|
Post by blackstar on Jan 21, 2011 8:21:34 GMT -4
Hehe. The hoax believers will have a really hard time explaining this article published in 1978 in the Soviet Astronomy Letters, vol. 4, p.302. This is where you misunderstand the HB mentality. Sure explaining such things away is hard if you are bound by trivialities like logic, reason, evidence, and the laws of physics. Put those aside and you can dismiss this article with an airy wave and a comment about the Illuminati.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jan 19, 2011 14:35:55 GMT -4
I think you're all forgetting that the Iron Sky people are paid NASA disinformation agents.... Obviously not paid very much or they wouldn't still be fundraising for the movie...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jan 18, 2011 15:31:15 GMT -4
Yeah you notice that you never seem to get actual film makers who think the moon landings would be easy to fake, maybe because they understand the actual mechanics of making a movie and thus recognize an obvious impossibility.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Jan 12, 2011 18:58:54 GMT -4
The possibility that sometimes the USAF might actually prefer the public to jump to UFO's to explain some event never seems to occur to the true believers. Of course in the case of Roswell if the USAF had known how it would snowball and how long it would drag on they might have com clean sooner. You mean that the Intelligence services deliberately encouraged UFO stories to launder their own experimental aviation expriments? I've heard this idea before, and yes, in some cases that was true, but in the case of Roswell and many other events I suspect this is a double-bluff. Firstly because it should be old hat, first generation Cold War trivia these days. Also because of other similar events all over the world where something like roswell has happened. they've been dealt with the same way no matter which country they occur in... as if some kind of global policy is in place. Ah you suspect; got a shred of evidence beyond anecdotes that get more detailed with the passing years to back that up? Perhaps the reason they've all been dealt with in the same way is because they are all the same mix of misperception, misinterpretation, and tall tales. Perhaps that's the more rational explanation than aliens who seem to veer from superhuman to inept depending on the needs of the tale being told?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 28, 2010 13:07:41 GMT -4
Maybe they launched from another country. Launching a Saturn V is a little bit different then starting a fireworks rocket. You need infrastructure to do that! Not to mention the capabilities to bring the SaturnV in pieces to that country, to assemble it, bring it to the start tower, have some control center, etc. etc. Just make a visit to the Cape and take a look at the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building). Quite impressive in its size. There is no way, you can build such a thing without hundreds of people noticing it. And thats just for the assembly. You need to bring the rocket to the launch pad. Have you seen some pictures of the moving platforms used for that? There is no way you could bring one of these anywhere without even more hundreds of people noticing it. When a Saturn V launched, it could be heared in half of Florida. There really is no way, anybody could launch a Saturn V without at least half a million people noticing it. And there's the small problem of where in the world could they trust to put a copy of the most advanced space launch ground system then available? A place that could launch on the right trajectory for the mission and be considered secure?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 24, 2010 13:01:58 GMT -4
The possibility that sometimes the USAF might actually prefer the public to jump to UFO's to explain some event never seems to occur to the true believers. Of course in the case of Roswell if the USAF had known how it would snowball and how long it would drag on they might have com clean sooner. I'm not so sure about that. I suspect that they are more then happy to allow UFO stories to cover up evidence of projects like the F-117A, SR-71, B-2 and other planes, if not actively encouraging them to divert people's attention from the truth about such top secrect projects. I kind of thought that was the point of my post, with Roswell possibly being an exception because of all the grief it's caused the USAF over the decades.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 23, 2010 18:59:07 GMT -4
The Honorable Ms Lee is well known in her home town for such gaffs, all while masquerading as an expert on constitutional law and almost everything else. However her constituents seem very happy with her. Is it just me or do these quotes seem appropriate for that situation? "Democracy is the art of running the circus from the monkey cage." H.L. Mencken "In a democracy the people get what the majority deserves." James Davidson To which the only counter is: "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried." Winston Churchill.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 23, 2010 18:52:17 GMT -4
And Roswell has not been "explained"; we've been fobbed off with cover-story after cover-story accomapnied with the subtitles: "But this time we're telling the truth... honest!" Considering the "coinsidences" in what was found at Roswell, and what was launched in Alamogordo, and the fact that Mogul wass top secert at the time, allowing the UFO stories to fester as a cover story was quite a cunning move by the USAF. The possibility that sometimes the USAF might actually prefer the public to jump to UFO's to explain some event never seems to occur to the true believers. Of course in the case of Roswell if the USAF had known how it would snowball and how long it would drag on they might have com clean sooner.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 22, 2010 16:07:31 GMT -4
I don't know the exact figures to hand (and I wonder if anyone had the radiation exposure figures in the 1960's). I expect you already know and want me to go and look them up. Uh uh! So essentially you are just too lazy to learn the truth?
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 9, 2010 18:16:37 GMT -4
It's appalling the way Michael Bay is trashing a piece of our cultural heritage; and he isn't doing Apollo any favours either...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Dec 2, 2010 18:39:53 GMT -4
What's interesting is that so much attention is being (publicly) focussed on Assange, in spite of his fundamental irrelevance to the wikileaks site, as if hurting or discrediting him somehow alters the material facts of the leak or would hurt or discredit the site. It's almost as if Assange is setting himself up to be a martyr and variious and sundry governments are falling for it. Or aware that a warrant is pending Assange dumps this information into the public domain so he can create the impression the charges are politically motivated.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Nov 23, 2010 16:32:11 GMT -4
Duane is utterly unable to back down from any mistaken belief. Years ago he asserted, as a digression from a digression about the Apollo 1 fire, that Gus Grissom was panicked and terrified throughout his short Mercury suborbital flight -- he knew because his parents could see his face on TV during the flight. I pointed out that there were no TV cameras in the cockpit during his flight. While there were film cameras on the Mercury control panel pointed at the astronaut's face, film cameras cannot produce a live TV broadcast. Gus's capsule sank shortly after landing along with cameras and film, so they couldn't have seen it after the flight either. (When Gus's capsule was located and recovered in 1999, the film had long been destroyed by immersion in seawater for 38 years.) Grissom himself corrected a reporter's question during the post-flight press conference, also making it clear that there were no TV cameras on board his capsule. There are many other primary sources that back up this simple fact, and anyone familiar with the state of television technology in the early 1960s (e.g., from having read Dwight's book) knows that live fast-scan TV in the Mercury cockpit was simply out of the question. It wasn't until after several years of intensive R&D that the first workable TV camera could fly on Apollo. Instead of conceding that his folks had probably seen a film of another Mercury flight, Duane simply would not be dissuaded from his position. To this day he insists that his parents watched Gus Grissom's face on live TV during his Mercury flight. Unable to actually produce said video (NASA wiped out all evidence of it, you see, because it would have ruined Gus's status as a martyred hero) he cites, as his sole piece of evidence, a single phrase in a secondary encyclopedia article written for children that says the Mercury capsules had TV cameras. Unless the author was thinking specifically of an experimental slow scan TV camera flown unsuccessfully on Gordon Cooper's Mercury orbital flight, this statement is easily shown to be incorrect. But the facts simply don't matter. Once straydog stakes out a position he defends it to the death. Says a lot about him; the single document that supports his views is iron clad proof. The ten thousand that contradict him are all lies made up by NASA shills.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Nov 13, 2010 21:01:46 GMT -4
If Apollo was a hoax there would be 10,000 pages of proof on Wikileaks by now...
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Nov 13, 2010 14:09:33 GMT -4
And I see because someone posted in the wrong thread, and having realized they had done so asked the mods to move the post, Fetzer is screaming about abuse of position again, as well as apparently being oblivious to the numerous flaws in the spoof video.
|
|
|
Post by blackstar on Nov 5, 2010 19:55:09 GMT -4
Unlike most HBs, IM has an endearing kind of folly. He is just so wrong about so many things that it is hard to understand just how far the misconceptions go. I'd agree. He's polite and has asked to be pointed towards a text on the subject. Compared with Jarrah, Duane Daman and the rest of the crazy gang at YouTube, I have no quarms with IM. Most of the YouTube guys are wrapped up in a tight ball of venom and hatred. He's actually quite refreshing. When I look at Kaysing, I don't see a hateful figure, maybe a man who liked to spin a yarn and tell a tale from his chair. Not hateful though. Hell, people on this board have come out an commended Kaysing for his charity. It seems that the modern moon hoax conspiracy theorist is angry with the government, and if I may add, a little disturbed. IM does not come across that way. I remember the same sort of things being said about Rodin not so long ago, do not confuse politeness with reason.
|
|