|
|
jack
|
 |
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Moon landing.
Hi my name is jack, I have just registered hello to everyone.
Why is it if man has landed on the moon, both American @ Russian, have they not re visited.
I do find the photography very good for the time, a little too good perhaps.
Please enlighten me zero atmosphere I would imagine if you passed wind @let it out of the suite you would fly to the other side of the moon?.emmmmmmm
I know your comments will give me the guidance that perhaps I need.
Re Jack.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Are you the same Jack who posted a few times a few months ago? If not, then welcome to the board.
The Russians never put a man on the Moon, only probes. The American Apollo manned programme finished and they never came up with a replacement, because it was very, very expensive and there's not a lot a man can do on the Moon that a probe can't. In the 1960s the "Space Race" made it worthwhile to send billions of dollars on a space programme and prove America's superiority over Russia; nowadays no-one really cares.
That said, President Bush wants to send a man to the moon again by 2020. I am not sure if this is a genuine effort or whether he is simply hoping to be elected to a third term. There are projects under way at NASA, but NASA is a black hole in bugetary terms and it seems to me there is a high chance they will be shelved long before then. Several major NASA projects have been cancelled in recent years.
Any object in orbit or on the Moon still has full mass (though less weight) so you'd still need a pretty powerful thruster to get it moving at any appreciable speed. Passing wind would make no difference at all.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
well what about the photography? have you not visited the web sites that say we never landed,do you not think all this could have been because of the cold war, or do we just believe every thing that the p.r. want us to.
oh and hello david.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
okkkkkkkk, the Americans are the only country to put men on the moon. They did follow up 2 more times.
Yes, if you brike wind in a space suit and then opened the valve to let it out it could propel you in space. Course that would not be the gas itself but the air in the suit escaping. On the moon it wouldnt work because you have one sixth the gravity of Earth and you wouldnt have enough propulsion.
Im almost positive that the U.S. Government did not use a 30 dollar Kodak to tahe the pics.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, they have satalites with cameras so good they can read the headline on your newspaper on your front porch. Mostly this is because of the lenses. The quality of the lens for military use is far better than what you get comercially. Like I said they didnt use a Kodak.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeh, what Deeej said!
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
no but things were made of tin foil etc. isay again look at the web sites?
i am not trying to push buttons but look at the whole thing from a different angle, nothing personal. ,
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
Brian not in the sixties.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Plenty of probes have landed as well as the manned Apollo missions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_the_Moon
I do not believe for a moment that it was faked. A cover-up on that scale could never have been maintained this long. The technology existed at the time and continues to exist. Several different countries have surveyed the Moon and if anything was out of place (if it was all American propaganda, which it wasn't) someone would have noticed by now.
The chemical photography equipment of the sixties was in many ways nearly as good as it is now. It could easily have been transported to the Moon and back again.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack said,
>look at the whole thing from a different angle, nothing personal.
It's only worth looking at a different angle if there is convincing evidence for it. Otherwise it is a dead end.
That the Americans did not put a man on the Moon is one of these peculiar conspiracy theories that goes round from time to time. Why do you think we should even give it the time of day? What evidence do you have that makes it more likely that it was all an elaborate set-up? How can you explain the thousands of trained scientists who worked on the space programme and never smelt a rat, the undeniable technology that came out of it, the rockets that were launched, the images produced, the samples brought back? All the product of trickery or mass brainwashing?
Just because something's a funny or interesting idea doesn't make it at all likely to be true.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
o.k. technology is so far advanced today compared with the sixties, we do send
ships to mars and loose them, i think if they could land on the moon they would have a station there.
early sixties pc had a 16k memory any thing with a few gig would be massive, rediculas so what computer did they have on the ship to the moon, i will say that it is easy for them to go round in the atmosphere but the technology to land and take off was lacking..
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
emmmmmmmm open your mind.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes they did.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
o.k i hope i have not upset too many people, hello to every one & i with draw the post..........but live & let live.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The stuff that looks like tin foil is a material to reflect heat and keep the inside cool. Remember they are in a vaccum and there is nothing to filter out the radiation from the sun. The international space station is very hot on the side facing the sun and very cold on the side facing away. By the way, this same material is used by wildfire fighters, in case they get caught in the fire they can wrap up in it and maybe survive the fire. You can also buy this stuff in sporting good stores.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, nobody is upset. its just a discussion and nobody should ever take it as something personal, unless they say something really horrid and attach your name to it. Also, these people who say the moon landings were staged, they also believe that the world is flat, in fact they are called Flat Earthers. Its kinda like this, we have the technology to do just about anything within reason. Why would we have to fake it. Like one doctor said, we have the ability to clone a human, because we dont, doesnt mean we cant. If it was so obviously a fake this country would be up in arms, a lot of money went into those trips and the taxpayers paid for it. Bring anything up for discussion' but never take anything personal.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
look at early travel to the moon and you will know what i mean about tin foil.
YES THE LATEST GEAR IS PERFECT but on the first flight it was crap.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Things improve over time. Stuff is coming out now that had been kept secreat. Did you know that the U2 spy plane had cameras that could count the hairs on Kruchefs head from 100 mile up. Im sure they can do even better now.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its amusing, I saw a show where they were talking to one of the engineers on the manned space flights for NASA, he said that the first computers used to operate the ships didnt have any more memory than a commodore 64. Of course now thay are much bigger. The commodore could do some awsome computing with only 64K of memory.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
sure they can they were primative then, bet they couldnt count the hairs on his head.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
hey brian why are you scratching your head?
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack, I have a telescope, a play thing, 198 dollars if I remember right at Wally world. I can see the rings of Saturn very clear. If they can do that with a toy, think what they could do with a proffessional one. grinding a lens is an old art going back hundreds of years. The finer the grind and the clearer the glass the more powerful it is. Even in the 60s the germans were grinding exceptional lenses for cameras. Because it wasnt avalable on the street didnt mean it didnt exist. the government does a lot of things they dont tell us about.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
I wonder if they ever put a gay man on the moon?
I've read "Hello" magazine. It never mentioned it
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
Kruchef was bald.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian, did you ever count the hairs on Kruschev's head from close up? You'll see that wasn't too good an anology.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I checked, he had hair on the sides, he had male pattern baldness.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Jack
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Then again, who would want to count them.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was a toupée
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He wasnt anywhere near cute. He probably was a fat ugly kid. Thats why he had such a mean disposition.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone who wanted to show off his new telescope.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did you ever see his wife?
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ive only ever seen pics of either of them. She had to be a gold digger cause she didnt marry him for looks.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think he married her for looks, either.
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ProfZodiac
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: United States
Registered: August 2006
Messages: 115
|
|
|
Playing the odds, it's possible, but unlikely. Keep in mind that all the astronauts were military men, Navy or Air Force usually. Missions 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 successfully landed on the moon, and each had two astronauts walk on its surface. No astronaut ever walked twice.
So, if one in ten is true, and there were twelve astronauts who walked on the moon, the odds aren't bad. But if one in ten is high, then I'd say it's very unlikely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
... because we know, on the impeccable authority of Wallace and Gromit, that the moon is made of cheese. Not Wensleydale, admittedly, but definitely cheese.
It follows that Jack is correct in his suspicions, because a heavy spaceship would almost certainly have sunk without trace. Even if it had been lucky enough to land on a particularly hard piece of Cheddar, the heat from the propulsion motors would have converted most of the moon to Welsh Rarebit* on take off. There were no contemporary reports of cheesy drips falling from the moon, even though most of the world was watching it at the time.
It follows that the whole exercise must have been a cunning deception perpetrated by the rebellious colonials!
Seriously, though, I quite enjoy conspiracy theories, and there are several that can't be dismissed out of hand. Still, I don't think that this is one of them, largely for the reasons put forward by Deeej. In particular, the enormous range of spin-off products (Teflon springs to mind) make it clear that the required technology was already emerging. Let alone the computer power on board, I have read in reputable reports that the entire computing power available to NASA at that time was less than that of a reasonable modern lap-top. So what? We have formed the habit of relying upon computers because they can process information quickly and reliably, but jet propulsion was invented the old-fashioned way. Looking back from our present level of technological skill, it's easy to underestimate human ingenuity - but there was plenty of rapid technological advance in the centuries before Alan Turing began to play with the idea of computing.
*For the benefit of rebellious colonials, Welsh Rarebit is melted cheese on toast. It's often called Welsh Rabbit, but Rarebit is pretty much a direct translation of the name of the dish in the Welsh language.
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
|
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13751
|
|
|
Ah conspiracy theories. Like the one that the World Trade Center was a mixture of the untimely arrival of a couple of planeloads of innocent people, followed by the controlled demolition of the buildings by their owner as a gigantic and murderous insurance fraud.
There are none so gullible as those who wish to believe in conspiracy theories.
Until, of course, they are proven to be correct.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
jack
|
|
Likes it here |
Location: England
Registered: September 2006
Messages: 304
|
|
|
well that topic got 36 replys not bad on my first post.
i am not upset by your comments, it was and is an interesting topic.
i actually agree with cossie, out of all the science needed to fly round the moon, we now enjoy some great products, i will leave it a littel while befor we talk on such a technical matter.
i am now going to have a great weekend and i wish you all the same. :-/ ;-D
lots of hugs to my new freinds. re jack.
life is to enjoy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
saben
|
|
On fire! |
Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537
|
|
|
Open your mind too far and it becomes the realm of faith, not science. Some sci-fi geeks are very devoutly athiest, but are really quite faith-seeking people. They don't have a religion to buy into so instead they buy into sci-fi propeganda that has no basis in reality.
I watched 2 different shows last night about alien visitations and abductions. The first was obviously made to try and hype the whole thing and they tried to discredit the views of all the professional scientists, psychiatrists and doctors while at the same time backing up and supporting the views of the mechanics, amateur photographers and foot-doctors that seemed to believe there were aliens abducting people.
The second show was called The Critical Eye and one of the main people they spoke to was the editor of a Skeptics magazine. His point of view was not that we are definitely alone, I don't think many reasonable scientists believe that. Most scientists also believe that there ARE UFOs, that is, unidentified flying objects. But to make the leap in logic that a UFO has to be an alien is pretty naive.
I could go to the beach tomorrow as an unqualified civillian and I could find plenty of USOs (unidentified swimming objects) in the rock pools there. I could take photos of some of these weird creatures and it is highly possible that based on my photos, no-one would be able to identify them! Does mean that there are aliens in our rockpools, it just means that the objects I'm finding are unidentified and my photos aren't of a high enough quality to identify what I'm seeing.
The SETI project tries scientifically to pick up evidence of extra-terestrial life. They use satellites and radars and thousands of computers working together to monitor anomalies in radiowaves and electromagnetic signals. They are open-minded to the idea that life probably DOES exist somewhere out there in the universe, but they understand that we have a very small chance of ever finding out anything about it. They have found nothing yet, but the analogy one of the project co-ordinators used is that when Christopher Columbus set out from Spain, if you asked him on the second day, or the third day, or the fourth day "What have you found? Any new continents yet? Any new trade routes?", he would have replied "Nope, just more water." In our search for aliens I don't believe we have legitimately found anything new yet, just "more water", so to speak. But we might find something one day, or maybe we won't. Maybe we will, but in another 10,000 years time.
Anyway, my main point in posting this was to highlight that an open mind doesn't mean accepting something just because someone says it's true. An open mind means looking at the evidence given and evaluating it logically. You make a lot of claims, jack, but where is the evidence? Personally I don't think this claim is the type that can be proven OR disproven. But logically I am more inclined to believe than disbelieve. The path of least resistance, the idea that makes the most sense is usually the right one.
Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you.
>His point of view was not that we are definitely alone, I don't think many reasonable scientists believe that.
Well, the word "believe" is a difficult one. A scientist can believe that we are alone, but then it's a matter of faith rather than hard science. But, in scientific terms, "There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life" is as far as he can go and still retain his credibility.
>Most scientists also believe that there ARE UFOs, that is, unidentified flying objects
Since there are, without doubt, unidentified flying objects, it's not a case of belief. Any scientist who denies their existence is either using UFOs to mean "aliens" (entirely incorrect, and one of the core problems with the acronym "UFO" -- many people think it does), or is pretty ignorant of the world around him (which makes him a bad scientist). Aircraft (especially light aircraft, microlights, helicopters, balloons) very frequently show up on other people's radar screens: if they have not announced their existence in advance, they are necessarily UFOs until they are identified. Many are never identified, so remain UFOs indefinitely.
As you say, though, "to make the leap in logic that a UFO has to be an alien is pretty naive." It is not naive to accept that there is no evidence, in many cases, to suggest that they are not alien (though of course, quoted out of context, this could be misleading: there is no evidence to suggest they are, either). Unfortunately, most people who claim that they are of alien origin do not have a good grounding in science and mathematics, so cannot appreciate how incredibly unlikely it is that any of them actually are. There has never been a shred of evidence demonstrating either that there is intelligent life outside the earth, nor that an alien craft has ever visited this planet: if even a tiny proportion of so-called "alien UFOs" were real there would almost certainly be at least some.
One of the problems with a calculation of that nature is that it is virtually impossible to put a statistic on how likely life will arise independently; some scientists have worked out the probability to be virtually nil (meaning we are possibly the only life-forms in the universe) while others suggest that it could have sprung up and reached intelligence millions of times. These figures often have a margin of error of several orders of magnitude, so should always be taken with a pinch of salt.
David
|
|
|
|
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
