PDA

View Full Version : Apollo was a hoax, IMHO



ngant17
2002-Jun-16, 07:50 PM
I've just watched the Aulis moon hoax video, and I must say it was abolutely astounding.
I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

This new book which claims to debunk the 'moon hoax' conspiracy is similar to the myriad of books which try to debunk the JFK conspiracy theorists - that Oswald could have made 3 head shots at a moving target in less than 2.5 secs, something which the FBI's best sharpshooters where unable to accomplish, using the same bolt-action rifle.

Physics isn't democratic!

AstroMike
2002-Jun-16, 07:57 PM
Read http://www.clavius.org/ or http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm, and you will figure out the Aulis video is a load of unscientific crap.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-16, 08:31 PM
I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

Okay, so you've heard one side of the story. Here you will get the other side.

I've spoken with the producer of that video and afterwards I believe the video is a calculated attempt to deceive. I have provided him with copious amounts of evidence which very strongly dispute -- and in some cases conclusively disprove -- his theories. His response has basically been to tell me to go away.

David Percy is a photographer. Very well, so are many of us. We don't have to take what he says about photography as the unbiased truth. We can perform our own experiments. And we have. It's not hard to reproduce the "anomalous" shadow directions and shapes.

Did you note how Percy, in his book and video, tries to speak expertly about how the photos were faked? He's very good about drawing diagrams, but he can't seem to actually reproduce any of the photos in his own studio. That's because I've tried to reproduce them and found that I can't. And I suppose Percy has discovered that for himself.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

Interesting. How many spacecraft have you designed?

See, some of us here are professional engineers. David Percy isn't, and neither is his co-author. I've seen them try to muddle their way through elementary physics problems. They can't do it. So they're not experts.

Human beings have one advantage over robots: the ability to heal. Radiation damage to electronics, once done, is permanent. People withstand small amounts of harmful radiation with a good chance of healing completely without ill effect.

Go talk to the people at Hughes, now Boeing's Space Division. Their spacecraft operate more or less continuously in the Van Allen belts. They know an awful lot about how much radiation is there, and what kind of hardening they need to use. None of these people doubts that Apollo succeeded.

Go talk to professor Van Allen. He helped design the translunar trajectory for Apollo. He believes it succeeded. See, that's the problem. Anyone who can speak intelligently about the Van Allen belts believes the Apollo missions were real. Those who believe the radiation is an impassable obstacle can only talk about the Van Allen belts in vague, handwaving terms.

This new book which claims to debunk the 'moon hoax' conspiracy is similar to the myriad of books which try to debunk the JFK conspiracy theorists

No, that's apples and oranges. Those are two completely different topics. There are, in fact, suitable scientific answers for the moon hoax believers' allegations. If you wish, we will provide you with as many of them as you want.

By the way, how many conspiracy theories do you currently believe in?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JayUtah on 2002-06-16 18:09 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-16, 09:44 PM
I will not allow any discussion to delve into Kennedy's assassination. We get enough off-topic posts with tempers flaring already.

2002-Jun-16, 09:55 PM
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cyberspaced on 2002-06-16 18:01 ]</font>

Espritch
2002-Jun-17, 02:23 AM
I've just watched the Aulis moon hoax video, and I must say it was abolutely astounding.
I used to believe the moon landings were real, but now I know that it was pure Hollywood-style theatricals.

I believe it is possible to send robots into space, but the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

When you say you "know", do you mean "know" as is you took the time to verify the assertions made in the video through independent sources so that you are convinced that those assertions are consistant with the evidence, or did you mean "know" as in "the video said it, it must be true"?

Also, has watching this video made you an expert in Van Allen Radiation? Do you actually know what Van Allen Belt radiation is and what causes it? And if so, could you explain it to me so I'll understand why this "letal radiation" makes human space travel "practically impossible"?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Espritch on 2002-06-16 22:29 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-18, 05:21 AM
Don't be taken in a few arguments that sound convincing. I've studied this moon hoax stuff for a long a time and I can tell you, I haven't found one piece of material that convinces me the moon landings were fake. Actually, because of the fox show and my subsequent investigation of their claims, I am even more convinced that the moon landings happened than I ever was before.

I'll give you two examples.

First. In many of the moon hoax books and videos, there are statements to the effect that with the bulky gloves of the suits, it was be impossible to change the film magazines in the camera, use the tools, etc., How did these folks arrive at this conclusion? They looked at the gloves. Did they put their hands in ones and actually try to use it? No. These gloves typically aren't available to the public, that's why. Well I have used them and while it feels a bit odd trying to do simple tasks, it's hardly impossible. It's like any task your unfamiliar with, it takes time to learn.

Designing any tool for EVA use requires a lot time and testing. NASA has guidelines, which were developed in the 1960's and are still used today, which give designers outline on how to build a tool for astronaut use. ie don't make any grips smaller than this, it can't be hotter or colder than a specified range, etc. Once the tool is designed, it undergoes a series of tests. First, an attempt is made to operate the tool using an unpressurized glove. The test is then repeated using a pressurized glove. The pressure inside the glove is approximately twice the pressure that will be seen during use. Usually we use several different astronauts and we've used as many as six. If anyone of them doesn't like the tool or can't operate it, it's back to the drawing board.

Second, there are many arguments that the temperature of the moon is too hot or too cold for the film. Since the moon has no atmosphere, this point is meaningless. In a vacuum, what determines an objects temperature is how much solar energy it absorbs and how much heat it rejects by infrared thermal radiation. Any engineer or science major in college who has taken an introductory course in heat transfer has probably done this type exercise as a homework problem.

On last thing to remember, some of these folks, like Bill Kaysing, have lied and continue to about their credentials. In other words, they are not the experts they say they are.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 06:40 AM
I've studied this moon hoax stuff for a long a time and I can tell you, I haven't found one piece of material that convinces me the moon landings were fake.

I concur. I have extensively researched the moon hoax arguments and have found not only that they lack any sort of scientific validity or logical rigor, but that their proponents have failed to exercise due diligence before leveling their accusations. In other words, it's fairly easy to find counterevidence which the hoax believer's haven't considered or fail to understand.

Actually, because of the fox show and my subsequent investigation of their claims, I am even more convinced that the moon landings happened than I ever was before.

Well I have used them [space gloves] and while it feels a bit odd trying to do simple tasks, it's hardly impossible.

I too have worn space gloves and attempted to operate mockups of MMU controls while wearing them. While it's somewhat more difficult to flex your fingers, you can operate dextrously with them. I have seen the controls of, for example, the Hasselblad cameras and I don't think I would have a problem operating them, especially if I were given time to practice.

I think if I were going to have to work in them for six or eight hours at a time, I'd want more lower arm strength than I have now. Perhaps that's why mission specialists carry tennis balls around with them to squeeze in order to build up their finger strength.

Most hoax believers can't even accurately describe Apollo space glove assemblies, and so it's pretty obvious they haven't worn them or seen them up close. That makes their opinion of what can and can't be done while wearing them pretty insignificant.

Any engineer or science major in college who has taken an introductory course in heat transfer has probably done this type exercise as a homework problem.

Yes, and thank you for bringing up such a painful subject. While you're at it, why don't you give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in it? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

In other words, they are not the experts they say they are.

David Percy has legitimate credentials as a photographer, but no demonstrated expertise or education in photographic interpretation -- which is fairly different. Further, although he is an associate of the Royal Photographic Society, that credential can be granted on scholarly or artistic merit, not technical understanding.

He claims to be an "award-winning" filmmaker, but the only award he names is a nomination for filmmaker of the year for the British Association of Industrial Filmmakers. I looked up how that award is given: There's a gold medal, a silver medal, and a bronze medal. So since he mentions only a nomination I conclude he came in fourth.

Further, his resume states that "his" videos on a certain mental technique are being sold by the BBC. I have since discovered that the mental technique in question was invented by someone else who credits many co-authors and contributors, none of which is David Percy.

Finally, I have run Percy's arguments past professional photographers and lighting designers whose credentials are known to me and beyond question, and they have laughed quite soundly at Percy's conclusion.

But such "dirt" is largely irrelevant. The question is that these people offer arguments that exceed even their claimed credentials. It's always interesting to hear these authors talk about, for example, the "lethal" radiation in the Van Allen belts. They quote various scary-sounding quotes from experts in order to make the case that they're impassable. But the authors never seem to ask the one and only pertinent question: "Do you believe Apollo succeeded in safely traversing the Van Allen belts?" Seems that would be an important question.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-18, 09:12 AM
On 2002-06-18 02:40, JayUtah wrote:
But such "dirt" is largely irrelevant. The question is that these people offer arguments that exceed even their claimed credentials. It's always interesting to hear these authors talk about, for example, the "lethal" radiation in the Van Allen belts. They quote various scary-sounding quotes from experts in order to make the case that they're impassable. But the authors never seem to ask the one and only pertinent question: "Do you believe Apollo succeeded in safely traversing the Van Allen belts?" Seems that would be an important question.


Oh, they Ask the Question, Alright, The Answer, Just Never Appears on Film, Must be UFOs, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Ah, Seriously though, I am Truly Amazed, that they don't Get Thrown Out of Places, more Often, Like Creationists, Very Deservingly, are!

_________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ZaphodBeeblebrox on 2002-06-18 05:13 ]</font>

ngant17
2002-Jun-18, 09:21 AM
"By the way, how many conspiracy theories do you currently believe in? "

Conspiracies? I think there's plenty of NASA conspiracy stuff out there. Some of the evidence is in the National Archives, especially the Nazi war criminal evidence.

Where to begin? NASA kept all those Nazi war criminals at Huntsville, such as Herr Rudolph who helped design the Saturn rocket booster. And he was the same Nazi general who renounced his US citizenship and left to go back to West Germany, to escape prosecution from US investigators who had the incriminated evidence on him. How about Oswald, who applied to work for NASA when he was in New Orleans hanging around with those shady 544 Camp St. guys, remember? It was in Jim Garrison's book, and also you can see some NASA conspiracy stuff in the Torbitt document which is widely available on the Internet now. Don't you just love the company they keep?

The reason I brought up JFK is because Pres. Kennedy would have abolished NASA had he lived in Dec., 1963, when NASA's fiscal appropriations would have been sent to his desk to be signed. Which he never did, of course. And NASA has to deify Kennedy today, to continue the myth(s).

BTW, conspiracy is a term which is defined in our legal system and I use it in the same sense. What's so wacko about that?

The Space Shuttle Challenger and the KAL 007 shootdown is another NASA conspiracy case. But we are in another topic now and I'll try to keep on the lunar conspiracy theme. I'm sure you'd love to share your political opinions with me, which could posibly be to the far-right somewhere.

Now I see your tactics. First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s). Do I want to waste quality time for this? No! Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

"See, some of us here are professional engineers. David Percy isn't, and neither is his co-author."

well, I don't get it at all just yet. Are you trying to beat me in the head with your credentials? I am not so impressed. For one thing, the 'professional' space scientists generally lives off the public dole, they exist as welfare recipients. There is no way for space science to ever become a profit-making enterprise. One example: I suppose you will agree that the moon is composed of 10% titanium. Titanium is an element with a high demand and a limited supply on Earth. The classical equation in capitalism. Wouldn't we all love to have titanium in our cars, and titanium bicycles, too? That's not even counting the military applications, especially if you're a war hawk and want to use titanium applications to invade other counties and try to take over. For democracy's sake, of course.

Be that as it may, all your brilliant rocket engineers have yet to figure out a way to profitably mine titanium on the moon and bring it back. It can't be done without spending more money than you could ever possibly make on the proposition.

Another example from economics. How 'bout those cell phones which we all know and love? Well, if their true costs were ever capitalized to reflect the price of rocket fuel, rocket systems hardware to put the satellites in orbit, to pay the space engineers without any of the traditional government handouts which cover all those costs, no one would be able to afford to have a cell phone.

A (ground) repeater station on Earth costs about $10 million to build. I am not talking about that, as those costs have in fact been capitalized by Sprint, ATT, ect. Satellite-based receptions and transmissions have not. It is assumed that the government must pay for this.

Space scientists may know very well how to add some numbers together in their heads, but they haven't figured out a way to earn a living in the real world of business. Except to work for unproductive public welfare agencies like NASA.

I'll believe they can be productive citizens for the country when they privatize NASA! This will never happen, of course. Otherwise it would have been done a long time ago. Kennedy probably understood this. I think Ike did, who coined the word, "military-industrial complex".

Everyone else has to work for an honest living in America. Why can't these guys do it too, if they're so smart?

(note: this comment doesn't apply to civil engineers, mechanical engineers and other 'real' engineers who have real jobs in the real world , on planet Earth, that is).

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-18, 10:26 AM
One example: I suppose you will agree that the moon is composed of 10% titanium.
HUH?!?! Please cite a source for this information.

widosm
2002-Jun-18, 12:09 PM
Sorry, this has got to be a troll. It would be quite funny if it wasn't so offensive.
Do you realise that when you where in education (yes, I'm making a bold assumption here) you where scrounging of the state? As when you called the police, an ambulance, or the fire-brigade? None of these make any profit whatsoever in the 'real world of business'. Im amazed and appalled that a self-confessed conspiracist, who supposedly fights/exposes the evils of governement and the big corporations, has such a materialistic view. NASA, like so many institutions, does not exist to make profit. It exists to advance science, to better mankind.
Your last section, regarding proper engineers, is pure troll-bait.

sts60
2002-Jun-18, 01:29 PM
Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

OK, great. Never mind JFK, Nazis, and welfare cheats; let's stick to the merits of your assertion that Apollo was faked. Your first argument to support that claim was that

the intense, letal radiation in the Van Allen belt(s) make human space travel practically impossible beyond that point in space.

Please give us the "factual evidence" to support this argument. Or better yet, read the detailed explanations debunking this argument elsewhere on this forum, and explain to us why they are wrong.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-18, 02:13 PM
On 2002-06-18 05:21, ngant17 wrote:

Now I see your tactics. First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s). Do I want to waste quality time for this? No! Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

Are you reading the same forum as I am? Who cut you off and where did you see anything about anyone not being allowed? I saw the moderator step in to keep things on-topic, something good moderators of all boards, even conspiracy boards, tend to do, but that was it. With the exception of your post, I also didn't notice any name calling going on.

kucharek
2002-Jun-18, 02:28 PM
A good conspiracy believer is now sure that Phill stepped in because he is part of the JFK conspiracy and was afraid that someone was going to blow the whistle. And the Apollo conspiracy is of course a conspiracy produced by the JFK conspiracists to distract people from the JFK conspiracy.
The whole conspiracy business is some kind of Möbius band...

Harald

PS: The FOX show will be aired here in Germany on 28 June on VOX. Fortunately, it's the version where they interrupt the FOX show every 15 minutes or so and then German science astronaut Ulrich Walter takes five minutes to debunk the crap.

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-18, 02:32 PM
On 2002-06-18 10:28, kucharek wrote:
PS: The FOX show will be aired here in Germany on 28 June on VOX. Fortunately, it's the version where they interrupt the FOX show every 15 minutes or so and then German science astronaut Ulrich Walter takes five minutes to debunk the crap.

That sounds great! Is this version available in English, or with subtitles? I guess it's too much to hope that there's a transcript or (gasp!) a streaming video online...

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-18, 02:42 PM
On 2002-06-18 05:21, ngant17 wrote:
Another example from economics. How 'bout those cell phones which we all know and love? Well, if their true costs were ever capitalized to reflect the price of rocket fuel, rocket systems hardware to put the satellites in orbit, to pay the space engineers without any of the traditional government handouts which cover all those costs, no one would be able to afford to have a cell phone.

I think you are either very confused or misinformed, or (as others have suggested) merely trolling for our reactions. Either way, you're quite incorrect about this issue.

Communications satellites (with the exception of a few that are dedicated to military use) are designed, constructed, owned, and operated by private corporations. They pay big bucks to NASA or other entities to launch them (and, of course, they insure them up the yin-yang in case of mishaps).

Of course, cell phones don't necessarily use satellite links, and so their cost structures are more earthbound. However, satellite phones are far more expensive to use for the very reason that the satellites cost a bundle of private dollars to launch and operate.

Now, I will grant you that none of this would be possible in the fist place, if not for the large public-sector investment in space technology that got the whole business off the ground (literally). But I guess that's just another example of how the government can't tie its shoes without oppressing a minority group... or whatever it is you're suggesting.

By the way, I for one am anything but right-wing, politically. I was marching against the war in Vietnam even as I was celebrating the Apollo triumphs. Just because Uncle Sam does it, doesn't make it automatically evil, my friend.

kucharek
2002-Jun-18, 02:46 PM
That sounds great! Is this version available in English, or with subtitles? I guess it's too much to hope that there's a transcript or (gasp!) a streaming video online...

Nope. Nothing of these things at all.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 02:50 PM
Ngant17, you are all over the map. Why don't you find an Apollo-related subject and stick to it? One poster suggested you discuss the supposedly lethal radiation between earth and moon. I agree with that. Please give some evidence to support your assertion that manned space operations above low earth orbit are impossible due to the threat of radiation.

Conrad
2002-Jun-18, 03:05 PM
Has ngant not mentioned the infamous Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory? (about the people who conspire to fake conspiracy theories in order to pull the wool over people's eyes/sell books). Then there's the Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory, about the people who attempt to debunk the people who make conspiracies, and the Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Theory ...

Jim
2002-Jun-18, 05:10 PM
On 2002-06-18 10:50, JayUtah wrote:
Ngant17, you are all over the map. Why don't you find an Apollo-related subject and stick to it? One poster suggested you discuss the supposedly lethal radiation between earth and moon. I agree with that. Please give some evidence to support your assertion that manned space operations above low earth orbit are impossible due to the threat of radiation.


Good idea! But let's be even more specific...

Ngant, here is an article on the Van Allen Belts "radiation problem." Please read it and tell us why you agree/disagree with the author's conclusions.

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 05:39 PM
Good idea! But let's be even more specific...

An excellent article, but we don't have a burden of proof here. Ngant17 has asserted that manned space travel through the Van Allen belts is impossible, but has provided no evidence to support that.

Disagreeing with or successfully rebutting one or more of one's detractors does not equate to having proved one's point, as our recent experience with Dave Cosnette illustrates. An author's case may still fail for reasons not covered in any of the examined rebuttals. Thus for an author stating a proposition, it is insufficient to point out that one's detractors are wrong. One must take the extra step and actively prove that one's proposition is right.

I'm sure the topics in the article, and many more similar ones, will prove useful in the ensuing discussion, but it is rather premature to advance a rebuttal when we're not sure yet what the argument is. We have on the table only a proposition. We first require the statement of the line of reasoning that purports to establish that proposition.

Jim
2002-Jun-18, 07:07 PM
...we don't have a burden of proof here. Ngant17 has asserted that manned space travel through the Van Allen belts is impossible, but has provided no evidence to support that.

No, we don't, and I didn't mean to suggest we did.

I was hoping providing ngant with a specific list of sub-topics would move the discussion off the arm-waving level and get us into the details. Sort of, here's our evidence supporting why it's possible, where's your evidence that it's not?

(I'll go back to spectating now.)

JayUtah
2002-Jun-18, 08:27 PM
I think there's plenty of NASA conspiracy stuff out there.

So in other words you believe in quite a number of conspiracy theories that include NASA? Is that accurate?

How many of them have you personally investigated? Or have you just read various web sites and books and seen various videos that you took to be well-researched and factual?

Pres. Kennedy would have abolished NASA had he lived in Dec., 1963, when NASA's fiscal appropriations would have been sent to his desk to be signed. Which he never did, of course.

Pure supposition. Actually the original written text of Kennedy's 1961 speech proposing the moon landings included dollar figures he planned to ask Congress to appropriate for the enterprise.

BTW, conspiracy is a term which is defined in our legal system and I use it in the same sense. What's so wacko about that?

Because the legal system requires evidence in conjunction with an allegation of conspiracy. You cannot simply level an accusation and let it stand at that.

First you cut me off and say no conspiracies nuts allowed, then you want me to respond so you can make fun of my response(s) again and perhaps to call me a dope again for not reading your disclaimer(s).

On the contrary. This forum has a limited scope: the discussion of theories which state that the Apollo missions were in some way falsified. You proposed to introduce discussion of other conspiracy theories, which is not allowed. However, it has been my experience that those who profess a belief in moon hoax theories also believe in very many other conspiracy theories. This indicates it is the conspiracist mindset which compels belief, not necessarily the merits of any one theory. In fact, I have found that most conspiracy theorists don't even know much about each of the theories in which they profess belief.

Do I want to present factual evidence? YES!

I concur. I would rather set aside your political implications and discuss what you may feel are scientifically justified points in your favor.

Are you trying to beat me in the head with your credentials?

Are you trying to imply that qualifications (and the education and experience they represent) are irrelevant?

For one thing, the 'professional' space scientists generally lives off the public dole, they exist as welfare recipients.

Wholly false. Welfare recipients generally do nothing in return for their stipend. Aerospace engineers, on the contrary, go to school for many years, are subject to public certification (much as doctors and lawyers), and produce some of the world's most advanced technology.

There is no way for space science to ever become a profit-making enterprise.

I disagree. I suggest you research Lockheed, Boeing Space Division, Hughes (now a division of Boeing), TRW, and other such companies. They operate commercially in the private sector and are reliably profitable.

Be that as it may, all your brilliant rocket engineers have yet to figure out a way to profitably mine titanium on the moon and bring it back.

A straw man argument. Just because you have cited one example of a possible space-based operation that is not currently profitable, does not mean there are no profitable space ventures, nor that for-profit space exploration and exploitation is unheard of.

Space scientists may know very well how to add some numbers together in their heads, but they haven't figured out a way to earn a living in the real world of business. Except to work for unproductive public welfare agencies like NASA.

Comparatively little of today's space technology is developed by or for NASA. You have a completely unrealistic notion of what constitutes the space industry.

In your rush to villify the space industry and characterize them as mooching layabouts, you have completely ignored the original question. Those who have advanced the moon hoax theories cannot generally lay any claim to the appropriate academic or professional expertise which bears on their hypotheses. Since their claims are easily answered by those who do have the appropriate training and experience, it begs the question why the moon hoax theory should have had any credibility associated with it at all.

In any case, you have expressed a willingness to provide factual evidence. We have suggested you start with the notion of cislunar radiation. Now as an engineer, I will not be satisfied with mere handwaving. If you wish me to believe that the Van Allen belts are invariably lethal to any astronaut that dares invade them, you had better be prepared to talk in very specific, quantitative terms about the nature of the radiation, its effect on astronauts, and any mitigating equipment and procedures that Apollo supplied.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-18, 08:28 PM
On 2002-06-18 10:28, kucharek wrote:
A good conspiracy believer is now sure that Phill stepped in because he is part of the JFK conspiracy and was afraid that someone was going to blow the whistle. And the Apollo conspiracy is of course a conspiracy produced by the JFK conspiracists to distract people from the JFK conspiracy.
The whole conspiracy business is some kind of Möbius band...

Unless I totally misread the clues in the BA's bio he would have been at best a toddler when he was involved in the JFK or even the Apollo conspiracies. I know, I know; facts like that rarely interest conspiracists.

BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-18 16:35 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-18, 09:29 PM
WHOLLY off topic, but...

"BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1... "

Your mouth to God's ears.

kucharek
2002-Jun-19, 06:56 AM
Unless I totally misread the clues in the BA's bio he would have been at best a toddler when he was involved in the JFK or even the Apollo conspiracies. I know, I know; facts like that rarely interest conspiracists.

This is just a proof how sinister the JFK conspiracy was. They even used innocent babies!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


BTW, the final score will be US 2-Germany 1...
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

As I wrote in another posting: Germany's "unconditional solidarity" with America will be suspended for two hours on friday...
And if you wonder why the Germans wear black ribbons: Two days ago, the most famous German soccer player - and honorary captain of the German national team since many years -, who won the world cup in 1954, died. It's not because the German team already wants to express its sympathy with the US team who will not make it into the next round /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif
But don't worry, you'll see Lance Armstrong win the Tour in four weeks, as Jan Ullrich will not take part due to injuries.

Harald

Disclaimer: The above is pure banter and not intended to start a serious off-topic flamewar. Actually, I'm not at all interested in soccer...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kucharek on 2002-06-19 03:47 ]</font>

Simon
2002-Jun-19, 09:08 AM
I'm not touchin' this one with a ten-foot pole.

I just want to remind everyone to keep it cool, don't take it personally, and don't make it personal. And cite some real info; we've been doing this so long that sometimes we just say "Well, that other guy came on the board and thought the same thing a few months ago, and we debunked him, so that proves it."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Simon on 2002-06-19 05:12 ]</font>

Phobos
2002-Jun-19, 12:02 PM
Regarding David Percy;

I read his bio on his website (http://www.aulis.com/david-percy.htm) and I was surprise to see the referance to mind mapping. Let me tell you what I know about these issues ...

I met David Percy at his home once. He has a pleasant home (in Chelsea if I recall correctly), with framed posters of the face of Mars etc on the wall. He produced Richard Hoagland's address to the UN video (and is mentioned in it) and besides his interests in film and photography he is also connected with book production.

Regarding Mind Mapping, that is a technique invented by Tony Buzan. I happened to meet Tony as we are both members of British Mensa. Tony has had a BBC Tv series which teaches his memory mapping technique and it is this TV series that I suspect is being referred to on David Percy's website (if you look closely he never claims to have invented the technique). Tony is also the organiser of the world mind olympics (events such as chess playing, memorising multiple packs of cards in a few minutes etc).

By the way good luck to the USA v Germany, we beat them on their home turf whilst qualifying for the finals so they are beatable, but they are a good side.

Phobos

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Phobos on 2002-06-19 08:05 ]</font>

Karamoon
2002-Jun-19, 01:00 PM
By the way good luck to the USA v Germany, we beat them on their home turf whilst qualifying for the finals so they are beatable, but they are a good side.

They are one of the worst German teams in recent memory (although they have had a half-decent World Cup, so far) and the USA has every chance of beating them. It really is the year of the underdog. I have never seen anything like it in the World Cup before. It's crazy.

South Korea for the cup!

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-19, 01:28 PM
On 2002-06-19 02:56, kucharek wrote:


Unless I totally misread the clues in the BA's bio he would have been at best a toddler when he was involved in the JFK or even the Apollo conspiracies. I know, I know; facts like that rarely interest conspiracists.

This is just a proof how sinister the JFK conspiracy was. They even used innocent babies!!! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

I bet the producers of Armageddon would argue that the BA was never innocent.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

jrkeller
2002-Jun-19, 03:04 PM
One example: I suppose you will agree that the moon is composed of 10% titanium. Titanium is an element with a high demand and a limited supply on Earth.

After doing a simple internet search, I do not agree that the moon is 10% titanium (actually I never did). First of all, titanium primarily exists on the moon as titanium dioxide. This material has an atomic weight of approximately 80 with titanium contributing 48 and the two oxygen contributing 32. In other words, for any given sample only 60% is actually titanium the rest is oxygen. If you look at the following website and there are many others, you will see that the 10% number you quote only occurs for some of the Lunar Mare and for the Lunar Highlands, is 2% or less. Again, this is for titanium dioxide not pure titanium.

http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~neep602/neep602.html

Look at this one and you'll see that the lunar surface has some locations where the titanium dioxide is less than 1%.

http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/June00/lunarMaria.html

Furthermore, we only have results for the lunar surface, not the core. The core is mainly iron. See below.

http://lmms.external.lmco.com/newsbureau/pressreleases/1999/99.01.html

Finally, I again disagree with your statements that titanium is expensive and in high demand. Read these websites and you'll see that is not the case. Actually, right now and in long term forcasts, the world has excess capacity. One more thing to note, Titanium is the fourth most abundant metal in the earths crust. Hardly rare.

http://www.webelements.com/webelements/elements/text/Ti/key.html

http://www.titanium.org/

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-19, 03:28 PM
Finally, I again disagree with your statements that titanium is expensive and in high demand. Read these websites and you'll see that is not the case. Actually, right now and in long term forcasts, the world has excess capacity. One more thing to note, Titanium is the fourth most abundant metal in the earths crust. Hardly rare.


Yeah, the Only Real Problem, is that, it Seems that The very Same Qualities, that Make it a Such a Useful Metal, also Make it, Really Fun, to Extract, Particularly The High Tempertures Needed, to do so!

But, Thanks to New Smelting Techniques, some Involving, Literally, Space-Age Technology, are Making its Production, Both, Easier, and Cheaper, Every Day!

David Hall
2002-Jun-19, 03:43 PM
Another thing to think about is, even if titanium was found in great quantities on the Moon, the technical difficulties and expenses involved in going to get it are much much higher than just working to improve the extraction methods we have on Earth. This is simple economics, which (I don't want to sound antagonistic but it appears to be true) is something else that ngant17 seems to have trouble with.

If ever the need for titanium or any other substance becomes strong enough to merit going to the Moon for, you can be sure we'll figure out a way to do it. But for now, there's nothing there that we need that much.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-19, 04:30 PM
Tony has had a BBC Tv series which teaches his memory mapping technique and it is this TV series that I suspect is being referred to on David Percy's website (if you look closely he never claims to have invented the technique).

Fortunately I didn't gather from Percy's posted resume that he claimed to have invented Mind Mapping. But I did gather that he was the creative force behind the videos. He says that "his" video on the technique is being sold by BBC. In the context of his claim to be an "award-winning film and video producer" the possessive would indicate such a role.

However, Tony Buzan's material says he produced those same videos. And since he unquestionably invented the technique and is quite active in teaching it, I rather suspect he, not Percy, is telling the truth. Buzan seems gracious about giving credit to his many collaborators and co-authors. But I have yet to find where he gives credit to David Percy for anything, or indeed mentions his name at all. I would like to know exactly in what capacity David Percy contributed to the Mind Mapping videos.

In the course of my former employment I interviewed a great many candidates for engineering positions. I used to say, somewhat cynically, that the purpose of a job interview is to determine just how much the candidate lied on his resume. You're allowed -- even expected -- to fib a little, but this is bordering on outright deception. Claiming credit for someone else's work is foul play.

Percy's qualifications and experience are material because he has elected to make them so. He has weighed in to the debate as an expert in photography and filmmaking, and he wishes his opinions to be considered as expert opinions. Classically there are three ways to examine an expert witness:

1. demonstrate that he is not an expert.

2. demonstrate that he is not speaking in the capacity of an expert (e.g., that he's joking).

3. demonstrate that a significant number of other experts disagree.

With the revelation that Percy may have inappropriately padded his resume comes the realization that he may not be as expert as he claims, even in photography and filmmaking. To be sure, one cannot fake his way to an associateship in the Royal Photographic Society. But that in itself is insufficient because the type and degree of expertise required to analyze Apollo photos is not implied by the mere associateship.

And having submitted Percy's assertions regarding lighting to physicists, photographers, and lighting designers whose qualifications and experience are impeccable, I can say with great certainty that there is considerable disagreement with Percy among the expert community.

I will quite happily stand as an expert in space travel and the design and operation of spacecraft, and say that not only does the relevant expert community disagree with Percy, they disagree to a man. But of course Percy doesn't claim any expertise in space travel. Or does he?

He claims membership in the British Interplanetary Society. Very well, no expertise required. I can join on their web site, so long as I remember to send them a check. He claims to have written on the subject of the history of manned space exploration. (Very well, that's Dark Moon, and since his qualification to write that work is what we're testing, we can't include that.) He claims to have written on future techniques of space exploration. I would like to read some of those articles, because a man who can't even compute the hover thrust of an existing spacecraft or the distributed static load of a weight in lunar gravity can't be expected to contribute much to that field.

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-19, 05:00 PM
Hey Jay,

Remember, this is the British Interplanetary Society. You need to send them a "cheque". /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Need a smiley for "tongue in cheek".

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-19, 07:31 PM
for any given sample only 60% is actually titanium the rest is oxygen.

I think he can be cut some slack on this one issue. He was discussing titanium in the context of mining, after all, and titanium dioxide is often the form it is found in.

the 10% number you quote only occurs for some of the Lunar Mare

And more specifically, Apollo 11's mare basalt samples have 10.41% Ti02 by weight and 7.94% in the soil. Apollo 17's mare basalts are 11.94%, with the soil measuring 2.84%. (Source: Lunar Sourcebook)

I think what the engineers should do is build a colossal crowbar and fly it to the moon. I bet they could wedge it under the edge of a mare and pry the whole thing right out of its basin. Then they bring it back to Earth, anchor it off the eastern seaboard, and force the HBs to mine it for us as slaves. Everybody's happy that way: The HB's get their proof that we went to the moon, and we get our cool titanium cars and boats.

ngant17
2002-Jun-19, 11:51 PM
I will attempt to steer our topic back to where it needs to be.

Re: the radiation in the Van Allen belt.

I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been
supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon
program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information
on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a
conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to
guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to
prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?

Although the Aulis video gives evidence to support its assertion
that the Van Allen belt is far too dangerous to cross, I would
definitely like to see data on the radiation levels in the Van
Allen belt coming from Russian and Chinese scientific research
departments, which should be relatively independent of NASA.
Let's get independent confirmation that the Van Allen belt is
perfectly harmless, as NASA is suggesting, even during the solar
flare cycles (according to the Aulis video, the first Apollo 11
moon mission was launched in the beginning of the 11-year cycle,
probably the worst possible time to be going through the Van
Allen belt in terms of radiation levels).


If you want to redeem my faith in NASA, let's have someone point
a spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the
lunar surface and take a clear shot of the lunar buggy and other
assorted junk which the Apollo astronauts left there 30 years
ago? Is there a problem with that? Wouldn't that help to end
this argument once and for all?

Someone asked me where I got my information about the moon being
composed of 10% titanium. I got this from an article in a Soviet
space book about 10 years ago, I can't remember the name of the
book, and it is obviously no longer published since the fall of
the USSR. I thought this was public knowledge. Doesn't NASA
publish this stuff anyway? They've had plenty of time to analyze
lunar geology by now.

If I were a smart business man, and I knew of a substantial field
of titanium deposits, I would try to finance a project to exploit
the element. If it could be done for a profit, of course. The
problem is that no one has ever devised a way to mine titanium on
the moon and get it back to earth and make a profit on it. Least
of all the people in NASA and their assorted 'space contractors
in the private sector' (a self-contradictory phase or oxymoron,
since the very life-blood of such businesses like the United
Space Alliance, Boeing Space Division, Martin Marietta, ect. are
heavily socialized under state monopoly capitalism as it
currently exists in the USA).

re: the privatization of NASA.

We can see a precedent in the fall of the Soviet Union which,
among other things, produced a dramatic reappraisal of the
state-subsidized space agency in Russia. It basically went out
with the original socialist state. People realized what an
endless drainhole of the peoples' taxes it was. Because the
people received nothing substantial from it for themselves,
except some kind of vague "prestige factor", which hardly puts
food in the mouth of the starving peasant on the streets.

Of course, I don't mean to suggest the functions of the Russian
space agency disappeared the way of the dinosaur, but the form of
it did certainly did, the people in the Russian space agency are
much more cognizant of the socio-economic costs of their business
today.

Now compare the Soviet situation vis-a-vis NASA and the USA. I
realize that's a difficult comparison in the first place, since
most people in NASA and its space contractors have never been of
the communist persuasion. Besides, to make it more confusing,
the political left wing in Russia today supports capitalism, and
the right wing in Russia are typically of the socialist
(Stalinist) persuasion. The leftwing/rightwing political
dichotomy is essentially reversed in the US. But we can see
useful parallels between the two space agencies. They both did
live off the public teat quite well, the NASA bureaucrats have
done as well as any of the communist nomenklatura ever did in
Moscow, relatively speaking of course. But NASA is totally
ignorant of the socio-economic impact its subsidized bureaucracy
has on US society as a whole. Or they simply could care less,
and think of their own self-interest even as they speak of the
great benefits which space science is bringing to humanity.

Probably because any government bureaucracy which kept Nazi war
criminals on its payroll for decades could hardly ever really
gave a hoot about saving a few thousand or a few million lives
here and there. Unless it was about saving other Nazis, perhaps.
Or it was just the typical PR salesmanship which it has to
project to gain public acceptance of its endless space welfare
program.

In my view, I really don't think satellites are needed if they
can't be cost-effective and self-financing. The bottom line is
that the government foots the bill for them. So you want to pay
$100 million dollars to send a satellite up in the sky so you can
have an extra day's notice of where the hurricane might be
heading? Be my guest, just don't take it out of my pocket.
Besides, we can hardly predict the weather with any more
reasonable degree of accuracy with or without them. Another
point is that hurricanes take at least a week to hit the mainland
US. Shortwave radios travel fast enough to give us all ample
warning.

A step backwards, you say? I would say it's a step forward in
our understanding of economics and democracy, which must co-exist
to be a viable system for humanity. Therefore, the only solution
is to privatize NASA and let the chips fall where they may.

Paul Unwin
2002-Jun-20, 12:00 AM
On 2002-06-19 19:51, ngant17 wrote:
If you want to redeem my faith in NASA, let's have someone pointa spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the
lunar surface and take a clear shot of the lunar buggy and other assorted junk which the Apollo astronauts left there 30 years ago? Is there a problem with that? Wouldn't that help to end this argument once and for all?


Even if an Earth-orbiting telescope could resolve objects that small on the moon, and I don't think they can (yet), I don't see why you would believe a photo provided by NASA or the government.

Besides which, it's a phenomenal waste of resources to direct these satellites onto a target of absolutely no military or scientific use, especially when the majority of people don't need convincing of this point.

There was a fairly recent picture from moon-orbit that showed the blast pattern from one of the landers. Anyone have a line on that? (Not that that is likely to convince this guy either...)

Was this a troll?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Paul Unwin on 2002-06-19 20:03 ]</font>

2002-Jun-20, 12:09 AM
On 2002-06-19 20:00, Paul Unwin wrote:
[quote]
There was a fairly recent picture from moon-orbit that showed the blast pattern from one of the landers. Anyone have a line on that? (Not that that is likely to convince this guy either...)


http://www.space.com/images/h_apollo_site_02.jpg

And here is the link to the article:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html

Paul Unwin
2002-Jun-20, 12:13 AM
On 2002-06-19 20:09, Sea of Tranquility wrote:
And here is the link to the article:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html


That's exactly what I was thinking of. My mind blanked on the name of the probe. Thanks.

Peter B
2002-Jun-20, 12:21 AM
ngant17 said a number of things...

“I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?”

*You* don’t have to trust NASA. But a lot of private companies do. All satellites in geosynchronous orbit (for example, communications satellites) are operating in the Van Allen Belts. If NASA was giving out bodgy information about the radiation, the satellites would malfunction more frequently than what was expected. If that happened, companies would sue NASA.

“If you want to redeem my faith in NASA, let's have someone point a spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the lunar surface and take a clear shot of the lunar buggy and other assorted junk which the Apollo astronauts left there 30 years ago? Is there a problem with that? Wouldn't that help to end this argument once and for all?”

Unfortunately, there are no telescopes with the resolution to see anything we left behind. Spy satellites orbiting the Earth aren’t any use either, because the Moon is much farther away than things they normally look at. The only alternative is to send a satellite to the Moon. But I don’t think anyone feels like spending the money to do that.

In the meantime, you can look at all the reports generated by geologists from around the world who’ve had the chance to study Moon rocks. None of these scientists have suggested the Moon rocks were faked, and there is simply too much lunar material to have been retrieved by any method other than humans going there and picking them up.

“If I were a smart business man, and I knew of a substantial field of titanium deposits, I would try to finance a project to exploit the element. If it could be done for a profit, of course. The problem is that no one has ever devised a way to mine titanium on the moon and get it back to earth and make a profit on it. Least of all the people in NASA and their assorted 'space contractors in the private sector' (a self-contradictory phase or oxymoron, since the very life-blood of such businesses like the United Space Alliance, Boeing Space Division, Martin Marietta, ect. are heavily socialized under state monopoly capitalism as it currently exists in the USA).”

Well, at the moment, it’s very expensive to lift anything out of the Earth’s gravity well. That’s the main reason why space mining hasn’t taken off yet. Socialism doesn’t alter that fact. Anyway, if a large amount of any commodity is released on an open market, the price of that commodity will drop, so any plans to mine the Moon must take into account that the very material being mined will affect the market.

“Probably because any government bureaucracy which kept Nazi war criminals on its payroll for decades could hardly ever really gave a hoot about saving a few thousand or a few million lives here and there. Unless it was about saving other Nazis, perhaps. Or it was just the typical PR salesmanship which it has to project to gain public acceptance of its endless space welfare program.”

I don’t see the relevance of this to whether Apollo was hoaxed. Anyway, don’t forget that the Soviet Union employed large numbers of ex-Nazis as well.

“In my view, I really don't think satellites are needed if they can't be cost-effective and self-financing. The bottom line is that the government foots the bill for them. So you want to pay $100 million dollars to send a satellite up in the sky so you can have an extra day's notice of where the hurricane might be heading? Be my guest, just don't take it out of my pocket.”

As far as I know, companies which want to put satellites in orbit have a choice of NASA, the European Space Agency, Russia, China, and possibly one or two other launchers. By the looks of it, that’s an open market.

“Besides, we can hardly predict the weather with any more reasonable degree of accuracy with or without them. Another point is that hurricanes take at least a week to hit the mainland US. Shortwave radios travel fast enough to give us all ample warning.”

Now them’s fightin’ words! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif Have you actually checked the accuracy of weather forecasts? According to a colleague of mine who recently retired from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, surveys consistently showed that the public rated the Met’s accuracy more highly than the Met did. You obviously don’t rate accurate weather forecasts very highly, but lots of people do.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Peter B on 2002-06-19 20:51 ]</font>

2002-Jun-20, 12:23 AM
On 2002-06-19 20:13, Paul Unwin wrote:


On 2002-06-19 20:09, Sea of Tranquility wrote:
And here is the link to the article:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html


That's exactly what I was thinking of. My mind blanked on the name of the probe. Thanks.


You´re welcome ! You may also want to visit this page, where Mike Bara has posted a little gem regarding the picture:

http://www.lunaranomalies.com/coffin.htm

James
2002-Jun-20, 12:30 AM
On 2002-06-19 13:00, Kaptain K wrote:

Need a smiley for "tongue in cheek".

For now, /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif will have to do.

James
2002-Jun-20, 12:36 AM
On 2002-06-19 20:35, Sea of Tranquility wrote:

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif




That'll work, too. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif

2002-Jun-20, 01:04 AM
On 2002-06-19 19:51, ngant17 wrote:
If you want to redeem my faith in NASA, let's have someone point
a spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the
lunar surface and take a clear shot of the lunar buggy and other
assorted junk which the Apollo astronauts left there 30 years
ago? Is there a problem with that? Wouldn't that help to end
this argument once and for all?


A quote from Jim Scotti´s site -
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html

"A telescope's diffraction limited resolving power depends linearly on the aperture of the telescope. Groundbased telescopes also have to look through the murky and turbulant atmosphere so without corrective techniques that are just now becoming common in large telescopes (called adaptive optics), a telescopes resolution is limited by the atmosphere to about 0.5-1.0 arcseconds (3600 arcseconds are in one degree and 360 degrees around the whole sky). That limits groundbased telescopes to a resolution of about 2 kilometers on the moon. From space, a telescope is limited by its diffraction limited resolution. For the Hubble Space Telescope, that is a little less than 0.05 arcseconds or about 90 meters at the distance of the moon. To resolve the LM descent stage which is about 10 meters across, one would need to have a resolution better than 10 meters, perhaps 2-3 meters which means we need a telescope some 30 times larger than the HST in orbit around the Earth to resolve the largest equipment left on the moon."

Even IF it was possible to take such a picture, the hoax believers would merely respond by saying something like:

"Yeah, well, OK. Of course the equipment is on the lunar surface NOW .... but it was NOT there in 1972. Clearly NASA has landed this stuff on the moon using unmanned probes in the 30 years AFTER 1972".

Karl
2002-Jun-20, 01:21 AM
On 2002-06-19 19:51, ngant17 wrote:
I will attempt to steer our topic back to where it needs to be.

Re: the radiation in the Van Allen belt.

I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been
supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon
program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information
on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a
conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to
guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to
prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?


Although the Aulis video gives evidence to support its assertion
that the Van Allen belt is far too dangerous to cross, I would
definitely like to see data on the radiation levels in the Van
Allen belt coming from Russian and Chinese scientific research
departments, which should be relatively independent of NASA.
Let's get independent confirmation that the Van Allen belt is
perfectly harmless, as NASA is suggesting, even during the solar
flare cycles (according to the Aulis video, the first Apollo 11
moon mission was launched in the beginning of the 11-year cycle,
probably the worst possible time to be going through the Van
Allen belt in terms of radiation levels).



OK, here is the URL for the World Data Center for Solar-Terrestrial Physics in Moscow, go to it!

http://www.wdcb.ru/WDCB/wdcb_stp.shtml

The IKI data archive with data from: Prognoz-7, Prognoz-8, Prognoz-9, Prognoz-10, Arcad, Active, Apex, Gamma and Interball (Russian required)

http://www.iki.rssi.ru/da.html





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-06-19 21:36 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-20, 03:58 AM
On 2002-06-19 15:31, Joe Durnavich wrote:
for any given sample only 60% is actually titanium the rest is oxygen.

I think he can be cut some slack on this one issue. He was discussing titanium in the context of mining, after all, and titanium dioxide is often the form it is found in.

I reason I pointed this out is that typically the percentage of materials in the Earth's crust are given in there percentage elemental weight. I assumed that ngant17 was following standard methods

http://education.jlab.org/glossary/abund_ele.html



I think what the engineers should do is build a colossal crowbar and fly it to the moon. I bet they could wedge it under the edge of a mare and pry the whole thing right out of its basin. Then they bring it back to Earth, anchor it off the eastern seaboard, and force the HBs to mine it for us as slaves. Everybody's happy that way: The HB's get their proof that we went to the moon, and we get our cool titanium cars and boats.



Amen

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-19 23:59 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-20, 06:45 AM
I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been supplied by NASA ...

How convenient to be able to just wave your hand and dodge almost all the evidence that applies to the Apollo lunar landings!

NASA controls a major share of information on data collected in outer space.

No. The European Space Agency and the Russian space agency have conducted parallel research and can certainly corroborate or dispute NASA's data on most subjects, including the Van Allen belts. In fact, NASA relied in part on Canadian experiments for its early Van Allen data.

The notion that important scientific data can simply be fabricated and then distributed to the world's scientific community completely ignores how scientists work. Putatively scientific data cannot be established by political fiat. It would be very quickly demonstrated as false or unreliable.

So I simply suspect there is a
conflict of interest here.

No, that's entirely circular. You are the one attempting to argue that NASA is lying. Yet your allegation of conflict of interest presumes NASA is lying. You cannot assume your conclusion is true for the purpose of basing on that assumption an argument in favor of the conclusion. That's consummate question-begging.

so why would you want to rely on NASA to
prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?

For the same reason that a defendent in court has the right to defend himself by providing evidence in favor of his innocence. It is not a conflict of interest for the defendant to provide that evidence. Nor is the evidence presumed to be prevarication. It is the prosecution's obligation to disprove the defendent's evidence. He cannot simply ask the jury to disregard it because the defendent might be lying.

If you wish to dispute NASA's evidence or argue that it is untrue, you must provide proof. It is not sufficient simply to suggest that it might not be true.

Although the Aulis video gives evidence to support its assertion that the Van Allen belt is far too dangerous to cross ...

I do not accept the producers of What Happened on the Moon? as experts on cislunar radiation. Their stated credentials do not establish such expertise. Further, the relevant experts I have consulted confirm Apollo's plausibility.

Further, the Aulis argument is mere handwaving. They have provided no computations or empirical experiments which demonstrate their point.

You have argued that the Van Allen radiation would have been lethal to Apollo astronauts in an Apollo-style spacecraft. Very well, the 50/30 lethal dose for humans is 350-400 rems, according to various sources. Since you argue it would have been lethal, this suggests you have computed the human absorbed dose for Apollo-style Van Allen exposure and found that it approaches or exceeds this value. If you have not performed those computations, then you have not satisfied the requirements of your proposition.

I warned you I would not accept Aulis-style handwaving, and that's exactly what you have provided. I require you to compute for me the expected human dose, in rems, for astronauts in Apollo-type spacecraft following Apollo's trajectory. If you cannot provide that, your argument is unproven and therefore rejected.

I would definitely like to see data ..., which should be relatively independent of NASA.

Why don't you simply ask those who, for commercial profit, produce spacecraft that operate in and beyond the Van Allen belts, and who use NASA's data in their engineering? If NASA's data were wrong, as you argue, and the Van Allen belts are as "lethal" as you argue, then these spacecraft would be insufficiently hardened against cislunar radiation and would all fail prematurely.

In fact, Hughes' engineering for the 601HP (a purely commercial, non-governmental spacecraft sold to private customers) would have to be more exacting than the Apollo spacecraft. This is because the Apollo spacecraft's traversal of the Van Allen belts was rather quick and tangential. If the energy and flux measurements had been wrong on Apollo, the resulting fluence would be only slightly wrong, and the exposure and absorption errors would follow proportionally. However, the typical Hughes 601HP spends 15 years in the Van Allen belts, alternating between zones of various fluxes and energy, weathering at least one and possibly two solar cycles. Thus if their data is even slightly wrong, the integrated exposure over 15 years will be massively wrong and will have definite adverse effects upon the spacecraft.

The notion that NASA can just hand out a bogus set of data, and no one will notice, is as delusional as it can possibly be. I've seen these designs. I've seen the supporting documentation. It fully jives with NASA's estimations of the cislunar environment. And there is considerable incentive to provide only the required amount of hardening. Additional "padded" shielding adds weight, which in turn adds cost and increases launch cost.

Let's get independent confirmation that the Van Allen belt is perfectly harmless, as NASA is suggesting

No, first let's get the facts straight. NASA is not claiming the Van Allen belts (plural) are "perfectly harmless". The claim is that Apollo spacecraft adopted procedures and design elements which reduced the astronaut dose to a safe level.

Your argument that the astronauts would have suffered lethal exposure will have to account for all those. You should consider, among other things:

1. The exact trajectory followed by the spacecraft, in three dimensions. Note also that Dr. Van Allen consulted on the design of the trajectory.

2. The nature and amount of the radiation in the Van Allen belts.

3. The amount and nature of shielding required to attenuate radiation exposure as measured from within the spacecraft.

4. The probabilistic factors of major solar events during any Apollo mission.

5. Apollo flight plan contingencies for large-scale solar events.

according to the Aulis video, the first Apollo 11 moon mission was launched in the beginning of the 11-year cycle

No. The Apollo 11 mission was launched at the peak of a solar cycle. Solar activity diminished from that point until the end of the program.

probably the worst possible time to be going through the Van Allen belt in terms of radiation levels.

But you haven't given us any radiation levels. You've merely asserted without proof that this radiation prohibited manned space travel. That's a very specific, testable proposition. I am fully capable of understanding quantitative, numerical arguments you might wish to provide in favor of that proposition. In fact, the proposition cannot be established without such detailed computations. Yet your continued inability to provide such an argument suggests you don't really understand what radiation is, how it is measured, how it is avoided, and how it affects things.

Aulis doesn't provide that argument. Can you?

let's have someone point a spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the lunar surface ...

Neither is capable of the required optical resolution.

Further, since you have already "categorically" rejected any past or future argument that NASA might offer in its defense, it is not likely you will accept any images obtained by the HST, even if it were possible to use that equipment to image Apollo remnants on the lunar surface.

Even more to the point, someone with as demonstrably suspicious and cynical attitude as yours toward government is not likely to accept evidence from the inarguably covert U.S. National Reconnaissance Office. That's even if the surveillance imaging satellites could perform that task, and if the NRO would allow them to be so used and release the images publicly.

In any case, you're distracting from the argument at hand. You still have yet to do more than handwave about radiation.

The problem is that no one has ever devised a way to mine titanium on
the moon and get it back to earth and make a profit on it.

Red herring. Titanium is plentiful on earth. There is no need to obtain it from another source. Hence there is no incentive to develop such a plan.

You're also tearing into a straw man. Recovering minerals from the moon will always be considerably more expensive than recovering the same minerals from the earth, so long as those minerals exist on earth as well.

a self-contradictory phase or oxymoron, since the very life-blood of such businesses like the United Space Alliance, Boeing Space Division, Martin Marietta, ect. are heavily socialized under state monopoly capitalism as it currently exists in the USA).

No, you're changing horses. Please deal with the organizations I mentioned. That some aerospace work is done for public contracts is not proof of your proposition. You argue that all aerospace engineering is done in the public sector and therefore that none of its practitioners ought to be considered competent. You cannot selectively consider evidence in order to support such a proposition. Further, you must address the non sequitur of competence following from profitability.

The Boeing Space Division appears in your list. The overwhelming majority of the spacecraft and launch vehicles produced by this business organization have been ordered by private companies without government subsidy. These private companies are from all over the world. Further, Boeing has competition. It cannot afford to be slothful.

In any case the profitability of space engineering is irrelevant to the question of whether aeronautical engineers have the required expertise to point out the flaws in conspiracy theories. You imply that aeronautical engineers (which, by the way, include the engineering disciplines you mentioned as honorable) cannot sufficiently reason on these problems because their intellects are somehow softened by having worked only in the public sector.

Nearly all my work as an engineer has been for the private sector. I do not fit your predetermined mold. I can name several engineers of my acquiantance who are similarly situated. Since we have not been "dumbed down" by working for the government, perhaps you would like to hear how we respond to your conspiracy theory. But first you must supply an argument. So far you have simply repeated your propositions ad nauseam.

People realized what an endless drainhole of the peoples' taxes it [the Soviet space program] was.

That's because the Soviet space agency was organized differently than NASA and interacted with the government, the military, and the general Soviet public quite differently. You're comparing apples and oranges.

They both did live off the public teat quite well

NASA's budget has always been a pittance compared to, say, various entitlement programs even during the Apollo era. The entire budget of the Apollo program combined over a decade amounted to about half the yearly budget of the welfare system in the mid-1960s. But because NASA spends large portions of its budget on single big-ticket items such as an orbiter, its expenditures seem much more extravagant. The myth of NASA's budgetary allocation is a common point in conspiracy theories, but it has no factual basis.

Further, NASA has operated under the watchful eye of other people in the aerospace industry since its inception. Aviation Week and Space Technology since about 1960 has maintained careful scrutiny, applying sharp criticism when necessary, over NASA's operations. And since these people have space operations of their own (it's their business, after all) it's not as if they're criticizing ignorantly.

The Soviet space program operated in almost complete secrecy and was not subject to public scrutiny. Of course this would have fostered an environment of waste, mismanagement, and irresponsibility. NASA has operated largely under public oversight since its inception. Most of NASA's failures have been followed up by formal public inquiry.

In my view, I really don't think satellites are needed if they
can't be cost-effective and self-financing.

The Hughes 601HP I mentioned earlier is an excellent example of a satellite which is both cost-effective and self-financing.

Consider also the Boeing 701.

The bottom line is that the government foots the bill for them.

No, unless the government wants one in order to fulfill one of its obligations to its constituents. The government most certainly does not pay for all the spacecraft ordered from the companies who make them, or even for a substantial fraction of them.

Besides, we can hardly predict the weather ...

Straw man. Not all earth-observation satellites are for weather forecasting, and not all earth-observation purposes are redundant. Further, not all satellites are for earth observation. Consider telecommunications.

Therefore, the only solution is to privatize NASA and let the chips fall where they may.

You still have a completely naive understanding of the aerospace industry and its customers. I used to work in this field. You simply have no clue what you're talking about.

First of all, there is a whole industry out there involved in designing, building, and deploying spacecraft for private concerns. This industry is stable and profitable. Its constituents are indeed profit-oriented.

Second, NASA's aims are primarily limited to things like pure research and long-term development. Its only really commercializable operation is STS. Everything else is stuff that is generally good for a government to do. Because NASA shares its findings with the public, it offers more widespread benefit than private research which is generally held as a trade secret by the company. Private companies have no inherent incentive to share their findings.

Now one parting note: You mentioned you prefered to give factual evidence rather than discuss political factors. Yet you seem to have skimped a lot on facts and given us yet another lenghty socio-political diatribe. I'm fairly apolitical. A political argument will not convince me that Apollo was falsified. I'm an engineer. I want hard data. Or am I correct in postulating that your rejection of Apollo's authenticity has a lot more to do with your political views than with your understanding of the pertinent evidence?

ngant17
2002-Jun-20, 09:09 AM
" First. In many of the moon hoax books and videos, there are statements to the effect
that with the bulky gloves of the suits, it was be impossible to change the film magazines
in the camera, use the tools, etc., How did these folks arrive at this conclusion? They
looked at the gloves. Did they put their hands in ones and actually try to use it? No.
These gloves typically aren't available to the public, that's why. Well I have used them
and while it feels a bit odd trying to do simple tasks, it's hardly impossible. It's like any
task your unfamiliar with, it takes time to learn."

The evidence which was examined was based on the photographs of the moon walkers. Why should I ask NASA to give me a "lunar glove" to examine, when they probably would use the ole ‘bait and switch' technique? How do you know that the glove which NASA gave you was the same one that was used on the moon? Again, what we need is independent confirmation, which all scientists should understand.

" Do you realise that when you where in education (yes, I'm making a bold assumption
here) you where scrounging of the state? As when you called the police, an ambulance,
or the fire-brigade? None of these make any profit whatsoever in the 'real world of
business'. Im amazed and appalled that a self-confessed conspiracist, who supposedly
fights/exposes the evils of governement and the big corporations, has such a materialistic
view. NASA, like so many institutions, does not exist to make profit. It exists to
advance science, to better mankind. "

Higher education as subsidized by the state? Hmm, you mean there is no such thing as a Student Loan program in the US? I suppose you are from those advanced foreign countries where higher education is free and universal, definitely not the US.

Also, I think there's a fundamental difference between, say, an EMT (emergency medical technician) trying to save a life in real-time on Earth, and a free-loading astronaut free-floating in outer space, someone who at best is conducting an obscure experiment in which a life might be saved in the vague, distant future. Or the difference between a fireman on ground zero at the WTC, and an astronaut passively watching a fireman on ground zero at the WTC. One of them actually does the productive work when and where it is needed. The other one is simply an observer, aimlessly drifting.in space Yes, I agree both of them are on the state's payroll, but which one of them is actually doing the most useful work?

Also, if you want to talk about state-subsidized medical care instead of state-subsidized space programs, we would have to go on to a different topic. While most countries don't have a national space agency, practically every other industrialized country in the world EXCEPT the US has some kind of state-subsidized medical care. The last I checked, I think there are almost 100 million uninsured people in the US, but I would have to check my references on that one, to tell you the truth. And USA can hardly boast of having state-subsidized medical systems and subsidized space programs on the scale of what the Soviet Union did, or what China is able to do today

Maybe your policeman example is a better analogy for NASA, since as I stated before, NASA is part of the US military-industrial complex that serves the arrogant privilege of the US ruling class to impose its imperial-fascist doctrine on the rest of the world, especially against the smaller national governments which don't have spy satellite capabilities and other technologies of a superpower..

The US is perhaps the most belligerent nation in recorded history. It has invaded more countries than any other nation.

Therefore, I find it hard to believe that the US's primary objective was to "advance science, to better mankind" by sending men to the moon on 16 Apr-27 Apr 72 (Apollo 16) when the US was carpet bombing Hanoi and Haiphong harbor back into the Stone Age at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (the bombings occurred on 15 Apr - 8 May 1972). I suspect a few Vietnamese didn't get to appreciate your NASA then. Or how ‘bout the lunar mission of
7 Dec-19 Dec 72 (Apollo 17), when Nixon launched the infamous terrorist Christmas carpet bombings on Vietnam (18 Dec - 29 Dec 1972) at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME as the Apollo boys were doing their fine little job for humanity's sake? Check the dates if you don't believe me. I've already went to the trouble for you. Maybe you're too young to recall those days?

Yes, I would say your policeman-example characterizes NASA as a part of the military-industrial complex quite well. NASA and its friends in the Pentagon have made a bad historical impression on humanity, in particular the Vietnamese people can vouch for that. How many NASA astronauts were former Air Force fighter-bomber pilots during Vietnam, by the way? I haven't researched those numbers, but I suspect they could be rather high. And I would like to know how the Nazi V2 rocket scientists from Operation Paperclip could have been considered part of your kinder, gentler NASA? I don't get it.

NASA serving humanity? Give me a break. That's got to be the biggest hoax of them all.

Conrad
2002-Jun-20, 10:57 AM
What on Earth is all this about?
If you want a political discussion - this is not the forum. If you want to load invective upon people - this is not the forum. If you get annoyed at your cherished pipe-dreams being destroyed by logic - this is not the forum.

Let us examine one of your assertions.
The US has invaded - let's see - Mexico, Panama and Grenada. Perhaps you could stretch this list to include Laos and Cambodia? The attack on Iraq was part of a coalition, not solely the US. I won't include Morocco, Tunisia, Italy, France, Belgium or Holland because they were under fascist/Nazi occupation at the time and you seem to dislike the Nazis. It's hardly an impressive list, is it?

I suggest you avoid waffle, political ideology and name-calling, or your bottom will surely get kicked!

Have a nice day now! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

widosm
2002-Jun-20, 11:15 AM
Your entire post either smacks of troll or sounds like it is coming from someone who jumped on a bandwagon without thinking things through for himself.
Yes, the US has participated in some questionable activities, but this does not mean that everything they do is with evil intent. Neither does being a pawn in your governments war make you an evil person. Air Force bomber pilots are, unsuprisingly, good pilots, which NASA wanted. But they where also obliged to fight in a war if they like it or not.
The Nazi rocket engineer was an exceptionally talented rocket scientist who was obliged to develop weaponry (what else, during a war?) for a a cause that his government had convinced him was right.
NASA exists to further science, some of these advances will inevitably serve unpleasant means, but most are beneficial. You argument implies that the whole of the NASA organisation is just some vast great governement hoax that spends billions of dollars of public money to pay war-criminals to produce poorly-fabricated evidence of pointless ventures.
Ok so maybe NASA are just putting satellites into space to fire infra-sonic waves to make us all slaves to the facist, supremacist government's desires. It doesn't alter the fact that we went to the moon! As a hoax it just doesn't work. From the physics of radiation , the geology of moonrocks, the logistics of getting hundreds of thousands of people 'in on the act', and countless other factors, it just doesn't work.
To quote JayUtah,

Or am I correct in postulating that your rejection of Apollo's authenticity has a lot more to do with your political views than with your understanding of the pertinent evidence?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: widoxm on 2002-06-20 07:18 ]</font>

sts60
2002-Jun-20, 12:51 PM
ngant17,

It has been pointed out that commercial satellite operators use NASA's information on the near-Earth environment to design and operate their for-profit satellites. You have also been supplied with non-NASA data references. You have also been presented with counter-arguments to your assertion that Van Allen belt radiation would have prevented Apollo astronauts from going to the moon.

Will you kindly provide us with some quantitative evidence to back up your assertion that the Van Allen belts prevented manned lunar travel? This was, after all, your first argument backing up your original assertion that Apollo was faked.

Looking forward to your answer.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-20, 02:33 PM
The evidence which was examined was based on the photographs of the moon walkers.

To start with, you don't accept that evidence. To "categorically" deny evidence that comes from NASA means to reject evidence because it comes from NASA, and only because of that (i.e., not in any way on its merits, but simply because it belongs to a category of evidence). And you extended that rejection to evidence both for and against the hoax theory.

But since the photographs which you allege prove the gloves were unsuitable for dextrous manipulation of equipment come from NASA, it's clear you will accept evidence from NASA if it agrees with your conclusion, and you reject it if you believe it might disagree with your conclusion. That is not "categorical" reject of evidence. The basis for your acceptance or rejection of evidence is whether or not it favors your case. That is fairly conclusive evidence of irrationality.

Second, you cannot infer manual dexterity from a photograph. Besides, I have determined by direct questioning of Bennett and Percy that they don't even know how the glove assembly worked. They didn't even know that there are two sets of gloves -- a slim, pressurized one and an outer, unpressurized gauntlet. Aulis' interpretation of the photographic evidence is thoroughly naive.

Why should I ask NASA to give me a "lunar glove" to examine, when they probably would use the ole ‘bait and switch' technique?

Because without having an actual glove upon which to perform experiments, you're just guessing, and that proves absolutely nothing.

You may argue that NASA has given you a different glove, but it's up to you to prove it. You cannot simply wave your hand and dismiss a necessarily empirical step simply because you have postulated that evidence might be falsified, and then profess to substitute in place of empiricism your subjective guesswork as reliable evidence.

Again, what we need is independent confirmation, which all scientists should understand.

No, first what we need is some sort of substantial case from you. All you've provided is guesswork and excuses for why you haven't verified your guesses.

As for independent verification of the dexterity of NASA's space gloves, I'm afraid that's impossible. If you wish to know whether NASA's space gloves can be used while pressurized to control a camera, I'm afraid there's no way you can prove your point except by examining NASA's space gloves. You have not done that and you imply that you will never do that. And so your case will never be proved.

The rest of your post is irrelevant political rhetoric, and I have ignored it except to point out that it is becoming abundantly clear you beliefs on Apollo's authenticity have far more to do with your political vedetta against the United States than they do with any of the scientific points you've raised.

2002-Jun-20, 03:00 PM
On 2002-06-19 21:04, Sea of Tranquility wrote:


On 2002-06-19 19:51, ngant17 wrote:
If you want to redeem my faith in NASA, let's have someone point
a spy satellite or something like the Hubble telescope at the
lunar surface and take a clear shot of the lunar buggy and other
assorted junk which the Apollo astronauts left there 30 years
ago? Is there a problem with that? Wouldn't that help to end
this argument once and for all?


A quote from Jim Scotti´s site -
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked/FOX.html

"A telescope's diffraction limited resolving power depends linearly on the aperture of the telescope. Groundbased telescopes also have to look through the murky and turbulant atmosphere so without corrective techniques that are just now becoming common in large telescopes (called adaptive optics), a telescopes resolution is limited by the atmosphere to about 0.5-1.0 arcseconds (3600 arcseconds are in one degree and 360 degrees around the whole sky). That limits groundbased telescopes to a resolution of about 2 kilometers on the moon. From space, a telescope is limited by its diffraction limited resolution. For the Hubble Space Telescope, that is a little less than 0.05 arcseconds or about 90 meters at the distance of the moon. To resolve the LM descent stage which is about 10 meters across, one would need to have a resolution better than 10 meters, perhaps 2-3 meters which means we need a telescope some 30 times larger than the HST in orbit around the Earth to resolve the largest equipment left on the moon."

Even IF it was possible to take such a picture, the hoax believers would merely respond by saying something like:

"Yeah, well, OK. Of course the equipment is on the lunar surface NOW .... but it was NOT there in 1972. Clearly NASA has landed this stuff on the moon using unmanned probes in the 30 years AFTER 1972".




Bob Braeunig also has a comment:
(from http://users.commkey.net/Braeunig/space/hoax.htm)

"Earth based telescopes should be able to see the Apollo hardware on the Moon, yet none is visible.

The theoretical resolving power of a telescope, measured in arc seconds, is calculated by dividing the aperture of the telescope (in inches) into 4.56. The largest telescope on Earth is the 10-meter Keck telescope in Hawaii. The theoretical resolving power of this telescope is 0.012"; however, the Earth's atmosphere limits the resolving power of any ground-based telescope to about 0.5"-1.0". The Hubble Space Telescope does not suffer from this limitation; thus, with an aperture of 94 inches, HST's resolving power is 0.05". At the Earth-Moon distance of 239,000 miles, the smallest object that can be resolved by HST is about 300 feet. The largest dimension of any hardware left behind on the Moon is 31 feet, which is the diagonal distance across the LM's footpads. No telescope, presently in existence, can see the Apollo hardware from Earth"

Silas
2002-Jun-20, 03:00 PM
If the government is capable of massive cover-ups...

Why didn't they cover up the cause of the uncontrolled fire in Colorado? A Forestry Service worker is accused; wouldn't it have been in the interest of the F.S. to cover it up, lie about it, falsify the report, and blame it on lightning?

If the government can't/won't even cover up an affair with one single culprit, how can anyone expect them to cover up one with millions?

Silas

JayUtah
2002-Jun-20, 03:03 PM
A scenario for Ngant17:

You are driving leisurely on the outskirts of a small town you've never before visited. Suddenly a policeman pulls you over and tells you that you were speeding.

"I'm sorry, officer," you say. "What is the speed limit here?"

"I don't know," she says. "But you were definitely speeding."

"Well, how fast was I going?"

"I don't know, but you were definitely speeding."

Later, in front of the village's traffic judge, you make your case.

"Your honor, I was only going 25 miles per hour --"

"Stop right there," says the judge. "I have no reason to believe you when you say how fast you were going."

"Why not?" you ask.

"Because you could be lying," she continues. "You were speeding and you obviously don't want to pay the fine, so you have great incentive to lie."

"But," you argue, "It hasn't yet been proved that I was speeding."

"That's irrelevant," she says. "It's still a conflict of interest."

"But," you say with a flash of inspiration, "doesn't the state also have a motive to lie? It wants the fine for its coffers. That would also be a conflict of interest."

"Not here," replies the judge. "The prosecution's evidence is presumed to be correct and unbiased. You are responsible for disproving it. And since you obviously want to avoid the fine, nothing you say by way of allegation of fact will be admissible in your defense."

"Then how am I to defend myself?" you ask in frustration.

"I suggest you seek independent verification of your evidence."

And so you produce a friend of yours who happens to teach automotive at a nearby university. He testifies.

"Your honor," begins the professor. "I have examined the defendant's car and performed a series of controlled experiments on it, and I can say that in my expert, professional opinion that the car in question in mechanically incapable of going over 30 miles per hour."

You then call the arresting officer to the stand, whereupon the professor shows her videos of cars going at different speeds and asks the officer to determine visually the speed of each car.

"I can't do that," she says. "I'm not qualified or experienced enough to judge a vehicle's actual numerical speed by sight alone."

Finally the judge has had enough. "Sir," she says, "I have no choice but to find you guilty of speeding."

"Upon what grounds?" you ask. "The only quantitative estimates of my speed have be provided by me or by witnesses I have called."

"Why should the court accept the expertise of a college professor?" the judge retorts. "They don't produce anything. They just sit up there in their ivory towers. They don't have to be profitable. They don't have to compete in the real world. What could he possibly know?"

"But he is recognized as an expert in the operation of machines such as my car."

"Sorry," says the judge. "I don't trust his expertise. You are fined $300 plus court costs. And let that be a lesson to you and all the other men out there who are all undoubtedly speed demons. We here will tolerate none of your male speed games in our village."

"Wait a cotton-picking minute," you protest. "Do you mean that your presumption of my guilt is simply because I'm a man?"

"No," answers the judge. "It's because you're a speed demon like all other men. Now pay your fine and leave."

This hypothetical scenario is rhetorically equivalent to the case you have so far made against Apollo. Do you see now why we regard your case is extremely flimsy?

2002-Jun-20, 03:10 PM
On 2002-06-20 11:00, Silas wrote:
If the government is capable of massive cover-ups...

Why didn't they cover up the cause of the uncontrolled fire in Colorado? A Forestry Service worker is accused; wouldn't it have been in the interest of the F.S. to cover it up, lie about it, falsify the report, and blame it on lightning?

If the government can't/won't even cover up an affair with one single culprit, how can anyone expect them to cover up one with millions?

Silas



And if "the Moon Hoax" is for real, then why did The Evil Government allow the FOX show to be aired - and even on national TV ? Wouldn´t the government have stopped such a show ? After all, if The Evil Government has the power to cover up the Moon Hoax for 30 years, surely they can stop such a "dangerous" FOX show from ever being aired ??? And why are "dangerous" people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel still alive ? Wouldn´t The Evil Government just get rid of them in an "accident" ?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-20, 03:27 PM
On 2002-06-20 11:10, Sea of Tranquility wrote:
And if "the Moon Hoax" is for real, then why did The Evil Government allow the FOX show to be aired - and even on national TV ? Wouldn´t the government have stopped such a show ? After all, if The Evil Government has the power to cover up the Moon Hoax for 30 years, surely they can stop such a "dangerous" FOX show from ever being aired ??? And why are "dangerous" people like Bill Kaysing and Bart Sibrel still alive ? Wouldn´t The Evil Government just get rid of them in an "accident" ?



That's one I've never seen any HB even attempt to answer. They can't seem to explain why NASA seems to be so fickle about putting out hits. They also like to point to the astronaut accidents during the Gemini/Apollo years as "proof" of their claims of NASA playing mafia. It seems to me, though, that if NASA were to rub out one or two noisy astronauts the rest would get the message and shut the heck up. The fact that eight did die should tell them that the accidents really were accidents or that astronauts are extremely dumb.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-20, 03:31 PM
On 2002-06-20 11:03, JayUtah wrote:
"No," answers the judge. "It's because you're a speed demon like all other men. Now pay your fine and leave."


Okay, I'm getting a Downright Weird, Feminism Flashback here!

Where did you say that this Town was, again?

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-20, 03:49 PM
Well, well. The real agenda is pretty clear now, isn't it?

You clearly know nothing of the science and technology of space exploration. You have no basis for understanding the Aulis claims (and, in particular, why they're wrong), but you parrot them because they fall in line with your political bent.

Good heavens, man, how can you compare the Apollo program to the situation in Southeast Asia? You might as well say that everyone who got an operation paid for by Medicare that week has blood on her hands because the money to pay for it came from the government that was napalming villages!

The thing that amazes me is that NASA's opponents seem to think that the money spent on the space program was packed into a trunk and left on the moon. Don't you understand that it was all spent here, on Earth, and that most of it went to the private companies (the contractors) that you seem to alternately praise and revile? That it percolated through the entire economy like any other government spending program? That it paid the wages of janitors, factory workers, secretaries, and truck drivers as well as engineers and astronauts?

You can rail all you like about other ways the money could be spent that might be more effective, but in the end, this country is a democracy, and (thankfully) my vote counts as much as yours. Feel free to write your congressman -- but if you happen to live in a district where there are any businesses getting NASA contracts, don't be surprised if she decides the jobs of those other voters are more important than your opinions.

Jim
2002-Jun-20, 04:03 PM
Okay, we're getting more of that circular HB "logic" that gives me headaches.

1. I don't trust the Apollo photographs and videos because they were obviously faked.

2. I know the gloves used by the Apollo astronauts were too cumbersome to have been used efficiently.

3. I base #2 upon my viewing of the Apollo photos and videos.

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif ??huh?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_confused.gif

(Jay, love the small town cop allegory.)

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-20 12:04 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-20, 05:31 PM
The evidence which was examined was based on the photographs of the moon walkers. Why should I ask NASA to give me a "lunar glove" to examine, when they probably would use the ole ‘bait and switch' technique? How do you know that the glove which NASA gave you was the same one that was used on the moon? Again, what we need is independent confirmation, which all scientists should understand.

First of all, I know that the glove I used was not used on the moon. I believe that all of the gloves were left behind on the lunar surface. So the best that I know is that the glove had the same design.

OK, so from your theory, NASA had or has two sets of gloves. One that was used for the fake pictures, video ect., and one given to fool the general public and all those that work at or for NASA and all those who have worked at or for NASA. And in 33 years or more if you count the development time, I haven't heard of one person coming out and saying that they made fake gloves. The same arguement would go for the spacesuit, its back pack etc. Boy that's sure a lot of folks that worked on making two sets of suits, gloves back packs and interestingly enough no one has ever said they built a fake suit, and also interestingly enough in more than thirty-three years, thousands and thousands of engineers and scientists who have examined these suits, gloves and back packs think there real.

Boy something just dawned on me, maybe the moon landings were real and there weren't two sets of everything.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-20 13:33 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-20, 06:06 PM
After a while the argument, "There must have been two sets of ...", is readily perceived as grasping at straws in order to maintain a desired conclusion in the face of a preponderance of evidence to the contrary.

And the argument, "I am allowed to use NASA-provided evidence to bash Apollo, but you are not allowed to use it to defend Apollo," is readily seen as a clumsy effort to load the dice in one's favor.

traztx
2002-Jun-20, 07:11 PM
There was independant confirmation shortly after the laser reflector was installed on the lunar surface during Apollo 11.

That was apollo hardware and the observatory that 1st confirmed it was not NASA.

Another independant confirmation: the TV signal was being picked up and relayed from Australia in real time.
--Tommy

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-21, 10:42 AM
I thought that I’d step in here to lend a hand to ngant17 . Yes, its your old friend Cosmic Dave from Cosmic Conspiracies (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk). As you may have read on this board recently, I have been trying to do the same thing. It’s nice to see that another person is prepared to voice his opinions and stick up for people who are not swayed by everything that NASA claim.

He said “I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to
guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that?”

I couldn’t have said it any better!

Paul Unwin says ‘Even if an Earth-orbiting telescope could resolve objects that small on the moon, and I don't think they can (yet), I don't see why you would believe a photo provided by NASA or the government.

Besides which, it's a phenomenal waste of resources to direct these satellites onto a target of absolutely no military or scientific use, especially when the majority of people don't need convincing of this point.’

Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle? Why is NASA bothering to carry out experiments in space – could somebody answer that? What is the point exactly?

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being told ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

As I’ve said before recently, NASA only agreed to take pictures of the face on Mars after a campaign by the general public to make them. Really if NASA don’t want to take the pictures then they don’t have to… and that’s where the problem begins. I have said the very same thing that ngant 17 said, NASA hasn’t got to answer to anyone so their data and information could be rather biased!

I see were back to the old moon rock debate. I agree there are lots of moon rocks in NASA’s possession, but it doesn’t mean that they went to the Moon to get them. Ever heard of meteorites?

Peter B said: “As far as I know, companies which want to put satellites in orbit have a choice of NASA, the European Space Agency, Russia, China, and possibly one or two other launchers. By the looks of it, that’s an open market.”

Cosmic Dave replies: I suppose that you could apply the same argument regarding NASA and Dennis Tito? NASA had a real problem with Tito going into space and even tried to tell Russia what to do.

Peter B also says: “Have you actually checked the accuracy of weather forecasts?”

Cosmic Dave replies: “Actually yes I have, and I can tell you that they are often wrong. In fact since the really bad gales that struck here in the UK in the mid 90’s the weather forecasters never predict any weather more than 3 days ahead - a lesson learned during the gales here when Michael Fish (a BBC weatherman) said that a viewer had written in to ask about a hurricane that she had heard was about to hit the UK. He assured her and other viewers that such a hurricane was not about to happen, but as we all know it certainly did and his comments continue to appear on many shows over here to this day”. If the weatherman doesn’t know – who does?


It's interesting why one commented that if the Moon landings were hoaxed why did the Government let the FOX tv program go to air?
Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'. Or do you guys really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald carried out the killing? Sheesh your dealing with Government here so why do you trust them so much when they can lie through their teeths about many other things (the recent poll fixing in Florida comes to mind)... and Im not even a Yank!

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-21, 10:59 AM
On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:
Peter B said: “As far as I know, companies which want to put satellites in orbit have a choice of NASA, the European Space Agency, Russia, China, and possibly one or two other launchers. By the looks of it, that’s an open market.”

Cosmic Dave replies: I suppose that you could apply the same argument regarding NASA and Dennis Tito? NASA had a real problem with Tito going into space and even tried to tell Russia what to do.


C-Dave – would you please elaborate on your response. From the way I read it you’ve just confirmed that NASA and the U.S. Government are not the all powerful forces you and the other HB’s claim. I mean, if NASA is all powerful and can eliminate people, change the historical record, falsify scientific data, etc. – how in the world did Tito ever end up visiting the ISS.

If the Russians collaborated with NASA on the Apollo Hoax, as the HB crowd claims must have occurred, don’t you think they would have bowed to the NASA pressure to keep Tito from flying? I mean, all they had to do was ask NASA for $20,000,000.

Andrew
2002-Jun-21, 10:59 AM
If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem during good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being old ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

It's more analogous to being told it can correctly resolve the entire building 3 miles from where you are, but cannot correctly resolve individual specks of dust on the shop over the road.
The objects that HST looks at in deep-space are much larger in angular size (something you obviously don't understand) than man made objects on the moon.
Does that make it clearer? It seems to add up perfectly to me.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-21, 12:37 PM
Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle? Why is NASA bothering to carry out experiments in space – could somebody answer that? What is the point exactly?

I know this point has been made to you before, but seriously, why bother sending something else to the moon just to photograph the Apollo sites? You don't believe any of NASA's evidence now, are you really trying to claim that new photos from NASA or the military would make any difference to your beliefs? I think that the majority of taxpayers in this country would have a major problem with spending a bunch of money for the sake of satisfying a small minority, most of whom wouldn't believe the new evidence any more then they believed the old evidence.

(darned spelling again)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-21 09:41 ]</font>

2002-Jun-21, 12:52 PM
On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It’s a bit like going into a camera shop and being told ‘Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road’. That just doesn’t add up!

Dear cosmicdave !

The issue here is the actual size of the viewed object compared to how far away it is (i.e. "angular size")...

The largest piece of Apollo equiptment on the lunar surface is the lower part of the LEM: 10 metres across. That´s 0,01 km. Now, the Moon is 400.000 km away. That amounts to a tiny, tiny dot on the lunar surface. A lunar surface already illuminated by the Sun and therefore shining. That tiny dot is simply too tiny compared to the distance - to make it visible to the Hubble. The "angular size" is too small.

A galaxy in deep space is easier to see for the Hubble, because allthough it is indeed far, far away, such a galaxy is also very big and that more than compensates for the huge distance. The "angular size" is simply bigger. (I´m sure that other posters can provide you with specific numbers.) (And besides, the galaxies are points of light surrounded by black - in contrast to the tiny LEM dot on a lunar surface illuminated by the Sun.)

- To illustrate "angular size", this is how you would determine the "angular size" of the Sun:

http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/images/sunsize.gif

If we moved the Sun closer to the Earth, the Sun´s "angular size" would get bigger - and we´d get The Tan Of The Century ! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif. If we moved the Sun away from the Earth, the Sun´s "angular size" would get smaller.

I see were back to the old moon rock debate. I agree there are lots of moon rocks in NASA’s possession, but it doesn’t mean that they went to the Moon to get them. Ever heard of meteorites?

Yes, and I have also heard of this guy making a very good point
(http://www.moonhoax.com/_disc1/00000172.htm)

"How are meteorites different from genuine moon rocks?

There are several differences, but I'm no geologist so I'll only cover them in a simple way here. Please do go out and find a geologist (try a local university) to verify that what I am saying is correct. First, when a meteorite enters the atmosphere, friction with the air (drag) turns its kinetic energy into thermal energy. Since a meteor typically has a great deal of kinetic energy (it is moving very fast), it is superheated as it falls to earth. The same is true of any spacecraft entering the atmosphere, and I think most people are familiar with this process. As a rock is superheated, its chemistry can change. Depending on the type of material, it could burn, melt, change its crystal structure, etc. A geologist with the right equipment can find the tell-tale signs of heating left in the rocks. Note that this isn't just the surface of the rock, the entire meteorite will be heated, so scraping off the outer layers will not obfuscate a meteorite's past."

Since the Apollo moon rocks have NOT been heated on their way through Earth´s atmosphere (they were inside the capsule), then one can tell them apart from the lunar meteorites, which DID pass through our atmosphere - unprotected by any spaceship.


It's interesting why one commented that if the Moon landings were hoaxed why did the Government let the FOX tv program go to air?
Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'. Or do you guys really believe that Lee Harvey Oswald carried out the killing?

Hmm ! Could it be that The Evil Government did NOT try to stop neither the FOX show NOR "JFK" - because they don´t have anything to hide ? We always hear from the conspiracy theorists about all kinds of "mysterious deaths", yet all the critics: Bill Kaysing, Bart Sibrel, Oliver Stone, Mark Lane (and Jack White) etc. etc. etc. are still very much alive ? Why ?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sea of Tranquility on 2002-06-21 09:27 ]</font>

Andrew
2002-Jun-21, 01:10 PM
Cosmic Dave, could you spot an ant from 100 yards away? No you couldn't. Non one could.
Does this mean that you can't see beyond 100 yards?

kucharek
2002-Jun-21, 01:45 PM
On 2002-06-21 09:10, Andrew wrote:
Cosmic Dave, could you spot an ant from 100 yards away? No you couldn't. Non one could.
Does this mean that you can't see beyond 100 yards?

Touche. Nice point.

But - have you ever seen "Them!" (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0047573)?
There are ants one can see from 100 yards... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

WHarris
2002-Jun-21, 02:11 PM
On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:
If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I?m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home! It?s a bit like going into a camera shop and being told ?Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road?. That just doesn?t add up!


Sorry to burst your bubble Dave (although I'm not the first), but Hubble HAS imaged the moon, as seen here:
http://hubble.stsci.edu/news_.and._views/pr.cgi.1999+14

sts60
2002-Jun-21, 02:11 PM
cosmicdave,

(1) It has been very clearly explained to you why HST can *not* image an Apollo artifact on the moon. Your statement of personal incredulity is not a convincing counterargument.

Again, it was thoroughly explained to you using basic optical principles - do you still claim it is possible to image such an artifact with any instrument currently in orbit? If so, please provide quantitative arguments to back up your claim. If not, well, acknowledging a mistake will enhance your reputation, not diminish it.

(2) You may be surprised to find that many of us agree with you that ISS in its current incarnation is a waste of money, and that as amazing an engineering feat as it is, the money could have been better spent within NASA. But this is totally irrelevant to your belief that Apollo was faked. Certainly no one is going to build a Lunar mission with the express purpose of photographing something we left on the Moon three decades ago. Not even the most pork-friendly Congressman could get away with that.

(3) You have yet to answer with quantitative arguments your prior claims that the Van Allen belts would have been lethal to moonbound astronauts, and that the AGC was incapable of navigating the spacecraft to the Moon. You have been provided a wealth of data, explanations, and links which refute these arguments, and have been repeatedly asked to either back up your claims or acknowledge that perhaps you were mistaken.

cosmicdave, please address your claim from point (1) or either claim from point (3). (I'll stick to these for right now, just so we can get started on some specific points.) Because otherwise, your credibility to "back up" ngant17 is, well, nil, because these three claims (among others) seem to indicate you do not have a grasp of the technology and physics of Apollo.

Looking forward to a quantitative answer!


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-21 10:28 ]</font>

Karl
2002-Jun-21, 02:47 PM
On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:

He said ?I categorically refuse to look at any data which has been supplied by NASA in order to prove (or disprove) that NASA's moon program was a sham. NASA controls a major share of information on data collected in outer space. So I simply suspect there is a conflict of interest here. You would not want to hire the fox to
guard the hen house, so why would you want to rely on NASA to prove that NASA did this or NASA didn't do that??

I couldn?t have said it any better!


When presented the ability to corroborate the data from Russian sources (as requested), why is there nothing but silence?

The dependence of high-energy charged-particle fluxes in the equator region on geomagnetic activity

Basilova, R. N.; Volodichev, N. N.; Grigorov, N. L.; Galaktionova, Iu. F.; Kalinkin, L. F.; Pugachev, G. I.; Savenko, I. A.
AG(Moskovskii Gosudarstvennyi Universitet, Moscow, USSR)

Geomagnetizm i Aeronomiia, vol. 14, Sept.-Oct. 1974, p. 899, 900. In Russian.
1974Ge&Ae..14Q.899B

ABSTRACT: Results of measurements of the dependence of high-energy electron and proton fluxes on geomagnetic activity during the period from July 6 to Oct. 10, 1966, using instruments mounted on board the Proton 3 satellite. Separate recordings were made of the total flux of electrons with energies greater than or equal to 20 MeV and protons with energies greater than or equal to 500 MeV, on the one hand, and of the electron flux with energies greater than or equal to 80 MeV, on the other. The total flux of electrons and protons is found not to depend on geomagnetic activity and to remain constant to the nearest few percent. It is concluded that the electron flux with energies greater than or equal to 80 MeV may vary from 10 to 15% with an increase in geomagnetic field perturbation.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-21, 02:58 PM
I was watching the Simpsons the other day and Homer has the perfect quote to describe this HBCosmicDave situation.

"Facts are meaningless"

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-21, 03:16 PM
On 2002-06-21 06:42, cosmicdave wrote:
I thought that I?d step in here to lend a hand to ngant17 . Yes, its your old friend Cosmic Dave from Cosmic Conspiracies (http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk).


You know how the old saying goes, "With friends like this......"



But seriously dave, You have made some statements here that are not just wrong, they are so easily proved wrong that it is impossible to believe that you have any idea of what you are talking about.

The Hubble mistake not only has been pointed out in previous threads, but also in this same thread only a couple posts above yours! How could you have possibly missed that?

The same situation holds true for the moon rocks and meteorites. This has been explained over and over, yet you refuse to listen, but give no reason for your skepticism.

Note that these two points depend on no direct information from NASA to debunk, the HST informaton is simple mathmatics and the moon rock question is common sense and high school geology.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-21, 03:27 PM
CD,

Here are some links to a geological paper (in three parts) on the Apollo 17 landing and samples. Why don't you review this paper and tell us where the NASA hoax is.

Thank you

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.ppintro.pdf

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.pplmarea.pdf

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17.ppsta1.pdf

For the rest of you, some pretty cool pictures of the lunar samples.



P.S. One more thing, how were the 2.95 meter long core samples made?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-21 11:28 ]</font>

sts60
2002-Jun-21, 03:31 PM
Well said, Tomblvd; I would just add for completeness that a meteorite has very specific characteristics (think fusion crust) that distinguish it from a sample picked up in situ and returned by spacecraft.

cosmicdave, you agreed that NASA has plenty of moon rocks. They cannot be meteorites because they do not have the required characteristics of meteorites. In light of this fact, please tell us how they came to be in NASA's possession.

I would also like to see your responses to the three points on my last post:
(1) Hubble can't resolve Apollo artifacts.
(2) Van Allen radiation is not lethal to properly-shielded crew on Apollo lunar trajectory.
(3) Apollo guidance computer was fully capable of navigating the vehicle.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-21 11:38 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-21, 03:36 PM
cosmicdave, while we're at it, could you at least prove to us that you have even the slimmest regard the truth and remove the "lunar rover camera" footage from your site?



As has been pointed out over and over, the footage you have there was filmed using the 16mm movie camera and NOT the video camera, which just happens to be in the frame itself.

How are we supposed to take you seriously when you won't even correct such a simple error as that?

To verify, here (http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/lrv/LRV_fig3.jpg)
is a diagram of the rover. You can see that the object in the lower right of your footage is, indeed, the video camera. Not only that, but the 16mm camera is shown in the exact spot you would need it to be in to capture the frame you have on your page.

Now, do the right thing and correct your site.

If not, please give a reason.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-21 11:37 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-21 11:41 ]</font>

Waarthog
2002-Jun-21, 04:29 PM
All,
I realize I am new to posting on this board though I have lurked here quite a bit but here goes...
Ngant17,

As to your categorical refusal to accept NASA evidence, I suggest that we here respond thusly: We categorically refuse to accept speculation based on politcal philosphy and suggestions of other wrongdoing and will accept ONLY evidence based on sound, verifiable scientific data including but not limited to Physical, Mathematical, and Engineering principles with accompanying data. CDave, this applies to you too. If you have hard scientific evidence to bring, please do so and let us evaluate it along with the methodology used to collect and process it. If you are on to something, this should not be hard to do.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-21, 04:46 PM
OK, I'll try to answer the questions posed to me.

1) Firstly, lets take your word for it and say that the Hubble cannot possibly take pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the Moon. Thats fine, but doesn't rule out all possiblities of getting good pictures of the landing sites. There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.

2) Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?

3) I concede that I do not have the knowledge to comment any further on the AGC and until such time as to having that knowledge, I will not make further judgement

With those questions out of the way let me answer a few more asked of me. The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe (rather like the ones sent to Mars). The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.

Thanks

Cosmic Dave

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-21, 05:04 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:
1) Firstly, lets take your word for it and say that the Hubble cannot possibly take pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the Moon. Thats fine, but doesn't rule out all possiblities of getting good pictures of the landing sites. There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.

<sigh> Again, there is absolutely no reason to do that. The vast majority of the population is perfectly satisfied with NASA's existing evidence and has no desire to publicly fund a mission for the sole purpose of gathering more. Those who aren't satisfied, like yourself, would not be moved by any new evidence so what's the point? As a taxpayer, I do not want my money spent satisfying a small number of people who have shown that they are either incapable or unwilling to show an understanding of the evidence they've already been presented.

Now, if we have another mission already going to the moon to do some real science, and we can grab some images of the Apollo sites with little additional cost, that'd be great and I'd love to see the pics. But, I daresay that you would still not be convinced.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-21 13:08 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-21, 05:05 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:
OK, I'll try to answer the questions posed to me.

Yet you conviently ignore YET AGAIN your grevious mistake concerning the lunar rover on your website. How long have you been avioding this since Johnno brought this to your attention, a year?



1) Firstly, lets take your word for it and say that the Hubble cannot possibly take pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the Moon. Thats fine, but doesn't rule out all possiblities of getting good pictures of the landing sites. There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.

Don't you understand?! This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with taking our word for it. It is a concrete, immutable fact of optics. The HST has a primary mirror of a specific size, and from that you can figure, to a great amount of accuracy, the resolution of that mirror.

As far a building and launching a spy satellite to orbit the moon and take pictures of the landing sites, why would Congress approve of the millions of dollars to do that? So NASA can prove Apollo wasn't a fake to a very small number of skeptics? Why would NASA itself waste money, which is very, very tight, in order to do that? And since you've already said you won't take anything that comes from NASA as proof, it would truly be a waste of money.





With those questions out of the way let me answer a few more asked of me. The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe (rather like the ones sent to Mars). The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.


You might have noticed that the mars probes have not RETURNED any samples. If we had the technology to return 800 pounds of rock samples from the moon collected by robot, we had the technology to send men there.




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tomblvd on 2002-06-21 13:07 ]</font>

jagster
2002-Jun-21, 05:07 PM
1.)Nothing but money. Who's going to pay for it? You? Why should NASA pay for it when they KNOW that the equipment is there?

2.)You're the one that says it can't provide the shielding necessary. You provide the proof that say it can't.

3.)This should apply to all of your arguments. No slight intended, but you just have no clue what you're talking about.

Moon rocks: Do you realize how many probes would have to have gone to the moon to get over 800 pounds worth?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jagster on 2002-06-21 13:08 ]</font>

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-21, 05:13 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:
ith those questions out of the way let me answer a few more asked of me. The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe (rather like the ones sent to Mars). The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.

850 pounds of them?!? What lunar probe ever designed do you suppose could have managed that? And, what probe have we ever sent to Mars that has returned samples? Your "arguments" are getting desperate, cos.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-21, 05:21 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:
2) Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?

The evidence has been presented over and over and over, including earlier in this thread by Karl. The way this debate thing works is it's now time for you to present evidence to the contrary or to recant your claims. (sigh) However, it seems more likely you'll choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence you've been given and just keep restating the same shown-to-be-bogus points.

2002-Jun-21, 05:23 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:

With those questions out of the way let me answer a few more asked of me. The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe (rather like the ones sent to Mars). The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.

Thanks

Cosmic Dave


As far as the probe-theory goes, allow me to print this counter-argument courtesy of Mike Salmon (a fellow Brit by the way!):

"15 meteorites of lunar origin have been found, mostly in Antarctica. They total about 2 kg of material. The three Soviet robotic lunar sample return missions managed to return a total of 0.3 kg.
Apollo returned about 380 kg. If [this] was robotically retrieved it constitutes a massive robotic expedition. The samples have also been exceptionally well chosen, as though by a trained geologist on the spot (especially Apollo 17, which included a real geologist as well as the geologically-trained test-pilots of previous flights).

If it was done robotically, it represents an enormous (hidden) advance in robotic technology together with a vast unnoticed programme of robotic lunar exploration. This at a time when Kettering School were happily tracking "secret" Soviet flights."

Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~mikes/moon/

So .. approximately how many probes are we talking about, Dave, in order to bring back 380 kg of Moon Rock ? It must have been quite a lot of probes ! - And most important of all: How were all these many probes kept secret, since even the Kettering schoolboys were able to intercept one "secret" after the other (http://www.users.wineasy.se/svengrahn/trackind/getstart/oldcyts.htm)

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-21, 05:43 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:

1) There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.
Of course there are factors "stopping" NASA from doing so. Funding is one. Another would be the hell to pay for sending up a frivolous snapshot-taking mission with no scientific return. But if it were indeed a "cheap option" I suggest you put together a mission proposal along with a cost-benefit analysis and submit it.


and then he wrote:
2) Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?
IIRC, that information (or links to it) was provided to you in other posts. Nevertheless, I gather by your qualifying term ("adequately") that nothing anyone provides will be adequate by your standards...at least that has been the case so far.


The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe (rather like the ones sent to Mars). The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.
First, are you alleging that moon rock samples collected in situ are indistinguishable from those found as meteorites? If so, please provide evidence of this.

Now, on to your handwaving. Yes, I suppose the moon rocks could have been recovered by an unmanned probe if they had sent such a probe capable of returning 850 pounds of rock...if they'd invested a huge amount of their time and budget into developing such a probe...if they could have successfully concealed such a mission...and ALL while (and this is the biggest IF of all) they were supposedly expending a gargantuan amount of money and manpower to fake the Apollo program and keep it a complete secret.

Now let me get this straight. You're suggesting that we could have launched a remote probe capable of returning 850 pounds of moon rock while simultaneously claiming that 1960s technology (i.e.; the AGC) wasn't good enough to get men there and back. You suggest this notion in spite of the fact that the Soviets only manage to return about 10 ounces after several tries...while simultaneously claiming that the Soviets had a better space program than we did.

The bottom line is this: your suggestion is rife with fatal flaws. If you insist on clinging to it, support it...else, drop it and provide some real evidence to substantiate your allegations.
_________________
Cheers,

Loreto

(edited formatting)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-06-21 13:50 ]</font>

Karl
2002-Jun-21, 06:48 PM
On 2002-06-21 12:46, cosmicdave wrote:

2) Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?

"Vast" amounts of radiation can be shielded with a simple layer of aluminum foil, the energies aren't high enough to penetrate any further. To really answer the question you need to integrate the flux to get a fluence as a function of energy along the trajectory, apply the shielding, and look at the resulting dose.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/ssb/radissfig1-3.gif

This type of analysis is done all the time, by non-NASA agencies, because the doses received by any spacecaft need to be evaluated.

http://www.estec.esa.nl/conferences/96a09/Abstracts/abstract38/paper/

You are free to compare the results of the standard models with any non-NASA source you choose:

AE8/AP8 Models of trapped radiation (http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/space/model/models/trap.html)

M_Welander
2002-Jun-21, 11:02 PM
Ok, I don't get it... here cosmicdave once again asks the same, virtually identical, questions he has asked before - and that has been answereed. As cosmicdave has posted in the answering threads *after* the answer, one must assume he has indeed read the answers - and he *still* asks the questions as if they have not been answered.

To ngant17 I'd like to say this: feel free to have different opinions than other people on this board. While they might be wrong, it is healthy to question information. But do not, and I must stress this to the extreme, do not make the same basic and embarassing mistakes that cosmicdave does. If you want to put some pressure behind your point when you argue it here, I'd suggest you read cosmicdaves earlier posts and other peoples answers to them, so you can see how you should *not* convey your arguments.

Rift
2002-Jun-22, 12:45 AM
It's been MORE then a year since Johnno pointed out the error on Cosmicdave's site about the video camera footage from the moving rover, because I've been gone for 8 months, and that was long before then. I can't believe that is STILL on there.

How in the world are we suppose to take ANYTHING conspiracydave says seriously when he refuses to correct something so easily debunked? Why even bother with him???

Cosmic/conspiracy dave is one step up from a troll, and that is being generous...

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-21 20:47 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-22, 12:59 AM
On 2002-06-21 20:45, Rift wrote:
It's been MORE then a year since Johnno pointed out the error on Cosmicdave's site about the video camera footage from the moving rover, because I've been gone for 8 months, and that was long before then. I can't believe that is STILL on there.

How in the world are we suppose to take ANYTHING conspiracydave says seriously when he refuses to correct something so easily debunked? Why even bother with him???

Cosmic/conspiracy dave is one step up from a troll, and that is being generous...

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-21 20:47 ]</font>


I remember it was definitely on the old forum. Johnno pointed out that there was no video taken from the moving rover, but there was 16mm movie film. CD even mentions this in the paragraph, passing it off as some great discovery on his part!

It is inconceivable to me that Dave can look at the clip, and then look at a diagram of the rover, which clearly shows the TV camera as the object in the frame of the clip itself, and STILL be unwilling to correct his mistake.

Of all the screw-ups on his site, this one is utterly bizarre. Just the fact that he's willing to undergo the ridicule from everyone for that one clip makes me wonder.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-22, 02:11 AM
On 2002-06-21 20:59, Tomblvd wrote:
It is inconceivable to me that Dave can look at the clip, and then look at a diagram of the rover, which clearly shows the TV camera as the object in the frame of the clip itself, and STILL be unwilling to correct his mistake.

Of all the screw-ups on his site, this one is utterly bizarre. Just the fact that he's willing to undergo the ridicule from everyone for that one clip makes me wonder.

Sadly, considering the circles Dave seems to travel in, I doubt he receives very much ridicule from anyone outside forums like this one. You've seen his site. It's likely that the people who visit are about as interested in actual facts as he is. He's after headlines and attention and his visitors are after the thrill of thinking they're on the "inside" of the great conspiracy. Either that or they're just after pure amusement.

I take it you have also seen on his site how he has totally misrepresented his debates here? Go there in a month or so and I'll bet you'll read all about how he completely baffled the folks on the BABB concerning moon rocks, footage from the rover, well, you get the idea.

(grammer corr.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-21 22:13 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-22, 02:35 AM
On 2002-06-21 22:11, pvtpylot wrote:


On 2002-06-21 20:59, Tomblvd wrote:
It is inconceivable to me that Dave can look at the clip, and then look at a diagram of the rover, which clearly shows the TV camera as the object in the frame of the clip itself, and STILL be unwilling to correct his mistake.

Of all the screw-ups on his site, this one is utterly bizarre. Just the fact that he's willing to undergo the ridicule from everyone for that one clip makes me wonder.

Sadly, considering the circles Dave seems to travel in, I doubt he receives very much ridicule from anyone outside forums like this one. You've seen his site. It's likely that the people who visit are about as interested in actual facts as he is. He's after headlines and attention and his visitors are after the thrill of thinking they're on the "inside" of the great conspiracy. Either that or they're just after pure amusement.

I take it you have also seen on his site how he has totally misrepresented his debates here? Go there in a month or so and I'll bet you'll read all about how he completely baffled the folks on the BABB concerning moon rocks, footage from the rover, well, you get the idea.

(grammer corr.)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-21 22:13 ]</font>


I think it's safe to say this site gets a lot of traffic. And any lurker here is going to look at his site, then look at the rover diagram, and laugh their heads off.

The fact that he continually ignores it makes it look even worse. Face it, CD isn't afraid to give us his expertise on just about anything, but he can't bring himself to defend a portion of his own website.

YIKES!

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-22, 02:41 AM
On 2002-06-21 22:35, Tomblvd wrote:
I think it's safe to say this site gets a lot of traffic. And any lurker here is going to look at his site, then look at the rover diagram, and laugh their heads off.

The fact that he continually ignores it makes it look even worse. Face it, CD isn't afraid to give us his expertise on just about anything, but he can't bring himself to defend a portion of his own website.

YIKES!

Agreed, but then I didn't say that his strategy was very bright, now did I?
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ngant17
2002-Jun-22, 06:49 AM
‘The thing that amazes me is that NASA's opponents seem to think that the money spent on the
space program was packed into a trunk and left on the moon. Don't you understand that it was
all spent here, on Earth, and that most of it went to the private companies (the contractors) that
you seem to alternately praise and revile? That it percolated through the entire economy like any
other government spending program? That it paid the wages of janitors, factory workers,
secretaries, and truck drivers as well as engineers and astronauts? “

‘Good heavens, man, how can you compare the Apollo program to the situation in Southeast
Asia? You might as well say that everyone who got an operation paid for by Medicare that week
has blood on her hands because the money to pay for it came from the government that was
napalming villages! ‘

It all boils down to a simple question of economics and priorities.

The aprox. cost of the Apollo lunar programme was around $25 billion dollars (actually, that’s not in real
today’s dollas, but even if it was, that’s not pocket change).

$25 billion dollars would have built a lot of hospitals and schools which, in addition to providing jobs to your
“janitors, factory workers, secretaries, and truck drivers”, it would have improved the overall quality of life
for people. The Apollo lunar program was an incredible waste of social resources in comparison to what could
have been accomplished for people here on Earth.

I would also argue (again) that there is no such thing as a private enterprise in the space business, otherwise
NASA would have been privatized a long time ago. Or at least operate itself as a self-financing government
agency like the US Postal Service. NASA knows it can’t support itself, so it has to go begging for money from
Congress all the time.

People gave me example of satellites which are manufactured economically by private space contractors. I do
not argue the cost of the manufacturing, but I do ask them to tell me how they capitalize the cost of putting these
“cost-effective” satellites into orbit. How do you suppose they do this, by meditation on top of a Mayan pyramid
and then the satellite magically levitates itself and appears in orbit? Voila! No one wants to bear the costs of
sending the darn thing into orbit, except the welfare recipients at NASA.

Someone mentioned about the pathetically small number of countries the US has invaded. Since I know this is
totally OT, I will defer any further discussing and stick to the stated topic and only ask them to review the
following, and invite them to debate me via private messages or email, and avoid the wasted space in this topic
concerning the Lunar Conspiracy. Okay?
References below:

Bill Blum Author, "Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II"
"Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower"
"West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Political Memoir"
Portions of the books can be read online: http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm
A recent interview of author is available in Real Audio at
http://www.blackopradio.com/archives.html
‘Nuf said!

As for the political implications of Apollo, it was once suggested that the publicity of Apollo missions were being
used to divert the public's attention from the war in Vietnam. This is not my original assertion. A commentary of
5 February 1971 by the Washington columnist Jack W. Germond mentioned this possibility, albeit briefly, and I
quote: "At the White House Wednesday, someone asked (Nixon) presidential press secretary Ronald Ziegler if
the news of the new military operations in Laos was being delayed to coincide with the news of a successful
Apollo 14 landing on the moon…[t]he implication was that the good tidings of another space spectacular might
bury the bad news of some wider involvement President Nixon was planning in Indochina…[t]he display of
journalistic cynicism wasn’t significant in itself; no one believes a widening of the war in Asia can be
overshadowed even by a moon landing. But it was symptomatic of a mood of general skepticism here about the
Nixon course in Southeast Asia…[t]he underlying cause of the skepticism is, of course, the incursion into
Cambodia Nixon ordered last May…".
Remember the so-called "Nixon Doctrine" originated from a public TV speech in which Pres. Nixon authorized
the military to pursue the enemy beyond the Vietnamese lines and into Cambodian territory, an extremely,
belligerent act which certainly helped to intensify the war on both sides. Date of Apollo 11 was.16 Jul - 24 July
1969. Date of Nixon Doctrine TV speech was 25 July 1969!!! Can you see Pentagon psy-ops at work here? I
certainly can.

BTW, has anyone seen the recent remake of the movie, “Conspiracy Theory”, starring Mel Gibson? It’s begins
with a man who is convinced that there is a plot by NASA to assassinate the President, but I won’t spoil the
ending for you, except to say that it turns out that the man isn’t so crazy after all.. Highly recommended by
yours truly.

“People withstand small amounts of harmful radiation...”
“When presented the ability to corroborate the data from Russian sources (as requested), why is there
nothing but silence...The dependence of high-energy charged-particle...?”
I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting
sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth. What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are
already at a serious health risk from simple, filtered sunlight, shielded already from the ozone layer, to say
nothing of the dangerous levels in outer space and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us? You think a sunburn on Earth is bad? Try getting a sun tan in the Van Allen belt! Do you really think I am
going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic
radioactive particles?

Okay, let’s assume your argument is valid. Why are we scared of a nuclear war then? The Sun is just a gigantic
nuclear explosion that will continue for the next 10 or 20 billion years, so since radiation is so harmless, let’s all
just mass-produce nuclear bombs for public use and keep them in our house for use against the occasional
common criminal who might burglarize our homes. Let’s make children’s toys out of depleted uranium and
other waste radioactive products so we can recycle our garbage appropriately.

Now if I were a cockroach or some kind of insect, I think your argument would be valid, as it is known that
lower animal life forms are much more resistant to radioactivity. You can experiment for yourself by putting a
cockroach in your microwave and observing how long it takes to kill it. It is amazing how much those little
buggers can take!!

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-22, 07:24 AM
On 2002-06-22 02:49, ngant17 wrote:

I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting
sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth. What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are
already at a serious health risk from simple, filtered sunlight, shielded already from the ozone layer, to say
nothing of the dangerous levels in outer space and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us? You think a sunburn on Earth is bad? Try getting a sun tan in the Van Allen belt!
But did you even look at the non-NASA material that was pointed out to you? Evidently not, because you went on to say:


Do you really think I am
going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles? Okay, let’s assume your argument is valid. Why are we scared of a nuclear war then?
Having been a Nuclear/Biological/Chemical (NBC) Warefare Response Team Leader, I have pretty extensive training in the protective measures required in a post-nuclear attack environment. It's true that heavy shielding is required to protect against gamma rays but that's not the kind of radiation we're talking about in the Van Allen Belts. For instance, Alpha particles are quite easily blocked and Beta particles are only a little more difficult to shield against.


Repeated quote:

Do you really think I am
going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles?
If you won't even look at reliable independent sources of information, then you'll wallow in willful ignorance. Remember, this is the science upon which successful protective measures are based...worldwide.


...so since radiation is so harmless, let’s all just mass-produce nuclear bombs for public use and keep them in our house for use against the occasional common criminal...(etc, etc, etc).

Irrational hyperbole apparently designed to give the opposing argument the appearance of implausibility...when in fact, you have no credible evidence to support your assertions.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-22, 07:29 AM
On 2002-06-22 02:49, ngant17 wrote:
Okay, let’s assume your argument is valid. Why are we scared of a nuclear war then? The Sun is just a gigantic
nuclear explosion that will continue for the next 10 or 20 billion years, so since radiation is so harmless, let’s all
just mass-produce nuclear bombs for public use and keep them in our house for use against the occasional
common criminal who might burglarize our homes. Let’s make children’s toys out of depleted uranium and
other waste radioactive products so we can recycle our garbage appropriately.

Now if I were a cockroach or some kind of insect, I think your argument would be valid, as it is known that
lower animal life forms are much more resistant to radioactivity. You can experiment for yourself by putting a
cockroach in your microwave and observing how long it takes to kill it. It is amazing how much those little
buggers can take!!

Another point made over and over again, but never seeming to be read or understood. EVERY single expert in this forum has stated repeatedly that prolonged exposure to the radiaiton in the Van Allen belts is harmful and that the Apollo spacecraft did not spend very long in the belts. Not one single person other than yourself has said anything about the Van Allen belts being totally harmless. Seriously, what is so tough to grasp about the concept of something being hazerdous, but not instantly deadly, either? Why can't you seem to understand anything other than one extreme or the other?

In any case, comparing the radiation in the Van Allen belts to a nuclear blast or a microwave oven is just downright silly! Communications satellites can't survive a nuclear blast either, but they're parked in geosyncronous orbit in the Van Allen belts right at this very moment sending HBO to my cable box.

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-22, 10:15 AM
I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting
sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth. What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are
already at a serious health risk from simple, filtered sunlight, shielded already from the ozone layer, to say
nothing of the dangerous levels in outer space and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us? You think a sunburn on Earth is bad? Try getting a sun tan in the Van Allen belt! Do you really think I am
going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic
radioactive particles?
You really don't have a clue, do you???

I'll go you one better. My brother died of malignant melanoma from too much sun. All of which is irrelevant to the van Allen belts.

Lets try this O N E - M O R E - T I M E:

Ultraviolet radiation (UV) is electromagnetic radiation with a shorter wavelength (more energetic) than visible light but longer (less energetic) wavelength than X-rays.

The radiation in the VAB is particulate not electromagnetic. It consists of electrons (also known as beta particles or beta rays) and protons. Being charged particles, they interact with any matter they encounter. They are easily stopped by fairly thin layers of "tin foil" or polyethylene plastic.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-22 06:18 ]</font>

Karl
2002-Jun-22, 01:04 PM
On 2002-06-22 02:49, ngant17 wrote:

?People withstand small amounts of harmful radiation...?

?When presented the ability to corroborate the data from Russian sources (as requested), why is there nothing but silence...The dependence of high-energy charged-particle...??

I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth. What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are already at a serious health risk from simple, filtered sunlight, shielded already from the ozone layer, to say nothing of the dangerous levels in outer space and the Van Allen belt where there isn?t any any ozone to protect us?

Well, it tells us that a simple layer of aluminum foil would completely protect us from a sunburn, either on the earth or in orbit. You should try it.


You think a sunburn on Earth is bad? Try getting a sun tan in the Van Allen belt!

Do you really think I am going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles?

Well, we could take you into a lab, and demonstrate shielding effectiveness for various type of radiation, but I somehow don't think you would even believe that.

Look at it this way, if you were to jump off of a 1 foot, 3 foot, 30 foot or 300 foot ledge, we can predict with physics how fast you will be hitting when you hit the ground, and statistically how likely you are to get hurt.

Likewise, we can look at the nature and intensity of the different types of radiation, and determine how much will get through a given amount of shielding, and statistically how damaging to you it would be. Exactly the same principle, just different physics. And the physics is the same for everyone in the world, whether you choose to believe it or not.

Joe Durnavich
2002-Jun-22, 02:25 PM
[alpha and beta particles] are easily stopped by fairly thin layers of "tin foil" or polyethylene plastic.

What about the VAB causes potentially harmful radiation inside the space ship? Is the ship not fully shielded against particle radiation?

Karl
2002-Jun-22, 02:35 PM
On 2002-06-22 10:25, Joe Durnavich wrote:
[alpha and beta particles] are easily stopped by fairly thin layers of "tin foil" or polyethylene plastic.

What about the VAB causes potentially harmful radiation inside the space ship? Is the ship not fully shielded against particle radiation?



The high energy particle in the trapped radiation are quite capable of penetrating the fairly thin shielding of the Apollo spacecraft, this has never been disputed. The point has been that the exposure times were short, so that the total absorbed dose was low enough to not be a significant hazard.

The thin layers of sheilding that were present were quite sufficient to reduce the total dose to an acceptable level, since the majority of the particle radiation present is of relatively low energy, therefore having a small penetration depth.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Karl on 2002-06-22 10:37 ]</font>

sts60
2002-Jun-22, 04:11 PM
NASA would have been privatized a long time ago. Or at least operate itself as a self-financing government agency like the US Postal Service. NASA knows it can?t support itself, so it has to go begging for money from Congress all the time. ??The thing that amazes me is that NASA's opponents seem to think that the money spent on the agency like the US Postal Service. NASA knows it can?t support itself, so it has to go begging for money from
Congress all the time.
Of course NASA isn't supposed to support itself. It's primarily a research agency. NIH (National Institutes of Health) doesn't support itself; the Naval Observatory doesn't; NIST (Nat'l Inst. for Science & Technology) doesn't; very few government agencies do. Do you characterize them all as "welfare recipients"? And, whether or not your characterization is accurate, exactly how does this serve as evidence to support your assertion that Apollo was faked? If you cannot answer this question, then your "welfare" argument is irrelevant to the alleged hoax.

People gave me example of satellites which are manufactured economically by private space contractors. I do not argue the cost of the manufacturing, but I do ask them to tell me how they capitalize the cost of putting these
?cost-effective? satellites into orbit. How do you suppose they do this, by meditation on top of a Mayan pyramid and then the satellite magically levitates itself and appears in orbit? Voila! No one wants to bear the costs of sending the darn thing into orbit, except the welfare recipients at NASA.
Well, no, actually, we get the people who want the satellites in orbit to pay for the cost of building the booster and launching it, plus some extra to make a profit. That's what my company does; we make satellites and boosters both, and provide launch services, and we make a profit doing it. That's what our commercial competitors do, too. Pretty nifty, huh? No pyramids required.

You really might want to study some of these topics just a little before making such proclamations.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-22, 05:24 PM
On 2002-06-22 02:49, ngant17 wrote:
I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting
sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth. What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are
already at a serious health risk from simple, filtered sunlight, shielded already from the ozone layer, to say
nothing of the dangerous levels in outer space and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us? You think a sunburn on Earth is bad? Try getting a sun tan in the Van Allen belt! Do you really think I am
going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic
radioactive particles?


By saying things like this, you are exposing your ignorance on this subject.

Do you understand the difference between particle radiation and electromagnetic radiation? Getting a tan (or melanoma from sunlight) is entirely different than the radiation in the van Allen belt. If you were to actually find a website or a book on radiation you could find this out for yourself.

You need to educate yourself on radiation (and indeed, on every topic on which you have posted here) before making sweeping conclusions. From what I have read in this thread, everything you think you know is wrong.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-22, 06:43 PM
On 2002-06-22 02:49, ngant17 wrote:
Do you really think I am going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles?

Yes. The particles which comprise the Van Allen belts are not atomic or radioactive, because they don't contain any atomic nuclei, just protons and electrons.

Go read http://www.clavius.org/envradintro.html before you come back here. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-22, 08:51 PM
AstroMike,
FWIW, protons are hydrogen nuclei. Just a (very) minor nitpick that does not change what you said.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-22, 09:02 PM
Ah, good point. Thanks. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

ngant17
2002-Jun-23, 09:33 PM
I will acknowlege my ignorance of the radiation hazards in the Van Allen belt. For my part, I will plan to do some independent research at the University of Central Florida (yes, I live nearby) on the 5th floor of the library where all the engineering books are shelved.

The data which was previously posted, mentioning the Soviet Proton 3 satellite and the "80 MeV" energies of electron flux, are basically meaningless to me. You could have also supplied me with what would consist of a Letal Dose (LD) of such electron flux energies in the VA belt, and also how much time it would take to absord such a LD. For humans, of course.

Myths can exert powerful influences and they can take on a life of their own, whether or not the myths are grounded on much factual basis. For example, Hitler's myth that the Aryans were the master race and it was the Germanic people who were destined to rule to world. When in fact the genes which produce blonde hair, blue-eyed girls and boys are in fact recessive and can pop up out of the blue anywhere (as in the case of my family, my father and mother had dark hair and brown eyes, but I and 1 sister and 2 brothers have these 'aryan' characteristics).

The Aulis 'moon hoax' video could be one of those myths, but it has made a dramatic effect on me. Because it presented the arugument in straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments. I've already loaned the video to my 'aryan' sister, she's let many of her friends see it, it may be another month before she returns it to me, but I am happy that we are getting to the truth from a different perspective than what NASA is presenting.

One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space. NASA (alledgedly) brought back 866 lbs. (393 kgs.) of moon rocks/dust. I understand that, if you add water to it, it makes a decent building material. I can buy 1000 lbs. of concrete mix, add water to it, and make the same thing, for a total cost of under $50.00. The titanium argument has also been settled here, I think. It's just not cost-effective to go to the moon and mine it. If it were so, I would have invested in NASA stock a long time ago.

The only value the moon rocks have is so that a few space geologists can study and analyze it ad infinitum. And get those juicey state-subsidized paychecks for doing such 'work', though I use the term quite loosely.

The best way to eliminate any future public misconceptions that NASA may or may not perpetuate another gigantic 'lunar hoax' on the American people, is to simply privatize the agency. To wean the space agency off the public teat once and for all. I suggest that NASA be given a long-term, low-interest loan of $500 million dollars, with principle and interest due at the end of 10 years, during which time it would have to make a profit or declare itself bankrupt.

I suspect the latter will happen.

The problem is that when you give a government beauracracy enormous amounts of steady cash-flow, with no real incentive to do anything with the money other than to spend it on useless, 'moondoggle' projects like the lunar missions, it tends to try and perpetuate its existence when it has no socially-useful purpose at all. I have already read some people's messages, comparing the space agency to the National Institute of Health!!! You mean we have a problem with infectious diseases in outer space? Do I miss the point of the poster? I may have demonstrated an ignorance of the Van Allen belt, but I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is. The NIH is a sufficient and necessary agency to address the problems related to the heath of the American people. NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.

When Pres. Kennedy made his UN speech of 21 Sept. 1963, calling for international space cooperation between the US and the USSR, it was immediately met with hostility by high-level NASA officials. NASA said a joint lunar mission with the Soviets couldn't be done, but Gen. Kamanin and Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Union were saying quite the opposite in 1963. And Khushchev was amenable to the idea. NASA didn't want the Russians to go along for the ride, because it knew that a lunar mission with the Soviets would expose its own hippocracy. I can site references, if inquiring minds wish to know.

Given such duplicity within the ranks of NASA, do you think NASA can pull off a manned Martian hoax? Sure, if we have enough people who accept everything NASA says on its face value.

I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening. No one wants to discuss that thread. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo.

Is it not possible for the government to defraud the American people? Yes, just remember the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which never really happened, although the Pentagon said it did, and it directly led to our involvement in Vietnam. If the Pentagon can lie about Vietnam, it is no great stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that NASA could have lied about the lunar landings. And it will lie to us in the future.

Andrew
2002-Jun-23, 09:59 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-306772,00.html

widosm
2002-Jun-23, 10:18 PM
The only value the moon rocks have is so that a few space geologists can study and analyze it ad infinitum. And get those juicey state-subsidized paychecks for doing such 'work', though I use the term quite loosely.
From what I understand, the state-subsidized paychecks space geologists would recieve would be far from 'juicey', about as juicy perhaps as, uh, moonrocks.
To address your reply to my point regarding health services in general, I was merely making the point that, contrary to what you said in your first post, making profit is not the sole purpose of an organisation. I was not saying that NASA is as vital as a health sevice, merely that both made zero profit.
Your subsequent posts support this notion, though obviously you haven't noticed this.
So what, exactly, do we do without NASA? We could privatise, but you say this won't work in the long run either. So, you are basically saying, 'no space exploration for me'. You are saying space has nothing to offer us humans, we can live out the rest of our existence on this planet, never setting foot elsewhere. The extent of the human race, when it finally dies out, is a tiny little planet nowhere special in a vast galaxy.
If you can't see that some people are driven to do things purely because they want to explore something as vast, complicated, and fascinating as space, then I feel very sorry for you. But please don't assume everyone has the same lack of spirit as you.

Silas
2002-Jun-23, 10:35 PM
A friend of mine in the Navy (who suffered radiation illness after an incident on a nuclear submarine) told me the joke about the four radioactive cookies.

You hold the Alpha-particle cookie in your hand. The layer of dead skin cells in your palm will stop Alpha particles.

You put the Beta-particle cookie in your pocket. One layer of fabric will stop Beta particles.

You throw the Gamma Ray cookie away as far as you can. Gamma Rays break down with distance.

And you might just as well eat the Neutron cookie, since, by the time you have it in your hand, you're already as good as dead.

Silas

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-24, 12:15 AM
On 2002-06-23 17:33, ngant17 wrote:
I will acknowlege my ignorance of the radiation hazards in the Van Allen belt. For my part, I will plan to do some independent research at the University of Central Florida (yes, I live nearby) on the 5th floor of the library where all the engineering books are shelved.


Great! I think that will help immensely.

However...



One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space.


I think it would be interesting to defend that statement to companies like Hughes, Boeing, Ball, etc. If there were no profit from space, then how do you explain all the waether satellites, telecommunication satellites, etc.? Those companies are making quite a bit from such things.

And yes, this is a direct result of space exploration. It was the exploration done in the 50s and 60s that made these technologies possible.

The amazing thing about exploring is that you don't know what you might find. Maxwell wasn't trying to invent TV and radio when he set about deriving his four equations, but these trillion-dollar industries are a direct result of his work.

Who knows what exploring space might bring? There is a lot of money in the raw metals in asteroids, as an example. Harnessing solar power could be very profitable. And we are also seeing people paying quite a bit of cash just to be in space for a few days.

There's gold out there. Literally, as well as figuratively.

Peter B
2002-Jun-24, 12:27 AM
ngant17

I'm happy to comment on the Vietnam War angle of your comments, though I suspect it's rather peripheral to the whole issue.

I assume the dates and comments you quote are accurate.

But you don't need to involve NASA in any Penatgon shenanigans. After all, the launch dates of Apollo missions were selected months ahead, and publicly announced. To suggest that the later Apollo missions were just done up in a couple of days to provide convenient good publicity to outshine whatever else the USA was doing doesn't make sense. There are documents which can show precisely where NASA was in its planning for each mission at any particular date. (What might make sense is that Penatgon officials have the the various Apollo missions circled in their diaries...but that's entirely another story.)

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-24, 12:39 AM
Government does a lot of things that don't generate a profit. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of public expenditures are not for profit. Do you have to pay a toll to cross each little bridge over each little gully along the highway? No. Your taxes paid for all those bridges, and they make no money for the government.

What they do, however, is promote commerce. If the government didn't provide the infrastructure, moving goods and services around the country would be difficult or impossible. So the people's representatives choose to spend their tax money on such things.

The space program is much the same. There are direct benefits (e.g. manufacturing contracts for the hardware, jobs in Florida and Texas) and more indirect ones (the knowledge gained from the science missions, technological progress).

Like many other government functions, NASA operations are in the category of long-term investments. Today's shuttle launch may not produce a cash return today, but it may provide data that will be critical tomorrow.

Your insistence that NASA be a profit center seems just plain absurd to me -- just as absurd as if you demanded that all Medicare patients start paying their own bills.

I'm glad that our policymakers are not quite as short-sighted as you, sir.

But I'm also glad that you have backed away from your claims about radiation in cislunar space, and even (in a subtle way) from your broader claim that Apollo was hoaxed.

It's perfectly okay for you to oppose NASA on ideological grounds, if that's the way you feel; but unless you can prove a hoax, you'll do your cause no good by trying to oppose NASA on those grounds. And as you've seen, no one has even come close to proving that Apollo was hoaxed.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-24, 12:52 AM
On 2002-06-23 17:33, ngant17 wrote:
I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening. No one wants to discuss that thread. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo.

That thread has been discussed here before. While it's quite possible that there were members of the Johnson and Nixon administrations that hoped Apollo would provide a positive distraction from the events in Southeast Asia, that possibility does not add any credence to the idea of a lunar hoax. You have to establish beyond any doubt that a crime occured before attempting to assign a motive and the evidence presented in favor of a moon hoax has been thoroughly debunked as bad science.

But, arguing a hypothetical here, even if you were looking to distract the public why would anyone risk something with the huge risk of backfiring as an Apollo Hoax would have had? What happens if you're caught? Can you imagine the political and judicial fallout? Look what happened to the presidency when a simple burglary came to light. I can't think of any politician I've ever come across or heard of in my lifetime who would be willing to commit to such a risk. I'd rather just admit that Apollo wasn't possible, if that were the case, than to put my head on the block like that.

Kizarvexis
2002-Jun-24, 01:14 AM
On 2002-06-23 17:33, ngant17 wrote:
...
The Aulis 'moon hoax' video could be one of those myths, but it has made a dramatic effect on me.

It is one of those myths.


Because it presented the arugument in straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments. I've already loaned the video to my 'aryan' sister, she's let many of her friends see it, it may be another month before she returns it to me, but I am happy that we are getting to the truth from a different perspective than what NASA is presenting.

The aulis video is a good example of slanting data to support an arguement. This is otherwise known as propaganda.


One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space. NASA (alledgedly) brought back 866 lbs. (393 kgs.) of moon rocks/dust. I understand that, if you add water to it, it makes a decent building material. I can buy 1000 lbs. of concrete mix, add water to it, and make the same thing, for a total cost of under $50.00. The titanium argument has also been settled here, I think. It's just not cost-effective to go to the moon and mine it. If it were so, I would have invested in NASA stock a long time ago.

The only value the moon rocks have is so that a few space geologists can study and analyze it ad infinitum. And get those juicey state-subsidized paychecks for doing such 'work', though I use the term quite loosely.

The best way to eliminate any future public misconceptions that NASA may or may not perpetuate another gigantic 'lunar hoax' on the American people, is to simply privatize the agency. To wean the space agency off the public teat once and for all. I suggest that NASA be given a long-term, low-interest loan of $500 million dollars, with principle and interest due at the end of 10 years, during which time it would have to make a profit or declare itself bankrupt.

Since you are so into sociopolitical discourse, have you considered that the moon race between the US and Russia *was* a war between the two countries? An economic and political status war that the US won?

Also this article gives me a very good reason to support space exploration.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/06/20/asteroid.miss/index.html

In case you missed it, a 100m asteroid recently passed very close to earth. If it had hit the earth, it could have done some serious damage.

Recently NASA landed a satellite on an asteroid. The NEAR spacecraft gathered a lot of data on the asteroid that could be very useful in the event we try to intercept an earth bound asteroid.

As for manned missions, eventually one of the dino killer type of asteroids is going to hit earth and it would be nice if we could have the ability to send out a colony of humans to ensure the survival of the species.



The problem is that when you give a government beauracracy enormous amounts of steady cash-flow, with no real incentive to do anything with the money other than to spend it on useless, 'moondoggle' projects like the lunar missions, it tends to try and perpetuate its existence when it has no socially-useful purpose at all. I have already read some people's messages, comparing the space agency to the National Institute of Health!!! You mean we have a problem with infectious diseases in outer space? Do I miss the point of the poster? I may have demonstrated an ignorance of the Van Allen belt, but I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is. The NIH is a sufficient and necessary agency to address the problems related to the heath of the American people. NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.

Quite a bit ao technology developed for the space industry finds its way to the private sector. Check out this Discovery.com article for a some of the life saving bits.

http://health.discovery.com/stories/spacemedicine/savinglives.html

Also, did you know that the asteroid belt between the Mars and Jupiter has untold mineral wealth. Here is a quote from this article, http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/stuffworks/2001-01-27-asteroidmining.htm.

"One NASA report estimates that the mineral wealth of the asteroids in the asteroid belt might exceed more than $100 billion for each of the six billion people on Earth. John S. Lewis, author of the space mining book Mining the Sky, has said that an asteroid with a diameter of one kilometer would have a mass of about two billion tons. There are perhaps one million asteroids of this size in the solar system. One of these asteroids, according to Lewis, would contain 30 million tons of nickel, 1.5 million tons of metal cobalt and 7,500 tons of platinum. The platinum alone would have a value of more than $150 billion."

Q: So, how do you get there when it costs $10,000 per kg to get into orbit now?
A: Invest in space exploration to develop a cheaper alternative.

Oh, and I can guess your response. 'But it is a NASA report and they are the root of all evil'. Sorry, don't buy it. NASA is an open government organization with lots of public oversight.



I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening. No one wants to discuss that thread. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo.

Is it not possible for the government to defraud the American people? Yes, just remember the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which never really happened, although the Pentagon said it did, and it directly led to our involvement in Vietnam. If the Pentagon can lie about Vietnam, it is no great stretch of the imagination to consider the possibility that NASA could have lied about the lunar landings. And it will lie to us in the future.

The 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident is not relevant to going to the moon. Kennedy charged the nation with going to the moon in May of 1961.


Kizarvexis

Jim
2002-Jun-24, 01:17 AM
On 2002-06-23 17:33, ngant17 wrote:
I will acknowlege my ignorance of the radiation hazards in the Van Allen belt. For my part, I will plan to do some independent research at the University of Central Florida (yes, I live nearby) on the 5th floor of the library where all the engineering books are shelved.


Good on you! Please report your findings to us. (I see UCF offers degrees in Aerospace Engineering. Their library should have what you need. http://www.ucf.edu/ )

BTW, UCF is a public school; that means it "feeds at the government teat" to keep tuition and fees low; if it were privately funded, it would cost much more. I hope this doesn't dissuade you.



The data which was previously posted, mentioning the Soviet Proton 3 satellite and the "80 MeV" energies of electron flux, are basically meaningless to me. You could have also supplied me with what would consist of a Letal Dose (LD) of such electron flux energies in the VA belt, and also how much time it would take to absord such a LD. For humans, of course.


You can look that up while doing your VAB research. (UCF also confers degrees in microbiology, biomolecular science and environmental health; sounds like good source material.) Again, let us know your findings.



Myths can exert powerful influences and they can take on a life of their own... The Aulis 'moon hoax' video could be one of those myths, but it has made a dramatic effect on me. Because it presented the arugument in straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments.


I'm glad to see you recognize this possibility. Let me point out to you that the myth of Aryan superiourity was also presented in "straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments." That didn't make it right, only easier to sell.



... I am happy that we are getting to the truth from a different perspective than what NASA is presenting.


I hope you are not relying on the Aulis video to be telling you the truth? You may find the arguments "simple, but powerful" but also note that they offer no hard evidence, only supposition and proposition and innuendo. They are arguments of emotion rather than reason.

After you have looked up information on the VAB, radiation LDLs, shielding, and actual astronaut exposures - and found the video to be very, very wrong - maybe you'll question the rest of the video's "evidence."



One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space.


Oops, wrong! The Apollo program cost approximately $25 billion (1960s). It showed an almost 9-to-1 rate-of-return. (My 401k should so well.)

NASA's "useless" space exploration has led to such advances as communications satellites, fiber-optic networks, water purification systems, advanced ceramics, digital watches, cordless tools, CAT scans and MRIs. There is no ER or ICU in the world that does not owe it's success to the space program's medical telemetry developments.

Granted, NASA hasn't made one penny of profit from these advances, but that's because NASA is publicly funded and its developments fall into the public domain. Had they been made solely with private funding, the costs to the public would have been much higher.

Consider pharmaceuticals. There is an increasing outcry from sectors of the public about the high cost of prescription medicines. The companies justify this cost because they have invested large sums in research and development since the government doesn't want to get involved.

Or just go back abd consider what the cost of a degree at UCF would be w/o government support... including scholarships, grants and low interest loans.



NASA (alledgedly) brought back 866 lbs. (393 kgs.) of moon rocks/dust. I understand that, if you add water to it, it makes a decent building material. I can buy 1000 lbs. of concrete mix, add water to it, and make the same thing, for a total cost of under $50.00.


Sorry to burst your bubble, but the soil and rocks were not brought back to build bbq pits. They were brought back for the lessons they could teach us about the early solar system, something concrete cannot do.

(Y'know, your argument is along the lines of suggesting the Louvre get rid of all those exorbitantly expensive paintings 'cause a couple of coats of white wash would serve the same function for much less cost.)



The best way to eliminate any future public misconceptions that NASA may or may not perpetuate another gigantic 'lunar hoax' on the American people, is to simply privatize the agency.


Please remember that only six percent of the public believes in the Hoax. That's no reason to privatize NASA.

Also keep in mind that NASA's purpose is space science research, not turning a profit. Private investors have taken advantage of NASA's research to make their own profits from private satellites and launch systems.



I have already read some people's messages, comparing the space agency to the National Institute of Health!!! You mean we have a problem with infectious diseases in outer space? Do I miss the point of the poster?


Seems like. The NIH would not exist w/o government funding; private investors would never realize a monetary return on their investment unless they charged for the Institutes' findings. (See pharmaceuticals above.)



The NIH is a sufficient and necessary agency to address the problems related to the heath of the American people. NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.


And who will do it if not NASA?

NASA does put value back into the economy (see above). But it doesn't make the profit private investors would demand.

Earlier you mentioned the USPS as an example of a government agency that had gone private and no longer needed federal funding. Sorry, but it still needs it and it still gets it. Private companies like UPS and FedEx have moved into the field, but only the part (parcel and overnight deliveries) that can turn a profit. That leaves the USPS with that ol' profit killer, junk mail. Federal law says they have to deliver it, and the private companies want none of it.



NASA didn't want the Russians to go along for the ride, because it knew that a lunar mission with the Soviets would expose its own hippocracy. I can site references, if inquiring minds wish to know.


Cite away... but no HB references, please. Give us something substantial, like a memo from the head of NASA. Oh, no, you don't trust NASA. Well, you'll find something.

Here is the "official" timeline:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/history/shuttle-mir/history/h-b-cooperation.htm

Note that Kennedy and Kruschev began their discussions on space cooperation in 1962, before the UN speech you mention. Also keep in mind that this was a political agreement, not a purely scientific one; as such, there were a great many details to be discussed, and - as with all political/diplomatic discussions - that took time. One major sticking point for NASA was that the Russians wanted to use their own launch vehicles; this posed an engineering problem with docking.



Given such duplicity within the ranks of NASA, do you think NASA can pull off a manned Martian hoax? Sure, if we have enough people who accept everything NASA says on its face value.


What, already made up your mind?

BTW, you'll find very few folks here who defend Apollo as fact based on their acceptance "at face value" of NASA's pronouncements. Most of us have done independent research and/or calculations and have been satisfied that the landings happened.

Have you conducted any independent research of the Aulis claims?



I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening.


Which is how LBJ was able to defeat Richard Nixon by 20 points in the 1968 elections. We were all too distracted from the reality of Viet Nam.

I can tell you were not alive during Nam. I was. I have vivid memories of two televised events in 1969. One was the Apollo 11 landing. The other was the draft lottery.

Apollo was a great achievement and a pleasant diversion, but it took no one's mind off the war.



Is it not possible for the government to defraud the American people?


Of course. But just because it's possible and even happened before doesn't mean Apollo was a hoax.



Our welfare cheats aren't driving Cadillacs in the ghettos of New York. They are manuevering Space Shuttles through extra-terrestrial junkyards.


This is an exceedingly demeaning signature. It speaks volumes about its author... none of it good.

Rift
2002-Jun-24, 01:45 AM
[/quote]

This is an exceedingly demeaning signature. It speaks volumes about its author... none of it good.


[/quote]

I was talking to my sister the other day, and I asked her what she thought of a person who would go on an astronomy board and state that the space program was a waste of money. She isn't that up on internet slang, but her response would be a good definition for 'troll'. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif She said, among other things, it would be similar to somebody going on a aneorxia board and telling them they just need to eat.

You and I on the other hand, have particularly good and tasteful signatures... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(I find it fascinating that both science fiction writers said basically the same thing)

Waarthog
2002-Jun-24, 02:56 AM
>>>"One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space."

No, you have not. You have merely asserted this is impossible without benefit of evidence whilst ignoring several people pointing out that numerous businesses make their bread and butter off space without government handouts. I worked for two years for a company that made satellite control software. Very few of our contracts were government related and most were with Boeing Space Systems (Formerly Hughes Space Company). I also spent a quarter of this time on assignment in El. Segundo providing on site customer support to the on orbit Mission Control Center. Many a meeting we spoke of bugets and schedules and at no time did Boeing, their customer, or our company speak of any form of government financing. From a purely semantic standpoint, one might argue your statement is true. Exploration COSTS money and rarely makes profit in and of itself (unless one sells the data gathered. It is the RESULTS of the exploration and the findings that allow a profit to be made. NASA's mandate when formed was to seek the technologies for public use, not to make a profit on them itself. Don't blame NASA for this one, this is how it went down when chartered by Congress in 1958. The National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958
states:
"AN ACT
To provide for research into problems of flight within and outside the earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes. "

The whole text of the act can be found at:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/spaceact.html

So NASA was never intended to make a profit. Arguing the validity of wether it should is in the long run irrelevant.


>>>"Given such duplicity within the ranks of NASA, do you think NASA can pull off a manned Martian hoax? Sure, if we have enough people who accept everything NASA says on its face value."

I think your claim of NASA's duplicty is at best premature since you have not proven that a hoax was committed. And no, they could not pull off a Mars hoax for the same reasons cited on this board that they could not pull off a moon hoax. Too many people such as amateur astronomers and radio enthusiasts would be watching and listening and DOING THE MATH and as stated above NOT taking everything NASA says at face value. If something wasn't right, they would start to ask qestions. They were watching and listening during Apollo and to date haven't said a a contrary word. Thats a large group in a lot of countries to have to keep quiet.

>>>"The problem is that when you give a government beauracracy enormous amounts of steady cash-flow, with no real incentive to do anything with the money other than to spend it on useless, 'moondoggle' projects like the lunar missions"

Again, this is NOT NASA's fault. NASA was DIRECTED by President and then allocated funds by Congress to make the Lunar Missions. Your problem should be directed where it lies, not NASA but Congress. That august body controls the pursestrings and NASA has to get Congressional approval for anything. You want NASA to go away, fine. Write your Congresscritter. I will do the same to keep it.

>>>"I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening. No one wants to discuss that thread. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo."

Again, it would do no such thing. The timing of the Lunar Missions was set by the windows of launch based on the relative positons of the moon and earth. Politcal manuvering won't change this. Nixon assumed office long after most of the preliminary work for Apollo was done. As to Nixon taking advantage of the launches as a diversion from tother efforts, I think this unlikley as at no time did space missions temper the anti war sentiment. As to no one challenging you on this point, this is a board for Astronomy and the related sciences of which the band of social sciences needed for the discourse you seek is not apropriate to this venue. BA would rightfully ask us to keep such a discussion on topic.

Chip
2002-Jun-24, 06:05 AM
On 2002-06-23 17:33, ngant17 wrote:
"...space exploration is a waste of resources. No one has, and no one ever will, ever find a way to profit from the exploration of space..."
This statement is odd to me. (Accomplishment with little or no profit is thought of as a "waste of resources"?) First of all there has been "profit" in space technology, and the promise of much more, but secondly, in the broader sense, how many people in history have contributed to human science, culture, and the arts without attaining much profit? Are their accomplishments a waste? (i.e. Better stop listening to Mr. Schubert's 9th Symphony, he didn't make any money from it. (Not that he wouldn't mind being paid!) A lot of famous scientists didn't get a big paycheck when they first developed what became far reaching theories or observations. A waste of resources? I don't think so considering later developments.

The world is such that often you can't accomplish something completely until you actually go and do it. I think among the hoax believers, there is a subgroup who basically believe that the moon landings would be impossible until everything was known about every aspect of the venture, including the moon, space, the technology. It is important to plan and build for every contingency, but if they had to be completely certain about everything, they would still be "planing" the trip. Hoax believers seem to discount the acceptance of risk that all Astronauts have. In the face of clear cut evidence of the authenticity of the Apollo program, hoax believers are ultimately blind to the human spirit.

David Hall
2002-Jun-24, 07:17 AM
I wish to comment on two things.

First, our friend here doesn't seem to understand the value or purpose of pure research. He thinks that the only good research is applied research, that is, research directed towards a particular goal and with profit in mind.

Pure research is not done for profit. In fact, it can be very expensive without even the promise of any recompensation for the expense. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. The goal of pure research is simple, to discover anything and everything you can about a particular subject (NASA's goals being space and aviation, hence the name). Why? Simply because you never know when it might come in useful. The research isn't done for one specific goal, but simply to build a body of knowledge that can be accessed at any time in the future for any reason.

Is this foolish? In the short term, maybe it seems so. Spending time, money, and effort on a big project that only might be useful. But if you look at it in the long term, such research almost always pays off. Those accessing that data have a step up right at the start. They can save time, money, and energy in their work because it's been done for them. Pure research is done to forstall the need for applied research. The data is almost always useful in some way, if only to show what has been tried before. Think of it as building an infrastructure of knowledge, facilitating research of all kinds.

There's another, almost unseen benefit to pure research. Research done for applied purposes seldom has any use outside of the goal it was done for. Once that goal is satisfied the research stops. But since in pure research you keep going without a specific need in mind, you are free to discover things you never would have known otherwise. In other words, spin-offs. Knowledge gained in one area can often be applied to other areas (and for a profit). Many of the things we take for granted have come about as a direct consequence of NASA research. Medical technology. The jets we use to fly from place to place (NASA aerospace research has helped make flying much safer), computers, materials. You name it. The link given above, http://health.discovery.com/stories/spacemedicine/savinglives.html shows exactly this kind of benefit.

It's only the short-sighted and unimaginative person that fails to see the benefits of pure research. I, for one, thank NASA wholeheartedly for all it's done for my benefit.

<center><hr width="40%"></center>

The second thing I wish to comment on is the ridiculous notion that Apollo could have been faked to distract from Vietnam. Well, first of all, there's nothing an Apollo hoax could have done that the real program couldn't have done also. Real missions would be just as effective as any hoax, without the worry of slipping up and getting caught. So in that regard this provides no justification for claiming it as a motive for a hoax.

But second, I think he has the psychology all wrong. I doubt very highly that people could be easily distracted from the horrors of war by such things. Jim above says as much in his reply. In fact, the sheer contrast between the horrors of war being broadcast every night on one hand and the noble exploration of space on the other would have the effect of bringing both of them into sharp relief. Far from blurring them away, it would bring them both to the forefront. Exactly the opposite effect from what he says they wanted. And I think that since there were people criticizing Apollo while it happened, and I've never read anything that says the Vietnam war was ever forgotten or ignored, there's evidence that this was the case.

Mr. ngant seems to have a very simplistic and antagonistic view of many things. His posts are riddled with anti-government and especially anti-public spending rhetoric. While I can agree with the sentiment to some extent (nobody likes pork-barrel), I just can't agree that it's as bad as all that. One of the purposes of government is to spend moneys on things that people won't or can't do for themselves. Infrastructure, social welfare, military, etc. And basic research is one of them.
_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it." (http://www.occn.zaq.ne.jp/cuaea503/whatnots/2001_feel_it.wav)

<font size="-1">(minor edit)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-06-24 03:29 ]</font>

sts60
2002-Jun-24, 01:24 PM
I have already read some people's messages, comparing the space agency to the National Institute of Health!!! You mean we have a problem with infectious diseases in outer space? Do I miss the point of the poster?
Yes, you do. The point is that NIH, like NASA, is a research agency, and is given tax dollars to do research.

I may have demonstrated an ignorance of the Van Allen belt,,
Yes, and you have also demonstrated great ignorance about the very nature of space exploration and the space business. You came on here spouting a lot of rhetoric with nothing to back it up except an attitude.

but I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is. The NIH is a sufficient and necessary agency to address the problems related to the heath of the American people.
NIH is a necessary but not sufficient organization to address the issues of Americans' health. There are many other organizations, governmental, public, and private that are involved.

NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.
How would you know? You have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge about space exploration or the space business. You demean NASA as a bunch of "welfare cheats" and suggest that Moon samples' worth is measured in their suitability for common building materials. You also disregard, or more likely are completely unaware of, NASA's work in aeronautics, materials science, electronics, and the like.

If you do not want the U.S. to spend tax money for basic research in the form of space exploration, just come out and say so. Spare us the Nazi-JFK-Vietnam-and probably Elvis marginalia. And, please, make some effort to understand the topic before smugly telling us that Apollo was a hoax.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-24 09:26 ]</font>

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-24, 02:11 PM
I’m sorry – I just couldn’t hold back any longer.



I tried to show a correlation between the Apollo moon missions and the war in Vietnam, which occurred in the same time frame, and I tried to suggest that there was a mass-psychological operation to distract the American people from the realities of what was happening.


As others have stated - you obviously weren’t alive or old enough to remember this period in our history. If you had first hand memories of the era you wouldn’t have even thought of making such a statement. Vietnam, Civil Rights, the assignations of MLK Jr. & RFK, the Cold War (fallout drills in the halls and basements of schools), etc. are the topics that defined our lives during those times. My memories of the images of the riots in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention are almost a vivid as Apollo 11. Yes, the success of Apollo was a diversion from reality, much in the same way as going to a movie in late September 2001, but it did not divert our debate of the other issues of the day. If anything, Apollo was a thorn in the side of the sitting administrations because all of the arguments against spending the money on NASA that are made today started then. As a guess, I think there were more politicians who made out opposing NASA than the ones showing vocal support.

As for the value of NASA – I for one am very happy NASA’s “welfare” spending sped up the research and growth of micro electronics. As I’ve pointed out before else ware on this board, my mom received her first internal pacemaker in 1967, and lived another 24 years thanks to them – long enough to know and hold her youngest grandchild. This may not seem significant to you, but my family sure thinks it was a good thing!

I'll get down off my soap box now.

ngant17
2002-Jun-25, 09:10 AM
Before I respond to all the posting being generated from my response, I might direct you to the following links for historical interest:

http://prouty.org/other.html
you can see one of my articles posted there:

http://prouty.org/271.html

Reading my commentary, you can read the political agenda which NASA had against Pres. JFK, tantamount to treason against the Commander-in-Chief!

Rift
2002-Jun-25, 09:22 AM
So let me get this straight...

NASA had JFK assasinated becasue, after stating we would place a man on the moon by the end of the decade (He's the one that said it, not NASA). He went back and said NASA had to work with the russians, whom JFK wanted to show up by going to the moon in the first place. So NASA had him killed, becasue he wasn't going to the moon, but it was impossible to send men to the moon so they had to fake the whole thing. In a nutshell, they killed JFK so they could fake going to the moon...

Hmmm, yeah gotcha...

OCCAM'S RAZOR PLEASE!!!!

__________________

"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Well



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-25 05:28 ]</font>

kucharek
2002-Jun-25, 09:35 AM
On 2002-06-25 05:22, Rift wrote:
So let me get this straight...
[...]

Straighter:
**

Peter B
2002-Jun-26, 04:08 AM
ngant17

A few comments on some aspects of your commentary:

“Moreover, a former head of NASA's moon flight program, Dr. B. Holmes, publically stated in an ABC television interview in Sept. 1963 that a Soviet-American mission to the moon would be, "a very costly, very inefficient, probably a very dangerous way to execute the program." “

Holmes was already critical of NASA for its decision to use Lunar Orbit Rendezvous for Apollo. I think we can see here a man who was critical of any expedient decision which might endanger lives.

“The Russians had officially withdrawn from the 'space race' in Oct, 1963. It is important to know this because a lot of the 1960's rightwing propaganda must be exposed for what it really was all along, a big lie.“

Yet despite this the Soviets went on through the 60s to develop a lunar lander in the form of Zond, and sent spacecraft intended to be man-rated in the future around the Moon in the period 1968 to 1970.

“It would have been impossible to justify a war against communism on the ground in 1964 if we were already peacefully co-existing with them in outer space.”

There is no reasonable way to draw this conclusion. Countries with common interests in some areas will often compete bitterly in others. For example, the Australian Prime Minister strongly supports the USA in the War on Terrorism while at the same time he heavily criticises US farm subsidies which hurt Australian farmers.

“If the foot-dragging by NASA to cooperate with the Russians had continued long enough, Pres. Kennedy may not have have signed off on the NASA appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1964 when it would have been submitted to his desk in Dec., 1963.”

Speculation. Mr Gant has no idea what Kennedy may have done.

“Just as he [Johnson] committed American ground troops to SE Asia, which was never Pres. Kennedy's intent.”

Yet most professional historians of Kennedy’s presidency say that either he was committed to a war in Vietnam or was undecided. The idea that Kennedy was unequivocally committed to pulling out of Vietnam is unsupported by the evidence. Remember, this was the man who was President at the time of the Bay of Pigs, the building of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

“Apollo 13 failed for technical reasons…”

So you accept that the other landings took place?

“…and 3 were cancelled by Pres. Nixon during the political crisis(Watergate) that followed the 1972 elections.”

My understanding is that NASA cancelled Apollos 18 to 20, and did so during 1970.

“…a reactionary NASA engineer, Thomas Canning.”

What qualifications must an engineer have to be classified as reactionary?

“Strangely, NASA claims it has no records on him, because he worked as an 'independent contractor'.”

Presumably on the same basis that they wouldn’t have records for all of the other hundreds of thousands of employees of private companies which were contracted to NASA.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 04:41 AM
It’s nice to see that another person is prepared to voice his opinions and stick up for people who are not swayed by everything that NASA claim.

It's not a matter of being "swayed" by what NASA claims. NASA makes very specific claims that can be tested by people who have the appropriate skill and education. Your claims, in contrast, are just vague accusations which aren't even consistent with themselves, much less with scientific fact.

Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle?

Because those enterprises have value that can be recognized by reasonable people. The point remains: why should anyone go to great additional lengths to supply a very small, fanatical portion of the population with evidence they are likely to sidestep?

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home!

This has already been explained to you. Either learn about optics so you can discuss the topic intelligently, or admit that you have no basis for your argument.

Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road.

False analogy. It's like saying, "This camera can take a picture of that mountain ten miles away, but it can't take a picture of a fly's eyeball across the street."

That just doesn’t add up!

That's because you don't understand optics, while we do.

NASA hasn’t got to answer to anyone so their data and information could be rather biased!

No. People use NASA's data to perform for-profit engineering. Other scientists use NASA's data to confirm or provide the foundation for their own research. You and Mr. Gant harbor an odd fantasy that NASA can simply say what it wants about space data and no one would be the wiser. On the contrary, anyone who attempted to use that (fabricated) data would very quickly be the wiser. NASA does not have a monopoly on space knowledgfe.

Ever heard of meteorites?

Of course. And the reasons why meteorites will not suffice have already been given. Please deal with them.

NASA had a real problem with Tito going into space and even tried to tell Russia what to do.

No. NASA had a problem with Mr. Tito going to the space station, not merely into space. Russia is only one of several partners in the ISS and cannot unilaterally decide which potentially unqualified people could visit a station under construction.

Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'.

Surely it could, but you're evading the question. Please answer it.

Sheesh your dealing with Government here so why do you trust them so much when they can lie through their teeths about many other things

First of all, I do not trust the government. Instead I verify their claims and believe accordingly. NASA has provided plenty of data to allow those with appropriate skill to verify their accomplishments.

You, on the other hand, simply trust your conspiracy theorist authors without lifting a single finger to verify their claims. As soon as you get in trouble, you defer all explanation to Bennett and Percy. Well, I have spokent to Bennett and Percy at length and I am convinced they don't know much of anything about real space science or the factors involving Apollo.

To discuss the abstract notion of your argument, one can only generalize and therefore reliably presume a lie if the entity in question always lies. In short, if someone always tells the truth, you presume he's telling the truth in any one case. If he always lies, you presume he's lying in any given case. But if he tells the truth in some cases, but lies in others, you cannot generalize. You cannot reliably assume he is either lying or telling the truth. Your argument is, essentially, "The government has lied before, therefore they are lying in this particular case."

No. Since generalization in this case is unreliable, you must provide specific evidence that the government is lying in this specific case. No JFK, no cow lips, no Trilateral Commission, no face on Mars. That's all irrelevant. If you argue that NASA falsified the moon landings, you cannot weasel out of a proof by waving your hands vaguely at government untrustworthiness. You must provide a specific argument that NASA falsified the moon landings. And you haven't done that.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 05:07 AM
Firstly, lets take your word for it and say that the Hubble cannot possibly take pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the Moon.

Scientific fact is not a matter of having one's "word" taken. Go ask anyone of your acquaintance who is qualified in optics.

There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.

You're not an engineer or a mission planner. Your opinion on what is cheap and easy is irrelevant. Further, why should any effort and expense be undertaken in order to satisfy a fringe of the population that is likely to disregard the evidence anyway?

Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?

Yes, but there's no need to just yet. You're the one claiming the radiation was so lethal, therefore you are the one required to provide a quantitative argument in favor of it. You have not done so. To make such an argument implies that you have performed some sort of computation to convince yourself that passage through the Van Allen belts in an Apollo spaceship would be lethal. I would like to see that computation. If you have not performed it, then you have no basis for your claim.

I concede that I do not have the knowledge to comment any further on the AGC and until such time as to having that knowledge, I will not make further judgement

Thank you for the frank admission. It actually makes you more reasonable this way. And I will provide you with any information on the AGC that you require, that I am able to find. Simply ask for what you want to know.

The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe

Yes, but at greater difficulty than a manned landing. The Russians returned a mere ten ounces of material using technology of the 1970s. And no large samples. Apollo return core samples, bulk samples, documented samples, football-sized samples. That would be very much harder to do with unmanned spacecraft than with manned samples.

The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.

It proves that the samples were obtained from the moon, not from pieces of the moon that fell to earth. That means someone or something had to go get them. You argue it was something, but that's a harder proposition than someone.

Remember, it must be easier to fake the moon landings than to actually do them in order for your argument to be credible.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 06:11 AM
It all boils down to a simple question of economics and priorities.

Economics, yes. Priorities, no. You make the mistake of assuming that national fiscal policy works like your personal budget. It doesn't.

$25 billion dollars would have built a lot of hospitals and schools ...

True, but you imply that the money spent on Apollo would have been spent that way if it had not been spent on Apollo. National finance is not a matter of slicing up a fixed amount of money to apportion to various worthy or less worth causes. It is a matter of the public funding what they want to fund, to the extent they wish to fund it.

The Apollo lunar program was an incredible waste of social resources in comparison to what could have been accomplished for people here on Earth.

No. The "robbing Peter to pay Paul" analogy is inapplicable. Further, it has been shown economically that every dollar spent on space and space research returns seven hard dollars within ten years in commercial application and public benefit.

I would also argue (again) that there is no such thing as a private enterprise in the space business

You have asserted this several times, but you simply ignore the many examples of for-profit space operations. You will not prove your point simply by repeating it ad nauseam. There is very much profit, in fact, in the space industry whether you acknolwedge it or not.

Since this seems to be the backbone of your argument that space is a waste, you would do well to provide more than just wishful assertion to support it.

...otherwise NASA would have been privatized a long time ago.

No. You simply assume that NASA is responsible for everything that happens in space. As has already been explained to you numerous times, there are companies such as Boeing, TRW, Hughes, and their subcontractors who provide for-profit space solutions for a variety of tasks. They make a profit. Then there is NASA, which conducts long-term research.

Most scientific research of any value in the U.S. is funded by the government. That includes your "quality of life" research. The research (say, e.g., pharmaceutical research) done by private companies is done for the benefit of the private company that intends to profit from it. It doesn't benefit the population as a whole.

NASA knows it can’t support itself, so it has to go begging for money from Congress all the time.

Just like all those other government agencies that provide services directly to the public. Why are you so stuck on the notion of profit?

I do ask them to tell me how they capitalize the cost of putting these
“cost-effective” satellites into orbit.

You seem to have all the answers. You tell me.

No one wants to bear the costs of
sending the darn thing into orbit, except the welfare recipients at NASA.

NASA does not launch commercial satellites at public expense! What kind of fantasy world are you living in? The customer who buys the satellite pays for the costs of launching it. Back when this was done on the space shuttle, the private companies paid the government an appropriate launch fee to the tune of $10,000 per pound.

Today there is lots of competition in the launch vehicle and launch site market. You are simply turning a blind eye to it, apparently because you don't want your "wasteful NASA" bubble burst. All I can say is that you are probably the least informed person on the subject of commercial space launches I have ever met.

As for the political implications of Apollo, it was once suggested that the publicity of Apollo missions were being
used to divert the public's attention from the war in Vietnam. This is not my original assertion.

Fine, but it's still a poor assertion. In general, the same people who supported the war in Vietnam supported Apollo. And the same people who objected to Vietnam objected to Apollo. Further, the Apollo challenge was issued in 1961 when the war in Vietnam was perceived to be going well.

I won’t spoil the ending for you, except to say that it turns out that the man isn’t so crazy after all.

Oh, well, if a Hollywood movie suggests it, then it must obviously be true. You do realize the difference between fact and fiction, don't you?

I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth.

Sorry to hear that, but what does that have to do with the Van Allen belts?

What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are already at a serious health risk ...

It means we know the causes of melanoma and the response of biological organisms to continuous long-term exposure to ultraviolet electromagnetic waves, and we also know the effects of high-energy particles on those same biological organisms after short-term exposure. And we know precisely and quantitatively what's different about them.

Unfortunately you don't seem to know this. And this is why you come off sounding like a nut when you try to talk about radiation.

... and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us?

But there's a perfectly good spacecraft, and a carefully planned trajectory.

Do you really think I am going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles?

What you believe is irrelevant. What you can prove is what's interesting. You claim the radiation in space, specifically in the Van Allen belts, is invariably lethal. But you have provided no argument to prove this, only ignorant references to irrelevant examples and lots and lots of handwaving.

I am not convinced. I want quantitative data.

Why are we scared of a nuclear war then?
The Sun is just a gigantic nuclear explosion that will continue for the next 10 or 20 billion years

If you knew anything about radiation -- what it is, what produces it, how to measure it, and how to measure its effects on things -- you could discuss intelligently the difference between the sun and a nuclear explosion. But since you don't seem to want to know anything about it, there's little use pointing out the obvious differences.

so since radiation is so harmless

For the second time, it is not our contention that radiation is "harmless". We contend, rather, that various means were employed to reduce the exposure of the Apollo astronauts to a safe level. Why do you keep rewriting our arguments?

You can experiment for yourself by putting a cockroach in your microwave and observing how long it takes to kill it.

You have discussed nuclear explosions, which cause biological damage at some ranges chiefly through x-rays and gamma rays. You have discussed the sun, whose danger to space travel is chiefly by means of energetic particles. You have now introduced the concept of microwaves, which aren't even ionizing radiation.

You're all over the map again. I assure you we are not convinced by vague, handwaving arguments completely devoid of understanding or quantitative rigor. You are talking to people who are, in some cases, experts in radiation and will want from you an expert argument.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 07:01 AM
I will acknowlege my ignorance of the radiation hazards in the Van Allen belt.

Thank you, and you should also withdraw your assertion that the Van Allen radiation is lethal until you can substantiate it. And since that forms the major pillar of your anti-Apollo argument, I'd say your conclusions were quite premature.

The data which was previously posted, mentioning the Soviet Proton 3 satellite and the "80 MeV" energies of electron flux, are basically meaningless to me.

But that's exactly the sort of thing you have to be very conversant with before you argue that certain things are impossible. You weren't and you got bitten. Bennett and Percy can't talk about this stuff. They have no clue what kinds or how much radiation is in the Van Allen belts.

You could have also supplied me with what would consist of a Letal Dose (LD) of such electron flux energies in the VA belt, and also how much time it would take to absord such a LD. For humans, of course.

I already gave you the human lethal dose (LD 50/30). It's 350-400 rems. LD 50/30 is the statistical frame of reference. Since there are numerous factors that affect how radiation affects you and how long those effects take to arise, you have to place limits. This limit is the amount of absorbed radiation that would be fatal to 50% of the population within 30 days.

The Aulis 'moon hoax' video could be one of those myths, but it has made a dramatic effect on me.

Fair enough. It was intended to. It was intended to fool people who didn't really have much knowledge or understanding of space-related sciences. There's no shame in being in that category. Most people lack the specific knowledge to see through the Aulis garbage.

But the video and the accompanying book make very astounding claims. And they supply very little evidence which actually supports those claims. And what they provide is scientifically bogus. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof -- not circular reasoning and handwaving.

Because it presented the arugument in straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments.

But that's the problem. It oversimplifies complicated topics. Optics and heat transfer (which govern the diffuse interreflection of light) are reasonably straightforward subjects, but to fully examine them in the context of actual photographs is complicated and tedious. Bennett and Percy don't provide that level of examination. They simplify away all the nasty (but necessary) detail. Unfortunately what they have left is not useful to examine actual photographs.

I am happy that we are getting to the truth from a different perspective than what NASA is presenting.

Why are you so sure it's the truth? The stuff coming from Aulis is not any kind of legitimate alternative view of history and technology. It's a sensationalist, one-sided, fairly ignorant treatise that I have come to believe was intended to deceive its viewers/readers. It's not too difficult to show just how hard Bennett and Percy want their view of history promoted, regardless of where the facts actually point. You forget I have dealt with them and can bear witness to their duplicity.

One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources.

You've stated your opinion, but I wouldn't call that a "truism". You simply are naive about the benefits of pure research.

I can buy 1000 lbs. of concrete mix, add water to it, and make the same thing, for a total cost of under $50.00.

Very true, but the point is not that will ever need to go to the moon to get cement for use on earth. We have an essentially unlimited supply of materials for concrete on earth. Concrete in the strict sense is simply an aggregate bound together with a cement. Any solid material will work for an aggregate, and we use several kinds of cement: bitumin and Portland cement being the most common.

The latter is simply common minerals baked in a kiln until the water is gone. Then the resulting "clinker" is ground into cement. When water is added, the chemical process takes place that the kiln had previously reversed. Cement is simply cheap glue.

Why is it so significant that lunar surface material makes a natural cement? It means that when we finally get around to constructing permanent buildings on the moon, we won't have to haul Portland cement all the way up to the moon. We can simply use the materials there. It will never be necessary to obtain cement materials on the moon for use on earth.

The only value the moon rocks have is so that a few space geologists can study and analyze it ad infinitum. And get those juicey state-subsidized paychecks for doing such 'work', though I use the term quite loosely.

You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you? Do you have any other arguments besides deploring the terrible waste of government spending?

I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is.

But the NIH is not fiscally solvent. It is not required to turn a profit. Yet its research requires large amounts of public funding. If the NIH were required to operate as a solvent and self-sufficient unit, it would fold instantly. And not everything that NIH funds is immediately intended to alleviate specific human suffering. Much of it is what is termed "pure research" aimed at expanding understanding without attempting to solve any particular problem.

So in short, no, I don't think you know what the NIH does or whether it's a "socially useful" organization.

NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.

No. You're simply restating your opinion that NASA (and space exploration in general) is not a useful or worthy occupation. We have already replied that we do not agree with your interpretation. You must support it or withdraw it.

NASA didn't want the Russians to go along for the ride, because it knew that a lunar mission with the Soviets would expose its own hippocracy.

So sez you. How about a different explanation? NASA didn't want to share its vital technology with people perceived to be the enemies of the United States? You don't have to buy into that explanation, but you have to deal with it as a possibility.

No one wants to discuss that thread [alleging that Apollo was designed to distract the public from Vietnam]. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo.

Not at all.

First, I explained that in a broader analysis the notion that Apollo was intended as a distraction doesn't really jive with history. One columnist's opinion is not proof. But by 1971 Apollo was already more than 10 years old. The war in Vietnam didn't start going badly until the Tet Offensive, long after Apollo's course had been set.

Second, Apollo's potential for distraction does not sufficiently support an argument for a hoax. The public would be distracted equally by a hoax as by genuine landings. And the advantage of genuine landings is that they wouldn't be exposed and thus burst the public's bubble.

Is it not possible for the government to defraud the American people?

It is, but not for long. But that's a red herring anyway. The question is not whether it's possible, but whether it was actually done in this case. You must provide specific proof, not general handwaving.

That the government has lied in the past is beyond argument. That the government wil lie in the future is likely. That the government lied specifically in the case of Apollo is something that can be tested historically. You haven't done it yet. You've just offered these largely irrelevant handwaving rants.

It's good that you are looking at your state of understanding and realizing that you don't understand what you need to in order to evaluate the relative credibility of moon hoax theories. But you need to set aside your anti-government bias and realize that the question of whether Apollo was faked or not is a question of scientific and historical fact, not innuendo, and irrespective of your feelings toward NASA and the government.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-26, 01:36 PM
ngant,

If you don't believe NASA provides any benefits to humanity, check out the following article.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-68.html

In particular the part on the solar powered refrigerator.

Among inventors being honored is Michael K. Ewert, for a patent on a solar-powered refrigeration system. It uses internal thermal storage and innovative control techniques. “What’s different and new about ours is that we eliminated the need for a battery, by using thermal storage,” said Ewert, who holds a master’s in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and has been at JSC for about 12 years.

The idea initially was focused on providing cooling for a lunar base. “It could also be used in low Earth orbit and on Mars,” Ewert said. The refrigeration system automatically runs faster when the sun is higher and brighter.

Eliminating a battery and related equipment does away with a big maintenance item, Ewert said. He believes that mass production would make the solar-powered refrigerator more competitive price-wise. Indeed, one company is producing them now under license from NASA.

The company, SunDanze Refrigeration Inc. of Sparks, Nev., says the battery-free solar-powered refrigerator is designed for areas with at least five hours of sunlight a day. It can, the company says, keep contents cold for up to seven days during cloudy weather.

Ewert believes the technology could have wide application on Earth, because about 2 billion of the planet’s people do not have electricity. The Department of Energy is investigating the technology for refrigerated transport applications.

Have a nice day

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-26 09:38 ]</font>

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-26, 04:24 PM
I agree with alot what ngant17 has to say I'm afraid.

He's right in saying that the Space missions are a total waste of money. Several of you have posted the URLs to experiments and things that have been made from NASA research, but I haven't seen one single thing that warrants the Shuttle or ISS to be in orbit. The solar fridge could be made here on Earth, and incidently probably wouldnt work over here in the UK very well because of our lousy weather.

I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration. The two could not be farther from each other in relation to money well spent. Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care, but I can assure you that if I was on the floor suffering from a heart attack or had cancer(as my father did - and died from), I would much rather see my money spent on health care rather than space travel which is not benefitting anyone here on Earth other than a few fat cat bosses raking in the money.

If you really sit back and think about it, you'll realise that most diseases here on Earth are actually curable by using natural means. ie: snakebites are cured with snake venom and headaches are cured by aspirin which is made naturally. Why man has to go into space to find a cure beats me. Why are we exactly bothering to explore space anyway when there is thousands of miles of Earth still undiscovered. We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!

Some of the arguments on here are rather two faced. For instance on the one hand someone tells me that you couldn't gather more than a few ounces of moon rock with a space probe and yet in the very same thread someone else says: 'There is a lot of money in the raw metals in asteroids, as an example.' How do you suppose that NASA will get these raw metals back to Earth if they cannot use a probe to do so?

Someone else commented: 'NASA's "useless" space exploration has led to such advances as communications satellites, fiber-optic networks, water purification systems, advanced ceramics, digital watches, cordless tools, CAT scans and MRIs. There is no ER or ICU in the world that does not owe it's success to the space program's medical telemetry developments.'

So NASA actually took an MRI machine into space and worked on it until it was finished? No my friend, all these developments were created on Earth.

I thought that satellites were invented by Arther C. Clarke and not NASA anyway?

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-26, 04:28 PM
Oh yes almost forgot....

Didn't Col. Corso say that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris?

Of course NASA would have learnt from that data.

Just a thought.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Chip
2002-Jun-26, 04:45 PM
On 2002-06-26 12:28, cosmicdave wrote:
"...lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris? Of course NASA would have learnt from that data."

So he's saying that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches, and more were back engineered from balloon foil fragments, balsa wood, fiberglass crash dummies, and parachute silk. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-26, 04:45 PM
On 2002-06-26 12:24, cosmicdave wrote:
I agree with alot what ngant17 has to say I'm afraid.


Not much of an earth shattering revelation.



So NASA actually took an MRI machine into space and worked on it until it was finished? No my friend, all these developments were created on Earth.


Our point is that much of what NASA spends its money on is spent on research on many different technologies. While I don’t believe any NASA money was spent on the applied research that went into the development of NMRI, I’ll bet there was Government money in the initial discovery of the behavior of nuclei of the Hydrogen atom in a strong magnetic field. As for NASA’s part, with out powerful computing (computing advances helped in part by the space program) the MRI would be just a BIG magnet.

As a question to C-Dave: How much did the NIH spend on the development of the MRI Technology?

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-26, 05:14 PM
All acrimony aside – The MRI is a very good example of how different areas of research, none specifically directed at our daily lives, can come together to benefit mankind. Superconductivity, behavior of the hydrogen nucleus in a strong magnetic field, detection, and computational imaging – all unrelated fields but all are necessary for the MRI to be a useful tool.

The point being, you never know when pure research, for the sake of research, will pay off.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-26 13:15 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 05:16 PM
I agree with alot what ngant17 has to say I'm afraid.

Fine, but you both seem to lack the ability to provide anything except handwaving to support that belief. Neither of you seems to be much of a scientist or an engineer or have any degree of technical understanding that applies to your arguments. And neither of you seems particularly eager to learn about those things. What are we to conclude except that you prefer your beliefs over facts?

He's right in saying that the Space missions are a total waste of money.

Well, that's your opinion. I personally think it's a waste of money to hand out checks to people who turn around and spend it on drugs and booze, but that's just me. Others see a great social benefit to that.

I grew up in farming country although I was not a farmer. The government paid farmers not to grow certain crops so that the supply would more closely fit the demand and the prices would stay high. In my opinion that's a consummate waste of public funds. But, no, economists assure me it's money well spent.

The solar fridge could be made here on Earth ...

That's not the point. Solving the problems of living and working in space provides innovative solutions to living and working on earth, solutions that probably wouldn't have been thought of otherwise.

For example, methods of food preparation and storage developed by NASA are directly applicable to the problems of food distribution on earth.

Materials developed for space use translate directly into innumerable commercial uses. Ask any industrial engineer how may great designs he's come up with, but can't build them because there's no suitable material.

The problems of space travel require very leading-edge solutions and spur us to develop radically new materials, techniques, and processes. Once developed, these processes are invariably applicable to other sectors of industry. Why can't industry just develop them on their own? Because that's not the "safe route". Private companies are very reluctant to do leading-edge research because it's very expensive and only rarely leads to profit. Research in connection with the space program is indeed publicly funded, but translates quite quickly into improvements in technology that benefit us here on earth by applying that technology to problems on earth.

I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration.

The NIH is not "health service".

Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care ...

No, you're mistaken. The NIH is not a national health care system. It is a funding agency for medical research. It does not, in general, do the research itself, but rather reviews research proposals from those professors whom Mr. Gant reviles as worthless layabouts and grants public money accordingly for them to do the research.

Much of NIH-funded research is termed "pure research" or "pure science". That is, it is not science aimed at solving some particular problem or curing some particular disease, but simply research aimed at expanding the horizons of medical knowledge with the understanding that some of that greater understanding may eventually prove useful in some unspecified way in the future.

Why are we exactly bothering to explore space anyway when there is thousands of miles of Earth still undiscovered.

Non sequitur. Why can't we do both? Where is it written that one must explore his local environs before looking to the horizon?

Some of the arguments on here are rather two faced.

No. Your well-established modus operandi is to try to create conflict and divisiveness where none exists. Most often the "conflict" you perceive is your inability or unwillingness to understand an argument.

How do you suppose that NASA will get these raw metals back to Earth if they cannot use a probe to do so?

Obviously if we want the minerals in asteroids in great quantities we will have to develop the technology to return such samples in great quantities. That technology does not yet exist. And obviously it didn't exist in the 1960s, which makes it rather silly for conspiracy theorists to argue that hypothetical unmanned probes returned hundreds of kilograms of lunar samples, including core tubes and documented samples.

The difference between the two arguments is plain to anyone willing to see it: one describes potential future technology, and the other describes alleged past technology.

So NASA actually took an MRI machine into space and worked on it until it was finished? No my friend, all these developments were created on Earth.

... using technology originally developed for space research. You're just being dense now. The point is that technology developed for Purpose A is almost always applicable to Purposes B, C, D and E, even if those purposes lie in completely different fields of science. But the people working in those fields wouldn't necessarily have thought of that particular technique, but are quick to recognize its value when presented to them.

When we say the NMRI technique owes its existence to the space program, we don't mean that NASA developed it as medical imaging technology while working on it in orbit or whatever. We mean that the scientific and engineering principles behind nuclear-magnetic resonance imaging were developed by NASA for other purposes. And then along comes the medical community and says, "Hey, this could be used to image soft tissue; we would never have thought of this." And then they adapt the technology for their own purposes.

I thought that satellites were invented by Arther C. Clarke and not NASA anyway?

Clarke held the patent for using geostationary satellites as a communication relay. He didn't "invent satellites", nor did he actually produce any such satellites. The holder of a patent does not have to actually produce the associated equipment, merely devise the idea. It took NASA and its engineering contractors to actually solve the problems.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 05:20 PM
Didn't Col. Corso say that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris?

Well, first you have to prove the debris recovered at Roswell had anything to do with those items.

Then you have to account for the vast amount of research material and publications steadily leading up to the perfection of each of those items of technology. If you "steal" technology from somewhere, that technology surfaces "magically" in your industry without any prior evidence of its development. But if there is evidence of incremental development, as there is in the aforementioned cases, then you can't argue that it was simply obtained from elsewhere. It's far more parsimonious to conclude that the incremental development led to the final product.

Jim
2002-Jun-26, 05:44 PM
On 2002-06-26 12:24, cosmicdave wrote:
I agree with alot what ngant17 has to say I'm afraid.


No surprise here.



... I haven't seen one single thing that warrants the Shuttle or ISS to be in orbit.


I pity you, dave. You are a frog. You sit with your bum firmly planted in the mud, look at the sky, and cannot see the stars.



The solar fridge could be made here on Earth, and incidently probably wouldnt work over here in the UK very well because of our lousy weather.


I don't they intend to actually make them in space, dave. And, maybe the UK couldn't use them, but you do have electricity to run the other kind. Now think about third world countries with no power grid, or the Australian outback... there are places here on Earth where this technology would be very useful.



I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration. The two could not be farther from each other in relation to money well spent.


The connection is far closer than you can imagine. Check any well-equipped trauma center or intensive care unit; the equipment they use to monitor patients can be traced back almost directly to NASA and its need for medical telemetry on the astronauts.

Both organizations depend on tax dollars to fund basic research. They pass their findings on to other (commercial) groups that apply that research. What those groups then bring to the market place costs you (the consumer) less because the initial research was tax-funded.



Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care...


No, dave, that's your interpretation.



I would much rather see my money spent on health care rather than space travel which is not benefitting anyone here on Earth other than a few fat cat bosses raking in the money.


As you mentioned, you are British, so NASA gets no funding from you. Nor does NIH. But they'll still let you use the fruits of their research at no additional charge.

BTW, who are these "fat cat bosses raking in the money?" The US pays its bureaucrats fairly but not exceptionally well. Maybe you mean the CEOs of the companies using the NASA and NIH research?



If you really sit back and think about it, you'll realise that most diseases here on Earth are actually curable by using natural means. ie: snakebites are cured with snake venom and headaches are cured by aspirin which is made naturally.


My mother also died from cancer; I have never heard of an effective "natural" cure. Have you?

As for your other examples, salicylic acid occurs in various forms in nature. However, we use more than 10 million pounds annually in the form of aspirin; this is far beyond Nature's capacity to supply. So, we make it in chemical plants.

Snake venom makes a lousy cure for a snake bite unless it is first processed artificially.



We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!


No, we have. And they have samples and photos and videos!



Some of the arguments on here are rather two faced. For instance on the one hand someone tells me that you couldn't gather more than a few ounces of moon rock with a space probe and yet in the very same thread someone else says: 'There is a lot of money in the raw metals in asteroids, as an example.'


And this is "two faced" how? We're not talking about using the small sample probes sent to the moon or Mars to commercially mine the asteroids. There is a difference, dave.



How do you suppose that NASA will get these raw metals back to Earth if they cannot use a probe to do so?


First, NASA won't. NASA is not in the mining business.

Second, when private interests decide there's enough profit to be gained, they won't use sample probes.



Someone else commented: 'NASA's "useless" space exploration has led to such advances as communications satellites, fiber-optic networks, water purification systems, advanced ceramics, digital watches, cordless tools, CAT scans and MRIs. There is no ER or ICU in the world that does not owe it's success to the space program's medical telemetry developments.'

So NASA actually took an MRI machine into space and worked on it until it was finished? No my friend, all these developments were created on Earth.


That was me (thanks for the "someone" credit). Are you really so dense as to think NASA built an MRI? In space or anywhere else? NASA and its contractors developed the technology that MRIs use.



I thought that satellites were invented by Arther C. Clarke and not NASA anyway?


Right. And Asimov invented robots.

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

(fixed spelling)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-26 15:41 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-26, 05:45 PM
Since I worked on the solar powered refrigerator for several years, let me add a few comments.

First of all, the original project was to develop a heat pump which could operate on the lunar surface, specific to provide extra heat rejection during the times near solar noon. If you use a solar panel plaed on the surface it's peak power output occurs at solar noon. Therefore, when you need power the most to run your heat pump the solar panel is producing the most power.

Once this first phase of the project was completed the local power company sponsored over half the costs of the project. They liked the idea because here is Houston, peak demand for air conditioning occurs during the peak heating of the day. So now they don't have to run extra generators to supply power or build new plants. As a side note here, the numerous power plant engineers never really thought about this idea, because they think on a very large scale and not for the home use. We at NASA think for the smaller scale.

CD now here's a big benefit for all of humanity. New power plants don't have to be built or more power generated, therefore less green house gasses.

Next, we took our idea and applied in to a refrigerator and hence the solar power refrigerator. Again same idea, no new power plant and less green house gasses.

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-26, 05:50 PM
On 2002-06-26 12:24, cosmicdave wrote:

We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!
Are you now claiming that the Trieste's voyage to the Marianas Trench was a hoax too?


Some of the arguments on here are rather two faced. For instance on the one hand someone tells me that you couldn't gather more than a few ounces of moon rock with a space probe and yet in the very same thread someone else says: 'There is a lot of money in the raw metals in asteroids, as an example.' How do you suppose that NASA will get these raw metals back to Earth if they cannot use a probe to do so?
I was one of those who addressed the allegation that remote probes could have brought back the 850+ pounds of moon samples...and you have grossly misstated my position. I did not suggest it was impossible to gather more than a few ounces. Remote probes could have retreived the samples but it would have been a more complex undertaking than the manned missions themselves. So now, you've got NASA and its contractors working on an immense Apollo program to cover the supposed hoax; an equally immense and expensive remote probe program to collect actual moon samples to further the hoax; and the actual hoax perpetration itself...along with arranging a few unfortunate accidents here and there to quiet the opposition. Occam's Razor applies. It was much simpler and cheaper to actually send men to the moon.


I thought that satellites were invented by Arther C. Clarke and not NASA anyway?
There is a very great difference between conceptualizing something and making it a reality. Without NASA's research and experience in putting hardware into orbit, any satellite would be a very large, very expensive paperweight.

sts60
2002-Jun-26, 05:52 PM
I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration. The two could not be farther from each other in relation to money well spent. Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care,
No, nobody here implied that. Also, NIH is not the "health service", as Jay explained.

but I can assure you that if I was on the floor suffering from a heart attack or had cancer(as my father did - and died from), I would much rather see my money spent on health care rather than space travel
The hypothetical situation - and may it remain hypothetical! - doesn't change anything. You are already dead set against any money being spent on space, at least by a government.

which is not benefitting anyone here on Earth other than a few fat cat bosses raking in the money.
Sorry, this is quite incorrect. Yes, corporate heads make a lot of money in aerospace, as in any other commercial field. But, as has been pointed out, there are well-documented direct and indirect benefits of space exploration and development, quite aside from the utility of communications, weather, and reconaissance satellites. But you choose to ignore all that.

Quick example: NASA and the Public Health Service were working on telemedicine way back in the '70s, applying space technology to rural health care for Native Americans, which fed back into space applications for long-term manned missions.

If you really sit back and think about it, you'll realise that most diseases here on Earth are actually curable by using natural means. ie: snakebites are cured with snake venom and headaches are cured by aspirin which is made naturally. Why man has to go into space to find a cure beats me.
Many, if not most, effective medicines are highly processed. Many do not appear in any "natural" form at all.

Biomedical research in space is done to explore technologies which are not practical to do in a 1-G field. Technologies which can be done in a 1-G field aren't done in space.

Why are we exactly bothering to explore space anyway when there is thousands of miles of Earth still undiscovered. We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!
So? Why don't we go there at the same time? Actually, we have, as several others have already pointed out.

This is a version of the old saw about "we need to solve our problems here on Earth first". Uh-uh. Taking the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration away would do nothing at all to improve life on Earth. It also wouldn't magically show up in deep-sea exploration either.


Kindly do not interpret this as being a defense of everything NASA does. ISS, IMHO, is an example of how *not* to build a space station, going back to its original spread-the-work-across-as-many-Congresssional-districts as possible incarnation. But to say that space exploration is worthless is part opinion and part contradiction of reality.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-26 13:59 ]</font>

jrkeller
2002-Jun-26, 05:57 PM
Here's one more benefit from space travel.

For the Viking landers, a Gas-Chromaticgraph Mass Spectrometer was developed. Knowledge of the device was known in the scientific community. One day a ER doctor could not indentify a toxic that was slowly killing one of his patients. The patients blood was analyzed using this device, in five minutes the toxic was identified and the patient was eventually cured. By the time of the Viking landings the device had been used over 1,500 times. The device has been susquently marketed to hospitals all over the world and has saved thousands of lives.

The device is now also used to monitor trace pollutants in air and water, and the detection of explosive on planes.

Could this device be developed without NASA? Sure it could, but it wasn't. What if it had taken 5-10 more years to develop? Think of all the lives that would have been lost.

P.S.

I'm not making this up. Read this book

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560989548/qid=1025114194/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_3_8/202-1395619-6435059

and thanks for pointing out the BIG typo.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-26 14:05 ]</font>

CJSF
2002-Jun-26, 05:59 PM
On 2002-06-26 13:57, jrkeller wrote:
Could this device be developed with NASA? Sure it could, but it wasn't. What if it had taken 5-10 more years to develop? Think of all the lives that would have been lost.


I think you mean to say WITHOUT NASA.... ??

CJSF

Rift
2002-Jun-26, 06:25 PM
Quote:

On 2002-06-26 12:24, cosmicdave wrote:

We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!


Are you now claiming that the Trieste's voyage to the Marianas Trench was a hoax too?



And Bob Ballard's footage of Titanic was really Cameron's doing /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

I haven't read comicdave's stuff in almost a year... He hasn't changed a bit, has he?

Never been to the ocean floor??? what the heck planet is dave on anyway???

BTW I doubt ole dave has even heard of the Trieste OR the Marianas Trench... ::sigh::

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-26 14:26 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 06:41 PM
Mr. Cosnette is undoubtedly referring to the rhetorical statement often made that we know more about the surface of the moon than we do about the ocean bed. That's obviously a matter open to interpretation. I'm not here to argue for or against it, merely to note that one can reasonably disbelieve it.

I simply don't agree with the notion that this is a miscarriage of exploration. Exploration is about seeking what is interesting, not studying what is readily available. And so we have made a few dives into various ocean trenches where we believe interesting things might be, and we have generally not been disappointed. But should we expend vast sums mapping the thousands of square kilometers of mud at the bottom of the ocean? Perhaps. It might eventually prove useful.

In any case, human exploration tends to follow the procedure of making a few deep initial "thrusts" into the unknown, followed some time later by careful dissection. Lewis and Clark, for example, didn't map all of the American West.

frenchy
2002-Jun-26, 07:01 PM
Regarding the waste that research is in the eyes of CD. Since he is from the UK, he may understand this analogy.

The Apollo program (and fundamental research in general) can be compared to Formula 1 racing. Objectively, racing cars are a waste of money and many people make that case all the time.
Their primary purpose is advertising and marketing which is basically winning a propaganda war, such as US vs USSR in the case of Apollo.
The major benefit of racing car championships is to provide an incentive for research. The marketing works if the car wins. Therefore the people making the cars want the best car. Therefore money is spent into making cars go faster, use less fuel, stop faster, etc... Many of the technology developped in F1 cars have made their way in road cars.
In the case of Apollo, winning the race meant developing new technologies which have also made their way in our lives in many instances.

Current fundamental research (and space activity) has the same value to society, although it may seem like a waste because the benefits are only seen much later.

widosm
2002-Jun-26, 07:25 PM
I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration. The two could not be farther from each other in relation to money well spent. Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care, but I can assure you that if I was on the floor suffering from a heart attack or had cancer(as my father did - and died from), I would much rather see my money spent on health care rather than space travel which is not benefitting anyone here on Earth other than a few fat cat bosses raking in the money.

I will repeat this one more time: I WAS NOT IMPLYING THAT NASA AND NIH/HEALTH SERVICES/WHATEVER WHERE EQUALLY VITAL SERVICES. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of Ngant17's claim that the sole purpose of an organisation is to make profit. No-one has said anything about having to pay for health care. Either you have a bad memory or just post under the assumption that none of us will go back and read what has been previously written.
Your other points are so absurdly and deliberately obtuse that I feel arguing to the contrary would be a futile excerise.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-26, 10:15 PM
Ahh... I'm glad your all trying to tell me about the Sea, because you are actually treading into my territory. I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years. In fact I have been dealing with fish since I was 7, so you can really say that I am the expert in the field and not you (for once).

I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered. I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?

STS60 said 'Taking the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration away would do nothing at all to improve life on Earth'.

I take great exception to this stance. With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now. We cannot even cure the common cold and yet think that we could conquer other worlds?

Heres another STS60 quote: 'applying space technology to rural health care for Native Americans'.

I wonder how Native Americans caught these diseases? perhaps it was the invaders who brought the diseases when they took over America for themselves?

You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself and takes whatever it wants. I don't believe in this at all. How many years will it be before the animals that are around today are extinct? and all in the name of technology and advancement? I dont think so!

If our governments really cared about us and the environment they would have had solar cars and household equipment years ago. There they are telling us all about CFCs and green house gases and yet they are the ones exploding the nuclear bombs!

Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels? We'll its a fact, but I guess the government would rather rake in the revenue on car fuels (72.3% tax here in the UK where they made £23.3bn in 2000/1).

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!

johnwitts
2002-Jun-26, 10:25 PM
So could all the money spent on advertising, football, Formula 1, high rise office buildings, holidays, drugs, pizza hut, pets, McDonalds, movies, pop stars, the internet phone bills, prostitution, paint-ball games, ice-cream, betting, etc, etc. Why not pick on one of those things to raise money, instead of Space Exploration?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-26, 10:48 PM
I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.

Okay. What's your point? Should we stop all funding for space research and divert it instead to studying the ocean floor so that someone who objects to that boondoggle will have a chance to complain?

It's nice that you have firmly fixed in your mind a set of priorities for the expenditure of funds for exploration, but it's always going to be just a matter of opinion.

I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?

Extracts from snake and other venoms are used to synthesize neurological compounds. And the antivenom for snakebites is derived from the venom. But the knowledge to use those natural substances came from scientific research and development undertaken with public funding. Just because something occurs in nature doesn't mean we "naturally" know all its potential applications.

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!

No. Your concept of public finance is thoroughly naive. As a matter of fact, much more money than was spent on the entire Apollo project is expended every year in the United States on social and welfare entitlement programs. During the Apollo ramp-up in the 1960s the typical entitlements budget for a a single year exceeded $70 billion -- three to four times the entire multi-year project budget for Apollo. Your implication that social programs are invariably the best way to spend public funds is not shared by those who are asked to fund them.

This is quickly degenerating into a social and political debate. If you believe the Apollo program and continued funding of space exploration is a waste of money, then you're welcome to that belief. I happen to think otherwise, but that's my belief.

The question is whether you and Mr. Gant can support your accusation that Apollo was falsified. So far you can't, and it's fairly clear where your allegations come from. You've simply decided to resent NASA, full stop.

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-26, 10:49 PM
<blockquote>CD: I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years.</blockquote>
Interesting spelling of Ichthyologist.
<blockquote>CD: I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.</blockquote>
What you actually said was:
<blockquote>We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!</blockquote>
Now, what is it exactly that you're saying? That we haven't been to the deepest known point in our oceans? Well, we have. To say that any deeper ocean floors haven't been discovered is meaningless. If they haven't been discovered, you don't know them to exist.
<blockquote>CD: With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now.</blockquote>
If you are indeed sure, you won't have any trouble supporting this with fact. Otherwise, it's just a bucket of "what-ifs."
<blockquote>CD: You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself...</blockquote>
Your as-yet-unsubstantiated allegations are most assuredly cocksure.
<blockquote>CD: A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!</blockquote>
What makes you so sure it would have been spent thusly if not on the space program? You have no assurance of such.

[formatting]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-06-26 18:50 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-26, 10:51 PM
Nice to see you back CD.

I can appreciate how you would like to change the subject to other things, but I must insist that you address once and for all the Lunar Rover footage on your site.

To help, here is a diagram of the rover:



http://www.nasm.edu/apollo/lrv/LRV_fig3.jpg



As you can plainly see, the Color Television Camera (which captured the live video) is at the front of the rover, next to the hi-gain antenna. Which just so happens to be what is in the field of view of your footage, which, of course, was shot with the 16mm movie camera.

Obviously, the implication that this was a live feed shot by the television camera is completely incorrect, and should be taken down from your site. In all honesty, this isn't a big deal, but your failure to correct such a piddling little error invalidates everything else you have to say. After all, if you can't admit you are wrong about that, you'll NEVER admit you are wrong about anything.

Now do the right thing Dave.

Peter B
2002-Jun-27, 12:20 AM
Cosmic Dave said (in part): "Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels?"

So does your car run on water, Dave?

Why not look at this problem from the point of view of a company. Someone develops a system to run cars on water. BP hears about it and decides to investigate. What's going to happen?

BP will buy out the invention and suppress it. Right?

Wrong.

They'll look at the invention and compare it to their own product. If it turns out to be more profitable to market the new fuel, they'll sell it, and make lots of money. If it turns out to be less profitable to market the new fuel, they'll continue to sell petrol. If it's profitable, why suppress it? And if it's not profitable, why spend money suppressing it when the market will do the job anyway?

And don't forget, oil companies are spending money on researching alternate fuels. It's probably not because they feel the call of nature, but the call of potential huge profits if they make the next big breakthrough.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-27, 12:38 AM
cosmicdave, was there supposed to be a lunar hoax point anywhere in your last post? How about we see if we can pin you down on one single issue for a change, OK? Why don't you answer to Tomblvd's issue with the LRV before he puts his fist through his monitor over there?
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

(fixed bad tttttyping)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-26 21:23 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-27, 01:01 AM
On 2002-06-26 20:38, pvtpylot wrote:
cosmicdave, as there supposed to be a lunar hoax point anywhere in your last post? How about we see if we can pin you down on one single issue for a change, OK? Whay don't you answer to Tomblvd's issue with the LRV before he puts his fist through his monitor over there?
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif



I'm on my laptop, it's easier just to toss the whole thing. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I'd like to add that I'm doing this as a follow up for Johnno, who has been asking the same question of CD for over a year. And for over a year CD has been avoiding the issue.

BTW, has anyone heard from Johnno? He have exams or something?

2002-Jun-27, 01:19 AM
On 2002-06-26 21:01, Tomblvd wrote:

I'm on my laptop, it's easier just to toss the whole thing. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I'd like to add that I'm doing this as a follow up for Johnno, who has been asking the same question of CD for over a year. And for over a year CD has been avoiding the issue.

BTW, has anyone heard from Johnno? He have exams or something?


WOW ! The first laptop in earth orbit ! Wouldn´t that be something ?! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

"Is that a meteor ? No, it´s just Tomblvd´s laptop reentering the atmosphere ...."

At http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=908&forum=12&1

... Johnno said that on Monday, June 17, he´d begin a 10 day long vacation in Sweden and Finland (he´s from Norway, I think).

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-27, 01:27 AM
On 2002-06-26 21:19, Solar Flare wrote:


On 2002-06-26 21:01, Tomblvd wrote:

I'm on my laptop, it's easier just to toss the whole thing. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

I'd like to add that I'm doing this as a follow up for Johnno, who has been asking the same question of CD for over a year. And for over a year CD has been avoiding the issue.

BTW, has anyone heard from Johnno? He have exams or something?


WOW ! The first laptop in earth orbit ! Wouldn´t that be something ?! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

"Is that a meteor ? No, it´s just Tomblvd´s laptop reentering the atmosphere ...."

At http://www.apollohoax.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=908&forum=12&1

... Johnno said that on Monday, June 17, he´d begin a 10 day long vacation in Sweden and Finland (he´s from Norway, I think).




Lemme see if I can remember this correctly.

Johnno was born in Finland. He grew up in Sweden and was in the Swedish Air Force (?). And he now lives in Norway.

I think that's what he said previously.

Although I question his living in Norway. He didn't know who Knute Rockne was!!!!!

I guess we'll find out when he gets back.

And BTW, anybody else notice Cd's deafening silence all of the sudden?

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-27, 01:49 AM
On 2002-06-26 21:27, Tomblvd wrote:
And BTW, anybody else notice Cd's deafening silence all of the sudden?

I've noticed he tends to go silent for long stretches after a particularly hard thumping. You know what they say about bad pennies, though.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

sts60
2002-Jun-27, 02:15 AM
Others have beat me to it, but I'll take a whack at it anyway...

Ahh... I'm glad your all trying to tell me about the Sea, because you are actually treading into my territory. I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years. In fact I have been dealing with fish since I was 7, so you can really say that I am the expert in the field and not you (for once).
I assume you mean "icthyologist" or "ichthyologist" (I've seen both spellings). OK, fair enough; my fish expertise is limited to broiling, grilling, or frying.

By the way, please explain to me what helps a coelacanth function at both great depths and near the surface. Thanks!

I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered. I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?
I'll pass, as I am not particularly familiar with either. But I see others have some answers.

STS60 said 'Taking the relatively small amount of money spent on space exploration away would do nothing at all to improve life on Earth'.

I take great exception to this stance. With all the money used in the space race I am sure that a cure for cancer could have been found by now. We cannot even cure the common cold and yet think that we could conquer other worlds?
This idea is flawed on several counts:
1. As we have tried to explain to you, canceling money from even one project doesn't mean it goes to some worthwhile cause.
1a. Do you think NASA's budget is completely spent on space exploration?
1b. Of the part that is spent on space exploration, which, if any, qualifies as "useful" to you? Suborbital flights only? Earth observers? Solar observers?
2. The amount of money in the space program is rather insignifcant compared to such whoppers as defense and entitlement programs, and indeed is a very minor part of the U.S. budget. Also, are *you* sending all your "nonessential" dollars to cancer researchers?
3. Nobody yet thinks we can "conquer" another planet. Explore, perhaps even ultimately exploit, but conquer? That's in the SF realm.
4. Cancer and the common cold are hard problems to solve, and we've been working on them for decades. Lots of government and private money is already spent on these problems. Do you think throwing more money at these problems would automatically get them done right away?
5. The fact that you are sure does not make it so; this is a statement of belief, not of fact. It is not an expert opinion, either.

Do you understand the differences among these?
Examples: (1) I say we could wipe out the common cold in a year if everybody wore gloves and masks and wiped everything with alcohol. That is a statement of belief. I don't know much about the subject, and I could be totally wrong. (Just a hypothetical, I'm not really saying that.) (2) I say that the Apollo computer could have done the job of navigating to the Moon and back. That is an expert opinion; I have written flight code for spacecraft, though not this particular kind of spacecraft. (3) I say an object on a translunar trajectory appears quite different from one in low Earth orbit. This is a statement of fact; it's simple physics; denying it is like denying that aerodynamic lift holds airplanes up.

Heres another STS60 quote: 'applying space technology to rural health care for Native Americans'.

I wonder how Native Americans caught these diseases? perhaps it was the invaders who brought the diseases when they took over America for themselves?
What exactly has this to do with anything? Do you deny that this program benefitted these people because somebody carried diseases over centuries ago? Do you have a point, or are you just popping smoke and attempting to retreat from your claims that space exploration has had no benefits?

You see, you may not have noticed but Mankind is very cock sure of itself and takes whatever it wants. I don't believe in this at all. How many years will it be before the animals that are around today are extinct? and all in the name of technology and advancement? I dont think so!
Dave, I think this is more smokescreen. I, too, am concerned about environmental destruction, biodiversity degradation, and the like. But what exactly has this to do with your claims that (a) Apollo was a hoax, or (b) the space program has not benefitted us?

BTW, if you're ever on the Space Coast, be sure to visit the Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge. It's the one that has the launch towers rising from it.

If our governments really cared about us and the environment they would have had solar cars and household equipment years ago. There they are telling us all about CFCs and green house gases and yet they are the ones exploding the nuclear bombs!
*Sigh*
1. Nuclear bombs have nothing to do with CFCs and greenhouse gases.
2. The government spends some on solar research. What do you think has driven the advancement of solar cells to this point? Primarily space exploration.
3. The government does research, but it's up to private enterprise to bring the products to market. The sign that there's no commercially -available solar car says something about how hard it is to do in real life. And also how addicted people are to cheap and powerful internal-combustion engines, unfortunately. But the government doesn't just turn the tap and pour out solar cars.

Perhaps some of you havent heard about cars running on water and other harmless fuels? We'll its a fact, but I guess the government would rather rake in the revenue on car fuels (72.3% tax here in the UK where they made £23.3bn in 2000/1).
No, it is not a fact that any engine runs on water, if you mean it "burns" water. That's an urban legend. Wishing it were so doesn't make it true. Seeing it in a movie doesn't make it true.

A monkey could work out that the money wasted in Space could get people off the streets, the drug problem sorted and help starving countries.... instead of going up in rocket fuel!
Must... restrain... from posting... obvious answer... arrrrgggh! (wrestles self from keyboard, and recovers)

Yes, but someone who knows even a little bit about the budget, and pays any attention to the scope of homelessness, drugs, and hunger, would know that such a statement is a bizarre distortion of reality.

At this point, I must join in asking you, again, to defend your assertions that Apollo was a hoax, and that space exploration is a complete waste of money, with some sort of quantitative arguments grounded in facts.

BTW, cosmicdave, you do not appear to have retracted any of your incorrect claims on your web site. From the false assertion that Bill Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne, to the claim that the film camera footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film camera footage, to the claims that the Van Allen belts would have killed the Apollo crews, to the bit about the AGC not being able to navigate the spacecraft... It's all still there.

Are you simply backlogged in your web site updates? It's just that leaving all that incorrect information on your site after it has been thoroughly explained to you damages your credibility. My $0.02.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-26 22:56 ]</font>

Rift
2002-Jun-27, 07:04 AM
I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.


And I stand by my belief you have no idea what you are talking about.

What deepest ocean floors haven't been discovered? We've explored them and mapped all ot them by, ahem, SPACE SATTELITE, and have even visted the deepest part of the sea. What exactly ARE you trying to say??? You, with your vast experience, should know that we've gotten TONS of useful information about the ocean from space, lol.

Your original quote was



We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!


Remarkable statement for someone who claims to know so much about oceanography...http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-t/trste-b.htm


In October 1959, after being fitted with a stronger pressure sphere, Trieste was transported to the mid-Pacific to participate in Project "Nekton", in which she conducted a series of very deep dives in the Marianas Trench. On 23 January 1960, she reached a record depth of 35,800 feet in the Challenger Deep, off Guam, the deepest point in any of the World's oceans.

I've been studying oceanography off and on since I was about seven too... big deal. I've known about the Treiste for some 30 years now... What is your excuse?



We cannot even cure the common cold and yet think that we could conquer other worlds?


Oh, btw, we are coming really close to curing some rhinoviruses, which, btw, cause some of the common colds, dave... http://www.discover.com/feb_99/coldwar.html Trying to blame a lack of the cure on the common cold on the space program is childish and immature.

And, once again, your foot goes into your mouth...

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-27 03:06 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-27, 12:43 PM
On 2002-06-26 18:15, cosmicdave wrote:
Ahh... I'm glad your all trying to tell me about the Sea, because you are actually treading into my territory. I have been an ictheologist for over 18 years. In fact I have been dealing with fish since I was 7, so you can really say that I am the expert in the field and not you (for once).


Too bad you can't spell it. Oh, wait, "ich-theoligist." Are you an expert in fish religions?



I stand by my statement about the deepest ocean floors not being discovered.


Maybe you should expand on this. The Trieste descended to the bottom of the Marianas Trench, the deepest part of the ocean yet known; is there another, deeper spot we haven't discovered?

A great deal of research - certainly comparable to the amount done on space - has been conducted on the oceans depths. You need to clarify your claim.



I have also been dealing with reptiles for that amount of time and I'll ask that if snake venom is hardly used for antidotes - why do we have snake milking farms for?


Most of them are for tourists. But, you meant...

The venom is used to manufacture the antivenom. Tiny amounts of snake venom are injected into horses over a long period of time. The amounts are so small that the horse is not affected except that its metabolism produces antibodies to counteract the foreign substance in its system. After some 10-12 months blood is removed from the horse and the plasma is extracted. This plasma contains the antibodies which, when injected into a snake bite victim, will neutralize snake venom.

You implied that the venom itself was used directly to counteract a snake bite.

_________________
<font color=000099>Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.</font>
Isaac Asimov

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Jim on 2002-06-27 11:08 ]</font>

Conrad
2002-Jun-27, 02:34 PM
On 2002-06-26 12:28, cosmicdave wrote:
Oh yes almost forgot....

Didn't Col. Corso say that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris?

Of course NASA would have learnt from that data.


Just a thought.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Col. Corso's accuracy can be judged by his claims to have been involved with the invasion of Italy in 1942. He either got the wrong year or the wrong continent.
Or is there another secret, covert, hoax cover-up by the US government that the Colonel is merely hinting about?

2002-Jun-27, 03:11 PM
On 2002-06-27 10:34, Conrad wrote:


On 2002-06-26 12:28, cosmicdave wrote:
Oh yes almost forgot....

Didn't Col. Corso say that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris?

Of course NASA would have learnt from that data.


Just a thought.... /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


Col. Corso's accuracy can be judged by his claims to have been involved with the invasion of Italy in 1942. He either got the wrong year or the wrong continent.
Or is there another secret, covert, hoax cover-up by the US government that the Colonel is merely hinting about?




For further information on Corso, one may also read a certain Mr. Klass´s loving review of Corso´s book "The Day After Roswell":

http://www.csicop.org/klassfiles/SUN-49.html

As Klass puts it:

""The Day After Roswell," by former Lt. Col. Philip J. Corso (USA, Ret.), (.........), is the most factually flawed and self-contradictory book on the subject ever published"

jrkeller
2002-Jun-27, 03:46 PM
CD,

Please answers Tomblvd question/post.

A funny story goes with the rover camera thing. My 6 1/2 year son was watching the some of the LRV footage and asked asked me how the camera could be in the picture if it was taking the picture. I just showed him a LRV diagram, similar to the one Tomblvd posted and his response was, so one camera took a picture of the other.

How hard is that to understand.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-27, 03:58 PM
Ictheologist is the correct spelling... it can be spelt both ways... check out

http://www.teachnet.com/how-to/manage/062198.html

or

http://www.drawrm.com/nail.htm

or

http://www.psd.k12.co.us/district/stc/elem/foss/animalskdgn.htm

or

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/archive/1/2001/08/2/32418

John Witts said:
'So could all the money spent on advertising, football, Formula 1, high rise office buildings, holidays, drugs, pizza hut, pets, McDonalds, movies, pop stars, the internet phone bills, prostitution, paint-ball games, ice-cream, betting, etc, etc. Why not pick on one of those things to raise money, instead of Space Exploration?'

But the fundamental difference is that all of your examples above ARE paid by the people using them... If you want to go on holiday or go to a formula 1 race or buy ice-cream you pay your own way, you dont expect others to foot the bill, as is the case with NASA.

Rift posted this qoute: 'In October 1959, after being fitted with a stronger pressure sphere, Trieste was transported to the mid-Pacific to participate in Project "Nekton", in which she conducted a series of very deep dives in the Marianas Trench. On 23 January 1960, she reached a record depth of 35,800 feet in the Challenger Deep, off Guam, the deepest point in any of the World's oceans.'

Did anyone notice that it says 'She reached a record depth of 35,800 feet', where does it say that it rested on the bottom??? That is simply the deepest depth so far achieved. The actual bottom of the trench is 11,033 m (36,198 ft).

I could also say that many thousands of miles of rain forests have not been investigated, in fact new species are being found every day. I really dont think that were going to find any cures for diseases whilst travelling in space - in fact wasn't a very bad epidemic of flu a few years ago alleged to have come from space?

Oh and STS60... nice try to catch me out...
Coelacanths rarely swim at depths of less than 200 m (650 ft). In fact most of them live at more than 600 m (2,000 ft) below the water's surface.

Concerning cures for cancer.... I have heard of several - one being the dust taken from pure gold (even talked about by the ancient egyptians and annunaki). Any one of you can do an internet search and find a cure which has worked! All it needs is a little government financial backing to get the cure out into the public domain...

Of course we have to remember that the health service, whether it be here in England, the US or anywhere else for that matter is big business. Do you think the government would really like us all to be 100% healthy and living to a ripe old age where most would have to live off the state?

The UK health service already cannot fit people into our hospitals and its not unusual for people to be stuck onto waiting lists for upto 2 years who are suffering from cancer or waiting for hip replacement operations.

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-27, 04:57 PM
<blockquote>CD: Ictheologist is the correct spelling... it can be spelt both ways...</blockquote>
Yeah, I ran a web search on "ictheologist" and found the same sites...which doesn't even doesn't even come close to making it an acceptable alternate spelling. In fact, at one of the links (http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/archive/1/2001/08/2/32418) you provided, "ictheologist" was marked as being misspelled. Perhaps you can point out a dictionary entry or university program in which that spelling appears.
<blockquote>CD:
Did anyone notice that it says 'She reached a record depth of 35,800 feet', where does it say that it rested on the bottom??? That is simply the deepest depth so far achieved. The actual bottom of the trench is 11,033 m (36,198 ft).</blockquote>
Several sources say she touched bottom...one in particular said she touched bottom at 35, 813 feet. In the intervening years, however, depth measurements have been revised with improvements in sounding technology.
<blockquote>CD: Do you think the government would really like us all to be 100% healthy and living to a ripe old age where most would have to live off the state?</blockquote>
Why not? This is the same government that you insist would have supposedly cured cancer, drug addiction, homelessness, and world hunger had it not spent small portion of it's budget on the space program.

Now...back to topic...

Dave, stop your side-stepping, handwaving, and equivocation. It's time for you to directly address the points raised by Jay Utah, TomBlvd, et al. without resorting to baseless accusations, what-ifs, or innuendo. Let's see some verifiable facts that relate to the points at hand. To jog your memory:
<blockquote><ul>Your assertion that Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne
Your claim that rover film footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film footage.
Your claim that Van Allen Belt radiation would have killed the Apollo crews.
Your claim that moon rocks gathered in situ are indistinguishable from meteoric moon rocks.<ul></blockquote>
So how about it Dave? Ready to return to topic?


[minor edits]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gramma loreto on 2002-06-27 12:59 ]</font>

Jim
2002-Jun-27, 05:24 PM
dave wrote:
Did anyone notice that it says 'She reached a record depth of 35,800 feet', where does it say that it rested on the bottom??? That is simply the deepest depth so far achieved. The actual bottom of the trench is 11,033 m (36,198 ft).

and Gramma replied:
Several sources say she touched bottom...one in particular said she touched bottom at 35, 813 feet. In the intervening years, however, depth measurements have been revised with improvements in sounding technology.


I found several similar references (below). I'd agree with Gramma; the Trieste touched bottom at the deepest point, which was thought to be ~35,800 ft and has since been remeasured as more.

...Trieste reached the bottom of the Challenger Deep...
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageseas/deep-side-journey.html

...her record dive to the bottom of the Marianas Trench...
http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-t/trste-b.htm

They touched bottom at 35,813 feet. That means, while they were parked on the bottom in the bathyscaphe, there were almost seven miles of water over their heads!
http://www.extremescience.com/DeepestOcean.htm

Oh...
On March 24, 1995, the KAIKO, JAMSTEC's remotely operated vehicle, reached a 10,911.4-meter point in the Challenger Deep. The KAIKO successfully took photographs of sandworms and amphipodas living there.
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/jamstec-e/30th/part1/page3.html



dave wrote...
The UK health service already cannot fit people into our hospitals and its not unusual for people to be stuck onto waiting lists for upto 2 years who are suffering from cancer or waiting for hip replacement operations.


D*&n the British government! Wasting all its money on its space program!!



Gramma wrote:
Dave, stop your side-stepping, handwaving, and equivocation. It's time for you to directly address the points raised by Jay Utah, TomBlvd, et al. without resorting to baseless accusations, what-ifs, or innuendo. Let's see some verifiable facts that relate to the points at hand. To jog your memory:
<blockquote><ul>Your assertion that Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne
Your claim that rover film footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film footage.
Your claim that Van Allen Belt radiation would have killed the Apollo crews.
Your claim that moon rocks gathered in situ are indistinguishable from meteoric moon rocks.<ul></blockquote>
So how about it Dave? Ready to return to topic?


Yes, answers, please.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-27, 05:36 PM
On 2002-06-27 12:57, Gramma loreto wrote:
<blockquote><ul>Your assertion that Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne
Your claim that rover film footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film footage.
Your claim that Van Allen Belt radiation would have killed the Apollo crews.
Your claim that moon rocks gathered in situ are indistinguishable from meteoric moon rocks.<ul></blockquote>
So how about it Dave? Ready to return to topic?

I wouldn't bet on it, Gramma. Cosmicdave has no answers to give on these topics. I think that much has been made abundantly clear. For myself, I can't decide if cd gets an ego thrill out of the flurry of activity that follows each one of his posts, or if he believes that playing his version of escape and evade long enough equates to some type of victory. It's clear that he ran out of anything new and substantive to post concerning Apollo some weeks ago.

corr. sp.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pvtpylot on 2002-06-27 13:48 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-27, 05:44 PM
I guess CD is what you would call a "cafeteria poster". He goes along all the posts and picks only the questions he wants to respond to.

LETS'S GO DAVE. ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!

2002-Jun-27, 05:52 PM
AHA !! I know what cosmicdave is doing !!

cosmicdave has developed a special bulletin board version of Muhammed Ali´s legendary "rope-a-dope" technique !!!

Remember the 1974 fight, where Ali just leaned against the ropes for one round after the other. He just let Foreman punch and punch and punch until Foreman had tired himself out - and then he hit Foreman with a quick combination - knocking Foreman out cold.

That´s cosmicdave´s secret plan !:

He´s leaning against the ropes, while we are punching the living daylights out of him, round after round. And then, when we get really, really tired .... then cosmicdave´s gonna hit us with a quick combination - knocking out BABB cold !!

My only question is:

Exactly when is Dave gonna begin hitting us ??

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif







<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solar Flare on 2002-06-27 13:53 ]</font>

Tomblvd
2002-Jun-27, 06:02 PM
Exactly when is Dave gonna begin hitting us ??

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



A better question is what the heck is he going to hit us with?

JayUtah
2002-Jun-27, 06:05 PM
Ictheologist is the correct spelling.

Not in any dictionary I consulted, including Merriam-Webster (the college standard for the United States) and the Oxford English Dictionary (the world standard). It was not even listed as an acceptable variant spelling in any of the five or six dictionaries I consulted.

http://www.teachnet.com/howto/manage/062198.html

"Ictheologist - 1 person to feed (and maybe read to?) the fish"

The same author -- apparently a schoolteacher -- also misspelled "classroom".

http://www.drawrm.com/nail.htm

Some guy's personal photo album web page. Not authoritative.

http://www.psd.k12.co.us/district/stc/elem/foss/animalskdgn.htm

An elementary school's local page on careers for kindergartners. Not authoritative.

http://www.reefcentral.com/vbulletin/archive/1/2001/08/2/32418

"... besides, her boss is an ictheologist (sp) so she gets ..."

The "(sp)" indicates the author is not sure of the spelling. Definitely not authoritative.

Just because you can find examples of other people who misspell the word the way you have doesn't mean you have established an acceptable variant spelling, and certainly not the correct spelling.

But spelling is largely irrelevant, and ichthyology doubly irrelevant. The issue here is not who can correctly spell what Greek derivative, but how you have responded to correction. Instead of saying, "Oops, I guess I made a mistake," you went off and tried to prove with the flimsiest of evidence that you were, in some convuluted way, still right.

This tell us an awful lot about your methods. As I noted a few weeks ago, you seem much more obsessed with being thought authoritative and right than you are about seriously investigating any of the topics you discuss. You may be able to fool you little UFO club with bluffs such as this, but we are not so easily impressed. If you continue to use these methods here, you will likely get cut off at the knees again and again and again.

But the fundamental difference is that all of your examples above ARE paid by the people using them.

That's right. They choose to spend money on watching football or eating cheeseburgers, when according to you that money could have been much more wisely and selflessly spent. The point you refuse to grasp is that in public spending, just as in private spending, people fund what they want to fund.

You want us to believe that NASA just grabbed $30 billion that had been earmarked for what you believe were worthier causes and pissed it all away. In fact, the American public spent $30 billion on Apollo because that's where the American public wanted that money spent. If they had wanted $30 billion or $50 billion or $100 billion spent on cancer research, they would have made it happen.

You want it to sound like the Big Bad Government is taking our money away and spending it where we don't want it spent. (Which is rather a silly point of view for you, being a subject of the U.K.) But in fact the American public sees the long-term value of a space program and so applies its dollars accordingly.

I could also say that many thousands of miles of rain forests have not been investigated

You could say that, and it would be just as irrelevant to space policy as all the other stuff you've said so far. The notion that we must exhaustively investigate nearby environs before studying more remote locations is still a non sequitur.

I really dont think that were going to find any cures for diseases whilst travelling in space

Why is the cure for disease suddenly the sine qua non of exploration and public expenditure? You have done nothing but throw red herring after red herring into this discussion.

The preparation to travel through space necessitates engineering advances which have already been applied -- and continue to be applied -- to the field of medicine. If medical advancement is your yardstick today, the space program was there to carry its share of the weight.

wasn't a very bad epidemic of flu a few years ago alleged to have come from space?

Perhaps that was the belief among conspiracy theorists. In fact, epidemiologists and microbiologists consider the possibility of spaceborne infection to be extremely low. Microorganisms must evolve alongside the complex organisms they are to affect, therefore organisms from space are not likely to have any effect on earth biology. Nevertheless there is a great deal of unfounded public hysteria over the thought of infection from space, and conspiracy theorists sometimes use that to continue fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt in their audiences.

The influenza virii mutate easily and occasionally produce extremely virulent or contagious strains (e.g., the 1917 pandemic). Particularly acute outbreaks of influenza are not evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

All it needs is a little government financial backing to get the cure out into the public domain.

But if the "cure" is already known and guaranteed to work, why doesn't Merck or Sandoz or some other pharmaceutical company perform a simple double-blind test to confirm its utility and then exclusively market it? The company that found the cure for cancer would be a household word and could command any share it wished of the market for medicines. "From the company that brought you the cure for cancer ..."

The answer, of course, is that none of these "miracle" cures actually works. You get anecdotal evidence that proves nothing and gives false hope to cancer patients.

Funding for research, whether from the government or from private institutions, is for finding a cure, not marketing it.

Do you think the government would really like us all to be 100% healthy and living to a ripe old age where most would have to live off the state?

So now you're arguing that the Big Bad Government intentially keeps us all in poor health? Personally, your emerging ideal of a welfare state where my hard-earned tax dollars go to keep some crack addict supplied with drugs is a pretty frightening prospect.

I'm sure fish and cancer are fascinating subjects, but none of this has anything whatsoever to do with your arguments on Apollo. So this is the last I'm going to respond on the various subjects you've brought up that have nothing to do with Apollo.

You have been given a list of specific charges you make against Apollo, which have been more or less conclusively proven false. What do you intend to do about them?

2002-Jun-27, 06:38 PM
On 2002-06-27 14:02, Tomblvd wrote:




Exactly when is Dave gonna begin hitting us ??

/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



A better question is what the heck is he going to hit us with?


Well, I´m pretty certain that Dave is an excellent boxer. After all, boxing could be viewed as a kind of "handwaving" - and since Dave is an expert on "handwaving" ...

Maybe a one-two combination of "changing subject" and "selective answering of questions" ?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Solar Flare on 2002-06-27 19:51 ]</font>

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-27, 07:56 PM
On 2002-06-27 11:58, cosmicdave wrote:
I really dont think that were going to find any cures for diseases whilst travelling in space - in fact wasn't a very bad epidemic of flu a few years ago alleged to have come from space?

Almost certainly not, for the reasons that Jay has pointed out. But if you even suspect this is true, shouldn't you be supporting space exploration to investigate this potential source of deadly diseases?

RalphVanDyke
2002-Jun-27, 11:41 PM
On 2002-06-27 14:05, JayUtah wrote:
wasn't a very bad epidemic of flu a few years ago alleged to have come from space?

Perhaps that was the belief among conspiracy theorists. In fact, epidemiologists and microbiologists consider the possibility of spaceborne infection to be extremely low. Microorganisms must evolve alongside the complex organisms they are to affect, therefore organisms from space are not likely to have any effect on earth biology. Nevertheless there is a great deal of unfounded public hysteria over the thought of infection from space, and conspiracy theorists sometimes use that to continue fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt in their audiences.

The influenza virii mutate easily and occasionally produce extremely virulent or contagious strains (e.g., the 1917 pandemic). Particularly acute outbreaks of influenza are not evidence of extraterrestrial origin.

Now we are getting in to my area, finally! I attended the American Society for Microbiology 102nd General Meeting in Salt Lake City in May, and one of the symposia I attended was led by a few NASA scientists about extraterrestrial microbiology. Hardy endospores from bacteria like Bacillus are just about the only things able to survive any appreciable time. Influenza is caused by a virus which is essentially just RNA in a protein coat. Virii are easily deactivated by things like heat and UV radiation, hardly capable of surviving a trip through space.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: RalphVanDyke on 2002-06-27 19:42 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-27, 11:59 PM
Virii are easily deactivated by things like heat and UV radiation, hardly capable of surviving a trip through space.

Virii won't even survive ten minutes in full sunlight, outside a host organism.

Engineering provides yet more data. Do you know how you sterilize air in air-handling units for biological containment? UV lights. Pretty much the same fixtures as you'd find in a tanning unit. You line a plenum with them and crank them up and even Ebola and HIV bite the dust.

Virii are fragile little buggers. They don't survive on a sidewalk, much less outer space.

Zeit
2002-Jun-28, 12:00 AM
My first post on this board - yay! I love what you guys are doing here, and I think it's hilarious the way the HB's keep coming up with contradictions to their own theories and calling it further proof.

Just thought I'd pass along a note to cosmicdave, though I like the name comicdave better. It would seem that NASA is interested in the world's oceans after all - http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/06/27/aqua.pictures/index.html

_________________
Zeit

"If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason."

Jack Handy - Deep Thoughts

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zeit on 2002-06-27 20:02 ]</font>

DaveC
2002-Jun-28, 12:04 AM
I'm not holding my breath waiting for Cosmic Dave to tear himself away from his ictheology(sp?) texts and answer the Apollo questions. (You ain't gonna learn 18 years worth of ichthyology fast enough to fool anyone here, CD.)
However, I think many of us here can remember being immature and idealistic, so I don't begrudge him his opinions on government spending priorities. My priorities wouldn't be the same as his, but we can all have an opinion - and I doubt any of us would see the pattern of government spending to be precisely as we, as individuals, would choose.

I am curious, however as to why countries that didn't have, and still don't have a space program still have poverty, disease, crime and drug addicts. I know the UK space program didn't suck all the money out of the National Health system! Gee, CD - if only all the time you spent building and maintaining a website or typing posts into a forum such as this were spent on community service, imagine how much better the lot of the old or disadvantaged would be. PRIORITIES, man.

RalphVanDyke
2002-Jun-28, 12:09 AM
On 2002-06-27 19:59, JayUtah wrote:
Virii won't even survive ten minutes in full sunlight, outside a host organism.

Engineering provides yet more data. Do you know how you sterilize air in air-handling units for biological containment? UV lights. Pretty much the same fixtures as you'd find in a tanning unit. You line a plenum with them and crank them up and even Ebola and HIV bite the dust.

Virii are fragile little buggers. They don't survive on a sidewalk, much less outer space.



Exactly. Things like bacterial and fungal spores are much more of a concern due to being able to live something like 40 years in soil and survive boiling temperatures.

I know you have been involved in the making of spacecraft Jay, are you familiar with all the precautions taken to keep them microbe free? K. Venkateswaran (can't remember his first name for the life of me) gave a talk at the symposium about the microbe diversity in assembly facilities. Quite amazing the precautions they take to keep microbes to a minimum.

2002-Jun-28, 12:18 AM
On 2002-06-27 20:09, RalphVanDyke wrote:
[quote]
K. Venkateswaran (can't remember his first name for the life of me)


I am just guessing .... Kasthuri ?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

RalphVanDyke
2002-Jun-28, 12:22 AM
On 2002-06-27 20:18, Solar Flare wrote:


On 2002-06-27 20:09, RalphVanDyke wrote:
[quote]
K. Venkateswaran (can't remember his first name for the life of me)


I am just guessing .... Kasthuri ?? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif




lol, yes! Venkat! That's right, its all flooding back to me now. You'll have to forgive me, it was a busy week. All the seminars I attended seemed to mesh together.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-28, 05:29 PM
Jay said: ‘You want us to believe that NASA just grabbed $30 billion that had been earmarked for what you believe were worthier causes and pissed it all away. In fact, the American public spent $30 billion on Apollo because that's where the American public wanted that money spent. If they had wanted $30 billion or $50 billion or $100 billion spent on cancer research, they would have made it happen’

That’s the biggest load of crap you’ve written so far Jay. So there was a referendum of the American public and the majority voted to spend the money on the Apollo missions did they? What a load of toss… Am I to assume that this so-called interested American public were the same people complaining about the Apollo missions interrupting ‘I Love Lucy’?..

How exactly would the American public have made the Government spend the money on Cancer research if the Government are the ones holding the purse strings?

Jay Quote: ‘You want it to sound like the Big Bad Government is taking our money away and spending it where we don't want it spent. (Which is rather a silly point of view for you, being a subject of the U.K.)’

What are you trying to say?

Jay Quote: ‘The preparation to travel through space necessitates engineering advances which have already been applied -- and continue to be applied -- to the field of medicine. If medical advancement is your yardstick today, the space program was there to carry its share of the weight.’

What the hell are you talking about? What has space exploration to do with the field of medicine? Tell me one single cure that has been the result of space travel.

Jay’s response about flu coming from space: ‘Perhaps that was the belief among conspiracy theorists. In fact, epidemiologists and microbiologists consider the possibility of spaceborne infection to be extremely low. Microorganisms must evolve alongside the complex organisms they are to affect, therefore organisms from space are not likely to have any effect on earth biology. Nevertheless there is a great deal of unfounded public hysteria over the thought of infection from space, and conspiracy theorists sometimes use that to continue fostering fear, uncertainty, and doubt in their audiences. The influenza virii mutate easily and occasionally produce extremely virulent or contagious strains (e.g., the 1917 pandemic). Particularly acute outbreaks of influenza are not evidence of extraterrestrial origin.’

Sorry but your completely wrong… not only in your beliefs that flu cannot come from an extraterrestrial origin, but also with your date of the 1918 pandemic. Perhaps you’d like to read the following from The Guardian Newspaper. Don’t you yanks get any decent news over there? No conspiracy theories here I’m afraid, just scientific fact – hey it was from Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astrophysicist too! Hmm…. Guess you might believe him then! I think an apology for your ignorance is in order here…

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redirect_Artifact/0%2C4678%2C0-124154%2C00.html

Flu comes from outer space, claim scientists

Flu epidemic: special report

Stuart Millar
Wednesday January 19, 2000
The Guardian

It made the festive season a misery for many and threw NHS policy into crisis. But the flu may have worse in store, according to scientists who claim to have discovered an alarming explanation for the epidemic - a virus from outer space.
Dismissing as dogma the conventional medical wisdom that flu is a virus passed by human contact, the distinguished astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle, and his colleague at Cardiff university, Chandra Wickramasinghe, warn that we may be on the brink of a global epidemic.
In a report to be published in the journal Current Science, they claim the outbreak was caused by dust deposited high in the atmosphere by passing comets being forced down to earth by energy generated by cooler patches on the sun's surface, known as sunspots.
They reach the peak of their activity, the maxima, every 11 years, coinciding, the scientists say, with all major flu outbreaks since 1761, including the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic blamed for 20m deaths worldwide. The latest cycle began to peak in September and the maxima is due sometime this year.
__________________________________________________ __
Jay Quote: ‘The answer, of course, is that none of these "miracle" cures actually works. You get anecdotal evidence that proves nothing and gives false hope to cancer patients. ‘

And your information about this came from where? As I have said, I have seen many claims both on the internet and on programs such as ‘Unsolved Mysteries’ of cures for cancer. It’s obvious that you haven’t, but would rather fob off my claim rather than check it out. I have many friends in the medical industry and know for a fact that some things the scientific community just doesn’t want to know about – lets remember that scientists and their discoveries are all about funding, if you don’t stay in line then the funding is simply cut off! We have a really good radio show here hosted by James Whale (similar to Rense and Bell) who has had at least 2 people on his show with cures for cancer that have been proved to work. Don’t ask me why they are not openly marketed – write to your local Government.

Jay Quote: ‘ Personally, your emerging ideal of a welfare state where my hard-earned tax dollars go to keep some crack addict supplied with drugs is a pretty frightening prospect.’

And again you are making accusations without even knowing me personally or my political stance. Actually I am 100% against any drug use – so stop making assumptions.

Dave C Quote: ‘(You ain't gonna learn 18 years worth of ichthyology fast enough to fool anyone here, CD.)’

Are you calling me a liar! My family has been studying and selling ornamental fish since 1972. It’s a family business. Of course you know me personally, I forgot – idiot.

Dave C Quote ‘I am curious, however as to why countries that didn't have, and still don't have a space program still have poverty, disease, crime and drug addicts.

Its called the facts of life – Those Countries I assume you are talking about are Africa and Asia I suspect, and have the above mainly due as a result of the hot climate and over breeding. Us Brits should know because our Government is always sending aid packages to them. They don’t have a space programme because of poverty. They have a drug, crime and disease problem because of poverty too. The drugs are an escape from reality and money gained from crimes buy the drugs. America does have a space programme however, and it still has poverty, disease, crime and drug addicts – in fact it probably has the worst cases of drug and crime in whole world.. so what’s your point?

I really like how America tries to tell everyone else how to live – get your own house in order first mate before criticising other countries. Yeah, we get ‘Cops’ over here too!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-28, 06:01 PM
That’s the biggest load of crap you’ve written so far Jay.

You can call it whatever names you want, but it doesn't make your point of view any more realistic.

So there was a referendum of the American public and the majority voted to spend the money on the Apollo missions did they?

That was not my claim. The American public exerts its governmental authority through several means, not limited to referenda.

That is all I'm going to say on this point because I want you to address the Apollo questions.

What the hell are you talking about? What has space exploration to do with the field of medicine?

Because technology developed for one purpose can be adapted for other purposes. And NASA is quite active in medical research because manned space exploration requires an extensive medical understanding.

Tell me one single cure that has been the result of space travel.

Straw man. That is not my argument. My argument is that money spend ostensibly on space research produces broad-spectrum benefits that include advancements in medical understanding.

I think an apology for your ignorance is in order here.

Not in the least. You have the opinion of one astrophysicist speaking outside his field of expertise, offering speculation which the article admits runs contrary to medical knowledge.

Far from being "completely wrong," as you imply, I am reflecting the prevailing opinion of the relevant scientists, which is confirmed by your article. To wit:

"Dismissing as dogma the conventional medical wisdom that flu is a virus passed by human contact ..."

Vector studies of viral epidemiology and immunology are not merely "conventional medical wisdom", they are conclusively documented scientific findings. The rest of the article goes on to establish a correlation but does nothing to address causation. That's not complete science. Where is Dr. Hoyle's vector study? I can point you to reams of vector studies for the influenza virus that confirms beyond any reasonable doubt how it is transmitted.

That's all I'm planning to say on the subject of space virology. You have heard the opinions here of people who have training in that area. Now please address the Apollo questions.

I have seen many claims both on the internet and on programs such as ‘Unsolved Mysteries’ of cures for cancer.

So now the uncontrolled internet and a tabloid television program are sources of scientific data? You are really quite amazing, Mr. Cosnette. You have absolutely no concept of what constitutes a rigorous examination.

Since cancer can spontaneously go into remission, simply correlating some arbitrary action to the remediation of cancer without establishing causation is insufficient. This is why anecdotal evidence is not proof.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject of "miracle" cures for cancer.

Actually I am 100% against any drug use – so stop making assumptions.

Perhaps that was Mr. Gant's argument. If so, I apologize for attributing it to you.

I really like how America tries to tell everyone else how to live – get your own house in order first mate before criticising other countries.

If this is your belief, why are you trying to tell us how to spend our public funds? If laissez-faire is your philosophy, then laissez alone our space program and mind your own business.

You have now made several posts which contain nothing whatsoever applicable to your claims regarding Apollo. I am forced to conclude you have no answers for the objections raised concerning them.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-28, 06:23 PM
[edit to remove most of post - Jay beat me to it! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif ]

C-Dave - How about addressing the Questions you've been asked about Apollo.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SpacedOut on 2002-06-28 14:25 ]</font>

RalphVanDyke
2002-Jun-28, 06:26 PM
On 2002-06-28 13:29, cosmicdave wrote:
No conspiracy theories here I’m afraid, just scientific fact – hey it was from Sir Fred Hoyle, the famous astrophysicist too! Hmm…. Guess you might believe him then! I think an apology for your ignorance is in order here…

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Distribution/Redirect_Artifact/0%2C4678%2C0-124154%2C00.html


I see ZERO data there other than a vague correlation of sun spot data to flu epidemics. There is also a correlation between ice cream sales and murder, does ice cream make one homicidal? Show me data.

Besides, he is an astrophysicist, not an astrophysician or biologist, or even better a MICRO biologist. Being preeminent in one field of science doesn't make you an expert in all of them. Stephen Hawking is a preeminent cosmologist, maybe I should ask him for diet advice huh?

DaveC
2002-Jun-28, 06:41 PM
On 2002-06-28 13:29, cosmicdave wrote:
Dave C Quote: ‘(You ain't gonna learn 18 years worth of ichthyology fast enough to fool anyone here, CD.)’

Are you calling me a liar! My family has been studying and selling ornamental fish since 1972. It’s a family business. Of course you know me personally, I forgot – idiot.


Like biology, paleontology, geology and a number of other "ologies", ichthyology is a branch of science. I'm not calling you a liar - but being in the retail ornamental fish business isn't what you implied in your earlier post in which you claimed to be an "ictheologist". My apologies. It still doesn't bring you any closer to answering the questions you've been asked about Apollo, though.



Dave C Quote ‘I am curious, however as to why countries that didn't have, and still don't have a space program still have poverty, disease, crime and drug addicts.

Its called the facts of life – Those Countries I assume you are talking about are Africa and Asia I suspect, and have the above mainly due as a result of the hot climate and over breeding. Us Brits should know because our Government is always sending aid packages to them. They don’t have a space programme because of poverty. They have a drug, crime and disease problem because of poverty too. The drugs are an escape from reality and money gained from crimes buy the drugs. America does have a space programme however, and it still has poverty, disease, crime and drug addicts – in fact it probably has the worst cases of drug and crime in whole world.. so what’s your point?


My point is your silly argument that the world would somehow be a better place had the U.S. not spent money on a space program. Paraphrasing your arguments: some countries don't have a space program because of poverty: America has poverty because of a space program.
The UK has poverty and doesn't have a space program. Clearly there's no connection between the two, despite your desperate handwaving to show there is.

Why won't you answer the Apollo questions you've been asked, and why won't you correct the obvious errors, to which your attention has been drawn, on your website?

Can ornamental fish be eaten by the poor? If not, why would you and your family be diverting wealth away from such a worthwhile cause (looking after the disadvantaged) by giving the wealthy something totally useless and unnecessary to waste their money on.
(See how silly your arguments look when they are turned back on you?)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DaveC on 2002-06-28 14:42 ]</font>

Gramma loreto
2002-Jun-28, 06:46 PM
Dave,

In response to my post concerning...
<blockquote>Your assertion that Kaysing was "head of advanced research" at Rocketdyne
Your claim that rover film footage was shot by the video camera shown in the film footage.
Your claim that Van Allen Belt radiation would have killed the Apollo crews.
Your claim that moon rocks gathered in situ are indistinguishable from meteoric moon rocks.</blockquote>
...you provided the following substantive evidence:
<blockquote>[sound of crickets chirping]</blockquote>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jun-28, 06:57 PM
I am tired of going through this thread and deleting inappropriate words.

If you cannot communicate with each other without using name-calling and bad words, then stop trying. Got it?

This thread is locked.