|
Post by svector on Aug 15, 2007 1:20:07 GMT -4
the fact that the Soviets got a long thin core sample showed that it is theoritically possible for NASA to have done the same. Was that core sample part of the 10 oz. of material the Soviets returned to earth?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 15, 2007 2:15:14 GMT -4
I'd have to check how much it was, they returned about 300g I think. The first two samples were random soil and rocks from a 1 foot deep scoop, the third return was the core sample. Luna 23 was supposed to return one as well, but the sample drill broke.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 15, 2007 7:00:09 GMT -4
Hoagland's early work involved identifying evidence of artificial constructions in Apollo photographs, mostly "enhanced" lens artifacts and so forth. So a lens flare or patch of scatter became a "crystal palace." Which is why he was forced into defending NASA against the Apollo-hoax brigade. He needed Apollo to have actually happened, otherwise his entire work on alien structures on the Moon would have been based on fake pictures not actually taken on the Moon. Note that in contrast to the owner of the Cosmic Conspiracies website Hoagland at least recognises the contradiction in saying Apollo was faked and they found alien structures on the Moon....
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Aug 15, 2007 7:27:00 GMT -4
I'd have to check how much it was, they returned about 300g I think. The first two samples were random soil and rocks from a 1 foot deep scoop, the third return was the core sample. Luna 23 was supposed to return one as well, but the sample drill broke. Luna 24's sample was 170 grammes. A major difference from the Apollo core samples was that the Luna 24 one was fed into a flexible tube and rolled up to fit into the return capsule, while the Apollo cores were returned in rigid tubes.
|
|
|
Post by kabestone on Mar 31, 2011 19:28:25 GMT -4
well then, you may be interested in checking out Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets hidden in the films of Stanley Kubrick, whcih contains devastating proof that the landing was shot in a studio on Earth! It exposes Kubrick's "deal with devil", how he faked the moon landings in order to secure his future. This film was just released and is available at .
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Mar 31, 2011 19:32:45 GMT -4
well then, you may be interested in checking out Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets hidden in the films of Stanley Kubrick, whcih contains devastating proof that the landing was shot in a studio on Earth! It exposes Kubrick's "deal with devil", how he faked the moon landings in order to secure his future. This film was just released and is available at spamittyspam.spam. Hmm, I do believe that this is the first HB spambot that I have seen, that or someone really needs to learn that posting multiple identical messages in threads that are semi-related at best is a good way to stop being member of the board and get their posts deleted on the assumption that they are spambot.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Mar 31, 2011 19:47:59 GMT -4
well then, you may be interested in checking out Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets hidden in the films of Stanley Kubrick, whcih contains devastating proof that the landing was shot in a studio on Earth! It exposes Kubrick's "deal with devil", how he faked the moon landings in order to secure his future. This film was just released and is available at .Repeatedly spamming this forum with the same link to another site is a good way to get yourself banned. If you want to continue posting here I suggest you follow the rules. I kept your post above but the duplicates have been deleted. Edit: On second thought, I'm removing the link as it is clearly intended to sell a product and is therefore SPAM. Further attempts to post that link will not work as I am adding it to the forum's filter.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 31, 2011 19:56:45 GMT -4
And it's reviving a thread which hasn't been posted on in three and a half years. And presupposes we don't know anything about Kubrick.
|
|
|
Post by twik on Apr 1, 2011 15:33:29 GMT -4
And it's reviving a thread which hasn't been posted on in three and a half years. Which makes me think it's not a spambot but a live person. He/it went back a good ways, and chose a thread on a somewhat relevant topic. Therefore, if he wishes to discuss his theory, he would be wise to actually talk about it, not spam links. However, I am presuming he is a small entrepreneur trying desperately to generate some hits, rather than actual discussion.
|
|
|
Post by stutefish on Apr 2, 2011 14:22:28 GMT -4
I for one welcome the opportunity to re-read a classic bit of Jay Utah from the archives.
|
|