|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 17:15:07 GMT -4
As I said, the goal was to put a man on the moon. The goal was to divert the public's mind from VietNam. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 16:34:43 GMT -4
>> If Concorde had really been mach 2 capable don't you think we would have sent an unmanned concorde up before putting people in it? If the shuttle really worked don't you think we would have sent up an unmanned one before putting astronauts in it and sending them to space? . I do see your point Jason and it's a very good one, but I'm sure you would agree that neither Concorde nor the Space Shuttle represented quite such a forward leap in technology as Apollo supposedly did. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 12:48:58 GMT -4
[ How many automated systems have you personally designed and built? Please answer. None, but I think you knew that. Apologies to anyone I don't find time to answer everyone on every point by the way. Although I very much like this forum, I have two young children who are more deserving of my time, particularly as it is the school holiday here. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 11:57:21 GMT -4
Hang on a second ... so margamatix argument has now shifted from It was not possible for the Apollo craft (containing a skilled human pilot) to land on the moon because the computers of the day weren't up to it.to The computers of the day were good enough to allow a completely robotic mission to retrieve lunar rock samples? . Neither scenario was possible at the time, but the latter would have been the easier to develop. The most difficult part of any moon landing, should we ever do one, will be in keeping the human beings alive. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 8:20:07 GMT -4
Hi Margamatix . And anyway, an unmanned Lunar Module couldn’t collect rocks, so how does that answer my original question? Surely you are not suggesting that it would be possible to build a rocket which could carry a vehicle 240,000 miles into moon orbit, it would be possible for a part of that vehicle to detatch itself and make a 60 mile controlled descent to the moon surface, it would be possible for this lander to then take off from the moon, go back into moon orbit and dock with the mother ship, and return 240,000 miles to Earth..... And yet it would not be possible to build a machine which could pick up rocks? |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 29, 2005 4:32:27 GMT -4
We have the technology to send unmanned vessels to the moon. Although it would have been extremely difficult to do in 1969, it falls within the realms of possibility that such a vessel could have collected rocks and returned to Earth with them at this time.
It's worth pointing out here though, that the USSR did not find it possible to do this until the Luna 20 project in 1972.
If it had all really happened, don't you think we would have landed and returned an unmanned craft before trying with a manned one?
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 17:32:20 GMT -4
This machine appears to date from around 1914, by which time man had been flying in heavier-than-air machines for around 65 years (gliders) and powered heavier-than-air machines for 11 years.
It's no surprise that this could fly.
The moon is 240,000 miles away, in a total vacuum, in one-sixth of Earth gravity, at temperatures of 280 degrees celsius.
The furthest from Earth any country has sent any man, woman or animal in the last 30-odd years is 400 miles.
Fourteen astronauts have died doing this.
We sent mission after mission to the moon and they all came back, fine and dandy, without any long-term damage to their health.
When NASA was asked in 1987 if they could send a man to the moon, their opinion was that if they were fully-funded, they might be able to do it by 2010.
I didn't just come up the Thames on a piece of toast, as we say here in the UK.
|
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 17:07:28 GMT -4
Of course we have never been to the moon. But do you see the difference? In the WMD case there were legitimate experts on both sides of the issue. There was defensible logic on both sides of the issue. There are no legitimate experts on the side of the moon hoax theory. You are talking to a man who lives in a country whose leading "expert" on cot-death has just been struck off by the General Medical Council, after his false evidence led to three women being wrongly imprisoned for life on charges of murdering their own children. Search Google for "Sir Roy Meadow" Don't ever say to me "You are a truck driver, I am an expert, therefore my opinion is worth more" because I'm afraid that just won't wash. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 16:08:39 GMT -4
[ As for the WMD "conspiracy", I'm a little confused. Are you saying you did believe they were there pre-invasion, but not now? Or vice-versa? During the build-up to war, I said to my wife " Of course they haven't got Weapons of Mass Destruction, we've spent the last three months building up troops on their border, don't you think they would have used them by now?" There were countless "experts" saying "this proves it, that proves it", but sometimes you are a little better off ignoring the experts and applying some of Mom's good old-fashioned common-sense to a situation. Of course we have never been to the moon. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 15:15:48 GMT -4
Speaking of hysteria, though, I have noticed that many Apollo "hoax" believers are also believers in a wide range of extraordinary "conspiracy" claims, such as "No airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001" and "the Holocaust never happened". This speaks poorly of their emotional and mental stability. Not that I am lumping you in that group, of course. Well, you have said that you are not lumping me in with holocaust revisionists and I accept that, but since the whiff of holocaust denial has been raised, let me explain that I have visited both Auschwitz and Treblinka concentration camps in Poland, during time off from my job while travelling. If you want more information as to why I was there see www.TruckDrivingInRussia.co.uk So, having seen it with my own two eyes, I believe it. I know this doesn't alter anything about my beliefs in Apollo, but I find holocaust revisionism disasteful so i just wanted you to know. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 14:55:18 GMT -4
Speaking of hysteria, though, I have noticed that many Apollo "hoax" believers are also believers in a wide range of extraordinary "conspiracy" claims, such as "No airliner hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001" and "the Holocaust never happened". Well I can tell you right here and now that I have never given any credence to any of the conspiracy theories you mention, and that the only other conspiracy theory I have ever believed in was the one that stated that Iraq did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 14:34:54 GMT -4
I
But if you accept the possibility that you will have to cough up $10,000 then you accept the possibility that your prediction is false. If you are sure of your statement then your money is safe. Yes, I do accept the possibility that it may be wrong. You will not entertain the remotest possibility that you may be, though. But the reason I would not take on a wager of $10,000 is because I cannot back that wager with $10,000 if I was wrong. It's nothing to do with "your money being safe" I DO NOT HAVE $10,000 TO BE SAFE and I would not take on a wager for a sum I could not cover, but would willingly take on a wager for a nominal sum and would be happy for our handshake to take place on prime-time TV around the World. As to your suggestion that I will not examine the evidence....... If you care to search Google for "moon hoax" or Apollo hoax", you will find that anti-hoax websites seem to outnumber pro-hoax sites by about two to one and I have looked at all of them. How do you think I found my way here? It's ridiculous to say I trot out any HB theory verbatim without thought. There is a suggestion that the moon flag should hang limply, and not be erect, but I have never advanced this theory here. The theory is rebutted with the argument that there is a metal pole running horizontally through the flag, and I accept this, just as I accept that an astronaut was jerked upwards on a wire because I can see it with my own two eyes. I have looked at every site I have been referred to, I have been polite and civil, I have not once made a personal attack on anyone, I have asked genuine questions about things I do not understand, and I have done my best to understand the answers I have been given. If you don't want me on this forum simply because I believe Apollo was a hoax. then please just say so. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 13:01:06 GMT -4
I have offered you ten thousand dollars U.S. as a bet against your statement that NASA would admit the moon landings were hoaxed in five years. Are you game? I will just answer this last point, and the answer is no. I believe that man has never walked on the moon but I would not take on a wager of $10,000 simply because I do not have $10,000, and if you take on a bet, you should be able to discharge your debt if you lose, regardless of your opinion as to whether you would. |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 11:45:14 GMT -4
It appears that you, like most Hoax Believers, are simply a rabid, irrational ideologue in sheep's clothing, believing anything you read no questions asked as long as it fits your world view. And another one..... |
|
|
|
Post by margamatix on Jul 28, 2005 11:42:04 GMT -4
I really don't know if you suffer from the some anti-authority bent that most Pro-Haxers fall into or not, but it's a real shame that you have so closed a mind that you can't even see what daft things you are spouting. You can't even bring yourself to go and read anything that would challenge your ideas. That's just sad. A lot of people thought I was being hard on you, and intially I did as well, but now I don't. I've seen people like you come and go from here. Blindly spouting the garbage they have read on some site or other as if it's gospel, unable to use enough of their brain to actually challenge what they have read, nor to defend it with more than continual repeated statements of their belief. You are nothing new, you are exctly like all the others. I sorry for you, because it must be a sad way to live life unable to do more than unthinkingly parrot off websites and seeing conspiracy under even rock. Thanks for descending into personal insult. What better way to show that you've lost the argument! |
|
