|
Post by theteacher on Apr 9, 2011 17:22:26 GMT -4
I am just putting my attention at one particular argument only, right now. Yes, but you talk about it as if it were the only existing argument, which it isn't. There are so many other arguments, that this particular one is not even necessary.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 9, 2011 16:09:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 9, 2011 15:13:32 GMT -4
There's a lack of evidences for that certainly, but I doubt anyone has access to every internal NASA document. A rock collecting robot would not be sent to the Moon with a document but with a huge Saturn V - like rocket. How that would take place unnoticed is beyond my fantasy, so I would say no just like you but impossible.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Apr 8, 2011 15:48:27 GMT -4
They don't identify what sample(s) of the samples were studied and by whom those sample(s) were identified, they just cite researches that analyzed some sample(s) of the samples. Your line of arguing reminds me of Winnie the Pooh and his testing the quality of the honey in his hunnypot. When he finally has tested all of the honey, he can conclude, that all of the honey was OK, but now the hunnypot is empty :-)
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Mar 20, 2011 18:38:33 GMT -4
Hello. I fancied joining in with some sensible discussion for once about the moon landings so I've come here. I am in my 40s and remember the landings as a child and have always been fascinated by it, but arguing with nutters on a well known conspiracy based forum (I am moving finger) has awakened my interest again, Mostly this is to defend the truth and counter lies and misinformation, but mostly I like the detective work. I've done a few little videos and photomontages to support the landing case, and I'll gladly share those with people here if they want to use them elsewhere. I have read quite a lot of your posts on said forum, and they have been a real pleasure to read.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Mar 20, 2011 14:31:59 GMT -4
Can someone here help educate me on the roles of the Van Allen belts. I keep getting claims from HB's that the Van Allen belts protect the earth from everything from radiation to meteorites. Some of us on this board are currently in a debate with someone on the Davie Icke forums that is basically claiming that the Van Allen belts protect astronauts from Solar Heat and that is why they don't "Cook to death" when in LEO. In a sense, suggesting that the Van Allen belts have some *cooling* effect. And, of course, proving why they should have cooked to death on the moon! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that the Van Allen belts don't protect the earth from much if anything at all. What protects the earth is the Magnetosphere in trapping high energy particles between the lines of magnetic flux and thus forming the belts. In other words, the belts are a consequence of the protection, and not the protection itself. Absolutely correct. What frustrates me even more is when the theorists argue that space is a wash with deadly gamma and x-ray radiation. I guess that means the shuttle EVAs were fake too, as the Earth magnetosphere offers no protection from high frequency electromagnetic waves for astronauts in LEO. For the sake of accuracy I can't help adding, that "the lines of magnetic flux" are a way to describe the direction and the relative strength of a magnetic field. There are no such lines out in the real world, and thus the particles are not trapped "between the lines".
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Mar 8, 2011 10:53:10 GMT -4
For as long as the rocket fires, that wall will continue to press on you and carry you along with the rest of the ship. Maybe it would be better to exchange "carry" with "accelerate"?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 28, 2011 19:08:13 GMT -4
I think he's especially enraged by those who attain fame through his or her debunking of Apollo hoax myths. He probably feels that fame is rightfully his. Or something. - which might be, that because these people are his intellectual superiors, they manage to sow a seed in him, that sneak up in his mind as a nagging fear, that they are right after all, and that his whole position is about to crack and fall apart. To kill this fear inside he has to kill the outside enemies, that cause the fear.
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 21, 2011 6:20:49 GMT -4
At the moment, there is no meat to his argument. He just so strongly believes that he is right that nothing is going to shake that belief. And so, we just go round and round in circles. Maybe conspiratorial and scientific awareness are inversely proportional? :-)
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 10, 2011 8:13:16 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 7, 2011 8:43:34 GMT -4
Yes, I've seen the film of it. Are you aware that it takes place generally - every time? I wonder if you know why that is?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 7, 2011 6:56:51 GMT -4
Funny how hagbardceline only responded to people not here. I got ignored when actively trying to engage him. Well none of you have the common courtesy to be online when I'm answering your posts! You don't do a lot of answering at all imho. Do you know that astronauts are applauded on their way to the spacecraft before take off?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 4, 2011 19:35:14 GMT -4
However the Belts are not the sole factor in why the Apollo programme might have been faked; they're one of a series of factors. So let's examine the others too and analyse the matter holisically. Yeah, lets give holism a try then - and leave the facts to those capable of dealing with them. So why do you think astronauts are applauded on their way to the capsule, huh? Huh?
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 1, 2011 17:22:23 GMT -4
And don't get me wrong; Lies-to-Children is not, to me, a bad thing. It's feeding information in small bites until you can manage big ones. However, that means that a children's book on any subject should be approached as a starting place, not as an ending one. I don't think I do. Simple models are necessary to begin with and can be regarded as approximations to the more complex and "accurate" models to be introduced later on. But an explanation can be plain wrong. For instance the explanation of Ole Rømer's discovery of the fact, that light moves at a limited speed. A book claims, that the orbital speed of Io is observed to be higher, when Earth is closest to Jupiter and observed to be lower half a year later when Earth is on the opposite side of the Sun, and that the difference is 16.67 minutes more or less. Thus the speed of light can be calculated. But this is as wrong as can be, as the orbital speed of Io is observed to be exactly the same from the Earth in these two positions. The real explanation is somewhat more complicated, but not more so, than an interested teenager can understand it given the time to follow the correct explanation. You have another classic pedagogic fraud describing a lit candle in a plate with water. When you put a beaker over the candle, it will burn for a short while before the flame goes out. And what happens? The water rises in the beaker "approximately one fifth up". And why is that? It's because one fifth of the air - the oxygen - has been consumed by the flame, right? Wrong! The oxygen is replaced with carbon dioxide, and the volume of the two gasses are more or less the same. Why does the water rise in the beaker then? Because when the flame goes out, the temperature in the beaker - and together with it the pressure - falls and the water is pressed up by the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere. And so on...
|
|
|
Post by theteacher on Feb 1, 2011 15:51:32 GMT -4
You know, the National Park Service allows a section of books on Creationism to be on display at the Grand Canyon. It's a subject of much controversy in either direction. (I think they're codswallop and would advocate their being thrown into the Canyon, if that weren't littering.) There is also the notion of Lies-to-Children, the idea that things have to be simplified way, way down for kids, almost to the point where it's simply inaccurate. This could be a case of that as well. Without having seen the book, I don't think any of us can make an informed decision as to exactly what's wrong with it. However, it's quite obviously wrong either way. I can second that. Even the textbooks for physics/chemistry, that are used at the school where I work, have several of that kind of errors. On several occasions I have found it necessary to start out with explaining what is wrong in a given chapter, why it is wrong, what instead is correct, and why it is correct. And in many instances it is the illustrator, who has not understood the subject. Often though the text itself includes errors of the kind you mention.
|
|