|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:33:01 GMT -4
Okay, I think it's time for what I consider the most absolutely fundamental question in this kind of case. What would it take to convince you that you were wrong, Hagbard? Hagbard is an unashamadly died in the wool Icke supporter. Nothing would convince him, unless Icke suddenly believed it. Now, Mr Icke says don't be sheeple, yet his followers make a funny baaaaa sound when repeating his views. Since Hagbard believes the Moon was visited by flying saucers (earlier in this thread).....and the Moon footage possible faked on some other terrestrial body, I wouldn't hold out much hope that anything would convince him. Perhaps we should start a new thread entitled "Hagbard Celine- His Personal Qualities and Faults"! I make no secret of my admiration for David Icke. He is an excellent researcher and an inspiring writer and speaker. He has done more to awaken humanity to the danger of the New World Order than almost anyone else, in the face of enormous ridicule and personal cost. It's a brave enough thing when an "average joe", as the Americans say, starts speaking out about these subjects, but when somebody who is already famous does it it's humbling. In fact David's experience is a lesson for us in how the Illuminati control public opinion through their trashy media. I am not somebody who just goes along with whatever David says. If I was I'd be here telling you that the moon is a hollow spacecraft from which the Reptilians control the Earth. I don't think that this is true. The Reptilians are real, but they operate right here on Terra Firma. I respect David, but I'm not a "sheeple" who just hangs on his every word.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:35:26 GMT -4
that's grossly unfair Still I'd be naive to expect anything better. I doubt if there is anything I'd say that you would not consider trolling. Actually it's pretty accurate. You have silently ignored a huge amount of information and queries people have provided for you. Perhaps you should go back and read them. No I haven't. I've answered as many personal posts as I can. I've provided reasons why I think the Van Allen Belts were an issue at the time Apollo allegedly flew: That they were there, but people weren't sure how dangerous they were. To this day, variable information is being published on them.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:41:32 GMT -4
Of course it must be accurate if it's on the internet. If however you want more complete and comprehensive information on the size, scale and variability of the VABs go get that document I provided a link to. Which page was that? Sorry, I've got so much to read here. Why should it be wrong just 'cos it's online? You said in this post you'd got a link too... to an internet web page! The Wiki page does provide a source: I assume "ECSS" means the European Community for Space Standardization" and not the "European Centre for Sports Studies" ;D
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:44:23 GMT -4
Hi, I'm a very long-time lurker. I have a couple of questions for hagbardceline regarding a couple of points he made when discussing Piltdown Man, which is a topic that interests me in addition to the moon hoax debate. First, the "cricket bat" tool is not a "filed down cricket bat". It is a carved fossil bone that looks, to English eyes, somewhat like a cricket bat (it looks like a paddle to me, but I'm not familiar that much with cricket). Does hagbardceline admit that he was wrong in factual details here? Second, he stated that the hoax was perpetrated to "make England as important as Germany". To make this claim, I would suppose he knows who did the hoax in the first place, and eliminates obvious suspects such as Charles Dawson (whose motive would most likely be simple desire for attention). Since the hoaxer has never been officially identified, I'd like to know hagbardceline's basis for ascribing a motive to the unknown hoaxer. I know that these questions are a little off the lunar topic, but I think they are relevant since hagbardceline introduced them as supporting evidence to his claim. OK, I took the information from a TV show about the Piltdown hoax. It interviewed many scientists, of the type members here respect , and they were the ones who said what I put in that post. Welcome BTW.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 4:45:16 GMT -4
I've provided reasons why I think the Van Allen Belts were an issue at the time Apollo allegedly flew: That they were there, but people weren't sure how dangerous they were. But you have IGNORED every single post telling you how much research had been done in the time between their discovery and the Apollo flights, and have refused to answer the simple question of how much data you think they should have had compared with how much data they actually had.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:47:44 GMT -4
...let's deal with the van Allen Belts first. A radiographer told me that it depends on the is intensity of the particles and duration you're exposed to them. She asked me for excact figures on what those were and I showed her links to the two pages I quoted a few pages ahead which give contradictory information on the Belts and she shook her head in bemusement saying: "There's no way to be sure from two so widely diverging estimates." Have you visited the link that trebor provided? Here it is again: modelweb.gsfc.nasa.gov/magnetos/AP-8-min-max-76-6.pdfPerhaps you could read the material in it before you say anything else about the Van Allen Belts. Perhaps you could discuss it with your radiographer friend. Thanks. I'll have a look. Let's see if this page provides the same figures or different ones again! And I think this shows that thoxse who say: "It's not proper science if it's on the internet and not a library" etc are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:49:38 GMT -4
PeterB, I've got to the title page and it says 1976; that's 4 years after Apollo ended .... Reading on.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:55:49 GMT -4
Hag. How deep is the sea and how big are waves? I'll take measurements accuate to the nearest .5 meter . thanks. I don't know. I've looked at figures for the sea's depth and wave hieght, but they keep coming up with different answers. This is a dilemma for me because I'm about to set sail in a ship over the sea. It's a voyage whose success is extremely politically important! I'm tempted... should I?... to go to a duckpond in a park and film myself on board the ship there in safety! Nobody will ever know I wasn't really on the sea!
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 4:57:53 GMT -4
And what circumstances? If you travelled into the Belts and stayed there for any length of time, a month say, with no protection at all. So nothing remotely related to any actual flight to the Moon then. OK.... No, as we are aware now (I keep repeating that)
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 4:59:17 GMT -4
And I think this shows that thoxse who say: "It's not proper science if it's on the internet and not a library" etc are wrong. And that shows you have completely misunderstood all those who have criticised your research. There is proper science on the web. Most science journals have online archives. Your research went as far as Google and Wiki articles, however, and THAT is what the criticism was based on.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 5:01:02 GMT -4
No, as we are aware now (I keep repeating that) Yes you do, but you are utterly unable to substatiate your suggestion that we were unaware of that at the time of Apollo. Your personal uncertainties do not make a convincing argument.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 5:04:36 GMT -4
If you can provide a source page for it I'd be grateful. The source of that diagram is me. I drew it from published data on the various components. The whole thing was drawn (in about ten minutes, by the way) about a year ago for another contributor here who made the same flawed arguments about the van Allen belts as you are. Your comments about the 'alleged' Apollo orbit inclination misses the point entirely. The diagram is not intended as a true representation fo what was actually done (though it does use the data published about Apollo 11's orbital inclination, and indeed anything launched from Florida would be around that inclination anyway without a lot of extra fuel to change plane), but as an illustration that it is quite possible to arrange trajectories to miss most of the belts entirely. Oh, you mean these amorphous, variable Belts? The ones that are either 100 miles or 5000 miles high? The ones that to this day published data still disagrees on their consitency? I see that in that picture you drew the Belts do have a shape, a form of sorts. So what is it actually? Doesn't it bother you that there are so many diverging figures for the Belts' consistency? It would me if I was planning a space mission!
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 19, 2011 5:10:19 GMT -4
Doesn't it bother you that there are so many diverging figures for the Belts' consistency? No, because I have taken the time to find some proper published research and understand that the variability is within a certain range. I didn't base mine on oversimplified webpages and misinterpretations of single numbers, but on a rather more detailed map of intensities and distances based on a decade's worth of collected data from dozens of probes. Just like the people planning the Apollo missions did, in fact. That's because you still think that Googling up a few simplified Wiki articles and diagrams is enough research for a real planned mission.
|
|
|
Post by hagbardceline on Feb 19, 2011 5:13:20 GMT -4
How about "I have never known him to discuss anything and actually show evidence that he knows what he's talking about"? Well he better start soon because I'm not going to put up with it for much longer. Gilianren and LunarOrbit. That's totally unfair! I have endevoured to answer all the members I can and post what I consider evidence for thinking what I do. This is, I might add, in the teeth of scathing personal criticism and some aggression (which I realize was inevitable. ) This is even when other members are posting a dozen or more replies to each of my posts! I can see I'm on borrowed time here because there's no way I can express myself any differently to how I do now. And people reckon you could never cover up the faking of the Moon Landings? It would be easy! It's been very educational being here I must admit. Anyway I'm jumping before I'm pushed. Goodbye everybody! ;D
|
|
|
Post by chrlz on Feb 19, 2011 5:23:21 GMT -4
I've provided reasons why I think the Van Allen Belts were an issue at the time Apollo allegedly flew: That they were there, but people weren't sure how dangerous they were. To this day, variable information is being published on them. I'm sorry, but this is just incomprehensible. Firstly, you keep repeating this claim of conflicting information on the VABs, as if somehow different opinions that are expressed, or new methodologies being applied and giving more refined information, is somehow proof of a hoax. That's simply ludicrous. IF you claim that there are significant conflicts - CITE them. This entire thread (and yes, I've endured read all of it) seems based on your handwaving without any proper cites, and completely ignoring all the information handed to you. BTW, just out of interest, I'm in the process of putting together a lengthy online dissertation about the radiation issues that applied to the Apollo missions, and I'm just not seeing these conflicts. It is a topic I can claim to be very familiar with, but I'm happy to learn something new. So now it's back to you - I'd like to be comprehensive in my coverage, so you tell me where (and what) those conflicts/variations are, please... Thanks in advance. And if they are simply the result of the refining process that has gone on since Van Allen seriously began looking at them, I'll be a little disappointed. But not surprised, having read the rest of this thread.. Added: PS - I now see he's run for it. Just in time... (I hope he has taken all those smilies with him...) Anyway, if anyone else has noted serious conflicts in VAB information, could you post the cites here? Thanks..
|
|