|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 14:08:37 GMT -4
Three problems: 1. It maxes out a mach 15, which is still too slow. 2. The flow of air at that speed would erode the rock in much the same way as hitting the Earth's atmosphere would. 3. The article talks about a temperature of 5000K which would also alter the rocks. Sorry, this won't work. Mach 9 is even slower. Still doesn't work. But can you answer this: Why was it necessary for NASA to fake Apollo? Never mind what could have been faked - why did it need to be?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 13:59:18 GMT -4
The Normans who invaded Engand in 1066 were already French, and the English court spoke predominently Norman French until the time of Henry V (1417 - the scene from Shakespeare's play of Henry not knowing how to speak French is pure artistic license). One minor quibble - Norman French as it was spoken in England in the 15th century was unintelligible to the Parisian French. However, I don't know whether Henry V also knew proper French.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 13:57:00 GMT -4
Actually, my understanding is that a lot of the Normans were actually Brittons, or Bretons, or from Brittany. A lot of moving around 1500 years ago. But to get an idea of how "French proper" it was, look at some of the conflicts of the next few hundred years! The Normans were Bretons? I don't think so... The Bretons were a Celtic people who settled in Brittany around the fifth century. You're both sort of right. The Bretons were descended from post-Roman British who emigrated from Britain to Armorica (as it was known then) in the 5th century to get away from Saxons. William the Conqueror's army included a contingent of Bretons, although most of the soldiers were Norman.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 14, 2010 13:51:20 GMT -4
This could be an artifact of the technology used to generate zap pots This is your friendly reminder that "could be" is pointless. Do you have any evidence that it's possible? Because rocks get moved around. One example is rock blasted out of the ground by meteor impact. Another example is rocks disturbed by impact-caused moonquakes. There are photos of tracks left by rocks as they rolled down hillsides.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 13, 2010 8:01:18 GMT -4
If you want to talk about changing alliances, consider a couple of the wars of King Frederick the Great of Prussia. From 1740 to 1748, Prussia and France fought a war against Austria, with Britain as Austria's ally, a war known as the War of the Austrian Succession. After the war, Austria managed to convince France to switch allegiances, and the two went to war against Prussia in 1756, only eight years after the last war had finished. Prussia's ally in the war was Britain. This second war was the Seven Years War, which among other things saw Britain bundle France out of North America, with consequences most North Americans know. So while Prussia fought Austria both times, and France fought Britain both times, France and Britain switched allegiances between the two wars.
But an even more remarkable turnaround is that Britain and France became allies in 1815 - the year of the Battle of Waterloo fought between those two countries. However, the alliance was sealed with re-restored King Louis XVIII.
If nothing else, this goes to show that major powers don't have allies as such, they have interests (in Britain's case from ~1700 it's been keeping Europe divided). Their alliances are determined by their interests. Hence, the USSR, the USA and the UK were allies in World War Two, because they had a common interest - defeating Germany. Once Germany was defeated, the former allies' interests diverged, leading to the Cold War.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 12, 2010 8:19:25 GMT -4
Rodin, can you please tell the board why you believe NASA had to fake the Moon landings? Which items built and assembled were not up to the job....ie. please list anything you think could not do its designated job? Seconded.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 12, 2010 1:10:51 GMT -4
Here's another interesting card game from the 20th C As it happens, I own this game and know quite a bit about Steve Jackson Games. In fact, I've met Steve Jackson himself. You should try playing his LEGO Pirates war game with him sometime. Name dropper. :-) Anyway, I've met him too. And I have his autograph on my copy of Munchkin Fu. But I'm off topic again.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 12:53:05 GMT -4
Douglas Reed was the UK's premier war correspondent Uh huh. According to whom? Wikipedia says "Reed spent the duration of the Second World War in England..." Let's compare this to war correspondents I've actually heard of, like Chester Wilmot and Richard Dimbleby, who actually travelled with the soldiers whose battles they described.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 12:33:45 GMT -4
Rodin quoted: I've read Australian newspapers printed during World War Two (on microfilm at the National Library of Australia). "United Nations" was a term used to describe the Allied alliance from some time in 1942. And there's nothing suspicious about the term subsequently being applied to the body as it exists today - well before the end of World War Two people were considering how to try to prevent a repeat of the war, and had decided to replace the League of Nations.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 12:24:53 GMT -4
Well that's the cover story. Truth is patton was flaming mad because Eisenhower was determined to give Berlin and Eastern Europe to the Commies. This was because Eisenhower was allied with them. I posted the lend lease inventory on another thread will repost here if you like. OK gata go have a good weekend Seeing as Eisenhower had let the Soviets conquer Berlin back in April (and let them take the casualties) why would Eisenhower have Patton killed in December? And if you're talking more generally about Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, how were the Western Allies supposed to stop this in December 1945, seeing as the Red Army had occupied most of Eastern Europe by the end of 1944?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 12:20:38 GMT -4
Regarding the pretend Fall of the Berlin Wall video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2307456730142665916&hl=en#Bezmenov was employed at a level where people still thought Communist and Capitalist societies were in opposition. He saw the US as being infiltrated from the USSR. What he did not know perhaps was who was really behind the Russian Revolution of 1917. Very important to determine this. Turns out it is the same crowd who were behind the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913 Right, so the Korean War was faked? The Vietnam War? The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 12:01:09 GMT -4
Zap pits were, it was discovered, relatively easy to fake, thanks to the development of high speed firing systems./ You what? Evidence please. What are you talking about? All this grand theorising, and then you have to ask us a basic question you could get answered by (a) some research or (b) asking the geology department at your local university.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:57:14 GMT -4
This Moon Rock thread was set up as a stumbling block i was supposed to fall over. I do rather enjoy dodging the bullets though. It was? What makes you think you can read my mind? I set the thread up because you made an off-hand comment in another thread about the Moon rocks were faked and I wanted to find out what your evidence was.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:54:49 GMT -4
To give correct date? Dope with isotopes. What process is involved in "doping with isotopes"? How do the isotopes permeate the whole rock? How do these processes give consistent results across multiple rocks? The geologists (from many countries around the world) who studied the rocks and noted the differences and similarities between Earth rocks and Moon rocks, and the things they expected and didn't expect. Are you saying geologists from many countries beyond the USA are all part of a vast conspiracy of scientists?
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Sept 10, 2010 11:48:58 GMT -4
Apollo stands on many pillars - show one is false and the whole edifice comes down. I would not choose to base the case for the prosecution on the Moon Rock evidence because I cannot verify it for myself. I choose to analyse what evidence IS available to me - video and still images mainly. On that evidence I would base my case. The problem with that is that if the evidence is that the Apollo rocks were collected by people walking on the Moon, your video evidence doesn't prove Apollo was hoaxed. If you want to prove Apollo was faked, you have to address all the evidence. If you don't have the knowledge to cover all the evidence, you either have to concede you can't prove your case, or you have to acquire that knowledge. How about you contact the Geology department of your nearest university and ask the professors there about the Apollo rocks? The odds are pretty good that someone there either worked on them, or has worked with someone who did. We already have. For example, how do you explain photos of rocks sitting on the ground in which astronauts appear. If the photos were faked on Earth, how were the "Moon sets" created without contaminating the Moon rocks? For another example, how did NASA create footage of things like the Apollo 16 astronauts' walk to House Rock, or where the astronauts approach the TV camera from a distance?
|
|