Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
QuoteEvery space-capable nation consistently lies about space explorations
There are really only a few nations which claim launch capability. The majority of the "space nations" contract out either NASA/ESA/RSA to build run their spacecraft. Countries like Denmark may claim to be a "space power," but they have no rockets, no satellites, and only make that claim because they once paid NASA a lot of money to put a Danish national on the ISS. Hardly a space power.
These space programs are usually blatantly phony. See these videos on China's space program for example:
China's Space Walk Was FAKE (part 1)
Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)
The lunar ranging equipment at the Apache Point Observatory seen in the show is supported and funded by NASA --
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/"Finally, we thank NASA for supporting APOLLO and enabling it to get "off the ground", and more recently, a joint effort by NASA and the National Science Foundation to fund APOLLO at a level that will allow project completion and production of the first science results."
NASA could have easily built or modified the equipment or software to show the results they wanted, which is what a fake space agency would do to "prove" themselves. You're asking us to trust NASA that NASA is honest.
So you have innuendo about two observatories. Now try again with proof for all experiments using the all of the lunar retroreflectors (from Apollo 11, 14 or 15, and Lunokhod 1 and 2.)
The two Lunar Ranging observatories NASA often cites are the APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation), as discussed in my first link, and the McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments.
The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments are also funded by NASA. See: http://www.archive.org/stream/nasa_techdoc_19750066483/19750066483#page/n0/mode/2up
Flip to the second page and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"
Which other lunar ranging observatories are you referencing? Those are the main two that NASA cites when confronted with accusations of scam. The other one they cite is the Goddard Laser Ranging Facility, which is owned and operated by NASA themselves.
How very convenient of NASA, when defending its scam with Lunar Ranging claims, to neglect to disclose they they themselves fund those experiments.
Actually the soviets used the ruby laser. The laser used in america was not a ruby laser. I simply just googled the subject and found the information so it is not hard to do.
Your Googling skills are in need of better refinement.
http://spie.org/x38304.xml"McDonald Observatory was the premier LLR station during the 1970s and early 1980s. The 2.7-m system, using a Korad ruby laser, routinely produced normal point data with an accuracy of 10-15 cm. After 15 years of operation the 2.7-m system was replaced by a dedicated 0.76-m system, built around a frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser that produces LLR data approaching 1 cm normal point accuracy."
The McDonald Observatory lunar ranging experiments were the star attraction through the 70's and 80's, often championed as proof that NASA went to the moon. However, what the news articles don't tell you is that the experiments were funded by NASA.
Flip to the second page of that link and you will find "This work is supported by NASA Grant NGR-44-012-165"QuoteI also came across this bad boy right here. seems legit, but I am no expert.
http://www.w7ftt.net/laser1.html
At the bottom of that article:"Table Mountain Observatory, operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), is located just west of the
town of Wrightwood, California at an elevation of 7500 feet."
The Jet Propulsion Laboratory happens to be a NASA facility.
Then my former youth group leader is part of "they." Sorry, but that's an awfully silly notion and it's downright insulting to the families of the dead astronauts. By the way, she married Bill Thompson this year and was a keynote speaker at this year's memorial ceremony at the space mirror at the Kennedy Visitor Center. Sorry Tom, she's still in the public eye, your theory doesn't work.QuoteEvelyn Husband still has her real name and is not in any kind of "relocation program." She has done interviews and even wrote a book about her late husband.
http://www.cbn.com/700club/guests/bios/evelyn_husband_012804.aspx
Or maybe that's just what they want you to think.
When she's not weeping at memorial ceremonies and speaking to the media she probably flies down to Arizona to visit her husband for a couple months. I don't care about the particulars. Of course the family would make an appearance at the memorial ceremony. Her tears are forced and her interviews are false. The woman should be ashamed for conspiring with the military to fake her husband's death.
QuoteShe should be even more pissed at herself for being able to cry on cue and act perfectly but not getting paid the millions of dollars she could have with a lucrative acting career.
The woman was likely coached by federal agents on how to act, what to say, and how to force herself into a crying wreck by thinking of her dead childhood dog. It doesn't matter how or why, all that matters is that she's in on it.
Wow Tom, wow. Good luck winning that whole acting argument. That is honestly one of the most stupid theories I have ever heard. What about the fact that her husband has dissapeared from the face of the Earth? Oh ya it's because he's dead.
He's not dead. NASA just relocated him away from the public eye. I'm sure once the media hype dies down his family will be reunited with him if they haven't already.
Now, I suppose it's possible that his family doesn't even know that he's still alive, but I doubt that NASA is that cruel.
It's more likely that several astronaut fatalities have been due to actual failures of the flights or launches.
NASA is not civilian. The concept of a "civilian" space agency is just lip service to hide the fact that NASA's true agenda from the very start was to perform rocket research for ICBM's. Those "civilians" at NASA are military defense contractors - Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytrheon, DynCorp, etc.
Again, as NASA stands, it is civilian. It's great that people suspected from the very beginning that it's intent was to research ICBMs, even though that was pretty much ARPA's entire purpose and reason of formation. That may even be true, I can't say it's not granted the state of the world at the time. We only have speculation to support that claim, however likely or unlikely it may seem, though.
If NASA is civilian then why do they use Confidential, Secret, and Top Secret classifications?
I believe that the "Cold War" existed, but that it was really a war of hoaxes. It should be noted that during the Cold War, Russia went around parading fake ICBMs for decades:
Moscow paraded dummy missiles
MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday.
One such fake, GR-1, an acronym for Global Missile, showed during a parade in 1965, prompted the United States to build an anti- missile defence system worth billions of dollars, said the weekly Vlast (Power). In fact, the Soviets had abandoned the GR-1 project long before the parade.
Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure, the magazine said. "Foreign military attaches were scared to death, triggering panic in Nato headquarters," it said. "A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies." One of the authors of the Vlast report worked as a missile engineer and said he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles to prevent it from bouncing on the stone-paved Red Square in Moscow. The magazine said the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev first bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage". "Such comparison sounded ambiguous for the Soviet people, because the sausage was in deficit, but it duly impressed foreigners," it said. At the time of Krushchev's comment, the Soviets had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles on duty, while the United States had 60. "The myth about the Soviet missile superiority was convenient for both the Soviet leadership and the American military industrial complex, which was getting huge contracts," the magazine said.
Another article on the subject:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/may1499.html#6
There's also a book about their fake ICBM programs:
Quote from: markjoQuoteA real space agency wouldn't build a crudely thrown together space ship easily mistaken for the handiwork of a 13 year old child.
NASA didn't build the LEM. Grumman did.
We've gone over this already.
Grumman contractors build and design things for the government under the auspices of government managers, and do so on government research bases. Grumman contractors are basically government employees. Contracting companies like Grumman and Lockheed are really just the government version of KForce or Volt staffing. It's a temp agency. They're headhunters which contract your services to the government. Most of the time the contracting company does not really know, nor have an interest in, what their contractors are doing for the client.
NASA designed the LEM, because Grumman temps are de-facto NASA employees.
It's like the DoD. Very few people at military research bases actually work for the government (only managers and security). The actual people designing and building the equipment on the government base are government contractors.
Look at the NAVY's new Rail Gun weapon for instance. Would you say that the NAVY designed their new Rain Gun, or would you say that so-and-so temp agency designed it? The answer is that the NAVY did, because the contractors are de-facto government employees receiving instructions from and working directly under government managers. They're the hired help.
IBM hires contractors to build their chips, Nestle hires contractors to process their candies, Gerber hires contractors to maintain their equipment, but it's still IBM, Nestle, and Gerber pulling the strings and who are responsible for the end result.QuoteIt's absurd that a zetetic would judge the space worthiness of the LEM from a photograph.
A photograph of a crudely built spacecraft is photographic evidence that it is crudely built. I don't know what your problem is.
You need to stop denying and face the facts.
Remember that space travel was birthed from the space race. America's main desire to get into earth orbit was so that they could send rockets up there and threaten the world into submission with ICBMs.
The US attempted and failed at building a rocket capable of getting into earth orbit for a long time. When Russia started claiming that they could send rockets into orbit, America's only choice was to claim that they could as well. After WWII America emerged as the world's biggest superpower. Do you really think 1950's America, a rich and paranoid government of the atomic era, would let an aggressor like Russia hold the hand of God over on them with ICBMs?
An entirely new, never before seen technology which does something physically impossible is something that all the money and power in the world simply cannot buy. America already had rockets that could launch up into the air until they were out of sight, and come back down unseen and the government did not shy away from deception.
Consider the secret war of the Vietnam era in which the public and Congress were systematically lied to about the scale of the war and reckless disregard for civilian casualties for over 20 years between 1945 to 1967. The Secret War was administrated by the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson administration, the same people who were in charge around the time when NASA started making all of its fantastic claims.
From the wiki link --QuotePresident Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[8] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
President Johnson had decided to expand the war while promising "we seek no wider war" during his 1964 presidential campaign,[8] including plans to bomb North Vietnam well before the 1964 Election. President Johnson had been outspoken against doing so during the election and claimed that his opponent Barry Goldwater was the one that wanted to bomb North Vietnam.
Does FET have a better answer?
A better answer is that the moon and sun appear to be the same size because they are the same size.
It also makes sense to have a universe with kinds of bodies that are the same sizes. Not wildly different sizes, where one star can be thousands or millions of times bigger than another.
I must ask, have you considered the measurement of heat from a sun the size of the moon? I'd love to see the math on what the minimum size for the sun could be based on the amount of heat input to Earth.
Your comment to my suggestion is completely useless. I assume that you do not understand the research article at all. Please read it again more carefully!
Besides, what are the chances of a mirage projecting the image of a shoreline to the exact distance into the air, no higher or lower so that it is not sunken or floating, whereby it looks to a distant observer that the earth is flat, and this happens every time the experiment is performed, and that this effect adjusts itself accounting for the observer's distance from the shore in accordance to round earth curvature?Since there is no documentation available for every instance that this experiment was performed, it's impossible to say. In fact, we have no documentation saying that the same results occurred every time this experiment was performed.
Tom, you say that there was no observable bending of light over a 6 mile distance, yet in another thread you would have us believe that there is a significant bending of light from the sun that accounts for sunrises and sunsets. It's a real shame that there is no workable formula to describe this conveniently conditional bending of light that you like to go on about.
What about atmospheric conditions inbetween the two points of measurement? What about mirages?
Can you specify a mathematical formula describing refraction of light in air?
Besides, what are the chances of a mirage projecting the image of a shoreline to the exact distance into the air, no higher or lower so that it is not sunken or floating, whereby it looks to a distant observer that the earth is flat, and this happens every time the experiment is performed, and that this effect adjusts itself accounting for the observer's distance from the shore in accordance to round earth curvature?
