 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 20.04.2010 09:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
You're a hopless optimist.
All that those reflectors demonstrate is that there's /something/ up
there that /seems/ to be /some/ artifact of an intelligent spacefaring race.
For instance, those reflectors could have been sent up there with
unmanned probes.
However, the actual bitter truth is, the reflectors weren't /sent/ there
by NASA, but rather /discovered/ somewhen in the late 50's by the NSA
(sic!); when it became evident that their presence could not be kept
secret much longer, president Kennedy decided to initiate the Apollo
project, in order to (a) fabricate an explanation for those artifacts
that could be sold to the public without causing unrest, and (b) examine
the artifacts.
As to whether the moon landings were fake or not, the truth is that
/some/ were: Apollo 11 and 12 were staged, when the NSA found that
rumors about the reflectors started to leak even before the Apollo
spacecraft was ready. Apollo 13 was the first real manned mission,
rushed out in a hurry before the craft had been thoroughly tested (we
all know the near-catastrophic result), and only four missions - Apollo
14 through 17 - really set foot on the moon. (They did indeed discover
further artifacts - including the infamous "domes of glass" - but NASA
did go a great length to prevent any footage of these artifacts from
being leaked to the public.)
;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:08:14 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymous org> wrote:
> Am 20.04.2010 09:48, schrieb Nekar Xenos:
>>
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>>
>> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
>
> You're a hopless optimist.
>
> All that those reflectors demonstrate is that there's /something/ up
> there that /seems/ to be /some/ artifact of an intelligent spacefaring
> race.
>
> For instance, those reflectors could have been sent up there with
> unmanned probes.
>
> However, the actual bitter truth is, the reflectors weren't /sent/ there
> by NASA, but rather /discovered/ somewhen in the late 50's by the NSA
> (sic!); when it became evident that their presence could not be kept
> secret much longer, president Kennedy decided to initiate the Apollo
> project, in order to (a) fabricate an explanation for those artifacts
> that could be sold to the public without causing unrest, and (b) examine
> the artifacts.
>
> As to whether the moon landings were fake or not, the truth is that
> /some/ were: Apollo 11 and 12 were staged, when the NSA found that
> rumors about the reflectors started to leak even before the Apollo
> spacecraft was ready. Apollo 13 was the first real manned mission,
> rushed out in a hurry before the craft had been thoroughly tested (we
> all know the near-catastrophic result), and only four missions - Apollo
> 14 through 17 - really set foot on the moon. (They did indeed discover
> further artifacts - including the infamous "domes of glass" - but NASA
> did go a great length to prevent any footage of these artifacts from
> being leaked to the public.)
>
> ;-)
Wow! That was good! ;D
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Wow! That was good! ;D
It would be funny if it wasn't so scary...
(Because you *know* that somebody out there right now is thinking this
exact idea, don't you?)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
You make it sound like this was something new. Of course the reflectors
have been being measured for 40 years, so there's nothing new about that.
A few conspiracy theorists try to claim that there are no reflectors,
and that all the observatories around the world which are measuring the
reflectors are in a big conspiracy together to lie about it, which of course
is ludicrous.
Most conspiracy theorists are not as fool as trying to claim there are no
reflectors. Instead, they claim that they were sent there by unmanned probes.
Of course what they *don't* explain is how they were sent there, when,
who designed the landing systems (so that the reflectors could land safely
rather than crashing) and the deploying systems, all this in complete
secrecy, of course, and how they were able to sneak this unmanned probe
there without the soviets noticing. (Sending a rocket to space is not
something you can really do very furtively, especially when the Soviet
Union is very interested in your space activities because it's the height
of the cold war and nuclear proliferation.)
Some conspiracy theorists may claim that the Moon mission which allegedly
took the reflectors to the Moon was actually staying on low Earth orbit and
simply sent an unmanned probe from there to the Moon. Again, it would be
hard to keep such a huge unmanned probe embedded inside the lunar module
without hundreds of engineers (many of which were not direct NASA employees)
noticing that something is not summing up.
Since the lunar module was already in orbit, wouldn't it have been much
simpler to send *it* to the Moon in order to take the reflector there? No
need to hide heavy unmanned probes with automatic landing equipment. Just
send the whole thing there.
Of course you still don't have the automatic landing mechanism. Well,
the easy solution to that problem is to use the lunar lander itself. And
while you are at it, put the astronauts inside. Easy.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 12:33:45 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Nekar Xenos <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
>> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
>
> You make it sound like this was something new. Of course the reflectors
> have been being measured for 40 years, so there's nothing new about that.
>
I assumed they either didn't know about it or just ignored it ;)
> A few conspiracy theorists try to claim that there are no reflectors,
> and that all the observatories around the world which are measuring the
> reflectors are in a big conspiracy together to lie about it, which of
> course
> is ludicrous.
>
> Most conspiracy theorists are not as fool as trying to claim there are
> no
> reflectors. Instead, they claim that they were sent there by unmanned
> probes.
>
> Of course what they *don't* explain is how they were sent there, when,
> who designed the landing systems (so that the reflectors could land
> safely
> rather than crashing) and the deploying systems, all this in complete
> secrecy, of course, and how they were able to sneak this unmanned probe
> there without the soviets noticing. (Sending a rocket to space is not
> something you can really do very furtively, especially when the Soviet
> Union is very interested in your space activities because it's the height
> of the cold war and nuclear proliferation.)
>
> Some conspiracy theorists may claim that the Moon mission which
> allegedly
> took the reflectors to the Moon was actually staying on low Earth orbit
> and
> simply sent an unmanned probe from there to the Moon. Again, it would be
> hard to keep such a huge unmanned probe embedded inside the lunar module
> without hundreds of engineers (many of which were not direct NASA
> employees)
> noticing that something is not summing up.
>
> Since the lunar module was already in orbit, wouldn't it have been much
> simpler to send *it* to the Moon in order to take the reflector there? No
> need to hide heavy unmanned probes with automatic landing equipment. Just
> send the whole thing there.
>
> Of course you still don't have the automatic landing mechanism. Well,
> the easy solution to that problem is to use the lunar lander itself. And
> while you are at it, put the astronauts inside. Easy.
>
This is scary stuff =:O
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Nekar Xenos" <nek### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
LCROSS, not aliens.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:34:43 +0200, gregjohn <pte### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> LCROSS
Yeah, that as well =)
I've been waiting for info on LCROSS. Everything I've read/heard just said
they annalized the plume form the explosion, but nowhere does it tell us
what they found out. Probably just dust...
--
-Nekar Xenos-
"The spoon is not real"
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:48:44 +0200, Nekar Xenos
<nek### [at] gmailcom> did spake thusly:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100414152133.htm
>
> I guess that blows the conspiracy theory that man was never on the moon!
Oh yeah how do you know they're actually receiving anything at all have
you tried it yourself; have you, have you? This is the start of the
slow-con for when the equipment becomes available for anyone to run the
tests "We didn't get anything back" will be the cry of the masses; "Oh
yeah we've said they've been getting dimmer for ages, you need more
sensitive equipment available only to us" and so the con continues.
:-P
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Phil Cook v2 wrote:
> Oh yeah how do you know they're actually receiving anything at all have
> you tried it yourself; have you, have you? This is the start of the
> slow-con for when the equipment becomes available for anyone to run the
> tests "We didn't get anything back" will be the cry of the masses; "Oh
> yeah we've said they've been getting dimmer for ages, you need more
> sensitive equipment available only to us" and so the con continues.
>
> :-P
Most of modern science is based on facts which are impossible to varify
without some seriously expensive equipment. The scientists doing this
work can easily verify that the established theories are correct, but
it's a valid question as to whether the fact that laypeople believe it
counts as science or just a belief system...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
