn't anyone see these highly visible spacecrafts? What about the spacecraft seen leaving orbit, seen enroute and tracked all the way there and back? What about the radio signals that came from the tracked location? Have you really though this through? the Apollo 11 filming was done by Kubrick, later filming done by CIA & NASA Prove it. How did Kubrick film it when he was provably busy with other projects at the time, was afraid of flying and didn't leave the UK and couldn't avoid continuity errors in his own films and yet there are none in Apollo? the TV coverage was pre-shot and aired at the appropriate time. What about the discussions of current sporting events? Or the video that shows weather patterns on Earth that were accurate for the time?
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 20, 2011 19:07:38 GMT -4
the unanswered contradictions and oddities are what promotes the hoax theories. the one that recently made up my mind on this issue STARS 1) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Armstrong not seeing and not recalling seeing stars from the moon 2) August 12 1969 news conference, Statements by Collins, I don't recall, either. the guy orbited the moon, there was a side in darkness. Both replies in answer to a question about seeing stars IN THE SOLAR CORONA. They were referencing that particular experiment.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 20, 2011 19:03:33 GMT -4
another article talked about building a structure on the moon that would have 5 foot thick walls to protect from radiation. why wouldn't they just use a few layers of aluminized Mylar? Any structure on the Moon would be there far longer than the few days that Apollo was. Radiation exposure is cumulative.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Nov 15, 2011 20:32:55 GMT -4
nitrogen dioxide is an orange gas not red, according to wikipedia Moon missions, Grumman facility manager said red gas, 2 images of the release showed red gas had to evacuate town when gas was released, images shown. technician at plant said red fuming nitric acid moon missions said final assembly of rocket engine cold not be test. Said Grumman uncomfortable about it. who am i going to believe a TV documentary that had experts and plant personnel or people on the board? can they change a rocket fuel last minute? You mean a TV documentary that likely got that AND other things wrong as all documentaries do or the experts on this board that have provided references that you've ignored.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Oct 14, 2011 21:12:02 GMT -4
What a sad person. He has nothing better to do than get banned repeatedly and ignore the answers to his nonsense?
|
|