|
Post by echnaton on Jun 14, 2010 19:35:15 GMT -4
angeress,
I've read several treads you've started with out learning much about what you really believe. Do you have an alternate view of the moon landings that you are going to state actually happened and are willing to defend? Or are you going to try to nit pick the "official" story and not answer questions?
I think you can see why saying "they did it at area 51" isn't very convincing.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Jun 14, 2010 19:59:25 GMT -4
I think you can see why saying "they did it at area 51" isn't very convincing. Especially since, as everyone knows, the Moon landings were filmed on location because Stanley Kubrick is a perfectionist and wanted everything to look completely realistic and it was the Mars landings that were filmed at Area 51 because no spacecraft could possibly survive the deadly "atmosphere belt" around the actual planet.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jun 14, 2010 20:48:48 GMT -4
wow, I know it really shouldn't surprise me, but just once, I'd love to see an HB that actually knew something about the topic before making sweeping hoax statments about it.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Jun 14, 2010 22:08:14 GMT -4
Didn't see this earlier post addressed... What I would class as truth talk is the fact that why was the Moon Vechicle less on fuel on the journey back [...] That is not a fact, that is a question. I would say the reason the spacecraft had less fuel on the way back is because they used up fuel to get the Moon and couldn't get a refill anywhere along the way. Nevermind the fact that the only thing that would count as being "dolled up as the Moon" is having some craters probaby from blast impact tests. Just because there's this place with craters on it doesn't mean it was faked there. That is a huge leap.
|
|
|
Post by drewid on Jun 15, 2010 0:40:05 GMT -4
There's another reason for less fuel needed on the way back.'
Earths gravity, it's effectively downhill most of the way.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2010 9:05:47 GMT -4
Bill Kaysing has stated many things about the subject and his claims are taken very, very seriously infact.Hogwash. The only people with whom Kaysing's claims have any pull are those who are new to the hoax theory and haven't yet run across the refutations. Claims such as "trillions of stars" aren't even taken seriously by other conspiracy theorists, much less by the general public or by scientists. Other hoax authors such as Ralph René and James Collier openly mocked Kaysing's lack of knowledge and sophistication. ...but why is NASA very worried about Kaysing's claims?What is your evidence that they are?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2010 9:13:09 GMT -4
This man actually told all the world about the Moon story...And later in that same interview told everyone it was an "outrageous" story he made up to embarrass the government over its treatment of veterans. ...and he has stated for a fact that it was Area 51No, he didn't state it as a fact. He stated it as an assertion for which he had no proof and against which he knew no one could provide a refutation. Kaysing never visited Area 51 nor participated in any hoax. There is little or nothing about his hoax claims that he knows as a "fact."
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jun 15, 2010 9:40:39 GMT -4
No they do not because if NASA ignored his claims then he would not be a huge authority on The MoonHe wasn't a huge authority on the Moon. He was taken as a patriarch by the Apollo hoax crowd -- a very small minority, but they're free to choose their hero as they wish; NASA has nothing to do with that. ...and Fox Tv would of never of allowed him to have his own TV show either.NASA has nothing to do with what Fox chooses to put on the air. Fox airs things also for shock and titillation value, not because they're true. I am actually in two minds about this...Not apparently. I don't see you approaching the hoax claims very critically. You seem to be buying into them without much effort. ...Neil Armstrong had a serious accident with some machineAre you really going to presume to educate us on this when you can't get further than "some machine?" I guarantee all the regulars on this forum are far more informed about the Apollo project than you are. Please don't try to bluff. it was supposed to be Moon friendly...Nope. It had an air-breathing engine and it was built as a quick-and-dirty trainer to provide the same "feel" as the LM, but in an Earth environment. It was never intended to work on the Moon and never intended to be a prototype for any kind of lunar lander. In fact, it was never intended to last more than a few years. The reason it had an ejection seat is precisely because it was a thrown-together sort of thing that had one very narrowly defined purpose. It failed out from under Armstrong because it was known to have a likely higher failure rate than more carefully engineered vehicles. Nevertheless it flew successfully hundreds of times. Do you have anything besides vague handwaving to support your beliefs?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 15, 2010 11:43:58 GMT -4
There's another reason for less fuel needed on the way back.' Earths gravity, it's effectively downhill most of the way. Plus on the way there you have to cary extra fuel to lift all the fuel you're going to use on the way back.
|
|
|
Post by frenat on Jun 15, 2010 17:40:34 GMT -4
There's another reason for less fuel needed on the way back.' Earths gravity, it's effectively downhill most of the way. Plus on the way there you have to cary extra fuel to lift all the fuel you're going to use on the way back. Another good way to think about it is on the way there it is as if you are starting at sea level, climbing a large mountain and once you cross it you can coast down. Your destination however is only a short way down the other side. On the way back you just have to climb back that short way and you can coast all the way down to sea level.
|
|
|
Post by cos on Jun 16, 2010 13:34:42 GMT -4
Sometimes the fundamental misunderstanding HBs have about things eludes me. It never occurred that they could equate going to the moon and back with driving to another town and back, where one might reasonably expect to use the same amount of fuel each way. Understandable I suppose at some level but I would hope that once explained it would never be used in support of the hoax again. The fact that it is seems to confirm the absence of even a basic science education amongst HBs.
|
|
|
Post by svector on Jun 17, 2010 7:17:32 GMT -4
Neil Armstrong had a serious accident with some machine Yes, it was a machine that was used as an astronaut training vehicle to approximate the flight characteristics of the Lunar Module. Question: Why would such a trainer be necessary if NASA's plan was to fake the moon landings in a studio? What exactly was Neil Armstrong training for when he flew it? .
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Jun 17, 2010 12:06:11 GMT -4
My consoling thought: With the passage of time, Kaysing's name will fade. Armstrong, Collins, Aldrin Conrad, Gordon, Bean Lovell, Swigert, Haise Shepard, Roosa, Mitchell Scott, Worden, Irwin Young, Mattingly, Duke Cernan, Evans, Schmitt will live on.
|
|
|
Post by dragonblaster on Jun 17, 2010 14:58:05 GMT -4
Yet another drive-by hit-and-run troll, by the look. The sound of the wind blowing the tumbleweed around is overpowering...
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jun 18, 2010 12:30:38 GMT -4
What's the point of making a few hit-and-run posts and then deleting your account?
|
|