|
Post by JayUtah on Nov 22, 2005 19:18:39 GMT -4
I wrote it all up in the Reality of Apollo section. I appreciate your ability to understand what's going on.
I was able to find a few poor pictures of the flow liners on the web, but none that show anything to help the discussion. This really is one of those times when a picture is worth a thousand words. I'll try to see if I can get some of the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) images, but NASA owns them -- not us.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 6:26:13 GMT -4
Ah great, rob Moore, is very idiotic and dumb. He understands nothing about physics, that is why he was hired by NASA. What he said, and was confirmed again by another edited, top-secretive governmental project, is stupid. A straight A student who ws hired by NASA knows nothing about theories and their practicalities. Just you guys, you know everything. The man who says important encounters with important ppl, is obviously lying according to you, or what he has been told by his friend is false, which means that NASA hires unprofessional ppl and come to them to have their projects done. You can believe your dreams that the man is lying, never heard anything about that from Rob, never watched the top-secretive project, never read th confidential report that states as I remember that the earthorbiting is the only true project, being confirmed by another presentation as I said...just you don't make sense to me. No, things that are hidden and admitted hold lots of weight, I'm sorry. This man is King Witness, if you want to go into detective work. perhaps I am not competent to answer the questions you raise, I am not Rob Moore, but that author has really brought something important to me. Now , I am wwaiting for you to answer me about the smudge issue, I will most probably then take your arguments to Drs. at the university here, who are unbiased. Speaking to fanatical ppl is really pointless.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Nov 23, 2005 6:44:07 GMT -4
Speaking to fanatical ppl is really pointless. LOL I don't think you realize the irony of that statement....
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 6:45:12 GMT -4
[
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 6:47:21 GMT -4
Ah, you haven't probably noticed that the author doesn't claim that every research done by him is right.I understand you want to withdraw that as "scientific" evidence of a hoax. Fine. Do you have any other evidence? You might want to ask Sibrel as he says: "The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." They are, of course, assuming that the missions were authentic, when, in fact, they were not. The leading scientists are wrong. Has this ever historically happened?" What is wrong for the previous scientists was right.but many are, this is my point. Again and again, to you they are not qualified, same as previous scientists weren't considered qualified at that time.again, read Sibrel. ppl at edison's time just thought like you. I was just answering wolf that no one scientist has ever stood up against the moon landings.I am still not convinced, that the other scientists are not scientists. I have no way to judge, was just suggesting that they may be right. He was putting a strong defense they are not scientists, or you were, and I still am convinced you may be wrong, especially that we should ask Sibrel about the leading scientists first.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 6:54:34 GMT -4
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 23, 2005 7:00:02 GMT -4
"I think it was one of Einstein's theories regarding space travel that once a craft reached a speed of a little over 24,000 miles an hour and aimed in the proper trajectory, it would be able to escape the earth's gravitational pull and then 'freely glide', through space at that speed with no need of any further power. " this is what the theory says, that you don't need to put more power, but it is wrong, according to Rob Moore. It was Konstantin Tsiolkovski who first proposed that rockets would be a way to do this, but the basic calculation has been doable since Sir Isaac Newton proposed his theory of gravity and laws of motion.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Nov 23, 2005 7:01:17 GMT -4
The leading scientists today who say that the Van Allen Radiation Belt is not lethal (who were generally in preschool at the time of the first alleged moon landing) do so by the following deduction: "The Apollo astronauts went through the radiation belt on their way to the moon and survived, so it must not be lethal." Let us be clear on this point: You are saying that no scientist or engineer working today has ever directly measured the radiation in the Van Allen belts, they simply use (false) information supplied to them by NASA. Is that in fact your stance?
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 7:13:49 GMT -4
You'll have to ask Sibrel. What I am saying is that there are leading scientists, according to him, who dismiss the issue. I'll contact him about that.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 23, 2005 7:14:51 GMT -4
And not just the USA, but Russia, ESA and Japan have all launched space probes that escaped earth's gravity, and all behave just as Sir Isaac's laws predict.
Also, all those countries, plus China and India, continue to launch satellites into the van Allen belts and measure the radiation levels there.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 23, 2005 7:20:23 GMT -4
And not just the USA, but Russia, ESA and Japan have all launched space probes that escaped earth's gravity, and all behave just as Sir Isaac's laws predict. IIRC, Voyager 1 may be behaving a little oddly, but that is speeding up, not slowing down.
|
|
|
Post by lordoftherings on Nov 23, 2005 7:22:12 GMT -4
more from Sibrel: "Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s. He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did." yahooooooooooo
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Nov 23, 2005 7:25:51 GMT -4
LotR, consider this: if what this Moore guy says is true then the following things are also fake: The Soviet Luna and Lunik probes, and the Lunokhod rovers, Ranger and Surveyor, the Mariner probes, the Venera probes, the Pioneer and Voyager probes, Cassini-Huygens, Galileo, the Mars Viking landers, The Mars Pathfinder mission, Spirit and Opportunity, Mars Global Surveyor, Mars express, Messenger, Magellan, Clementine, SMART-1, Hayabusa, Giotto, Genesis, Stardust, etc. That means that we cannot possibly have obtained the millions of pictures of the lunar surface, the lunar far side, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and its moons, Saturn and its moons, Uranus, Neptune, Halley's comet nucleus, the Wild-2 nucleus, close-up detail of the Martian surface from the rovers, close-up images of Triton, the asteroids, etc. that are available now, so they must also all be fake. Now on the one hand we have a guy who supposedly worked at NASA telling us about his top-secret report that says you can't escape Earth orbit, and on the other we have millions of images and vast amounts of data about other bodies in the solar system collected by agencies including but, crucially, not limited to NASA, none of which could possibly be real if this supposed top-secret report is correct. Now, which scenario seems more likely? again, read SibrelI suggest you find my thread about an exchange I had with Sibrel regarding one of his claims earlier in the year, then tell me if you think his testimony is reliable: www.apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1126019457
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Nov 23, 2005 7:26:16 GMT -4
more from Sibrel: "Then I came upon a highly credible source, in his late seventies, who I verified worked for the space program during the 1960s. He asserted, most confidently, that the Apollo moon landings were first, impossible, and second, falsified as a Cold War tactic to bluff the Soviet Union into thinking the United States had greater capability than it really did." yahooooooooooo Is there anything other than he is saying what you want to hear that makes you believe Sibrel no questions asked, yet you question the opinion of the huge majority of qualified astronomers and engineers world-wide? Don't you find that odd? If I were you I wouldn't hitch my wagon to Bart. You will soon find out why. Many posters on this board are very familiar with him. Edit for spelling
|
|
|
Post by laguna on Nov 23, 2005 7:28:35 GMT -4
I came upon a most credible source, that the little invisible elf in my backyard just moved to my neighbors backjard...
|
|