NASA reproduces a building block of life in the lab

[phyzik]

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3304/uracil-made-in-the-lab

NASA scientists studying the origin of life have reproduced uracil, a key component of our hereditary material, in the laboratory. They discovered that an ice sample containing pyrimidine exposed to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions produces this essential ingredient of life.

Pyrimidine is a ring-shaped molecule made up of carbon and nitrogen and is the basic structure for uracil, part of a genetic code found in ribonucleic acid (RNA). RNA is central to protein synthesis, but has many other roles.

"We have demonstrated for the first time that we can make uracil, a component of RNA, non-biologically in a laboratory under conditions found in space," said Michel Nuevo, research scientist at NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. "We are showing that these laboratory processes, which simulate occurrences in outer space, can make a fundamental building block used by living organisms on Earth."

NASA Ames scientists have been simulating the environments found in interstellar space and the outer solar system for years. During this time, they have studied a class of carbon-rich compounds, called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which have been identified in meteorites, and are the most common carbon-rich compound observed in the universe. PAHs typically are six-carbon ringed structures that resemble fused hexagons, or a piece of chicken wire.

Pyrimidine also is found in meteorites, although scientists still do not know its origin. It may be similar to the carbon-rich PAHs, in that it may be produced in the final outbursts of dying, giant red stars, or formed in dense clouds of interstellar gas and dust.

“Molecules like pyrimidine have nitrogen atoms in their ring structures, which makes them somewhat whimpy. As a less stable molecule, it is more susceptible to destruction by radiation, compared to its counterparts that don’t have nitrogen,” said Scott Sandford, a space science researcher at Ames. “We wanted to test whether pyrimidine can survive in space, and whether it can undergo reactions that turn it into more complicated organic species, such as the nucleobase uracil.”

In theory, the researchers thought that if molecules of pyrimidine could survive long enough to migrate into interstellar dust clouds, they might be able to shield themselves from radiation destruction. Once in the clouds, most molecules freeze onto dust grains (much like moisture in your breath condenses on a cold window during winter).

These clouds are dense enough to screen out much of the surrounding outside radiation of space, thereby providing some protection to the molecules inside the clouds.

Scientists tested their hypotheses in the Ames Astrochemistry Laboratory. During their experiment, they exposed the ice sample containing pyrimidine to ultraviolet radiation under space-like conditions, including a very high vacuum, extremely low temperatures (approximately - 340 degrees Fahrenheit), and harsh radiation.

They found that when pyrimidine is frozen in water ice, it is much less vulnerable to destruction by radiation. Instead of being destroyed, many of the molecules took on new forms, such as the RNA component uracil, which is found in the genetic make-up of all living organisms on Earth.

“We are trying to address the mechanisms in space that are forming these molecules. Considering what we produced in the laboratory, the chemistry of ice exposed to ultraviolet radiation may be an important linking step between what goes on in space and what fell to Earth early in its development,” said Stefanie Milam, a researcher at NASA Ames and a co-author of the research paper.

“Nobody really understands how life got started on Earth. Our experiments demonstrate that once the Earth formed, many of the building blocks of life were likely present from the beginning. Since we are simulating universal astrophysical conditions, the same is likely wherever planets are formed,” explained Sandford.

[clambake]

nasa is not in the bible.

[boutons_deux]

If it ain't the Bible, it ain't true or even possible.

[Cyrano]

I just made a building block of life.....in my pants.

OOPS....wrong thread

[PopeJohnPaulII]

Those who believe this nonsense will spend time in purgatory.

[DarkReign]

My step-father made a joke the other day that made me laugh.

he basically said, "If there is a God, I hope to hell he enforces all the rules religion has put upon itself."

I laughed picturing most Catholics hanging out in purgatory and other Christians being condemned to their hell because they sinned in life, knowing they shouldnt have according to the rules they set upon themselves.

[Wild Cobra]

Hmmm...

Such joking around a significant discover.

I think the article is great.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Hmmm...

Such joking around a significant discover.

I think the article is great.

I know. I can't believe such shenanigans would occur in a thread about such a fantastic discovery.

Shame on all of you.

[mouse]

Wild Cobra must of wet his boxers thinking this may finally be the evidence he needs to continue preaching his bullshit Darwin evolution propaganda.

NASA will say they think there is chocolate milk on Uranus if it means they keep their jobs.

Funny how NASA is so bent on spending billions and billions on finding out where or how we came from but hasn't thought about the life we already know about on earth.

Does it really matter if we find a bunch of unemployed green men on mars, how about doing something worth while and find a cure for Cancer.

[phyzik]

Wild Cobra must of wet his boxers thinking this may finally be the evidence he needs to continue preaching his bullshit Darwin evolution propaganda.

NASA will say they think there is chocolate milk on Uranus if it means they keep their jobs.

Funny how NASA is so bent on spending billions and billions on finding out where or how we came from but hasn't thought about the life we already know about on earth.

Does it really matter if we find a bunch of unemployed green men on mars, how about doing something worth while and find a cure for Cancer.

No chocolate milk in space yet, but they did find alcohol in space. They have estimated the size of this gas cloud at approximately 1,000 times the diameter of our own solar system; there's enough alcohol out there, they say, to make 400 trillion trillion pints of beer. :toast

Who knows, maybe its God's own personal keg or something.... Got to give hope to the thumpers.

I happen to think finding out how life was created and arrived here on earth as a worth while endevor. If we can discern how the building blocks of life came to be, that may lead to not only a cure for cancer but a cure for all diseases, maybe even a "cure" for aging and death.

[LnGrrrR]

Wild Cobra must of wet his boxers thinking this may finally be the evidence he needs to continue preaching his bullshit Darwin evolution propaganda.

NASA will say they think there is chocolate milk on Uranus if it means they keep their jobs.

Thank godness that all other jobs are immune to the above phenomenon, like priests!

[Alex Jones]

Thank godness that all other jobs are immune to the above phenomenon, like priests!

Hopefully your job actually helps mankind everyday unlike NASA.

Who gives a shit about dust busters and Velcro where is the cure for ....
Gulf War Syndrome



http://steadyhealth.com/articles/Gulf_War_Syndrome_a155_f6.html


http://steadyhealth.com/articles/user_files/4542/Image/gulfwar.jpg

[PM5K]

i just made a building block of life.....in my pants.

Oops....wrong thread

l o l

[baseline bum]

Hopefully your job actually helps mankind everyday unlike NASA.

Who gives a shit about dust busters and Velcro where is the cure for ....
Gulf War Syndrome



http://steadyhealth.com/articles/Gulf_War_Syndrome_a155_f6.html


http://steadyhealth.com/articles/user_files/4542/Image/gulfwar.jpg

You do realize your boy Alex Jones is able to broadcast his ignorance live worldwide because of the space program, right? Instead of slashing NASA's budget, we should end the tax exemptions for churches to pay for all the stuff you seem to think NASA is stealing from.

[BlackSwordsMan]

the earth is only 5000 years old

[Cyrano]

the earth is only 5000 years old

Preposterous. The Earth is obviously older than Joan Collins, and she's what.....five million years old?

[mouse]

You do realize your boy Alex Jones is able to broadcast his ignorance live worldwide because of the space program, right?

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio

Sorry to break it to you sugar tits but it was the "USSR" who placed the first satellite in space,and if not for Russian spies your taint sniffing homo's at NASA would never had got off the ground to perform their fake moon landing.

Also radio is over 100 years old stop giving credit to NASA for shit we already had, they didn't invent the telephone and they did not create Sushi.

Put down your limited edition ,over priced space Challenger coffee mug your wife bought off QVC and face the facts,

Also....when your kid is snuggling up to his life size Niel Armstrong pillow at night dreaming of becoming an astronaut, don't forget to someday tell him the truth that the harsh reality is he will never become an Astronaut or work for NASA and will have to finish four years of San Antonio collage just to end up working at wall mart like his father.




Instead of slashing NASA's budget, we should end the tax exemptions for churches to pay for all the stuff you seem to think NASA is stealing from.

How you can bring in religion on a simple matter of wasting good tax payers money shows your desperate or else can't stand God which doesn't bother me the least, but I will say this when was the last time a church you knew spent 60, million dollars on a dune buggy?


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/01/lunar_rover_nasa_580a.jpg

[DMX7]

My only response to this is, "God did it". Check and mate, sir. Check and mate.

[baseline bum]

Wrong!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio

Sorry to break it to you sugar tits but it was the "USSR" who placed the first satellite in space,and if not for Russian spies your taint sniffing homo's at NASA would never had got off the ground to perform their fake moon landing.


Oh yeah, the Soviets were dying to share their technology with us too. So it was the Soviet space program that launched all our communication satellites into orbit? I guess it makes as much sense as your 9-11 and moon landing conspiracy theories.



Also radio is over 100 years old stop giving credit to NASA for shit we already had, they didn't invent the telephone and they did not create Sushi.


I'm sure the Genesis Communications Network would love to hear from you how they don't distribute his show via satellite.





How you can bring in religion on a simple matter of wasting good tax payers money shows your desperate or else can't stand God which doesn't bother me the least, but I will say this when was the last time a church you knew spent 60, million dollars on a dune buggy?


http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2009/01/lunar_rover_nasa_580a.jpg

I thought you were for good use of our tax dollars now. Why do churches deserve welfare from American taxpayers? Why does the preacher get a subsidy from the American taxpayer? Why doesn't his ass go and cure cancer and do something meaningful like you said instead of telling a bunch of fairy tails? NASA spending $60 million to do research on the moon is a hell of a lot better for the country than the Mormon church raising money tax free so they can spend it attacking Americans' civil rights like they did in California's prop 8 vote last year.

[sabar]

How you can bring in religion on a simple matter of wasting good tax payers money shows your desperate or else can't stand God which doesn't bother me the least, but I will say this when was the last time a church you knew spent 60, million dollars on a dune buggy?

I agree, that money is better funneled into churches.

Sincerely,

The Church of Scientology

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra must of wet his boxers thinking this may finally be the evidence he needs to continue preaching his bullshit Darwin evolution propaganda.

Are you really that dumb?

Just because I don't believe in a 6,000 year earth theory, I believe only in evolution?

Sorry Shithead. I am an intelligent design advocate for earth, but was God created or did he evolve?

[resistanze]

I fail to see how this article spawned debate about God/evolution.

[EmptyMan]

We've all seen enough of what we need to see here on this planet. It's time to focus 100% on branching out.



Quite frankly, I think it's time to activate the Star Gate.

[mouse]

Oh yeah, the Soviets were dying to share their technology with us too. So it was the Soviet space program that launched all our communication satellites into orbit? I guess it makes as much sense as your 9-11 and moon landing conspiracy theories.


I never said the soviets launched anything of the USA, if you read my post I said they were years ahead of us in every space program their astronauts were logging in 1,000 hours to the Americans 200 hours more or less.

My point was radio and all the shit you see today was already on here or on it's way since your Sean Hannity worshiping ass pisses red white blue you want to convince yourself America and NASA is responsible for the modern world well go right ahead just don't pepper this forum with lies.

State the facts, radio has been around 100s of years and the first satellite was orbiting the earth long ago while Neil Armstrong was still in high school playing dodge ball with some other white boy wearing extra tight short shots.




I'm sure the Genesis Communications Network would love to hear from you how they don't distribute his show via satellite.

Your still hung up on this satellite radio show. I hope you can bring more to the table to defend NASA than dust busters and radio shows brah!




I thought you were for good use of our tax dollars now. Why do churches deserve welfare from American taxpayers? Why does the preacher get a subsidy from the American taxpayer?

I'm not sure actully I didn't make the rules on who pays taxes and who doesn't maybe you can ask your pals from AIG or your friend Bill O'Reilly
who claims 50% of American don't pay tax's either.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200506100002


I am more interested in how NASA uses a billion dollars to tell us they found a roach egg on Pluto.
I never said i was against Science and technology. I love space exploration I just want us to be fair.

Cure brain cancer, then you get to driver your billion dollar scooters on Mars.

end world hunger, then you get to build your country club on the moon, what is so wrong with that, why are you that arrogant to not see the big picture?





Why doesn't his ass go and cure cancer and do something meaningful like you said instead of telling a bunch of fairy tails?

Those are only fairy tails if you don't believe, kinda like people that don't believe man evolved from a snail think Darwin tells many fairy tails .




NASA spending $60 million to do research on the moon is a hell of a lot better for the country than the Mormon church raising money tax free so they can spend it attacking Americans' civil rights like they did in California's prop 8 vote last year.


First off 60 Million was not the price of NASA going to the Moon.it was 11 Billion. the 60 million was just for "each" land rover aka dune buggy.

And after reading you Mormon and civil rights arguments I have to say you may be in the wrong forum I am here to talk about NASA not MLK or David Koresh

maybe you need to watch a documentary get an idea how NASA fucks the public.

watch the first 30 seconds at least...

BdXtRpCsjp0

[mouse]

Are you really that dumb?

Nice way to start off an adult debate.

this is why no one debates with you anymore in the politics forum.



Just because I don't believe in a 6,000 year earth theory, I believe only in evolution?

You disagree with my findings so your in bed with the Darwin lovers its just the way it goes brah. I didn't make the rules. and I really don't think the earth is 6,000 years old I said it's "not" "4" " Billion" years old like you and your banana eating pals claim, there is a difference.




Sorry Shithead.

nice way to end an adult debate.


I am an intelligent design advocate for earth,

You have shown your intelligence and I don't like the design.



but was God created or did he evolve?

ask Angel luv I am here to talk NASA.

[baseline bum]

You're not here to talk NASA. You're here to shit on anything science-related because it insults you even though you're not paying any of the tax dollars that support it.

[tp2021]

Those are only fairy tails if you don't believe, kinda like people that don't believe man evolved from a snail think Darwin tells many fairy tails .

You are retarded.

I'm not here for "adult debate," I simply saw your ignorant remark, and felt like sharing my sentiment.

[mouse]

You are retarded.

I'm not here for "adult debate," I simply saw your ignorant remark, and felt like sharing my sentiment.


I never replied to your post or quoted you in fact you don't have a post in this topic so who is retarded?

[tp2021]

Not posting in this thread makes me retarded?

I said I saw your ignorant reMARK, not rePLY, so what does not having a previous post in this thread have to do with anything?

Lack of reading comprehension makes you the retard.

If anything, I feel more retarded for posting in this thread.

[mouse]

You're not here to talk NASA.

Funny I say NASA in all my postings. maybe you should read more and reply less.




You're here to shit on anything science-related

I love science, I just don't want science fiction in the school text books. I thought we went over this in the politics forum.



because it insults you even though you're not paying any of the tax dollars that support it.

Every time I go to the VA hospital and have to wait two weeks for lab results or MRI scans I think about my time in the service I think I paid more than enough, the question is have you?

More NASA lies.

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/pk9709nl.htm

[mouse]

Not posting in this thread makes me retarded?

No, but quoting someone who has not replied to you in a topic is.



I said I saw your ignorant reMARK, not rePLY, so what does not having a previous post in this thread have to do with anything?

It has much to do with everything how can i debate someone who shows up and starts insulting me when i had no idea you was part of the conversation?
Is this to difficult to absorb?



Lack of reading comprehension makes you the retard.

Then my posting shouldn't matter if I am mentally ill you should just scroll over me.


If anything, I feel more retarded for posting in this thread.

something we can agree on.

PMax7EGyQSQ

[TDMVPDPOY]

looks like nasa is going to get paid...

each year come up with bs findings to get more funding from govt....

[mouse]

How about a trade off?


Cancer cured?

Go play on Saturn


Parkinson cured?

go play on Jupiter

Didn't your moms make you do your homework or eat before you went to play in your club house?

What is wrong with fixing unemployment here on earth first before we find more life on Mars?


2Saacj6cnIQ

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Wild Cobra must of wet his boxers thinking this may finally be the evidence he needs to continue preaching his bullshit Darwin evolution propaganda.

So, the theory of evolution, which is based on EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE (ie. things that can be observed, tested and proven) gathered by millions of people is "bullshit propoganda", whilst a book of stories created by the human mind and re-written hundreds of times between its original form and what we read today is PURE TRUTH? :lmao

Believe what you like mouse, that's your right, but get your fucking head straight. Science is not propoganda. Religion fits that bill far more closely.

[mouse]

Oh shit who let Kangaroo boy in the topic? Maybe living down under your clock is set differently than ours so I will give you the benefit of the doubt.
read this topic and you will see I have no problem with science i have a problem with bullshit theories that are in the text books and made to look like scientific facts.


Evolution is a "theory" say it ruff say it over and over until it sinks in. actually it's a religion. And it has no purpose being in the "science" text books.

Since your so he;ll bent on Science and what we can see explain to me how your hero scientist claim the rings in the ice are evidence of millions of years and yet a war plane that was that was lost in 1941 and was found 40 years later under "263" feet of ice?

I will be waiting for an answer use this link if you need help.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136687&page=22






The lies Evolutionist's spread everyday!

Ancient Ice

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/Ice%20Layers%202.jpg

Most scientists today believe that various places on this planet, such as Greenland, the Antarctic, and many other places, have some very old ice. The ice in these areas appears to be layered in a very distinctive annual pattern. In fact, this pattern is both visually and chemically recognizable and extends downward some 4,000 to 5,000 meters. What happens is that as the snow from a previous year is buried under a new layer of snow, it is compacted over time with the weight of each additional layer of snow above it. This compacted snow is called the “firn” layer. After several meters this layers snowy firn turns into layers of solid ice (note that 30cm of compacted snow compresses further into about 10cm of ice). These layers are much thinner on the Antarctic ice cap as compared to the Greenland ice cap since Antarctica averages only 5cm of "water equivalent" per year while Greenland averages over 50cm of water equivalent. 1,2 since these layers get even thinner as they are buried under more and more snow and ice, due to compression and lateral flow (see diagram), the thinner layers of the Antarctic ice cap become much harder to count than those of the Greenland ice cap at an equivalent depth. So, scientists feel that most accurate historical information comes from Greenland, although much older ice comes from other drier places. Still, the ice cores drilled in the Greenland ice cap, such as the American Greenland Ice Sheet Project (GISP2) and the European Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP), are felt to be very old indeed - upwards of 160,000 years old.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/AncientIce/ancien4.jpg

http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/tinsley1/drilling.jpg

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/Images/kennedy(2006)-fig.gif

http://www2.cnrs.fr/sites/en/image/1998d00646hd.jpg


Like the coelacanth fish from the previous page. This is another claim made that has been proven wrong. The assumption was that for every light and dark area found in ice, in either the north or south pole. Would represent 1 passing year. And because science has basically cornered the market of doing ice core drills. They figured no one would ever prove them wrong. They basically made this statement about the different colors found in ice cores, without really testing it to make sure. So it was a guess based on a theory (evolution, and the time required for it to happen) that they wanted to support. A theory that was starving for supporting evidence. So evolutionists stuck their foot in their mouth on this one, and are unwilling to admit their mistake. And this mistake is still being taught in every science-evolutionist class in both high school, and college. It is even in the school text books.

Just like the Ernest Haeckel fraud , which by the way will be reprinted and taught again (what next, Piltdown man?). Science refuses to remove the information, unless someone makes them. And like the Stanley Miller experiment. The problems are not mentioned, so that the theory of evolution can for the most part, always go unchallenged.






Just in case some of you still are in the dark scientist claim the layers of each core show how many years the ice is and the rings are solid proof the earth is Billions of years old.

You see these shows on the Discovery channel all the time.

Now for the truth.

BTW The next sound you may hear is the sound of ass cheeks puckering up as the Evolutionist's in this forum know what's coming next..... as I expose this retarded theory they love to teach the children in the classrooms.

http://yecheadquarters.org/images/creation/Slide513_ice_cores.jpg

At first glance you have no reason to doubt the scientist after all how many of you dig in the polar caps for ice? We must take their words as gospel, truth,and facts. what choice do we have?

You do have a choice now. You see in 1941 a plane was lost and 48 years later is was found , are you ready?......................

Under 263 feet of ice! which by the way kills any bullshit Ice core method of dating how old the earth is. So much for your ice ring lies Pat-Na!

I give you ........................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaaa.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aaa-1.jpg

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/aa-1.jpg

[DarkReign]

I mean, no bullshit now, mouse...

You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?

Seriously, now.

[BacktoBasics]

looks like nasa is going to get paid...

each year come up with bs findings to get more funding from govt....I totally agree. If we could cut NASA's funding off we could save a ton of money for things like health care and the wars we wage against Saddams Al Queda.

[BacktoBasics]

I mean, no bullshit now, mouse...

You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?

Seriously, now.He does.

[mouse]

I mean, no bullshit now, mouse...

You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?

Seriously, now.

First off the topic is about NASA, if I start to engage in any debate about the age of the earth I will surely get accused of hijacking the topic or I will have the tree huggers of the forum posting why is this topic starting to be about religion or God even though it is not me who is bringing it up.

Why can't people go back and see that the topics that I am participating in have other posters who make the first insults or change the subject, all people see are my world class come backs and fresh ground breaking smack.

They assume it was me who starts all the shit. I enter every topic with the intentions of adding to it brining humor and photo shop skills. It's the sex deprived taint sniffers aka mouse haters that can't control themselves and feel they need to form an angry mob and start casting stones in my direction.





But to answer your question.



You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?

Seriously, now.


Does it really matter what I believe? Not to get off the NASA subject but I am about lies in the students text books. Just because I drink beer and Smoke pot doesn't mean I want it in the text books telling kids its ok to do. If i love to masturbate and worship Satan That doesn't mean I want kids to think it's cool.

I don't think the earth is 10,000 years old but I know for a fact it's not in the Billions like your Darwin worshiping scientist claim. You know a scientist is only as smart as his teacher and the scientist before him or her.

Just because you are a scientist doesn't mean you have a magic 8 ball and you have all the answers. back in the 40s and 50s scientist claimed tobacco was good for you and promoted smoking Lucky Strikes. They also claimed Asbestos is not harmful. Scientist are always having to take back what they say.

So if you can't look at a burning comet that scientist claim can only burn for 10.000 years then why would we still have them billions of years later?

It is a question scientist had to answer so they created the "oort cloud" this made up cloud no one has seen to explain why there are still comets today.

You people get on the bible Thumper's for making up stories about Noah and the flood and yet you can create the Oort Cloud?

You ask the tour guide at the Dinosaur museum how they know how old a fossil is they say it depends on how deep it was buried they pull out the Strata theory card, they say a Fossils age is determined by where in the strata it is found. if you ask how do you know how old that layer of Strata is they say they can tell by which fossil they found.

that is what we call...


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-240637.png

You people can believe as you wish, you think the earth is a trillion years old fine by me, you want to believe we evolved from a frog because some man in the 1800's writes a book thats your right, but don't call it science and keep the lies out of the text books.

[Cyrano]

Daaaaaaaaaaaamn, Mouse!
I go away for a couple of years, come back, and you're having the SAME DAMN ARGUMENT you were having when I left!

[mouse]

So your saying I am reliable and also consistent? What does that say about the same people who are on the other side of the argument?

People have been debating God,religion, the real age of the earth, and Abortions for years why stop now?

I suggest you put down the pork skins and maybe add something to the topic or sit back and watch me wax another Atheist ass.

You see the problem with Evolution is it teaches us how life evolves for the better.

If that was true why would we lose our tails? There are many times I wish I had a tail.

Just think you can drive your car as you drink coffee and hold a joint or a cigarette.

You get home with both arms full of groceries ........................




http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-266276.png

[phyzik]

As far as the mission to the moon goes, Mythbusters confirmed that a flag can wave in a vacuum. In fact they got the exact specifications of the flag pole from NASA and put in in a vacuum chamber and it reacted the exact same way shown in your little conspiracy theory video.

Not only that, they debunked every other conspiracy theory regarding the lunar landing.

I suppose Mythbusters are in on the conspiracy as well now.

dKw9uquw5is

[JoeChalupa]

Interesting discovery.

[DarkReign]

Ok, just making sure to avoid you on this subject.

[Cyrano]

First, I have never eaten pork rinds in my life.
Second, even a BAD standup comedian writes some new material once in a while. Unless he's Mencia, in which case he just turns on a tape recorder at another standup's gig.
Just sayin'.

[PM5K]

Great

[mouse]

I suppose Mythbusters are in on the conspiracy as well now.

dKw9uquw5is

Mythbusters are in bed with NASA.

Sorry to bust your man love fantasy bubble you have for your heroes at Mythbusters but they have admitted to working as special effect editors prior to their new show and have been exposed for tricking the public.

"MythBusters--using tools and materials in ways for which they were not intended."


every trade has its tricks. We've developed many of ours during years spent designing special effects for movies and commercials. That work has given us some real insights into tools and materials.



Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum
http://fliiby.com/file/392977/11l7gg2h32.html

[mouse]

First, I have never eaten pork rinds in my life.


So you never had oral sex with your wife?

Is that the comedy your looking for?

[mouse]

MIT proves Mythbusters wrong! Archimedes could have had a death ray afterall
Posted by on January 24th 2007 to Jedi Knights of Science, Science Questions Answered

One of the great science mysteries of the ancient world is the famous Archimedes Death Ray. The gist is Greek soldiers using highly polished shields to focus the Sun’s rays on an enemy ship and cause it to burst into flame. Of course, this is based on the always fun magnifying glass and Sun trick (which has caused untold carnage to insects). Mythbusters tried to make the Death Ray and said it was busted. Well leave it to geeks at MIT to prove them wrong.

Mythbusters DEAD WRONG on Airplane

http://mcgonnigle.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/mythbusters-dead-wrong-on-airplane-on-a-conveyor-belt/


Could the Mythbusters be wrong?

http://www.sephyroth.net/2008/01/could-the-mythbusters-be-wrong/

I don’t think there’s anyone who hasn’t seen the antics of Jamie and Adam on Discovery’s extremely popular program Mythbusters (by the way, if you didn’t know, the show is actually made by Beyond Productions Pty. Ltd., an Australian company with branches around the world). Usually, they can be the definitive source on whether something is true or not. However, they’re not perfect, and they know it.

[mouse]

Please tell me your not resting all your hopes in proving NASA really landed on the moon by a bunch of wannabe Steven Spielberg's.
:lmao

Mythbusters Revisited

http://www.tvsquad.com/2005/10/17/mythbusters-mythbusters-revisited/

Mythbusters wrong about something?

http://litwc.com/2007/05/11/mythbusters-wrong-about-something/

you want more?

[phyzik]

Mythbusters DEAD WRONG on Airplane

http://mcgonnigle.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/mythbusters-dead-wrong-on-airplane-on-a-conveyor-belt/


Could the Mythbusters be wrong?

http://www.sephyroth.net/2008/01/could-the-mythbusters-be-wrong/

OMG are you serious? That guy is the one thats DEAD WRONG.

try to stay with me Mouse...

The whole myth is about can a plane take off if it was on a never ending conveyor belt..... It's not about getting actual lift from the engine's propellers wind output.

The wheels are not what propel the plane forward, the propeller does. The conveyor belt has no effect on the propellers, therefore, no matter how fast you pull the conveyor belt, the plane is still going to move forward (unless the tires burst from sheer speed).

As far as the lift part of the myth, the second the plane started to move forward, you know it was eventually going to lift off, but a conveyor belt that long just wasn't conceivable.

Its simple physics. How anyone doesn't get it is beyond me. :lmao

As far as the speed camera. The myth was busted because its not reasonable to expect someone to be able to reach those speeds on a city street.

Did you also notice that your little precious links to try and help you save face cite Mythbusters as probably the most definitive source for answers to these myths? Maybe they do get a few wrong once in a while, they are still the go to guys.

Keep reaching though Mouse, anything to keep your fragile psyche from fracturing into a million pieces.

[mouse]

Article: MYTHBUSTERS EXPOSED: HOW A SPECIAL EFFECTS CREW OPENED THE MOST IMPORTANT NEW FRONT IN THE BATTLE FOR SCIENCE LITERACY


wsJWixMEmDs

[mouse]

OMG are you serious? That guy is the one thats DEAD WRONG.

.

Then go after him. why do you try to kill the messenger?

If your NASA loving ass is so passionate tell me why NASA used 1940's black and white film to record the greatest accomplishment man has ever archived?

We had good quality color film back in 1969, hell even the astronauts own home footage they took themselves was in color and clear. could it be NASA wanted the old black and white grainy film to help hide there bullshit moon landing?

[Wild Cobra]

I mean, no bullshit now, mouse...

You dont really believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, do you?

Seriously, now.
I gave up on him. He has some serious issues understanding simple facts.

[mouse]

I gave up on him. He has some serious issues understanding simple facts.


Translation: I get my ass kicked by mouse on many debates.

This coming from a person who still thinks a few office desks on fires brought down WTC7.

speaking of simple facts how is your Darwin theories holding out in the politics forum?

:lmao

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/bat-manu2.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Translation: I get my ass kicked by mouse on many debates.

No, I OWNED you on the topic before, and you were to ignorant to realize it.


This coming from a person who still thinks a few office desks on fires brought down WTC7.

No, it was structural damage and heat. I have some sound understandings involving construction materials.

Tell you what.

Take a cube of butter sometime out of the refrigerator and notie that it's hard and firm. That's sort of like steel at any livable temperature. Now let the butter warm up to room temperature. It becomes soft. Steel becomes soft at the temperature of fires. Buildings are built to withstand this loss of structural strength at such temperatures. However, when you break the structure, and then weaken the remaining structure with heat....

Sorry, it wasn't designed for both.


speaking of simple facts how is your Darwin theories holding out in the politics forum?

What's funny is I'm usually arguing for the creation, as intelligent design. Not against it. I just find it insane that anyone can believe the earth is only 6,000 or 10,000 years old.

I have also stated I do believe in evolution. Just not as an explanation for us, without the help of design.

Do you even comprehend my viewpoint, or are you still stuck on stupid?

[phyzik]

Then go after him. why do you try to kill the messenger?

If your NASA loving ass is so passionate tell me why NASA used 1940's black and white film to record the greatest accomplishment man has ever archived?

We had good quality color film back in 1969, hell even the astronauts own home footage they took themselves was in color and clear. could it be NASA wanted the old black and white grainy film to help hide there bullshit moon landing?

Mouse, your getting desperate.

Do you realise how fucking MASSIVE those color camera's where back then? They where moved around on dolleys in the production studios. Here's an example of a portable color video camera in 1975, 6 years after the landing.

http://www.labguysworld.com/ChromaVue-550_001.jpg

Portable camera's of the day where large and carried over the shoulder with a belt pack. I presume it's not exactly easy to do that in one of those suits.

Nevermind the fuel to weight factor. The engineers at Grumen actually got rid of the chairs in the lander just to save on weight. The astronauts flew it while standing up. You want them to bring color video camera's?

Also, That pretty little weight-saving digital camera of yours? the first of that little piece of tech was developed for the Apollo missions. The technology was so new that the CCDs were only black and white.

[phyzik]

Here's a website for you mouse, its a customer I used to support when I worked for Texas.net

http://www.stopcovertwar.com/enter2.html

She too thought the government was following her in black vehicles and believes in all sorts of loopy shit just like you. Maybe she can help you find the snitch!

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse, your getting desperate.

Do you realise how fucking MASSIVE those color camera's where back then? They where moved around on dolleys in the production studios. Here's an example of a portable color video camera in 1975, 6 years after the landing.

Portable camera's of the day where large and carried over the should with a belt pack. I presume it's not exactly easy to do that in one of those suits.

Nevermind the fule to weight factor. The engineers at Grumen actually got rid of the chairs in the lander just to save on weight. The astronauts flew it while standing up. You want them to bring color video camera's?

Also, That pretty little weight-saving digital camera of yours? the first of that little piece of tech was developed for the Apollo missions. The technology was so new that the CCDs were only black and white.
It's pointless. No matter what facts you present, Mouse finds away not to believe them.

That's just the camera. The video recording equipment was rather large too.

[Wild Cobra]

1967 Sony CV-2000D First Consumer Videocorder (http://www.labguysworld.com/Sony_CV-2000D.htm)

B&W Video Reorder:

http://www.labguysworld.com/CV-2000_024.jpg


The CV-5100 was the only color model of the series. It never went into production. Only 25 prototype models were produced in about 1967 or 68 for the IRE trade show

There's a color version (CV-5600) for the era, later in the years. Damn thing's more than a foot wide, probably about 18" to 24" and is heavy. I remember seeing these in school:

http://www.labguysworld.com/CV-5600_006.jpg

[mouse]

Mouse, your getting desperate.

You want to talk desperate? You making excuse for NASA not spending money on color cameras? Jesus your really bias you have a relative that lives in Houston?

Did a dust buster save you from getting busted having a live sheep in your bedroom? Do you feel you owe it to NASA to toss their salad 24/7



Do you realize how fucking MASSIVE those color camera's where back then? They where moved around on dolleys in the production studios. Here's an example of a portable color video camera in 1975, 6 years after the landing.

http://www.labguysworld.com/ChromaVue-550_001.jpg

Portable camera's of the day where large and carried over the shoulder with a belt pack. I presume it's not exactly easy to do that in one of those suits.


Wrong!

You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.

http://investigativeproducts.com/pivintage/images/pivmovie.jpg

Besides the astronauts had mounted cameras.

put down the lone star beer and take a look.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/photospecials/graph/apollo/4.jpg

[mouse]

. I remember seeing these in school:



You remember seeing the van allen radiation belts which prohibits man from going to the moon that is way the Russians didn't?

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/exhibit/e4.gif

or do you have selective memory like in your 9/11 debates?


BdXtRpCsjp0


go to 340/905 on the film

[phyzik]

You want to talk desperate? You making excuse for NASA not spending money on color cameras? Jesus your really bias you have a relative that lives in Houston?

Did a dust buster save you from getting busted having a live sheep in your bedroom? Do you feel you owe it to NASA to toss their salad 24/7




Wrong!

You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.

http://investigativeproducts.com/pivintage/images/pivmovie.jpg

Besides the astronauts had mounted cameras.

put down the lone star beer and take a look.

http://mdn.mainichi.jp/photospecials/graph/apollo/4.jpg

whoops! they did have color camera's! I thought you where referiing to video camera's hence why I mentioned CCD's.

Also, with the picture you used, how about that resolution? I doubt color camera's had that kind of resolution. That camera thats mounted on his chest is a still image camera, not a video recorder.

what now?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/ls_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/aldrin_lm_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/aldrin_ladder_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/lrr_pse_lg.gif

[mouse]

whoops!

what now?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/ls_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/aldrin_lm_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/aldrin_ladder_lg.gif

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/lrr_pse_lg.gif


Thanks for proving my point.

Don't be so gullible those photos are after they came to earth and used photo shop. If they had such good color film why is this what the world saw when they landed?
http://www.allword-news.co.uk/images/Nasa%20Restores%20Moon%20Landing%20Film.jpg

and how about the cross hairs +s on the film why are they "behind the objects?

http://www.alien-ufos.com/img/govmilapollohoax/crosshair1.jpg

[mouse]

sS3uvfzOJE8

hey phyzik since you know so much about NASA why no stars in the films?

[phyzik]

:lol

Mouse, your impossible to please, It's painfully obvious that no matter what I provide, Wild Cobra has it right.

Im done arguing with you, of course you can go ahead and feel like you won the arguement, which isnt the case. There is plenty of proof that we did, in fact, land on the moon. you just choose to be one of the few conspiracy theorist who refuse to believe anything no matter what facts are presented. There's no arguing with you, you will always have some crazy conspiracy theory item to point towards.

It's enough for me that you are in the minority with shit like this, therefore I win. no point to argue anymore with a crazy person.

I can see a few stars in some of the pictures I posted btw, for instance, the first image, look to the left, just above the horizon of the moon, there are 2 specs of light, you can make those out because the sun is practically behind them. Also, if you notice, the sun is "up" on the moon, it pretty much drowns out any other light that would be out there. The sky is black because it has no atmosphere. Can you see stars on a bright day on earth? If we had no atmposphere it would be black too... if the sun was up, we wouldnt see them.

as a parting gesture, contemplate this video.

5C5_dOEyAfk

that only happens in a vacuum

[Cyrano]

So you never had oral sex with your wife?

Is that the comedy your looking for?

That's beneath you, Mouse.
At least it used to be.
She came out of her coma about ten days ago, BTW.

[Alex Jones]

Are you the Cyrano (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7137) from PMSA?

[mouse]

:lol

Mouse, your impossible to please,

You don't have to please me just admit you don't have all the answers


It's painfully obvious that no matter what I provide, Wild Cobra has it right.

I could say the same, why should your youtube videos and online links be ok but mine are not?


Im done arguing with you, of course you can go ahead and feel like you won the arguement, which isnt the case.

I don't have to win I just have to make my point and as an american I have that right, it's only backwoods simple minded rednecks like you and wild cobra that want to take that freedom away from me, I post the obvous, The united States had no choice but to put a man on the moon the nations security depended on it.

This nation is known to deceive the public in order to get what they want.

In World War II inflatable tanks were used to deceive the enemy.
http://www.generalpatton.org/D-Day/images/InflatableTank.jpg

http://www.generalpatton.org/D-Day/Patton_Dday.htm


There is plenty of proof that we did, in fact, land on the moon

And there is the same amount of proof that shows the complete opposite.





you just choose to be one of the few conspiracy theorist who refuse to believe anything no matter what facts are presented.

Your wrong there are millions of people everyday who think this nation lied to the world about the Apollo moon landing, why not look at the complete movie of the links I posted before you get on your Niel Armstrong soap box?



There's no arguing with you, you will always have some crazy conspiracy theory item to point towards.

Why must you always use the word crazy when you say conspiracy theory/

I bet your ancestors were the ones telling the wright brothers not to bother building a plane they were crazy.

I suppose your pappy in the 50s thought people who talked about wireless phones and computers were on drugs?

Just because this is to much form your simple mind to absorb don't be so fast to insult others.



It's enough for me that you are in the minority with shit like this, therefore I win. no point to argue anymore with a crazy person.

Sure what ever you say your the winner go PM Kori and receive another http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/icons/blackaward.gif under your name.

I don't have to win I know hard headed people like you who supported Bush still think WMDs are still in Iraq that is your choice more power to you Good luck! :tu



I can see a few stars in some of the pictures

Then why did all three astronauts say they didn't see any stars when they did there press conference? How come your not e-mailing NASA with this earth shattering new evidence you have uncovered?



I posted btw, for instance, the first image, look to the left, just above the horizon of the moon, there are 2 specs of light, you can make those out because the sun is practically behind them. Also, if you notice, the sun is "up" on the moon, it pretty much drowns out any other light that would be out there. The sky is black because it has no atmosphere. Can you see stars on a bright day on earth? If we had no atmosphere it would be black too... if the sun was up, we wouldnt see them.

Sorry brah but they have special cameras that can take pictures with no light and too much light, its all about how you set the lens, also why didn't the astronauts take a telescope? Man is finally further into space than ever before and he forgets to bring a telescope? who writes this shit?

The reason they didn't bring one and the reason you don't see stars is because trying to duplicate the the star patterns and formations would have been impossible any mistake could have been spotted by an amature astronomer. You notice they never take the camera and pan around? and they never look up?


as a parting gesture, contemplate this video.

5C5_dOEyAfk

that only happens in a vacuum

I see you get to post videos and look like a sound professional, I post a video and look like a bigfoot conspiracy nut?

How come you never answered my question about the dangerous Van Allen radiation belts? Every space walk and experiment in space has been miles below the radiation belts because they can kill you. Why do you think no one since has gone to the moon? Don't you find it odd no man has gone to mars?

This country can't even make a 10 Billion Hubble telescope with a working lens and you think they could fly to the moon on there first try?
http://www.livescience.com/space/090510-hubble-telescope-poll.html

what weed are you smoking? sell me some of that shit!

Do me a favor I watched your cheesy propaganda film now watch "a funny thing happened on the way to the moon"
and get back to me.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&resnum=0&q=a%20funny%20thing%20happened%20on%20the%20way%20 to%20the%20moon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDeoBcVQSp4&feature=related

CDeoBcVQSp4

[Cyrano]

Are you the Cyrano (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=7137) from PMSA?

The one and only.

[Wild Cobra]

Why do I bother?


Wrong!

You know how many color cameras were used by the spies that could fit into a cigarett lighter? here are just a few color cameras from the 60s I don't see a probblem carring them around.

http://investigativeproducts.com/pivintage/images/pivmovie.jpg

There was a black and white video camera, a still camera, and I think a 16mm camera sent. The video camera was bulky and able to send images in almost real time. There was about a second delay. The only color images could only be processes after they got back to earth. Kind of hard to send film images by radio in the 60's. Now even the color cameras used were heavier than any state of the art camera because it had to be shielded from the radiation, or else the film would be useless.


You remember seeing the van allen radiation belts which prohibits man from going to the moon that is way the Russians didn't?

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/exhibit/e4.gif

or do you have selective memory like in your 9/11 debates?

If you took the time to do a little research, the 1/8" thick aluminum capsule was just fine to protect them form the short exposure in the belt.



BdXtRpCsjp0


go to 340/905 on the film
All these are explained. 3:40 and 9:05 claims are not true. You believe the lying bitch? The video of this propaganda states something as fact, but doesn't back it up.


whoops! they did have color camera's! I thought you where referiing to video camera's hence why I mentioned CCD's.

Also, with the picture you used, how about that resolution? I doubt color camera's had that kind of resolution. That camera thats mounted on his chest is a still image camera, not a video recorder.

what now?
Yep. They were film cameras, not video.
Even the video camera used could not be regular video format. They had to project it on a screen to be captured by a NTSC camera for broadcast. Any idea how hard it is to send a minimum 4 MHZ intelligence carrier signal from the moon, with 60's technology? It either had to be sent at a slower tape speed, or sent in low resolution. Color was completely out of the question for the extra bandwidth and signal to noise ratio requirements.

[Wild Cobra]

and how about the cross hairs +s on the film why are they "behind the objects?
It's called saturation, or "washout."

It is a common thing that happens on the Earth too.

[mouse]

It's called saturation, or "washout."

It is a common thing that happens on the Earth too.



washout?

Dam wild cobra your really reaching for shit now! :lmao

I suppose a rock with a the letter C on it to identify it as Hollywood props is mysteriously missing in another photo? I guess that wash out guy is real busy.

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg


So we can move on I will let you slide on the cross hairs although it's all bullshit that certain cross hairs are going to be missing in certain areas like a photo just happens to know when to washout as you call it.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/fadenkreuz-unvollstaendig01-bei-mondmobil-apollo-16-AS16-107-17446.jpg

The fotos are so perfectly arranged and illuminated that they cannot be made by "moon astronauts" when the astronauts cannot even look through the seeker and the camera shall have been fixed on the chest. Many fotos are simple foto compositions e.g. with missing shadows and are no contribution for a "moon landing".


Explain this.

Fotos with landing feet without dust on it
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/013-apollo-11-AS11-40-5918-Landefuss-der-mondlandefaehre-o-staub-33pr.jpg

Foto of the landing foot without dust: AS 11-40-5918.

[But there is much moon dust around the foot].

After a landing with a rocket engine this arrangement of the dust is impossible, because after a big cloud of dust the dust also had to fall on the landing foot.

So, because of the contradictions there is the urgent suspicion that the Lunar Module has landed with a crane on the fresh arranged studio soil (Wisnewski, p.162),

[whereas there was forgotten to make preparations for the landing feet with "moon dust"].


When your done explain this,

The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/024-apollo-16-AS16-117-18841-familienfoto-v-Charles-Duke-in-plastik-eingeschweisst-25pr.jpg


Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167).

Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst
-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon
-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).


Let me know if you need more photos. I can't wait to post the ones showing the same exact backgrounds for supposedly separate moon missions.


OzH4iSRZYgI

[mouse]

You believe the lying bitch

Your comment shows your ignorance and lack of control when you have your back against the wall in all the debates I kick your ass in.

that so called "lying bitch" as you call her is Anne Tonelson a respected film narrator and has nothing to do with the facts you can't debunk don't get mad at her because your upset you have no other outlet so you try to use another ploy that you and your pat-na Chum Dumper use to kill the messenger so that it will makes the message invalid. It didn't work for Michael Moore and it won't work now.

2NQ3U-B95es

[Wild Cobra]

Hey mouse...

I have a bridge I'll sell you for cheap.


washout?

Dam wild cobra your really reaching for shit now! :lmao

I suppose a rock with a the letter C on it to identify it as Hollywood props is mysteriously missing in another photo? I guess that wash out guy is real busy.

http://www.conspiracy-theories-hoax.com/images/c.jpg

This has been properly. I'm not going to look this one up again.



So we can move on I will let you slide on the cross hairs although it's all bullshit that certain cross hairs are going to be missing in certain areas like a photo just happens to know when to washout as you call it.
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/fadenkreuz-unvollstaendig01-bei-mondmobil-apollo-16-AS16-107-17446.jpg

Yes, the bright white washes out the fine black lines. Ever shoot thousands of film shots with a 35mm? Well, I have. This does happen. Ask any professional photographer.


The fotos are so perfectly arranged and illuminated that they cannot be made by "moon astronauts" when the astronauts cannot even look through the seeker and the camera shall have been fixed on the chest. Many fotos are simple foto compositions e.g. with missing shadows and are no contribution for a "moon landing".

All explained in the past. Sorry you don't have the education to understand the reasons.



Explain this.

Fotos with landing feet without dust on it
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/013-apollo-11-AS11-40-5918-Landefuss-der-mondlandefaehre-o-staub-33pr.jpg

Foto of the landing foot without dust: AS 11-40-5918.

[But there is much moon dust around the foot].

After a landing with a rocket engine this arrangement of the dust is impossible, because after a big cloud of dust the dust also had to fall on the landing foot.

So, because of the contradictions there is the urgent suspicion that the Lunar Module has landed with a crane on the fresh arranged studio soil (Wisnewski, p.162),

[whereas there was forgotten to make preparations for the landing feet with "moon dust"].

Sorry, fail again. Dust doesn't fall on the moon like it does on the earth. There is no atmosphere to swirl it around. Every trace of dust was blasted away by the landing rocket, before the LM landed.


When your done explain this,

The impossible family foto of astronaut Charlie Duke

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/22_mondfotos-o-mondfotograf-d/024-apollo-16-AS16-117-18841-familienfoto-v-Charles-Duke-in-plastik-eingeschweisst-25pr.jpg


Astronaut Charles Duke is said having left a family foto "on the moon" shrink-wrapped in plastic. This shall document a "family story" on the foto AS 16-117-18841 (Wisnewski, S.167).

Contradictions:
-- without atmosphere the shrink-wrapping would swell and burst

Bullshit. Shrink-wrapping removes the air. Therefore, no air to burst it.

-- during the strong sun on the moon the foto would bleach soon
It takes oxygen to bleach something.


-- with a minimum of 100°C on the moon the foto would convolve immediately (experiment oven).

Really?

Was it tested in an oven with no atmosphere?

Paper holds up to 451 degrees in our atmosphere With none on the moon, why should such things happen?


Let me know if you need more photos. I can't wait to post the ones showing the same exact backgrounds for supposedly separate moon missions.


OzH4iSRZYgI

Simple. That hill is far away. The shadows of the first several are all the same direction indicating the hill is several more miles away and seen from all the vantage points.

Which hill is it? Why isn't it marked on the map? And... where are the links the video promised?

Funny. I live near the cascade mountains here in Oregon. No matter where I go in the area, if I can see Mt. Hood.. It looks the same! I see all the same features.

Is my Mt. Hood magically moving some how?

Bring on the others if you want to be schooled some more.

[mouse]

Before I continue this debate do I have any data on your FTP server?

And will you belittle me if I used to mow lawns?

[Wild Cobra]

Before I continue this debate do I have any data on your FTP server?
No.

That would be a bit hard since I don't have a server.

And will you belittle me if I used to mow lawns?
No. I used to also. It was a nice way to make money between the ages of 10 to 12 before I got a paper route.

[Wild Cobra]

Hey Mouse.


How about looking at the various topics Myth Busters did related to busting Moon Hoax propaganda. Here's one:

Wym04J_3Ls0

[Wild Cobra]

Happy Birthday Mouse. Here's another gift:

DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? (http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm)

[DarkReign]

No. I used to also. It was a nice way to make money between the ages of 10 to 12 before I got a paper route.

:lmao

I dont have a dog in this fight, but cmon, thats funny. WC innocently answers a very loaded question.

[mouse]

No.

That would be a bit hard since I don't have a server.

I had to ask, It seems according to phyzik to be important when debating NASA.




No. I used to also. It was a nice way to make money between the ages of 10 to 12 before I got a paper route.

#1
Don't talk down to people who mow lawns ,make beds, or bus tables for a living. There are certain things you don't do make fun of someone struggling to support his or her kids, or people who may suffer from a medical problems such as Cancer ect...try and show some class even though I have yet to see you show any in the last few years you post at ST.

Tpark is an exception he works as a carnie and he loves to talk shit he brings the funnel cake and tilt a whirl smack to the table so we use it.

He brags about how much money he has and can't decide which fancy hotel to stay in when he is in Paris to pick up his 2012 Ram truck where he forgot his masters degree in the glove box next to his court side season Spurs tickets.

Ask anyone at this site he draws first blood in all his postings.


#2 The reason I mowed lawns a friend of mine who owns a karate studio had a landscaping business and some of his employee's quit on him, since he was going to go in business with me when i was remodeling homes I offered to help him. Hey it was a cool way to get out of the house and help out a friend.

Since Kori and LJ have been sponsoring me in submitting my art work at 125.00 a pop I offered to pay them back kori said no thank you but you can help LJ around the house so I offered to mow her lawn.

Unlike you I don't get embarrassed getting my hands dirty. For the last 8 years I have been paying 450.00 a month in child support and I am retired from the Army so I fix laptops on the side and help people with various projects so I can stay busy and maybe help support my nasty pot smoking habit I had since 1977. I'm sure a person like you that walks on water wouldn't know anything about nasty habits.

But I am curious the Myst busters show is rather new I am just wondering how you went about proving NASA landed on the moon prior to the show.

Or did you have doubts? I already exposed your Holly Wood special effects guys on page two go back and read how they rig many of their experiments.

You can't possibly think that two guys in a makeshift laboratory with special effects props is going to convince me or anyone else NASA went to the moon when the man himself (Neil Armstrong) supposedly was the first to step on the moon won't do any interviews and has to hide in order to keep this huge lie a secret?

go ahead and keep posting your Myst buster links maybe they can convince you that the tooth fairy did leave that quarter under your pillow.

BTW why do you keep avoiding this?

go to 445/10:03

wsJWixMEmDs

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

I dont have a dog in this fight, but cmon, thats funny. WC innocently answers a very loaded question.
Hmmm...

I have no idea what that term is applied for other than cutting grass. Sorry if I don't understand the perverse version of generation X, or where ever this term comes from.

Did liberals change yet another term that maybe they never did, tp a derogatory term?

[Wild Cobra]

Don't talk down to people who mow lawns ,make beds, or bus tables for a living. There are certain things you don't do make fun of someone struggling to support his or her kids, or people who may suffer from a medical problems such as Cancer ect...try and show some class even though I have yet to see you show any in the last few years you post at ST.

I don't put people down for their jobs. I put them down for their attitude.


The reason I mowed lawns a friend of mine who owns a karate studio had a landscaping business and some of his employee's quit on him, since he was going to go in business with me when i was remodeling homes I offered to help him. Hey it was a cool way to get out of the house and help out a friend.

Since Kori and LJ have been sponsoring me in submitting my art work at 125.00 a pop I offered to pay them back kori said no thank you but you can help LJ around the house so I offered to mow her lawn.

I have no problem with such activities.


Unlike you I don't get embarrassed getting my hands dirty.
What makes you think I do?

For the last 8 years I have been paying 450.00 a month in child support and I am retired from the Army so I fix laptops on the side and help people with various projects so I can stay busy and maybe help support my nasty pot smoking habit I had since 1977.
Well, my children are grown now, but I was paying $867 a month in 2002. Glad my kids are grown.

I'm sure a person like you that walks on water wouldn't know anything about nasty habits.

That depends on what someone considers nasty. I used to smoke, but quit old turkey in 2000.

As for the pot habit, I wish I had a job that I could risk to smoke it daily.


But I am curious the Myst busters show is rather new I am just wondering how you went about proving NASA landed on the moon prior to the show.

Myth Buster tests and tries to debunk things. They don't prove something happened, only that it's not impossible.

They clearly show several things that people like you claim about the moon landing as impossible, to in fact, be very possible.


You can't possibly think that two guys in a makeshift laboratory with special effects props is going to convince me or anyone else NASA went to the moon when the man himself (Neil Armstrong) supposedly was the first to step on the moon won't do any interviews and has to hide in order to keep this huge lie a secret?

Watch the arious video's and see for yourself.

See the flag move in a vacuum simulation. See how mood dirt leaves impressions. See how the shadows align correctly rather than two light sources, etc, etc, etc. They debunk all the major claims.


BTW why do you keep avoiding this?

go to 445/10:03

wsJWixMEmDs

Avoid it? Not at all. That is the stupidest claim of all. The Van Allen belt is primarily high energy protons, which the aluminum of the capsule shields just fine for the short time they travel through the belt! There are different types of radiation you know. We aren't talking about they type of radiation you find in a nuclear power plant.

As for the video, seen it before. If I recall, Myth Busters debunk all but one of those claims.

Oh...

Is this the image they manipulated? Too clear for me to believe that:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Apollo/GPN-2000-001138.jpg (http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001138.jpg)

[Wild Cobra]

One more thing. Remember how I said in an earlier post that a live video signal could not be feed to the broadcasters. They disn't have sophisticated DSPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal_processor) like we do today to convert video formats in real time. In fact, the projection method was all they had those many years ago. Food for though, if you understand it. I knew this to be the case 30 years ago. At the time, I was studying to be a communications technician:

One Giant Screwup for Mankind (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/nasa.html); an excerpt:

Building a camera that could survive the crushing g forces of liftoff and then function in near-weightlessness on the moon was only part of the challenge for Lebar. The portion of the broadcast spectrum traditionally used for video was sending vital ship data to Earth, and there was no room left for the standard black-and-white video format of the era: 525 scan lines of data at 30 frames per second, transmitted at 4.5 MHz. So Lebar helped devise a smaller "oddball format" – 320 scan lines at 10 fps, transmitted at a meager 500 kHz. Tracking stations back on Earth would take this so-called slow-scan footage, convert it for TV broadcast, and beam it to Mission Control, which would send it out for the world to see.

And that was the easy part. To ensure a direct transmission signal from the moon, NASA had to maintain stations in three continents – two in Australia (the Honeysuckle Creek Tracking Station near Canberra and the Parkes Radio Observatory surrounded by sheep paddocks west of Sydney); one at the Goldstone Deep Space Communications Complex in the Mojave Desert of California; and one at the Madrid Manned Flight Tracking Site in Spain.

[mouse]

I don't put people down for their jobs. I put them down for their attitude.

Then why bring up the mowing? You used it as an insult saying that is something 10-12 year olds do.

And what attitude must I have to avoid such ridicule as you say?

I want to make sure I play by your rules so I can debate you w/o the insults.





Well, my children are grown now, but I was paying $867 a month in 2002. Glad my kids are grown.

Did they leave the house believing in Darwin like their father?


That depends on what someone considers nasty. I used to smoke, but quit old turkey in 2000.

out of choice or work forced you too?


As for the pot habit, I wish I had a job that I could risk to smoke it daily.

I have an extra mower.




Myth Buster tests and tries to debunk things. They don't prove something happened, only that it's not impossible.

And they have been criticized in the past for false information. How can two men in a basement prove Jesus never lived? or if Elvis is still alive?

I saw their footage and they use special effects.



They clearly show several things that people like you claim about the moon landing as impossible, to in fact, be very possible.

How can they prove the van Allen radiation belts are not deadly? How can they prove NASA didn't stage the landing? Why was president Nixon busted for making a speech in case the scam went wrong he had a plan B?

Why make a recording saying the astronauts died? How can your two pot smoking pals on myth busters know what Nixon did and why?

how can lab experiments prove anything?




See the flag move in a vacuum simulation. See how mood dirt leaves impressions. See how the shadows align correctly rather than two light sources, etc, etc, etc. They debunk all the major claims.

They only give an explanation of how it could have been they have no idea if NASA staged it all.

Lets say all that you say is real

Lets say you can prove man can go to the moon. that doesn't mean they did.

Sure its true Iraq could have had WMDs but they didn't your pals on Myth busters prove what could have happened on the moon yet they can't prove it happened on the moon do you understand my point?




Avoid it? Not at all. That is the stupidest claim of all. The Van Allen belt is primarily high energy protons, which the aluminum of the capsule shields just fine for the short time they travel through the belt! There are different types of radiation you know. We aren't talking about they type of radiation you find in a nuclear power plant.

I put the time for you so you can skip over the van Allen part I wanted you to comment on the staging of the moon in the window , how they show an arm in the lens when they said the camera was in the window then the lights come on and the camera is on the other side of the capsule they lied. also how they fucked up on the dates they had on the film they could not had made the film when they did why would NASA say that was a live transmission when it wasn't? how come you and your myth buster pals avoid this topic?


go to the 120 mark on this film
RXnuFLxfPs8




Oh...

Is this the image they manipulated? Too clear for me to believe that:

http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/IMAGES/LARGE/GPN-2000-001138.jpg


at no time did I say NASA has never gone out into space that photo is well below the van Allen belts.

[mouse]

One more thing. Remember how I said in an earlier post that a live video signal could not be feed to the broadcasters. They disn't have sophisticated DSPs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_signal_processor) like we do today to convert video formats in real time. In fact, the projection method was all they had those many years ago. Food for though, if you understand it. I knew this to be the case 30 years ago. At the time, I was studying to be a communications technician:

One Giant Screwup for Mankind (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.01/nasa.html); an excerpt:

That doesn't explain why all the networks around the world had to view the footage second hand why couldn't NASA allow the world to have there own live feed?

Could it be so they could control anything that may show they staged it?

why were the networks forced to film the whole event off another screen?

If you want proof Bin Laden is alive don't you want to see the live footage or someone filming it off there black and white tv?

go to 215 mark on this film

BdXtRpCsjp0

[DarkReign]

Hmmm...

I have no idea what that term is applied for other than cutting grass. Sorry if I don't understand the perverse version of generation X, or where ever this term comes from.

Did liberals change yet another term that maybe they never did, tp a derogatory term?

:lmao

...like I said, you innocently answered a very straight-forward question wihtout knowing the context in which it was asked. Its not a dig on you at all, just funny because...well, its mouse after all.

[baseline bum]

#1
Don't talk down to people who mow lawns ,make beds, or bus tables for a living. There are certain things you don't do make fun of someone struggling to support his or her kids, or people who may suffer from a medical problems such as Cancer ect...try and show some class even though I have yet to see you show any in the last few years you post at ST.


Holy shit, what a hypocrite you are after calling me a Wal-Mart worker earlier in the thread.

[Wild Cobra]

Then why bring up the mowing? You used it as an insult saying that is something 10-12 year olds do.

I didn't know how old you were. You brought up mowing laws, and you act like an adolescent.


How can they prove the van Allen radiation belts are not deadly?

Because they went through it.

How can you prove it is deadly?


How can they prove NASA didn't stage the landing?

There is no proof they did.


They only give an explanation of how it could have been they have no idea if NASA staged it all.

Yes, and at the same time, proving the claims that back up that they didn't go, are 100% wrong.


Lets say you can prove man can go to the moon. that doesn't mean they did.

But now, you have no evidence that says they didn't go also.


I put the time for you so you can skip over the van Allen part I wanted you to comment on the staging of the moon in the window , how they show an arm in the lens when they said the camera was in the window then the lights come on and the camera is on the other side of the capsule they lied.

I don't see any lies or trickery. Maybe you should watch it with an open mind, sound off, and forget what that lying bitch says.


also how they fucked up on the dates they had on the film they could not had made the film when they did why would NASA say that was a live transmission when it wasn't? how come you and your myth buster pals avoid this topic?

I lost you there.


go to the 120 mark on this film

Nothing special their but misrepresentation. So what. A filter and or backdrop was taken off. That doesn't mean there was film trickery involved. You would want a black backdrop with a hole in it to keep glare from the inner capsule. You would want a filter to darken the incoming light for contrast.


at no time did I say NASA has never gone out into space that photo is well below the van Allen belts.

No it isn't. Well below the Van Allen belt, and we would have had pictures like what the Shuttle takes. If you look carefully, you see it overs nearly half the globe. If it was from near earth orbit, far less would be visible.

Have you read anything on the Van Allen Belt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt)

The Earth's atmosphere limits the belts' particles to regions above 200–1,000 km, while the belts do not extend past 7 Earth radii RE. The belts are confined to an area which extends about 65° from the celestial equator.

The inner Van Allen Belt extends from an altitude of 100–10,000 km (0.01 to 1.5 Earth radii) above the Earth's surface, and contains high concentrations of energetic protons with energies exceeding 100 MeV and electrons in the range of hundreds of keV, trapped by the strong (relative to the outer belts) magnetic fields in the region.

The proton belts contain protons with kinetic energies ranging from about 100 keV (which can penetrate 0.6 mm of lead) to over 400 MeV (which can penetrate 143 mm of lead).

Missions beyond low earth orbit leave the protection of the geomagnetic field, and transit the Van Allen belts. Thus they may need to be shielded against exposure to cosmic rays, Van Allen radiation, or solar flares. The region between two to three earth radii lies between the two radiation belts and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone".[10][11]

A satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminium in an elliptic orbit (200 by 20,000 miles) passing through the radiation belts will receive about 2,500 rem (25 Sv) per year. Almost all radiation will be received while passing the inner belt.
Hmmm... 2500 per year, or 6.8 per day. Perfectly safe for short periods of time.

he belts are a hazard for artificial satellites and moderately dangerous for human beings, difficult and expensive to shield against.
Now if these astronauts were in the "safe zone" only, they wouldn't be ably to take a nice picture of the Earth.

As for "energetic protons" you should read this:

Proton Therapy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_therapy)

[mouse]

Holy shit, what a hypocrite you are after calling me a Wal-Mart worker earlier in the thread.

What's wrong with working at wall mart? You think that is an insult? should I have said the post office?

My point was your kids chances are very slim if any that they will grow up to be astronauts! Wall mart is metaphor like in an average Joe, a regular working stiff. look here are some examples....


English Basics
Volume 3, Number 26, March 29, 1999
www.rhlschool.com

Metaphors



Metaphors are comparisons that show how two things that are not alike in most ways are similar in one important way. Metaphors are a way to describe something. Authors use them to make their writing more interesting or entertaining.

Unlike similes that use the words “as” or “like” to make a comparison, metaphors state that something is something else.

Read the statements that contain metaphors in italics. Then complete the statements that explain the metaphors.



1. Brian was a wall, bouncing every tennis ball back over the net.

This metaphor compares Brian to a wall because __________.

a. He was very strong.
b. He was very tall.
c. He kept returning the balls.
d. His body was made of cells.



2. We would have had more pizza to eat if Tammy hadn’t been such a hog.

Tammy was being compared to a hog because she __________.

a. looked like a hog
b. ate like a hog
c. smelled like a hog
d. was as smart as a hog



3. Cindy was such a mule. We couldn’t get her to change her mind.

The metaphor compares Cindy to a mule because she was __________.

a. always eating oats
b. able to do hard work
c. raised on a farm
d. very stubborn



4. The poor rat didn’t have a chance. Our old cat, a bolt of lightning, caught his prey.

The cat was compared to a bolt of lightning because he was __________.

a. very fast
b. very bright
c. not fond of fleas
d. very old



5. Even a child could carry my dog, Dogface, around for hours. He’s such a feather.

This metaphor implies that Dogface __________.

a. is not cute
b. looks like a bird
c. is not heavy
d. can fly

[DarkReign]

Huh, I know a NASA engineer personally. This kid co-oped at my place of business, he started here as a senior in high school, graduated valedictorian, applied and was accepted to Kettering University (formerly known as GMI, or General Motors Institute), spent his entire undergrad career as an employee here.

Did his dissertation on one of our machine designs that were patented (helped immensely with refining the patent, as well). Made Dean's list every semester for 4 years except one (missed by fractions of GPA).

Needless to say, the cocky little bastard was smart as all hell. Brilliant, really. Street-wise, he was an idiot (and I cant see that changing for him, but what do I know). Book-wise, math, science, engineering, I dont think I have ever met someone as proficent as he (baseline bum excluded, as I have never met BB).

Anyway, short story long, went on to some industrial sized excavation engineering company that took him all over the world. Bla bla bla, hooked up some NASA guys along the way, went through the rigorous application process and as far as I know is a working staff member of NASA.

[mouse]

I didn't know how old you were. You brought up mowing laws, and you act like an adolescent.

If that is true way bother debating with someone you consider a kid? And you have made ofther insults in the past of me being a washed up old pot smoking hippy so how can you now say you though I was an adolescent?

If your going to set ground rules of posters who act like adolescents you may as well shut down ST, at least the NBA and politics forum for sure.




Because they went through it.

Your assuming Apollo 11 landed on the moon. your assuming all the evidence I have provided to you is false. You and your Myth buster pals have not yet proven man went to the moon. all you have is clay models , special effects and and ridiculous fantasy's as you drift deeper in your fairy tail universe.
you cling on to any fabricated lie and worship it as gospel, Don't forget your one of the huge "Bush didn't know about 9/11" "WTC7 fell at almost free fall speed due to small fires" type of guy.

You try to claim you believe in some sort of creator or intelligent designer and yet you support Darwin.
your all over the place. Your like the ST version of Manu they way you flip flop on every issue.

But that is your right I suppose, you have the right to be ignorant I will just have find it in my heart to try and educate you and I hope it works this time.




How can you prove it is deadly?

The USSR sent a dog in space that dog died,


A recent high-flying space mission came within close proximity to the radiation belts, and the Astronauts described the same phenomenon that Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong experienced on their way to the Moon. The phenomenon entails the Astronauts seeing white sparks of light - even with their eyes closed. This happens because the spacecraft and Astronauts are bombarded with a storm of radioactive particles that seem to penetrate everything - including the eyes. The particles fly into the eyes (the eyes can be open or closed) and cause a dance of white light.

NASA knew the effects of the Van Allen belts during the days of Apollo; and, right they should, because the Van Allen belts were the biggest obstacle standing between them and the moon.




forget what that lying bitch says.

what did a narrator of a documentary do to you for you to have such hate?

I don't hate your myth buster pals I think they are smart and funny.

what did this lady do or is it the fact she is a woman and you can't stand a female putting you in your place?

You can be honest brah its no big secret you have issues in life.
Just come clean so we can move forward.




I lost you there.

Translation: This is a subject I want to skip over.

I asked you time and time again why would NASA have to stage them being half way between earth and the moon just to have it played back as a live transmission?

why would they say the camera is in the window when in fact it is on the other side of the capsule? why the lies?

please watch the film were I have noted the time line I have question try not to avoid them

go to the mark 5:29 of 9:27

sXF87uc1ar8

this is part II start from 0:00
and please explain to us all why NASA deliberately had to lie, and feel free to use your Myth Buster pals as backup.

RXnuFLxfPs8





Nothing special their but misrepresentation. So what. A filter and or backdrop was taken off. That doesn't mean there was film trickery involved. You would want a black backdrop with a hole in it to keep glare from the inner capsule. You would want a filter to darken the incoming light for contrast.

I just provided evidence how NASA lied to the public and you have the nerve to say
Nothing special?




No it isn't. Well below the Van Allen belt, and we would have had pictures like what the Shuttle takes. If you look carefully, you see it overs nearly half the globe. If it was from near earth orbit, far less would be visible.

Do you have any idea how far and deep the Van Allen radiation belts are?

the inner region centered at an altitude of 2000 mi. (3200 km) and the outer region at an altitude between 9000 and 12,000 mi. (14,500 and 19,000 km).

all the photos you keep posting are within the safe zones.



Have you read anything on the Van Allen Belt? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_allen_belt)

Yes I have and reading about it and having to pass though it are two different things.



Now if these astronauts were in the "safe zone" only, they wouldn't be ably to take a nice picture of the Earth.

Picture taking can be your worst enemy my friend, if your going to pull out what pictures can or can't be taken card, if so then this one will be seen as a fraud.

http://www.signaturesongs.net/images/070421_moon_earth_02.jpg

Talk about photo shop! :lmao

even Slomo has the sense to toss in a star or two.


But since you bring up pictures........................................

[mouse]

Huh, I know a NASA engineer personally.

Email him this topic I would love to see what he can contribute.

[tlongII]

LOL at Mouse getting completely PWNED in this thread! :lol

[DarkReign]

Email him this topic I would love to see what he can contribute.

Honestly, I would if I could. Cant seeing as I havent spoken to him in...shit, 5 years, I think? His dad is just a plain old electrician who worked his ass off putting his boys through college. The NASA engineer is the grandson of a guy who immigrated to this country with my father in law (lifelong friends).

And no offense to ST, but if I were to contact the smartass, it wouldnt be to discuss whether we landed on the fucking moon or not.

No offense, but I do run a business here with a reputation.

[mouse]

And no offense to ST, but if I were to contact the smartass, it wouldnt be to discuss whether we landed on the fucking moon or not.

No offense, but I do run a business here with a reputation.

Then I can see why you wouldn't want others to read your online postings.



Posted By DarkReign

Her ass is fake...very very fake.

...and youre still gay, not that there is anything wrong with that, but I hate to see people chin-deep in an identity crisis.




11-13-2009, 07:04 PM
Posted By DarkReign

Good bye, cruel world
I'm leaving you today
Goodbye, goodbye
Goodbye

Goodbye all you people
Theres nothing you can say
To make me change my mind
Goodbye

[mouse]

LOL at Mouse getting completely PWNED in this thread! :lol

Your act is old everyone knows your a mouse hater so your bias. and anyone with a 8th grade education knows I am not getting PWNED as you call it. I love when 40 year old men try sound like they are 16 years old.

At least I am standing my ground more than you have ever done. are you still butt hurt about the photo shops? just ask me to remove them don't go through life bitter my brother,enjoy life try to get laid! go outside check out what Santa left you

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/IMAG0937.jpg

[mouse]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/RTM-3/IMAG0918.jpg

[tlongII]

Just callin' it like I see it. mouse = PWNED! :lol

[DarkReign]

Then I can see why you wouldn't want others to read your online postings.

Funny thing, my wife reads my posts just fine and if you think anything I have ever said here even remotely compares to what I say in real life, you'd be sadly mistaken.

Beyond the more verbose political opinion I seem to have, I am actually quite tame here.

[Wild Cobra]

If that is true way bother debating with someone you consider a kid? And you have made ofther insults in the past of me being a washed up old pot smoking hippy so how can you now say you though I was an adolescent?

I'll let you wonder. Maybe I slammed you purposely, maybe I didn't.


Your assuming Apollo 11 landed on the moon. your assuming all the evidence I have provided to you is false. You and your Myth buster pals have not yet proven man went to the moon.

What about the retroreflector?


You try to claim you believe in some sort of creator or intelligent designer and yet you support Darwin.

The theories are not mutually exclusive.

But that is your right I suppose, you have the right to be ignorant I will just have find it in my heart to try and educate you and I hope it works this time.

I have repeatedly shown you to be the ignorant one.


I asked you time and time again why would NASA have to stage them being half way between earth and the moon just to have it played back as a live transmission?

I don't have all the answers. The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.


why would they say the camera is in the window when in fact it is on the other side of the capsule? why the lies?

Who knows and who cares? I wouldn't consider the terminology they used a lie.


please watch the film were I have noted the time line I have question try not to avoid them

go to the mark 5:29 of 9:27

sXF87uc1ar8

What about it? Somewone with a mike maybe worried and just started to say "talk."

So what?


this is part II start from 0:00
and please explain to us all why NASA deliberately had to lie, and feel free to use your Myth Buster pals as backup.

RXnuFLxfPs8

So what? The narrative the woman gives is fantasy. What she alls an arm could be a finger in front of the lens. She also has the dates off. Julian dates are used. 198.01.15 to 198.01.30, the first reel, is the 198th day of 69 at 01:15 to 01:30. The 198th day is the 17th. Not the 18th. The third reel is the 19th, not the 20th, the day before they landed.

Talk about lying, this bitch lies and you don't even look things up. You trust without verifying.


I just provided evidence how NASA lied to the public and you have the nerve to say ?

No you didn't.


Do you have any idea how far and deep the Van Allen radiation belts are?

Yes


the inner region centered at an altitude of 2000 mi. (3200 km) and the outer region at an altitude between 9000 and 12,000 mi. (14,500 and 19,000 km).

The outer actually goes farther than that.


all the photos you keep posting are within the safe zones.

Or outside the belt. Ever ponder that concept?


Yes I have and reading about it and having to pass though it are two different things.

There is enough shielding for the few hours they travel through it.

My God. They aren;t staying in the belt.


Picture taking can be your worst enemy my friend, if your going to pull out what pictures can or can't be taken card, if so then this one will be seen as a fraud.

http://www.signaturesongs.net/images/070421_moon_earth_02.jpg

No fraud. With bright surfaces, you have to raise the shutter speed so fast and make the F-stop a larger number to keep from having over exposure. In doing so, the stars don't have enough light reaching the film. Then there is the possibility of the radiation washing out the stars completely, and the photos corrected while developing for contrast.


Talk about photo shop! :lmao

even Slomo has the sense to toss in a star or two.

If there were stars seen that are real dim compared to the really bright foreground objects, then you would have more ground to call the photo's fakes.

Do you see stars on a bright summer day?

[mouse]

First off Wild Cobra we have to ease up on quoting each other.

I get lost midway during the quote and can't figure out what question your avoiding. Plus lets keep two subjects on the table at once as soon as one of us gives in or we call it a draw then we can move on.

I want this to be a painless as possible for us and the readers.

Secondly, I can't take anymore of you tossing your hands in the airs and saying it doesn't matter every time I ask you a question you can't answer. part of a good debate is admitting the other person has a good point and doing your best to answer back or at least say "I really can't answer that"

Don't say it doesn't matter as i do answer most of your questions with my best replies at least do the same.

next are some examples of a debate going in the wrong direction...







What about the retroreflector?

At no time did I ever say space craft or rovers never went to the moon. even the Russians crash landed a vehicle on the moon. hell even mars has two rovers that can drill and look at rocks through a microscope and send the images back to earth.

I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.




I have repeatedly shown you to be the ignorant one.

not by avoiding my questions.




I don't have all the answers.

Then use Google! if we went to the moon I have the burden of proof on my shoulders to prove that we didn't you have the easy part you can just access the www and the many NASA sites and get all the info you need to answer any question I ask.
unless we didn't go to the moon then I can see how that could be difficult.





The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.

That is a lie. the live feeds were placed on the projection screen by NASA the same way they received the images they could have beamed them to any station in the US. this was 1969 not 1869 besides the images didn't go to Houston at first a satellite dish in Australia received them first then relayed them to NASA so how are you going to tell me different?

if your going PWNED! me like TLongII says you do at least do your homework.




Who knows and who cares?


After this quote I realized you have given up and only want to talk about topics you feel comfortable answering and that is not how a real debate works you don't get to punt the ball every time you want to shift the burden of scoring a touchdown.

If I bailed out on answering your questions I would be teased and ridicule why should you get a pass?

No further quoting is necessary after this point until you can honestly find real answers to my last questions.

And don't use the "Who cares" card It shows everyone that your shouldn't even debate a topic if you never gave a shit in the first place, and for someone who doesn't care you seem to do allot of quoting on the subject.

take a day off, rest a bit, lick your wounds and come back with some better shit next time. To be honest I have have yet to even get warmed up on this topic.

Just wait until we get into the the Apollo LEM Niel Armstrong almost died trying to test it they never show him actually being able to control it and you want us to believe he and others land on the moon without a hitch?

who writes this shit?

A-gW6AdzgwU

[mouse]

the possibility of the radiation washing out the stars completely, and the photos corrected while developing for contrast.

Radiation doesn't nit pick on how it effects film it effects the whole film not just the stars. Your starting to sound like a talking head sent down from NASA do you really think I will continue wasting my time with you if your going to not take my questions seriously?

This is what film looks like when there is radiation. notice the dots throughout the picture.

http://mwave.irq.hu/kepek/filmek/2439/001_1986_03.jpg








Do you see stars on a bright summer day?

Every time I visit Hollywood.

that is how I will answer you in the future if you can't stop avoiding the tough questions.

Go to mark 2:05/5:32

tell me why the live feed and the still shot are two different images?
SiR6-NJN06c

[mouse]

Another thing I have been real patient with you and have not pulled out the radiation card on the photos. It is a known fact the Van Allen belts of radiation that you claim is harmless is enough to show up on the film if not ruin it, not to mention the fact the radiation in space. And before you Google a witty comeback keep in mind who provided the film and how they was in bed with NASA.

Don't pull out the special jell coated film card it has been proven to be a lie and no film to this day can handle any radiation so keep that in mind when you go in that direction.
You don't want me to bring up the extra lighting used during those picture.
it may be best if you avoid the whole topic of NASA photos if you know what I mean.

Go to 5:53/9:51

Pg8srEzjGuw

[phyzik]

Debunk the Lunar Laser ranging experiment mouse.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/experiments/lrr/

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/images/laser_rr_lg.gif

aqlo_spATEM

[mouse]

Why so you can tell everyone you paid for my chocolate milk back in the 4th grade and I have yet to pay you back?

You never told me how offering me the use of your FTP server had anything to do with water on the moon and you said I was a lazy ass grass cutting loser.

But I will say this it wasn't until last night when I felt bad for the topic starter that I realized the OP was you. So out of respect and to avoid anymore personal insults I will retreat from this debate Wild Cobra although you weaseled out of answering the hard questions I will forfeit the debate you can call yourself the winner.

Good day chaps hope to see you both at a gtg some day.
:toast

[JoeChalupa]

If you build it they will come.....out of the woodwork.

[Wild Cobra]

First off Wild Cobra we have to ease up on quoting each other.

I get lost midway during the quote and can't figure out what question your avoiding. Plus lets keep two subjects on the table at once as soon as one of us gives in or we call it a draw then we can move on.

Maybe you should do as I do. Pull up a second window.


I want this to be a painless as possible for us and the readers.

This is getting hard for me. I have attention deficient disorder, so as it's becoming a more boring topic, expect less from me.


Secondly, I can't take anymore of you tossing your hands in the airs and saying it doesn't matter every time I ask you a question you can't answer. part of a good debate is admitting the other person has a good point and doing your best to answer back or at least say "I really can't answer that"

There are so many sites that debunk what you are posting. I'm not going to look them all up. You want me to make guesses like you girlfriend on YouTube? How someone can say there is proof we didn't go to the moon is beyond me. There is no proof. This has beet slightly entertaining, but getting boring as you keep posting the same bullshit I have debunked in the past. Look it up yourself.

How can you completely believe one point of view and tottally diosregaudrd another, especially when that the "myth" point of view has complete fallacies attached?


Don't say it doesn't matter as i do answer most of your questions with my best replies at least do the same.

Your best is regurgitating other peoples lies. I am getting rather disappointed you have not taken it upon yourself to research the basic facts involving photography, chemistry, and physics that apply here. It is a complete waste of my time if you continue on this course.


next are some examples of a debate going in the wrong direction...

At no time did I ever say space craft or rovers never went to the moon. even the Russians crash landed a vehicle on the moon. hell even mars has two rovers that can drill and look at rocks through a microscope and send the images back to earth.

I hope that wasn't your ace in the hole.

Not at all. Are you telling me that a robotic machine of the day (rover) existed to land, and set up a retroreflector? Wow... That would be a feat for the late 60's/early 70's.

The rovers sent to Mars were rather recent. Are you even remotely aware of how much technology has changed?


not by avoiding my questions.

Most your questions are too boring, and until you understand some basics, what good does answering them to but waste my time?


Then use Google! if we went to the moon I have the burden of proof on my shoulders to prove that we didn't you have the easy part you can just access the www and the many NASA sites and get all the info you need to answer any question I ask.

That's the problem. You only believe what you Google, without an intelligent though of your own on the matter. You have no proof, and every time I explain why you have no proof, you are too ignorant to understand the explanation. I am not a teacher. I have a hard time talking down that far to explain things so someone who doesn't understand the basic sciences.



The only way they could do a live video broadcast would be to project it on a screen and put TV cameras on that. The video formats were not compatible.
That is a lie. the live feeds were placed on the projection screen by NASA the same way they received the images they could have beamed them to any station in the US. this was 1969 not 1869 besides the images didn't go to Houston at first a satellite dish in Australia received them first then relayed them to NASA so how are you going to tell me different?

I am pointing out the feeds are not compatible to broadcast television. There was no electronic equipment in 1969 to convert slow-scan <240i 10hz to 480i 30hz. They were either recorded and played back, or projected and captured. Either way, the quality of any live feed being limited to a 500khz signal is very poor quality compared to NTSC.

How they traveled to Houston doesn't matter. There were three different Transceivers on Earth that relayed to Houston depending on the relative alignment between the Earth and Moon.


if your going PWNED! me like TLongII says you do at least do your homework.

My memory is not the internet. Sorry if yours is. I have researched this topic in the past, and I do know what I'm talking about. Sorry you don't.

I don't like repeating my work.


After this quote I realized you have given up and only want to talk about topics you feel comfortable answering and that is not how a real debate works you don't get to punt the ball every time you want to shift the burden of scoring a touchdown.

No, I'm getting bored with you. When you completely disregard good evidence, what do you expect.


If I bailed out on answering your questions I would be teased and ridicule why should you get a pass?

Then ask worthwhile questions, or ones that indicate you have some basic understanding of the sciences in play.


No further quoting is necessary after this point until you can honestly find real answers to my last questions.

Then give me real, worthwhhile questions instead of boring me. Give me a challenge.


And don't use the "Who cares" card It shows everyone that your shouldn't even debate a topic if you never gave a shit in the first place, and for someone who doesn't care you seem to do allot of quoting on the subject.

the "who cares" is because you are asking answers to something that has too many possibilities, like the camera. He could have been holding it "in the window" and got his finger across the lens. Could have been something floating in the Capsule. "Who Cares" because the narrators assertion is not the only possible explaination. Just because I don't have a solid answer doesn't make her probable lie correct.


take a day off, rest a bit, lick your wounds and come back with some better shit next time. To be honest I have have yet to even get warmed up on this topic.

I have no woulds to lick, You've been owned all though this, and don't realize it.

Go ahead. Take time to warm up. I expect it will take a few years to understand the basic sciences involved.


Just wait until we get into the the Apollo LEM Niel Armstrong almost died trying to test it they never show him actually being able to control it and you want us to believe he and others land on the moon without a hitch?

who writes this shit?

A-gW6AdzgwU

Seen that so many years before. Even with the crash, they proved the concept valid. Remember, he was operating that in an atmosphere that has gusts of wind, and at six times the gravity than the moon has. Reactionary mass is all out of whack, especially when you have to fight unexpected wind.

[Wild Cobra]

Radiation doesn't nit pick on how it effects film it effects the whole film not just the stars. Your starting to sound like a talking head sent down from NASA do you really think I will continue wasting my time with you if your going to not take my questions seriously?

I only offered a possible explaination. It is almost certain the other I offered. That the stars were simply too dim to be seen under the circumstances the shots were taken.


This is what film looks like when there is radiation. notice the dots throughout the picture.

http://mwave.irq.hu/kepek/filmek/2439/001_1986_03.jpg

That's also what a picture looks like from film of a fast ASA, under-exposed, and "pushed" during development. The dots appear to me as the grain of the film. Different film will have different results, and the type of radiation also matters.

I would be curious to see what the link says on that one.


Every time I visit Hollywood.

that is how I will answer you in the future if you can't stop avoiding the tough questions.

Go to mark 2:05/5:32

tell me why the live feed and the still shot are two different images?
SiR6-NJN06c

The angle of the two cameras and the position of the front flap:

http://www.clavius.org/img/big-top-plss.gif

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Apollo/frontflap.jpg

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Apollo/frontflap50pctandannotated.jpg

Again, I'm tired of rehashing points made and available for you to find yourself.

Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/index.html)

[mouse]

I lost track of how many times you said you was tired and bored, then why do you insist on debating me?

And why now after I hit you with the hard to answer shit?

Also I find it rather odd how when I ask hard to answer questions your all of a sudden bored and tired, and you don't want to repost your shit.

How can you say that large object in front of the lens was the astronaut's finger when the film clearly shows the camera was on the other side of the capsule?

also you didn't explain the dome light that was above, was that his finger also.?

and why would you post a different photo of the astronaut's closed flap when I am talking about the so called live jump photo they did on supposed live TV?

You can bitch and moan all you want and say you have been owning me throughout the debate which to me is ok I'm not after school yard street creds I don't care about how many of your pals at star bucks high five you every time you post a Myth buster link.

If fact I have always wanted the truth and wanted to know why NASA staged all this shit and if the Moon landing was real?

If your display of insults and poor attitude is the product of you owning someone in a debate then more power to you. I am sure anyone with a 9th grade education can read for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

See you in the politics forum next time you claim the earth is 4 billion years old.

peace brah!


Pg8srEzjGuw

[Wild Cobra]

I lost track of how many times you said you was tired and bored, then why do you insist on debating me?

Tired of repeating myself and bored because your evidence is so insanely stupid.


And why now after I hit you with the hard to answer shit?

I will look a thing up now and then, especially if it's something I didn't see before.


Also I find it rather odd how when I ask hard to answer questions your all of a sudden bored and tired, and you don't want to repost your shit.

No, it's the stupid questions I have answered at other times I am tired of repeating and that you bore me with.


How can you say that large object in front of the lens was the astronaut's finger when the film clearly shows the camera was on the other side of the capsule?

The camera could have been moved, and probably was.


also you didn't explain the dome light that was above, was that his finger also.?

Without cabin light, how can they see what they are doing?

Come on man, think, and stop asking me these boring questions you can look up.


and why would you post a different photo of the astronaut's closed flap when I am talking about the so called live jump photo they did on supposed live TV?

It was a photo of the same astronaut on the same outing. I used that one to clearly show the flap. Do you disagree that the angles caused your misperception of events?


You can bitch and moan all you want and say you have been owning me throughout the debate which to me is ok I'm not after school yard street creds I don't care about how many of your pals at star bucks high five you every time you post a Myth buster link.

I think I only posted one.


If fact I have always wanted the truth and wanted to know why NASA staged all this shit and if the Moon landing was real?

As long as you have the false conviction they staged shit, you will never find the answers you are looking for, because they really went to the moon.


Pg8srEzjGuw

Will you stop posting this meaningless propaganda please. They took photo's of the earth on three different days as they went to the moon. The last photo is probably the first, while they were still close to earth.

Remember, three reels, day 198, day 199, and day 200...

[Wild Cobra]

Mouse, do you even understand this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Apollo/frontflap50pctandannotated.jpg

[phyzik]

Why so you can tell everyone you paid for my chocolate milk back in the 4th grade and I have yet to pay you back?

You never told me how offering me the use of your FTP server had anything to do with water on the moon and you said I was a lazy ass grass cutting loser.

But I will say this it wasn't until last night when I felt bad for the topic starter that I realized the OP was you. So out of respect and to avoid anymore personal insults I will retreat from this debate Wild Cobra although you weaseled out of answering the hard questions I will forfeit the debate you can call yourself the winner.

Good day chaps hope to see you both at a gtg some day.
:toast

Honestly? I was drunk and pissed. I admit it. Not because you are right on ANYTHING in this thread, its just frustration that you REFUSE to accept evidence from EXPERTS but yet expect us to accept the word of, who many consider, frauds with an agenda.

Of course, your comeback is going to be the experts are in on it... thats the frustrating part...

but there is an easy end to it all.

Watch the video I posted. Hell, skip to around the 6 minute mark if it pleases you. Watch from that point.

Then..... tell us how that piece of equipment got there. Sorry, no robot at the time was complex enough to set that up. thats not an excuse, if that was the case, almost 40 years later your telling me they couldnt have done that for the Mars rovers? :lol Or are the Mars rovers in some desert here on earth as well...

To me it seems you decided to quit when that crucial piece of IRREFUTABLE evidence was brought up and you decided to deflect the factual evidence by crying about my admittedly petty insults. Still, the evidence remains as fact regardless of what an ass I was.

BTW, the video addresses the flag issue, the lighting issue, the star issue, the boot print issue, the supposed slow motion video issue as well as the fact of the laser project, which is probably the most damning evidence for any Apollo 11 conspiracy theory.

In fact, the project still runs today right here in Texas! Just take a trip to the McDonald observatory for your proof. They have done it at least several times for TV shows. you can see it live and in person! Hell, the guy in the video is INVITING you to come as a conspiracy theorist!

Nevermind the fact that there where HUNDREDS (most likely over a thousand) of employees of NASA at the time, your going to sit there and tell me they are staying quiet when we have tons of top military people coming forward with claims of unidentified flying objects?

A GTG would be cool this year, despite all the hate on the forum its still just a forum. These debates, regardless of how vicious they get, are still healthy discussion. :toast

[MannyIsGod]

The part of Mouse will be played by Mel Gibson.

[Wild Cobra]

BTW, the video addresses the flag issue, the lighting issue, the star issue, the boot print issue, the supposed slow motion video issue as well as the fact of the laser project, which is probably the most damning evidence for any Apollo 11 conspiracy theory.

In fact, the project still runs today right here in Texas! Just take a trip to the McDonald observatory for your proof. They have done it at least several times for TV shows. you can see it live and in person! Hell, the guy in the video is INVITING you to come as a conspiracy theorist!

I think he's a lost cause. Not going to listen to and reasonable facts.

BTW Mouse. What I referred to as a retro-reflector is the reflector for those laser range finding experiments. It is done almost daily to measure the very slim changes in distance between the moon and Earth. Until it was set up, we had limited accuracy of the moons distance, and not enough to state the moon orbital shift as close as we do today. The moon recedes about 1-1/2" per year. We would never be able to measure it so precise without laser range finders off a dedicated reflector.

[mouse]

I can't believe I am going to do this it goes against all my principles.

aw fuck, here we go again........


For the love of all that is holy Wild Cobra put down the mountain dew code read and Phyzix put down the pork skins and remove that round can of Skoals
chewing tobacco from your right rear pocket of your skin tight Wrangler jeans and let some blood flow to your head.

I said in my last three postings everything you need to know already!

#1 Phyzik dude I told you in the other topic where you told everyone I tried to steal information from your top secret FTp server that if you was drunk and didn't mean it you can "PM" me and I will understand, you think your the only one around here who gets drunk and post shit they regret?

I have made a career of doing just that. I also told you as long as beer sales are still legal in Texas I will not debate with you in the future to insure that event doesn't take place again so save your questions and rebuttals for Whottt and Chump Dumper.Thank you see you at a GTG some day.

#2
Wild Cobra I said and more than once I don't debate with posters who say "who cares" when I ask a tough question, I don't debate with posters who say "I don't have all the answers" when they act like they do and they have Google at their disposal.
I don't debate with posters who say "I am tired of this shit" and then they come back for more just to say "I am tired of this shit" and they come back for more...

#3 For the sake of moving froward I said "you win! I lose! we did land on the moon! there is water on the moon!"
I wanted to know why if all what you and your beer drinking FTP server friend Phyzik say is true about us going to the moon then why would NASA have to fake certain live feeds and stage them just to play them back as if they were live?

You decided to say "who cares why?" "I am tired of this shit" "I don't have all the answerers"

Does that sound like someone I want to waste time debating with them When I could be looking for employment so I don't have to mow Kori's lawn to survive in my cardboard box under the 410 / San Pedro rd bridge?

So far you and your pal Phyzix have posted I am a lazy uneducated loser who mows lawns and listens to some fucking bitch form youtube that happens to be my girlfriend and I don't deserve to use a FTP server.

Like that has anything to do with finding water on the Moon. I provided a video of an Astronaut jumping in midair and another astronaut taking a photo and showed you how the photo and the video did not match and NASA claimed it was the same jump and you think because you post a "drawing" with some red lines on it that it destroys my video evidence?

Somehow I have a feeling your not going to read or understand this post either and I am afraid you will just curl up in a ball tonight wearing your Neil Armstrong PJs on your Moon shaped bunk bed with Phizix as you two high five each other on another job well done and that is your right as an American citizen.

As for your towel boy TlongII who seems to think I got owned something he is very familiar with as he is the token ST sheep loving piñata around here,
please note I will pass the cherished ST debate champ trophy to you and your online friends as I leave this topic in utter shame...................





















mess with the bull you get the horns!

jXSdpG2NHFM

[Wild Cobra]

#2
Wild Cobra I said and more than once I don't debate with posters who say "who cares" when I ask a tough question, I don't debate with posters who say "I don't have all the answers" when they act like they do and they have Google at their disposal.
I don't debate with posters who say "I am tired of this shit" and then they come back for more just to say "I am tired of this shit" and they come back for more...

I explained why I used those words. I think you just finally realized, no matter what you say, I can bust the conspiracy theory's rational.

We went to the moon. Just because some people don't think so, and make up reasons why we didn't, notice that everything they say can easily be "busted."

[mouse]

I explained why I used those words. I think you just finally realized, no matter what you say, I can bust the conspiracy theory's rational.

Did you scroll once again scroll over the "You win! I lose!"
"Your right! I'm wrong!" comments I made?

Are you the Cub's special poster who takes the short bus to a Topic?

Do you not understand metaphors?



We went to the moon. Just because some people don't think so, and make up reasons why we didn't, notice that everything they say can easily be "busted."

The only thing you busted was good debate that had potential.

Pg8srEzjGuw

[Wild Cobra]

Did you scroll once again scroll over the "You win! I lose!"
"Your right! I'm wrong!" comments I made?
Too bad you don't believe that.


The only thing you busted was good debate that had potential.

Pg8srEzjGuw

The debate has no potential when all you do is post other people's propaganda. Like this YouTube video you post. It then becomes "who has the most links." What you want to do is take scientific reasoning out of the equation, and that if flat out wrong.

In your latest video, I see an environment with many possibilities, but the narrator takes a narrow and obvious incorrect view. Without you asking a specific question, I don't know what you are looking for. In others, you give a time index, and I see so many lies in the narrator, I don't know how to answer without writing a book.

Example:

From one window to the other. The capsule could have change orientation. Maybe they either were done and had to reorient, or wanted to try an angle from the other window.

The thing hanging from the window could have been a filter.

The camera obviously was away from the window, but that doesn't mean it always was.

We simply don't have all the facts, and for the narrator to insert a biased false version is just a form of lying. He has no evidence something else didn't occur. To believe his version without question is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. For me to comment on everything said, I feel is stupid, because I think it should be obvious the guy is making false implications.

There is nothing I have ever seen or heard that can convince me we didn't go to the moon, starting with Apollo 11. Everything can be debunked that the naysayers say, and all the photo's and video fit and have explanations.

You want a debate? Anytime you want to link a video or site, then make specific remarks around specific actions so I don't have to guess.

[Blue Jew]

How many times can you kill a Jew?

[Wild Cobra]

You know mouse, there is something I remembered, so I found a photo.

Columbia (the command module of Apollo 11) has three windows facing the same forward (up) direction. That's why in that last video you posted it didn't matter that we saw Earth from two of them.

The narrator claiming this as proof is ridiculous. If he did any homework, he knowingly lied. If he was ignorant of the fact, then he was unqualified to make the claim.

What does that say for the integrity of anything else he says?

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Apollo/columbia16pct.jpg

[mouse]

Too bad you don't believe that.

I don't have to believe it. Did the Jap's really think they surrendered after the atom bomb was used? They did what they had to so they could move on.

Deep down in their hearts and minds they know different.

The reason I said "you win!" "I lose!" so we can move on since you and your two lapdogs in this topic are keeping score of this owning contest they claim it is.

I was so desperate to see if you could keep a real debate going I was willing to P3own myself in the process for the sake of mankind the supreme sacrifice.




The debate has no potential when all you do is post other people's propaganda. Like this YouTube video you post. It then becomes "who has the most links." What you want to do is take scientific reasoning out of the equation, and that if flat out wrong.

Sorry if my style of debating doesn't satisfy you and I apologize if I didn't read the book on How to debate Wild Cobra and not get him upset rule book.

Seems to me you have no problem posting 100s of Myth buster links when you get a hair up your ass but if someone else post any links all of a sudden you pull out the rule book? Your not only bias you make debating about as much fun as asking Phyzix to use his FTP server.





In your latest video, I see an environment with many possibilities, but the narrator takes a narrow and obvious incorrect view. Without you asking a specific question, I don't know what you are looking for. In others, you give a time index, and I see so many lies in the narrator, I don't know how to answer without writing a book.

The point of the video is NASA lies to the public why can't you admit that so we can move on?





Example:

From one window to the other. The capsule could have change orientation. Maybe they either were done and had to reorient, or wanted to try an angle from the other window.

The thing hanging from the window could have been a filter.

The camera obviously was away from the window, but that doesn't mean it always was.

We simply don't have all the facts, and for the narrator to insert a biased false version is just a form of lying. He has no evidence something else didn't occur. To believe his version without question is somewhere between ignorant and stupid. For me to comment on everything said, I feel is stupid, because I think it should be obvious the guy is making false implications.


Once again you miss the point. Why "stage" the event and play it back later and say it is live? Does it really matter what window they used? Are you really that ignorant to try and say maybe the guy who shot JFK was just cleaning his gun at the time?

The point of the video is to show the public how NASA staged many events get off the what window they used theory it doesn't matter.




There is nothing I have ever seen or heard that can convince me we didn't go to the moon, starting with Apollo 11.


I kinda got that after page two


Everything can be debunked that the naysayers say, and all the photo's and video fit and have explanations.

Debunk the staging of the astronauts filming the earth out of the window to play back later.




You want a debate?

Not anymore, and not with you.



Anytime you want to link a video or site, then make specific remarks around specific actions so I don't have to guess.

If I do that it will look like I want to continue the debate and I will look like a flip flopper I need to stand by my earlier statements.

In reality you think it really matters if we went to the moon? Do you think It really matters if Bush knew about 9/11 before it took place?

What matters are the lies that are being told like a huge aircraft at the last minute tucked in it's wings to fit into a small 15 foot hole and evaporated into the pentagon.

And how NASA who couldn't even get a rocket off the ground without exploding was able to have many trips to the moon and back without any serious problems.


I don't just pick on NASA the USSR staged many things also that I point out when I am able to debate someone who really wants to debate. And one day I might just find such a person.

[Wild Cobra]

The point of the video is NASA lies to the public why can't you admit that so we can move on?

I don't see any lies in it.


Once again you miss the point. Why "stage" the event and play it back later and say it is live? Does it really matter what window they used? Are you really that ignorant to try and say maybe the guy who shot JFK was just cleaning his gun at the time?

I don't know what you are talking about? Just because the narrator says it happened that way doesn't make it fact.

Not everything was claimed to be live. Only the slow scan B&W was live I believe was.


The point of the video is to show the public how NASA staged many events get off the what window they used theory it doesn't matter.
Were you there? Do you know they were staged?

Maybe some of it was practicing. Ever think of that?

The window matters because your narrator mentioned it and either lied or was incompetent to make the assessment he did. I point it out to show he has no credibility.


Debunk the staging of the astronauts filming the earth out of the window to play back later.

They had to play back film and color video later.


If I do that it will look like I want to continue the debate and I will look like a flip flopper I need to stand by my earlier statements.

I have explained myself. You are not seeing the facts behind what you post, and link stuff as if it's a game as to who can find the most Easter eggs.


I don't just pick on NASA the USSR staged many things also that I point out when I am able to debate someone who really wants to debate. And one day I might just find such a person.

I know. You just like conspiracies and believe what others say. I get it.

[mouse]

I don't see any lies in it.

naturally you only see what you want I notice that.


I don't know what you are talking about? Just because the narrator says it happened that way doesn't make it fact.

The slate on the film was dated for another time. The film was played back as live it has nothing to do with the narrator.



Not everything was claimed to be live. Only the slow scan B&W was live I believe was.

So millions of viewers that saw thew astronauts in the capsule talking to the TV was taped? Are you saying the only thing that was live was the landing?

Can you please describe the drink in your hand I would like to have one myself.



Maybe some of it was practicing. Ever think of that?

:lmao

I knew you was funny but your stand up routine has hit a new low! They had 10 years to practice and they did. The events on film were shown later on to be live it's a known fact it's no big secret anymore.

please tell me you haven't hit rock bottom and your just uttering nonsense just to post in this topic. Please tell me your just having a good laugh you can't really take what your posting serious?

I really don't think you watched the whole film I know for a fact you didn't listen because the people back on earth at NASA say loud and clear after the film was made how it looks good for play back.

Did you just happened to not hear that part? Can't you just say "ok you got me" is that such a hard thing to do?

Do you want me to give you a pass so you can maybe feed me more bullshit on another subject like the missing exhaust plumb that was not underneath the LEM when it shot back to earth?

t4Ecd8U8xj0


Would you like to move on to other NASA bullshit lies?

Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artifacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.


The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

The shit keeps coming how much time you have?






The window matters because your narrator mentioned it and either lied or was incompetent to make the assessment he did. I point it out to show he has no credibility.

The show has numerous PHD and scientist geologist and NASA experts as well as photo lab technicians and many other experts and you want to call them out as being lairs and frauds?

You have some nerve dude, it's one thing to call me a lair and a fraud it's another to call people who are 100 times smarter than you will ever be in all your lifetimes.


You have sunk to a new low to call out highly educated professionals. I bet you have no idea who these people in the documentary even are.



They had to play back film and color video later.

No shit!

If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."

Dr Brian O'Leary astronaut

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther%20/dr_oleary.jpg





I have explained myself. You are not seeing the facts behind what you post, and link stuff as if it's a game as to who can find the most Easter eggs.

then why do you continue to reply?


I know. You just like conspiracies and believe what others say. I get

That's the point you don't seem to get shit!.

http://www.aulis.com/nasa.htm

sXF87uc1ar8

[Wild Cobra]

naturally you only see what you want I notice that.

How in hell am I suppose to address what you say is a lie when you don't tell me?

What lie?


The slate on the film was dated for another time. The film was played back as live it has nothing to do with the narrator.

Really?

What did I miss. I saw a form of a Julian date listed, 198, 199, and 200. Those three dates match the day of the year to the month and day of the mission.


So millions of viewers that saw thew astronauts in the capsule talking to the TV was taped? Are you saying the only thing that was live was the landing?

No, most of the stuff was reviewed after they got back. I remember watching the stuff live, and there was very little, and only B&W of Apollo 11, except the take-off and splashdown. I guess it's possible they could have been close enough to broadcast a live color images, but I don't recall seeing any.


I knew you was funny but your stand up routine has hit a new low! They had 10 years to practice and they did. The events on film were shown later on to be live it's a known fact it's no big secret anymore.

They took shots of the Earth for three days during the three days it took to get to the moon. You laugh at a possible suggestion I make, when the narrators is just making things up.

Get a grip please.


I really don't think you watched the whole film I know for a fact you didn't listen because the people back on earth at NASA say loud and clear after the film was made how it looks good for play back.

Again, why does that matter? Not everything would be live. So many possibilities, I'm not going to write a book.


Did you just happened to not hear that part? Can't you just say "ok you got me" is that such a hard thing to do?

Actually, with other background noises, I didn't. What's the time index on that?


Do you want me to give you a pass so you can maybe feed me more bullshit on another subject like the missing exhaust plumb that was not underneath the LEM when it shot back to earth?

t4Ecd8U8xj0

By the time Apollo 17 took off, we had better technology to broadcast color from the moon.


Would you like to move on to other NASA bullshit lies?

You haen't shown me any yet.


Why did NASA need to airbrush out anomalies from lunar footage of the Moon if they have nothing to hide?

Evidence? Another claim without any huh?


If debris from the Apollo missions was left on the Moon, then it would be visible today through a powerful telescope, however no such debris can be seen. The Clementine probe that recently mapped the Moons surface failed to show any Apollo artifacts left by Man during the missions. Where did the Moon Buggy and base of the LM go?

There is ample evidence:







In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

Al, they needed was simple navigation computation, handled by a microsequencer, which is a series of gate chips on circuit boards.


The Apollo 1 fire of January 27, 1967, killed what would have been the first crew to walk on the Moon just days after the commander, Gus Grissom, held an unapproved press conference complaining that they were at least ten years, not two, from reaching the Moon. The dead man's own son, who is a seasoned pilot himself, has in his possession forensic evidence personally retrieved from the charred spacecraft (that the government has tried to destroy on two or more occasions). Gus Grissom was obviously trying to make a big statement as he placed a lemon in the window of the Apollo I spacecraft as it sat ready for launch!

Opinion as fact?

Have a newspaper article showing that those words are true?


The show has numerous PHD and scientist geologist and NASA experts as well as photo lab technicians and many other experts and you want to call them out as being lairs and frauds?

Yes!


You have some nerve dude, it's one thing to call me a lair and a fraud it's another to call people who are 100 times smarter than you will ever be in all your lifetimes.

People with agendas lie.


If some of the film was spoiled, it's remotely possible they [NASA] may have shot some scenes in a studio environment to avoid embarrassment."

It was protected, and didn't spoil.

[mouse]

The part of Mouse will be played by Mel Gibson.

At first I thought you was saying I didn't like Jews!

[rolled up $20]

I'm sitting here watching the History channel and they just said the Earth was formed some 4.3 billion years ago.

[mouse]

I'm sitting here watching the History channel and they just said the Earth was formed some 4.3 billion years ago.

The History Channel is part of the A&E Television Network which is jointly owned by The Walt Disney Company.