Anyone else out there who doubts whether the yanks ever set foot on the moon let alone all this tat on tv about fixing shuttles with hack saws?
And just who the hell is doing all this fancy filming? Steven Speilberg perhaps?
Mand::
'The Americans won WW2 single handed' That's made up, why wouldn't other stuff be made up ^__^
About the moon landings, I find it an interesting thing to talk about. Things like shadows and the cameras having buttons way too small to be used
with the massive gloves they had.
[Edited on 3/8/05 by Benzine]
Capricorn One springs to mind perhaps.
I reckon they did, but the conspiracy theorists do make some quite good points!!
There should have been a moonbase by now, though they'd have probably claimed it for themselves (so they can burn anything worthwhile, this is of
course after they've declared war on it
)
ATB
Simon
if you can get a man in space it wouldnt be 'rocket science' to get an external camera on a shuttle.
Its amazing that all the moonrock brought back which totalled 100s of lbs was never declared as from earth by all the scientists outside america it
was given to.
Appollo 13 was done to add a bit of drama?
Why didnt the russians, and every other country capable of tracking the spacecraft to the moon and back, blow the gaff on the 'fraud'.
conspiracy theories are bollocks.
I have my own. Liverpool won the champions league cos all the AC milan players were killed in the dressing room and replaced by androids at half time.
Makes as much sense as any other theory.
atb
steve
quote:
conspiracy theories are bollocks.
quote:
Originally posted by Simon
There should have been a moonbase by now, ATB
Simon
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
'The Americans won WW2 single handed'
We had to park all our planes, tanks, and
jeeps somewhere! conspiracy theory eh !!!
well they did wan't to beat the commies,
and theres been a few documentaries on it...including the fact that the button on the camera they had was very small...hard to press with those big
gloves on
Want a conspiracy theory?
How about the one that it was not Titanic that sank but her twin sister Olympic? Thought to be an insurance scam?
Do a search on Google.
Great story.
Cheers
Mark
I think the most compelling argument is radiation. The levels of radiation during a trip to the moon would extremely high and yet we are to beleive
that the ships skin was wafer thin ? how come they didn't all die from the radiation ? 
It wasn't considered a problem by the scientists at the time as the only exposure was as they passed through the Van Allen belts. Quote:-Their
solution was simple -- avoid exposure by keeping the spacecraft at low Earth orbit altitudes while in parking orbits and then send it through the
belts at high speed. The eventual escape speed, some 25,000 miles per hour, would have passed them through the belts in less than an hour, keeping
their dose well below 1 rad.
http://www.lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
[Edited on 4/8/05 by Peteff]
quote:
Originally posted by Benzine
'The Americans won WW2 single handed' That's made up, why wouldn't other stuff be made up ^__^
[Edited on 3/8/05 by Benzine]
They built the space station because Elvis needed somewhere to hide out, poor sod couldn't even work in a supermarket without someone recognising him!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it was Bill Gates' new marketing platform for Microsoft.......
gonna use it to emblazon the MS logo across the night sky 2km wide... 
(actually that sort of thing is really on the cards!)check this out
[Edited on 4/8/05 by DaveFJ]
Conspiracy theories are great for a laugh!
The Russians made more human sacrifice than any other country in WW2.
Tim
Saw an american newspaper article which suggested that shuttles would soon be grounded for ever & designs were already on the drawing boards for
good old fashioned rockets with the payload at the sharp end, re-using loads of shuttle parts to reduce design time & supply chain issues.
It suggested probability of shuttle 'incident' was 1 in 100 launches whereas the more conventional rockets would be 1 in 1000.
Haing payload at sharp end means it doesn't get clobbered by bits falling off the engines + makes a catastrophe potentially surviveable.
Shuttle launches are crazy expensive, the new rockets would be less reuseable but work out much cheaper.
Bob
This is essentially correct. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle
For what it's worth, I'm a mechanical engineer working at Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Peter
quote:
Originally posted by Bob C
Saw an american newspaper article which suggested that shuttles would soon be grounded for ever & designs were already on the drawing boards for good old fashioned rockets with the payload at the sharp end, re-using loads of shuttle parts to reduce design time & supply chain issues.
It suggested probability of shuttle 'incident' was 1 in 100 launches whereas the more conventional rockets would be 1 in 1000.
Haing payload at sharp end means it doesn't get clobbered by bits falling off the engines + makes a catastrophe potentially surviveable.
Shuttle launches are crazy expensive, the new rockets would be less reuseable but work out much cheaper.
Bob
now that is a job worth having!
1 rad is actually quite a high amount of radiation.
Strange thing with radiation doses is that the amount a radiation worker is allowed in a year can be had all in one dose, or spread over a year. The
effects are not seen as different.
There was an article on the radio today about the bombing of japan. An interview was held with a 68 year old woman who was 2 1/2 km from ground zero -
still alive. There is apparently 140,000 people still alive from the 300,000 that were in the survivable areas around ground zero.
Finally, you can buy clothing with radiation reducing material in the fabric. One use is for emergency teams faced with a dirty bomb incident.
Why make a whole space ship out of lead when all you need to protect is the astronaut?
atb
steve
[Edited on 4/8/05 by steve_gus]
It does say this Steve