1. Thurs am and USD regains some lost ground, now over 101
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Good Thur Morning! To start we have Gold down 9 to 1202, while Silver is down 31 to 1695. We have Crude up on supply info after a big downswing, +31 to 5221. The USD is back above 101 at 101.12.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Week of 1/7/2017 Closing prices & Chg Over Last Wk---- Gold $1173.40-- UP 21.70 Silver $16.52-- UP 54 Oil $53.99 -- UP 27 TICS USD $102.21 -- DOWN 7 Based on near term futures contract--- At JMB Current price AGE 2017 $1243.95 (1), SAE $19.53 (20)
  4. Added Heartland Precious Metals out of OK and LA to the map, Added Texas Precious Metals, and Added Provident Metals.

Watch NASA, & Scientists Repeatedly Admiting "We can ONLY fly in low Earth Orbit"

Discussion in 'Coffee Shack (Daily News/Energy/Economy)' started by BarnacleBob, Jan 10, 2017.



  1. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,567
    Likes Received:
    8,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
     
  2. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Technically speaking, they are correct in that currently there exists no means to send people beyond low Earth orbit. That''s not the same as saying man has never went beyond LEO.
    The seeing stars thing, it depends upon whether or not the observer is facing the Sun. The Sun is so bright it washes everything else out.

    As for the Van Allen belts? It's all about duration of exposure....same as with any type of radiation.



     
    Goldhedge and GOLDBRIX like this.
  3. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
     
    GOLDBRIX likes this.
  4. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    LOL You're Joeking right?
     
    Oldmansmith likes this.
  5. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Not at all, because the guy in the vid is absolutely correct. Moon landing was not faked and could not be faked. All the so-called proof that it was is easily debunked.
     
  6. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
     
  7. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Haha. No actually it hasn't. The OP video alone shows that the NASA actors don't even have their story straight. Asking an astronaut if stars are visible and getting totally opposite answers and dumbfounded looks is a problem. Van Allen belts is a problem. The idea that 1960's technology made it to the moon and back 100% successfully and that none of the other super powers then or since have any desire to prove themselves (despite always wanting to in other areas - military might, economics, etc --but not technology and science?). If it was achieveable in the 60's it should be a cakewalk 50 years later. The idea that computers with the computing capabilities of a calculator were able to perfectly navigate, to do complex separation and landings (rover+ orbiter modules), complex take off orbit and re-uniting. The fact that most of the astronauts want to avoid talking about their "trip" such as Armstrong who rarely if ever wants to discuss it. This isn't to mention the massive problems with the photographs, lighting, shadows, equipment, fuel, letters on rock, gophers on Mars shots, fake space sets, green-screen backgrounds, bubbles coming from helmets in numerous videos, etc.

    Sorry guy, if you believe this fairy tale, I imagine you believe everything the government has told you. If you've done any amount of research into this and still believe it, I seriously have to question your intellect.
     
    freud198 likes this.
  8. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Yes, actually it has been.

    Because the answer is, it depends.
    ...on where the are on the ISS, which windows they are looking out of, and whether or not their eyes have had time to adjust to the lower light levels. The ISS orbits every 90 minutes and more than half of that time the Sun is visible. If it is in your field of view, you ain't seein' no stars. Also, most windows face the Earth and the ones facing "up" Ie: out to space are oftentimes covered in order to protect the windows from micrometeorite strikes.
    Not to mention the fact that those on the ISS don't just sit there looking out the windows all day.


    No, it's really not. Radiation is all about intensity and time of exposure. The Apollo missions did not travel through the middle of the radiation belts, but through the thinner edges. That was possible due to the fact that the Moons orbital plane is tilted relative to the Earths orbital plane. Near the Earths orbital plane the Van Allen Belts are at their most intense levels. The higher or lower you pass through them, the less exposure you would get.
    Also, you wouldn't need heavy lead shielding either. As stated in the vid posted above, it's not x-rays that comprise the Van Allen Belts, but rather charged particles.
    ...but all the naysayers always equate it with things like x-rays and gamma rays.


    Because there's really nothing there of value relative to cost of going there.
    ...but China is working on going. Don't they count?


    It's because back then they were willing to take chances that most people today are not willing to take with other peoples lives.


    Those are only "massive problems" if you don't really understand what you are seeing. Like the rock that supposedly has a letter "C" on it. Take a good look at that "C". When zoomed in on, it looks like some kind of small fiber or something that was introduced onto the film during developing. It certainly does not look anything like letter stamped into the supposedly fake rock.
    ....and if that's supposedly some type of catalog number for that particular rock, why would they only use a single letter designation? To recreate a Moon scape would require many many "fake" rocks, each presumably with their own "number". (Gotta keep that shit straight, right?)

    Other stuff you mentioned is all debunked here. http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
    ...and here. http://www.clavius.org/analyze.html
    Among other places.



    I'd say it's yours that need questioning, as you obviously suffer from confirmation bias. I've been on both sides of this issue. Have you? I'm also willing to go wherever the evidence points, not just to the things I already think are true like most of the hoax believers do.

    One other thing. The Soviet Union tracked the Apollo missions all the way to the Moon. Why didn't they bust us out? I know, I know, they were in on it too, right? Along with all the amateur radio operators looking for their own verification of the mission. If Apollo spent the whole time in Earth orbit, the "secret" would have been blown wide open before the Astronauts had time to splash down.

    There's too many people that would have had to been in on it, had it been faked. People in many different fields and in several different nations. To believe that all those people, including some of our sworn enemies, would all work together to keep a secret just to make the US gov look good, is beyond silly.
    ...but keep believing it. I got faith in ya!
     
  9. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Photo of stars as seen from on the ISS. Notice how over exposed the Earth is. You can't photograph a really bright thing next to a really dim thing and expect both to be seen equally well in the same photo. Anyone who thinks they should be able to and uses that as "proof" we didn't go to the Moon, obviously does not understand photography and/or is just trying to find reasons to confirm their pre-existing doubts. Ie: they suffer from a case of confirmation bias.

    If you really want to prove or disprove something you are currently unsure of, it's critical to try to disprove your own views on the subject. Otherwise you'll just build a little fort around your beliefs and fight anything that might seem to prove those ideas wrong.


    On a related note, the same effect is noticed when taking a pic of the city lights at night. If you want any stars to be visible, the city part will be over exposed.

    Ie: stars are obviously visible from space. Anyone who thinks they wouldn't be, needs to fasten the straps a bit tighter on their thinking cap. lol


    main-qimg-a84123aef8395eded9502b8125b99db6-c.jpg
     
  10. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Too much effort to try to correct all of your failed arguments. I'll just leave you with this one picture:
    mars-pareidolia-06-670x440-130530.jpg
     
  11. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Dude, it's just a picture of a rock. Possibly a few rocks.
    ...and of course you don't want to go through all the details of what I posted because too much of it disproves what you posted.

    Meanwhile, you post a laundry list of stuff in post #7 that you expected me to address. lol
     
  12. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    This explains the reason people think they see common things in pics of Mars.
    Here's a hint. It's the same reason we sometimes think we see faces or other recognizable things in shadows and scenes here on Earth that upon closer inspection, are shown to not really be there. Ie: people are good at discerning recognizable patterns and assigning a defined object to those patterns.

    That pic of a rock you posted is a 3 dimensional object viewed in only 2 dimensions. If you could rotate the scene and look at it from another angle, you'd quickly see that it's nothing more than a rock.
    ...but it confirms your pre-existing bias, so you cling tightly to the idea that it must be a rodent. Your brain won't let you see it any other way than as some type of rodent because that's what you want to see.


     
  13. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Another interesting fact about the Apollo missions is that knitting (the kind little old ladies do) is what actually got 'em there and back. If it were all fake, why would they go to such trouble to produce useless stuff meant to get them there, when they could do without and just lie about the navigation equipment?
    ...or were the little old ladies who knitted the core rope memory in on it too? They were old, so they would've died not too many years later, I suppose. lol




    Here's another short vid that further explains the guidance system used by Apollo missions. Specifically, the optical alignment telescope. Without which, the mission would have been all but impossible.
    ...but if they were lying about it, why not just use the heavier motors, worm gears and rigid track used on traditional sextants? Why would it matter if it were all fake? Seems like a lotta trouble to spend so many resources solving problems that don't need to be solved. The reason they did, is because they had to due to weight restrictions.

     
  14. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
  15. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Sorry, but the Museum was mistaken.
    Also, that particular item was not given to Drees by Armstrong or Aldrin, but rather by an Ambassador who didn't know WTF he was talking about. Either that or Drees needed a hearing aid. Either way, NASA never gave away any lunar samples a mere 3 months after Apollo 11 returned.
    NASA did give Moon rocks to certain other nations, but that wasn't until in the early '70's. Also, the actual Lunar rocks given to Holland are still accounted for and are not in question as to their authenticity. They have samples from Apollo 11 and 17 on display at the National Museum of the History of Science and Medicine in Leiden, Netherlands.


    Try try again.

    Edited to add: apparently the real Apollo 11 samples that were given as gifts were encased in Lucite and attached to a wooden plaque. Also, they weighed approx .05 grams. About the size of a grain of rice.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017 at 6:29 AM
  16. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    I was gonna let this thread die, but seeing that you're still interested, here's a vid explaining how the Apollo computer worked.





    After watching that, I gotta ask the skeptics reading, if it was all fake, why go to all this trouble to create such complicated things? Just throw a sextant into the capsule and let 'em orbit the Earth a few hundred times. If it's all fake. If not, you need something like this in order to make sure it always works. Ie: fail safe.

    Not to mention involving so many extra people for no good reason. The more people involved, the more likely you'll get found out.
     
  17. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    A definitive history as to the origins of the Moon landing hoax, hoax.

    Do you know where/how the hoax idea got started?

     
    southfork likes this.
  18. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I would have to say you're the most gullible person I've ever encountered. Most mooners just haven't thought about this and researched it. You've actually looked into it and still buy the official narrative. It's quite amusing. Seriously, is there any official government narrative that you DON'T believe in?
     
    southfork likes this.
  19. BarnacleBob

    BarnacleBob GIM Founding Member & Mod. Founding Member Site Mgr Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,567
    Likes Received:
    8,385
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ten-Oh-Cee
    Never fear "UnderDog" is here to set us straight! Now straighten up cause Joe says its so! /Sarc

    Now you know the moon landings were reproduced in the desert & on film stages because authorities didnt want those pesky commies in Russia & China stealing our new technologies! /Sarc 2

    images-3.jpeg
     
  20. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    At least I'm putting forth reasons for all the things you said prove they never happened. Reasons that are science based, mind you.

    Is the Dutch rock thing the best you got? That's long been shown to not be as presented by the lunar hoaxers.
    Edited to add:...and I have been on both sides of this issue. I've looked at the evidence given and at one time had my own doubts about it. However, once I dug deeper I realized that those putting forth this theory tend to have a poor understanding of the science around these things. It's akin to the chemtrail stuff and flatEarth stuff. It can all be attributed to a less than firm grasp on the science and physics involved.

    It's not because "I say so", but rather because that's what the science says.
    Take the Van Allen belts for example. Why is it so unreasonable to consider that the damaging radiation there works the same as other ionizing radiation you may be exposed to? It's all based upon ones duration of exposure. It's why the technician giving an xray is provided a lead shield, while the person getting it is not provided a lead shield. The patient only gets one every so often while the technician works near it everyday. Ie: their chance for harmful exposure is greater and is taken into consideration by providing them a lead shield.

    Van Allen belts work the same way. As long as you go through the thinner parts at a fast enough rate, the duration of exposure is minimal. They've always maintained that they flew through the thinner portions of it. Why is that fact so difficult to understand?
     
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2017 at 6:52 PM
  21. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You didn't answer my question:

    Seriously, is there any official government narrative that you DON'T believe in?

    If so, let's hear a couple examples.
     
  22. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    How exactly does recognizing that the Apollo missions actually happened, equate to believing/disbelieving anything else?
    What I believe/disbelieve has nothing to do with who the messenger is, but rather what the science and physics say on the matter. People of all sorts lie and/or are confused about some things. Including people with the gov.

    In fact, if you would actually watch the vid I posted in post #3, the last two minutes address how things like the fake Moon hoax diverts peoples attention from the real stuff. Things like the NDAA, for example.
    If as much effort was placed into exposing that, as is placed on trying to convince others to ignore/deny science and physics in order to accept we did not go to the Moon, we might not have the NDAA.
    Things like this serve as nothing but a distraction and is meant to keep people like you barking up the wrong tree.


    If you want to address other subjects and/or conspiracy theories, why don't you start a new thread about those things? This thread is about the Apollo Moon missions, but you can't seem to come up with anything plausible that would prove they did not happen, so you attempt to divert the conversation. Which is a typical response by those with no leg to stand on in the current discussion. As soon as one argument is destroyed, it is dropped and some other thing is immediately brought up.

    Remember, to disprove a theory, all it takes is for one of it's so-called proofs to be dis-proven in order to destroy the theory. Everything you've thus far listed as proof of there being no manned Moon landing, has been utterly and completely dis-proven. Otherwise you'd be screaming it from the tree tops...but you aren't doing that. You just bounce from reason to reason in an attempt to justify that which you already want to believe. Then when you run out of reasons, you try to change the subject. lol


    Now, how about you address the subject at hand? If you can.
     
  23. EricTheCat

    EricTheCat Silver Member Silver Miner

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    199
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Southern MN
    Oh boy. Here we go again.............
    *Hands Joe King a beer* You deserve it and I have a feeling you might need it after this discussion. :)
    :beer:
     
    Joe King likes this.
  24. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    Thanks. lol

    The thing that gets me about using the excuse of the Van Allen Belt radiation as a reason Apollo could not have gone to the Moon, is the fact that the only ones with any hard data about the radiation levels, is NASA and the space agencies of other nations. The ones using it as "proof" of the so-called hoax only know of its existence, but have no actual knowledge of it. They then extrapolate in their heads what they think they know about things like dental xrays and somehow come to the conclusion that without heavy lead shielding it has to be impossible to traverse the VARB's.
    Ie: their "proof" in this case is 100% supposition based upon a limited understanding of the subject. That all radiation is the same and equally deadly at any level of exposure. The problem is, that is just not true.



     
  25. Thecrensh

    Thecrensh Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    Messages:
    2,231
    Likes Received:
    1,920
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What exactly am I looking at??? Why is this important to you?
     
  26. goldielox1

    goldielox1 Seeker Seeker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's really rather simple. I can see you're some ostrich with his head in the sand. The point wasn't to shif to a different topic. The point was to establish that you believe anything and everything the "authorities" tell you is true. I think your response makes that pretty clear. On the other hand, if you could actually admit that the US government does lie about a lot of important things and even list examples where you don't believe them, then I might actually believe you are a honest truth seeker with the ability to look at an issue from an honest open-minded perspective and an intellect that can sift through the tons of misinformation that we have spoon fed to us on a daily basis. Now I'm just pretty convinced that you're either a government shrill, a troll, or an ignoramus.
     
  27. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    You're making my point for me that you suffer from confirmation bias.

    Ie: it's obvious that you already believe something and are only searching for confirmation of it. In this case, you are jumping to a conclusion about me and my beliefs and/or lack thereof and are asking me to help confirm your conclusions. Sorry, but I don't play that game. As I said, if there are other topics you'd like to discuss, start a thread on them and we'll see what I post in 'em. This thread is about Apollo.



    It seems that you are incapable of discussing the topic at hand and have no further "proof" that the Apollo missions were faked, specifically that the Van Allen Belts are completely impenetrable to humans,. If so, then you obviously do not have a leg to stand on. So far the best you've come up with is the Dutch rock thing.
    ...but at least you tried.

    Now all you're doing is attempting to build a strawman in order to have something to attack.


    I'm sorry to have to say this, but it is you who has the head buried in the sand, because to believe what you are saying requires one to ignore science and physics.
    ...and even the gov is subject to science and the laws of physics.
     
  28. Joe King

    Joe King Gold Member Gold Chaser

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    2,597
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Instant Gratification Land
    He can't tell what's in the pic. Otherwise he'd say what it's supposed to be. (here's a hint, it's a rock) lol


    He just saw that someone who says Apollo missions were fake, thinks one of those rocks is alive. So obviously it must be. Ie: more proof of a confirmation bias at work. lol
     

Share This Page