|
Post by ivan on Jan 5, 2006 18:38:53 GMT -4
Since you're back, how about answering my question? iam am trying to accomplish doubt in beleivers thats all,can't comment on the apollo all i hear is it had much lower tech devices then todays cars,and really beleive the radiation /climate on the mission to the moon would of made it impossible for humans
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 5, 2006 18:47:28 GMT -4
i am am trying to accomplish doubt in beleivers thats all
Why? Wouldn't it be better to tell the truth, no matter what that truth might be?
can't comment on the apollo
But many of us can. Who is likely to have the most factually-supported belief: those who understand that facts, or those who don't?
all i hear is it had much lower tech devices then todays cars
Irrelevant. Today's washing machines have much more technology in them than 19th century train locomotives. Does that mean there were no such things as trains?
The comparison of technology from one period of history to another period of history is irrelevant when the question you really want to answer is whether the technology at any one time is adequate to the tasks imposed on it at the time.
...and really beleive the radiation /climate on the mission to the moon would of made it impossible for humans
But belief is irrelevant. The radiation question is one that can be answered objectively from science. Why would you simply believe something that can be proven or disproven?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 5, 2006 23:22:59 GMT -4
Ivan... go take a picture of Elvis, and also have a sample of his DNA tested. Maybe then you might have the same level of supporting evidence for your claims that NASA has for theirs, and maybe then we would believe you.
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Jan 6, 2006 0:30:41 GMT -4
Since you're back, how about answering my question? iam am trying to accomplish doubt in beleivers thats all,can't comment on the apollo all i hear is it had much lower tech devices then todays cars,and really beleive the radiation /climate on the mission to the moon would of made it impossible for humans You seem to hear much but actually know very little. If you are trying to make the "believers" here doubt Apollo, then you need to say more than, "I heard this or I heard that." Maybe you could learn how much on board computing power it takes to guide and control Apollo on it's way to the moon. Can you learn or look up what the radiation levels are in space? Do you know what radiation environment a human can withstand? Todays cars have small powerful computers because they can. Apollo got by with a bulky, and slow, yet state of the art computer because it was all they needed to get the job done. Ignorance is not always bliss. Learning can be a wonderful experience. Ranb
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jan 6, 2006 4:42:34 GMT -4
maybe robotic missions brought those rocks just maybe,but not humans,scientists argue much deeper drilling cores are needed for proper analysis of the moons origins,something nasa should be doing by now,i had heard no soil samples were taken back but not sure on that one Apollo brought back several hundred times the mass of rocks that the Soviets managed, and their system involved several missions with a large launch vehicle, so when did the US launch all these robot sample return missions? Successful space launches are not easy to hide. The Soviets tried not announcing several of their less successful missions, and they were detected in the west every time. The Apollo samples were photographed on the moon before collection, with a reference gnomon placed next to the sample in each photo, and included everything from fine rakings of soil to 2-metre cores. You say that the Apollo computers were primitive, but this sort of robotics would be pretty difficult even today.
|
|
|
Post by iamspartacus on Jan 6, 2006 6:40:55 GMT -4
This really does suggest that meteorites have not been faked to resemble Luna material. Should have read: "This really does suggest that meteorites have not been faked to resemble Apollo Luna material."
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 6, 2006 16:17:52 GMT -4
maybe robotic missions brought those rocks just maybe,but not humans,scientists argue much deeper drilling cores are needed for proper analysis of the moons origins,something nasa should be doing by now,i had heard no soil samples were taken back but not sure on that one Apollo brought back several hundred times the mass of rocks that the Soviets managed, and their system involved several missions with a large launch vehicle, so when did the US launch all these robot sample return missions? Successful space launches are not easy to hide. The Soviets tried not announcing several of their less successful missions, and they were detected in the west every time. The Apollo samples were photographed on the moon before collection, with a reference gnomon placed next to the sample in each photo, and included everything from fine rakings of soil to 2-metre cores. You say that the Apollo computers were primitive, but this sort of robotics would be pretty difficult even today. a measley SO called 9 feet deep of digging,what a great step for mankind that was,nasa knows they have to do better then that but they have you guys lodging at the heartbreak hotel waiting for the next great bs landing
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 6, 2006 16:27:51 GMT -4
Apollo brought back several hundred times the mass of rocks that the Soviets managed, and their system involved several missions with a large launch vehicle, so when did the US launch all these robot sample return missions? Successful space launches are not easy to hide. The Soviets tried not announcing several of their less successful missions, and they were detected in the west every time. The Apollo samples were photographed on the moon before collection, with a reference gnomon placed next to the sample in each photo, and included everything from fine rakings of soil to 2-metre cores. You say that the Apollo computers were primitive, but this sort of robotics would be pretty difficult even today. a measley SO called 9 feet deep of digging,what a great step for mankind that was,nasa knows they have to do better then that but they have you guys lodging at the heartbreak hotel waiting for the next great bs landing A great example of what somebody posts when they have no rational rebuttal to arguments against their theory but want to get in the last word.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jan 6, 2006 19:02:26 GMT -4
Ivan, you are such a hound dog and all shook up over this! If you would put aside your wooden heart and suspicious mind for a moment and let some new ideals shake rattle and roll around for a little while, any day now you could put on your blue suede shoes and see that mess of blues you are in could be cleared by some fresh Kentucky rain allowing you to have the same burning love for the Apollo program as the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by twinstead on Jan 6, 2006 19:44:29 GMT -4
Ivan, you are such a hound dog and all shook up over this! If you would put aside your wooden heart and suspicious mind for a moment and let some new ideals shake rattle and roll around for a little while, any day now you could put on your blue suede shoes and see that mess of blues you are in could be cleared by some fresh Kentucky rain allowing you to have the same burning love for the Apollo program as the rest of us. Good point. Thankya....thankya vurry much
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jan 7, 2006 6:22:46 GMT -4
G'day Ivan
Welcome back from Cancun.
Please read the points we've made about the Apollo rocks, compared with the Soviet rocks and the Antarctic meteorites.
A meteorite from the Moon has to pass through the Earth's atmosphere, at speeds of several kilometres per second. This melts the outside of the meteor. None of the Apollo rocks look like their outer surfaces were melted. This means they came to the Earth from the Moon by some means which protected their surface.
Instead, the Apollo rocks show the sort of weathering which would be experienced by rocks on the surface of the Moon for millions of years - impacts from microscopic dust particles, and solar irradiation.
* So we know the Apollo rocks are NOT lunar meteorites.
The Soviet sample return missions collected a total of about 350 grams - it would all fit inside a soup tin. The Apollo rocks total over 380 kilograms. Many of the Apollo rocks were larger than 350 grams, and the largest were over 10 kilograms. Many Apollo rocks were actually fragile clods of compressed Moon soil. Two metre long core samples were drilled into the Moon's surface.
The Soviet missions were about the best that could be managed with robot technology in the early 1970s. But even today, there is no robot technology which would allow a sample return mission to retrieve 10 kilogram rocks, fragile clods of compressed soil or to drill 2 metre long core samples.
* So we know that the Apollo rocks weren't retrieved by robot missions.
Finally, we know from studying the Apollo rocks that they contain features which *can't* be created by humans on Earth. For example, as I said earlier, these rocks are similar to Earth rocks, but with one major difference - the Apollo rocks contain no water. And as I said earlier, there's no way you can remove the water from Earth rocks simply by heating them. Any heat sufficient to remove the water would actually melt the rocks, thus making them different from how they appear. Also, these rocks contain crystals which take millions of years to form. There's no way this time can be shortened.
* Deny it all you like, but there's no way the Apollo rocks were made by humans on Earth.
There's only one conclusion left. They were collected from the Moon by humans.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 7, 2006 12:53:04 GMT -4
Ivan, you are such a hound dog and all shook up over this! If you would put aside your wooden heart and suspicious mind for a moment and let some new ideals shake rattle and roll around for a little while, any day now you could put on your blue suede shoes and see that mess of blues you are in could be cleared by some fresh Kentucky rain allowing you to have the same burning love for the Apollo program as the rest of us. ,i guess you all are some hard headed women,who follow their dream of landing on the moon,just joking yous present good points but still my suspicious mind tells me it was just a lie,will never make me a beleiver
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 7, 2006 13:43:56 GMT -4
i guess you all are some hard headed women,who follow their dream of landing on the moon,just joking...
Joke or not, it's important for you to understand that my belief is a matter of knowledge and comprehension, not of nostalgia or credulity. You say things like "NASA sure has you people fooled," but in fact I and others here are professionally qualified to put NASA's claims to the test and see if they are answerable to the facts. And they are. Similarly, we can put the claims of the conspiracy theorists to the test, and we find that they do not account for the facts.
There's a difference between believing something because you just "feel" it, and believing something because you have an array of facts and known principles that lead you there. If your belief is based on inferences drawn defensibly from established fact, then you are not "hard-headed" for holding to them when challenged by mere suspicion.
If, for example, your wife does not believe you've taken out the trash as she asked you to, she can base her suspicion on her knowledge of your general laziness and past instances in which you shirked your chores. But if your contention that you did dispose of the trash is based on the testimony of your neighbor who saw you do it, and the observable fact of the trash reposing in the outdoor dustbin, then that is a greater class of belief. And you are most certainly not hard-headed for holding to it if it is challenged except upon superlative factual grounds. Beliefs based on general suspicion yield to beliefs based on specific fact.
yous present good points but still my suspicious mind tells me it was just a lie...
As long as you're willing to continue to admit it's all in your mind. You can believe whatever you want. But if you argue that what you believe is a matter of objective fact, you'll have to present arguments that can be tested. Beliefs that touch questions of historical fact are either right or wrong. There is no allowance for subjective variability.
...will never make me a beleiver
But don't you think it's irrational to say that you're mind is made up and nothing that anyone can say or do will change it?
|
|
|
Post by bughead on Jan 7, 2006 13:54:43 GMT -4
Ivan, you are such a hound dog and all shook up over this! If you would put aside your wooden heart and suspicious mind for a moment and let some new ideals shake rattle and roll around for a little while, any day now you could put on your blue suede shoes and see that mess of blues you are in could be cleared by some fresh Kentucky rain allowing you to have the same burning love for the Apollo program as the rest of us. ,i guess you all are some hard headed women,who follow their dream of landing on the moon,just joking yous present good points but still my suspicious mind tells me it was just a lie,will never make me a beleiver If you're so suspicious, why do you "beleive" what Bart Sibrel tells you in an advertisement? Please spell better and use your spacebar correctly. You come off like a nitwit that way.
|
|
|
Post by ivan on Jan 7, 2006 18:05:21 GMT -4
,i guess you all are some hard headed women,who follow their dream of landing on the moon,just joking yous present good points but still my suspicious mind tells me it was just a lie,will never make me a beleiver Dear nitwit what I beleive is the fact that they havn't sent man farther then 500 miles up in the past 30 years.. And back in 69 which happens to be the year of my Mach I ,Mustang,,..you beleive so dam long ago they went over 400,000 m just to dig 9 feet of rock,shh i buried my dog about that deep back in the summer,,nasa should of blasted or drilled the moon with much updated tools by now,they have enough bank to do it but just not the brains to get there with men,get them back up there please to shut me up,,is it possible that the rocks supposedly from the moon were sand blasted to remove traces of rentry like the rocks found in Antartica have ,then weathered by chemicals or by other means?
|
|