Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

NASA cuts ISS feed again

SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:10:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

Yes, maybe the aliens are fixing the projector to make the hologram moon, WAKE UP SHEEPLE WAKE UP

(Do you have some tinfoil I can borrow?)
Meh!
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:35:32 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:10:52 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

Yes, maybe the aliens are fixing the projector to make the hologram moon, WAKE UP SHEEPLE WAKE UP


(Do you have some tinfoil I can borrow?)

Wait, so you're going to accuse me of being an alien conspiracy theorists just because I pointed out that this has happened twice and that it's been verified news twice? I didn't say it was aliens, but they have deliberately cut the ISS feed twice immediately following strange things in the video feed.

If it were just reflections, why cut the feed? Why not give a transmission log and a network packet log of the feed with reliable hashed timestamps if they are worried bout conspiracy theories?

Bottom line is that it's becoming a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional. If this were a corporation I was doing business with I'd raise bloody hell as an admin to their tech guys. NASA has the same personal and professional responsibility to provide decent service to publicly funded projects as any corporation has to provide products and services under civil contract.

Hell one of my co-workers consults with NASA and is a professional network support specialist to fortune 100 companies. (I happen to work for the government's principle supplier of network services btw). I think I'm going to talk to some people about it come to think of it.

I can't exactly walk into anyone's office and demand an explanation, but I can probably get a real answer on why they keep cutting (or losing) the feed every time something odd shows up on a camera.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:42:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:35:32 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:10:52 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

Yes, maybe the aliens are fixing the projector to make the hologram moon, WAKE UP SHEEPLE WAKE UP


(Do you have some tinfoil I can borrow?)

Wait, so you're going to accuse me of being an alien conspiracy theorists just because I pointed out that this has happened twice and that it's been verified news twice? I didn't say it was aliens, but they have deliberately cut the ISS feed twice immediately following strange things in the video feed.

If it were just reflections, why cut the feed? Why not give a transmission log and a network packet log of the feed with reliable hashed timestamps if they are worried bout conspiracy theories?

Bottom line is that it's becoming a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional. If this were a corporation I was doing business with I'd raise bloody hell as an admin to their tech guys. NASA has the same personal and professional responsibility to provide decent service to publicly funded projects as any corporation has to provide products and services under civil contract.

Hell one of my co-workers consults with NASA and is a professional network support specialist to fortune 100 companies. (I happen to work for the government's principle supplier of network services btw). I think I'm going to talk to some people about it come to think of it.

I can't exactly walk into anyone's office and demand an explanation, but I can probably get a real answer on why they keep cutting (or losing) the feed every time something odd shows up on a camera.

Because that's usually how this sort of thread goes.
Meh!
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2016 11:48:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 11:42:45 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:35:32 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
At 4/19/2016 11:10:52 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

Yes, maybe the aliens are fixing the projector to make the hologram moon, WAKE UP SHEEPLE WAKE UP


(Do you have some tinfoil I can borrow?)

Wait, so you're going to accuse me of being an alien conspiracy theorists just because I pointed out that this has happened twice and that it's been verified news twice? I didn't say it was aliens, but they have deliberately cut the ISS feed twice immediately following strange things in the video feed.

If it were just reflections, why cut the feed? Why not give a transmission log and a network packet log of the feed with reliable hashed timestamps if they are worried bout conspiracy theories?

Bottom line is that it's becoming a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional. If this were a corporation I was doing business with I'd raise bloody hell as an admin to their tech guys. NASA has the same personal and professional responsibility to provide decent service to publicly funded projects as any corporation has to provide products and services under civil contract.

Hell one of my co-workers consults with NASA and is a professional network support specialist to fortune 100 companies. (I happen to work for the government's principle supplier of network services btw). I think I'm going to talk to some people about it come to think of it.

I can't exactly walk into anyone's office and demand an explanation, but I can probably get a real answer on why they keep cutting (or losing) the feed every time something odd shows up on a camera.

Because that's usually how this sort of thread goes.

Well welcome to a 'Leach' thread. I refuse to be that idiotic or predictable.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/20/2016 12:39:22 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

I've got the feeling that this might be a hoax. I've heard that Secureteam10 is a known hoaxer; he might have inserted the UFO into the live shot and tricked tabloids into reporting it as "news".

Alternatively, it could be explained as a lens flare. It's low quality and blurry, but it could be some sort of flare.

Anyhow, UFOS are fairly easy to fake. I made some just now. https://www.youtube.com...
:) nac
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,025
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 8:27:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

I think the main issue here is how we perceive the 'big picture plan'. Here in America we already ran a test to see if the public would be able to handle the truth regarding the existence of sentient extraterrestrial life. http://www.history.com...
It didn't go so well. Of course many say this was not a test, but rather just a story-time gone wrong. I disagree, and our government has conducted far worse tests on their own citizens both before and after this program took to the airwaves. Regardless, it revealed, if nothing else, that many Americans simply lose their cool when aliens are mentioned.

The biggest issue, for the government, would be a complete dissolution of law and order. I mean, why pay taxes when aliens have just been announced to exist? Why go to work? There are so many questions that need to be answered!! Martial law, revolutions, madness, religious fervor, and general chaos would all spawn from this sort of reveal. Keep in mind, any challenge to the system of order is perceived as a threat by the administrators of said system. This wouldn't only challenge the system of order, but also all world religions, beliefs systems held in confidence by billions of people for thousands of years.

So what's the solution? Well, we've already been living it...

We've been operating on a desensitization agenda. Slowly but surely introducing the thought of having interactions with extraterrestrial life forms in some way. This has been done mostly through Hollywood films in the last half-century, but is popularized also in art movements, spiritual movements, etc., and ultimately we are slowly but surely coming to accept the possibility and likelihood of there being other life out there.

NASA is doing this too by confirming countless planets located in the "Goldilocks zone" of their respective systems. Planets that have extremely similar atmospheres to ours and that could easily support human life if we traveled there. Even the recent acknowledgement of running water on mars. This is simply all part of a grand reveal plan that is slowly taking place. Obviously it's a slow and painstaking process, especially for those of us that already know the truth, but I think the smart money is saying that the revelation of there being extraterrestrial life will occur during our children's or grandchildren's lifetime.

Another factor, altogether, is whether we're ready for such a reveal on a planetary government level. I sort of always expected there to be a one-world system of order before we entered the true space age... but who knows.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:49:20 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 8:27:22 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

I think the main issue here is how we perceive the 'big picture plan'. Here in America we already ran a test to see if the public would be able to handle the truth regarding the existence of sentient extraterrestrial life. http://www.history.com...
It didn't go so well. Of course many say this was not a test, but rather just a story-time gone wrong. I disagree, and our government has conducted far worse tests on their own citizens both before and after this program took to the airwaves. Regardless, it revealed, if nothing else, that many Americans simply lose their cool when aliens are mentioned.

The biggest issue, for the government, would be a complete dissolution of law and order. I mean, why pay taxes when aliens have just been announced to exist? Why go to work? There are so many questions that need to be answered!! Martial law, revolutions, madness, religious fervor, and general chaos would all spawn from this sort of reveal. Keep in mind, any challenge to the system of order is perceived as a threat by the administrators of said system. This wouldn't only challenge the system of order, but also all world religions, beliefs systems held in confidence by billions of people for thousands of years.

So what's the solution? Well, we've already been living it...

We've been operating on a desensitization agenda. Slowly but surely introducing the thought of having interactions with extraterrestrial life forms in some way. This has been done mostly through Hollywood films in the last half-century, but is popularized also in art movements, spiritual movements, etc., and ultimately we are slowly but surely coming to accept the possibility and likelihood of there being other life out there.

NASA is doing this too by confirming countless planets located in the "Goldilocks zone" of their respective systems. Planets that have extremely similar atmospheres to ours and that could easily support human life if we traveled there. Even the recent acknowledgement of running water on mars. This is simply all part of a grand reveal plan that is slowly taking place. Obviously it's a slow and painstaking process, especially for those of us that already know the truth, but I think the smart money is saying that the revelation of there being extraterrestrial life will occur during our children's or grandchildren's lifetime.

Another factor, altogether, is whether we're ready for such a reveal on a planetary government level. I sort of always expected there to be a one-world system of order before we entered the true space age... but who knows.

There are no aliens as we know them, just as they didn't travel from light years away. The nephalim have got us fooled. Who is Carol Rosin.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
SkyLeach
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 9:54:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Yeah, but that was 1938. The scientific knowledge base is far higher today. We have relativity and quantum physics (the former was barely known and the latter didn't exist at all in 1938).

Some people would freak, and some would panic, but I think it's obvious that the vast majority would handle it well. Also I really doubt that people handling the abstract knowledge of their existence, or evidence of their existence, can be called quite the same as hearing about a bloody invasion on your radio.

Now let's consider 'nobody would go to work'. I don't know about you, but nothing in the news prevents me from getting up and going to work except sickness or vacation. This isn't because I love working for someone else, it's because if I don't, I won't have a house or anything to eat.

Now you can debate philosophy all day long, but something tells me that it is unlikely I'm going to get away with telling my boss 'hey man, there's aliens and I'm not going to work.' Matter of fact, I doubt that would work at Wall-Mart either. 'Hey man I'm taking food for my family because... aliens'.

Try that some time. Go into a grocery story and try to take groceries without paying. When they call the cops, tell them it's because there is no god and cultural morality is premised on common law created by a bunch of religious zealots. See how far that gets you.

man... at this point I just can't take your argument seriously LOL

I believe that the statistical probability of alien life is very good, provided one of the pessimistic 'we're alone' theories attempting to explain the Fermi Paradox aren't actually true. I also sincerely hope that there is alien life, mostly because I think it would make people wake up a bit and stop living life for hedonistic reasons. That's ultimately suicidal for a species to do.

None of that means I believe that this artifact, even if it cannot be explained away, is an alien space craft.

I tend to withhold judgements on anything until proper science has been done. I think that the information, in fact all public information, should be as transparent as possible in a free and open society. I do not like the idea of the government censoring information from the voting public. Classified information for national security should also be available to elected representatives at the state level.

And these are pretty much minimum requirements for not creating a cabal of corrupt politicians running racket scams with trade (ttp), international banking (wto, EU, middle-east, Greece), quantitative easing (a blatant lie designed to tax the middle class using deficits), pork barrel spending (personal projects and riders on appropriation bills),

So have I made myself clear on this? I'm sick of the government tampering with information.
Math is just another language, however one without analogy.

- http://arxiv.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?
keithprosser
Posts: 1,964
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 2:07:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
If its on its way to land on the white house lawn cutting the iss feed is unlikely to stop people noticing.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 12:03:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
Uh no, "we" don't
b.) We can see the landing sites.
At 250,000 miles you can see a 50ft square. Right
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
Doesn't mean we left it there, can I meet this average Joe?
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
Unless they were in on it, they were silenced by the media, or they couldn't prove it.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
Wtf?
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
Lmao!
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
NASA is a need to know organization. Matt Borland, Carol rosin. Nobody wants to 32nd up like Gus Grissom, the one that was supposed to be the first...
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.
Look at these faces, why aren't they happy? They just accomplished the greatest American technological feat!
https://youtu.be...
Beaming smiles!
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 1:24:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.

We have moon rock he says.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.space.com...
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:22:45 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 12:03:10 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
Uh no, "we" don't
Yes we do.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
At 250,000 miles you can see a 50ft square. Right

No, but orbiting the moon with a Lunar Reconnaissance orbiter; yes you can. Not knowing this, is what indicates your ignorance of the details.

c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
Doesn't mean we left it there, can I meet this average Joe?
Yes it does; yes you can.

d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
Unless they were in on it, they were silenced by the media, or they couldn't prove it.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

No; the enemy who you were at defacto war with, and in a battle for supremacy of space for national pride are really not going to collude.

e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
Wtf?
What a great argument.

f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
Lmao!
I like the way you laugh; it's true. Amateur astronomers tracked the apollo missions by the light reflected off the cloud of water and urine dumped out of the spacecraft, which then froze.

g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
NASA is a need to know organization. Matt Borland, Carol rosin. Nobody wants to 32nd up like Gus Grissom, the one that was supposed to be the first...

Not really; there would need to be thousands when you think about it; the astronauts; people who put them in the ship or watched it launch (or subsequently recovered them). Those who set of the radio signals, colluded with independent antenna controllers (the space ship needs to be in the right place in the sky, at the right distance or it's detectable), anyone involved in the filming, grips, etc, and many many more.

No, not possible.

h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.
Look at these faces, why aren't they happy? They just accomplished the greatest American technological feat!
https://youtu.be...
Beaming smiles!

https://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://assets.nydailynews.com...

So, even though it's neither reasonably, nor practically possible; we have seen the landing place; we have moon rock; independent verification in the guise of numerous 3rd party interaction of moon rock, antennas, tracking, etc; and despite there being innumerable images of the astronauts smiling in the days and weeks after the celebration of this amazing technical feat; that they weren't smiling in a press conference nearly 2 months after they landed; after being exposed to an obvious media frenzy in the intervening time; for which there maybe innumerable explanations, gives absolutely no reason to doubt the significant evidence that we did actually land on the moon.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 3:32:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 1:24:56 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.

We have moon rock he says.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.space.com...

Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.

These rocks have are present in independent centers of research across the world; for chemical and analytical analysis.

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:19:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 3:32:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/24/2016 1:24:56 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.

We have moon rock he says.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.space.com...

Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.

These rocks have are present in independent centers of research across the world; for chemical and analytical analysis.
Source please, you already round like you bs with this next line...

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 10:43:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 10:19:22 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:32:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/24/2016 1:24:56 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.

We have moon rock he says.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.space.com...

Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.

These rocks have are present in independent centers of research across the world; for chemical and analytical analysis.
Source please, you already round like you bs with this next line...

Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P
Thatguy90
Posts: 12
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 4:18:36 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
No "technology" was needed to fake the moon rock, hand an enslaved mammal a globe and they'll believe its their world. If petrified wood is moon rocks, are there trees on the moon?
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 10:43:12 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/24/2016 10:19:22 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/24/2016 3:32:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/24/2016 1:24:56 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:13:01 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:05:21 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 11:00:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:39:33 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:30:24 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/23/2016 10:27:00 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/21/2016 10:30:51 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/19/2016 10:46:35 PM, SkyLeach wrote:
Slashdot is running a story ( https://news.slashdot.org... ) from mirror.co.uk covering the second time something odd has shown up in the ISS feed shortly before the feed being cut.

There is clearly something in the video that shouldn't be there, and true to form just like the previous time ( http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk... ) NASA cuts the feed.

Now theories about the nature of the objects in the two incidents aside, why is NASA regulating what we are allowed to know? At what point does an INTERNATIONAL space station which has representatives of nearly all governments aboard get covered under legitimate secrecy?

There are obvious logical flaws in any theory about national security, unless what they really mean is security of the government from the people. At no point has any law ever been passed that even comes close to allowing the government to operate in secret from the voting public for any reason save national security.

I think keeping secrets from the public that are already known to other countries is tantamount to treason in the US.

So NASA is trying to hide things from the public, and the best way they can think of doing that is by cutting the live feed, rather than not having any sort of live feed up there in the first place?

They have to show us something for the billions the steal from us.

Yeah; it sucks that all we get out of it is a space station, cutting edge space and aeronautic technology and R&D, scientific explorations of the solar system, various satellites, telescopes and measurement equipment that allows us to know more about the universe and our own planet.

Space is fake bro... When are any of these things prove useful to the average human?

Yes. Space is fake; based on your expert analysis that almost the entire rest of the world disagrees with; and requires a massive conspiracy of hundreds of thousand of people to propagate and yet has never come to light in 60 years for no particular reason.

No. Space is actually real. You just prefer to believe it isn't, and so do.

Let's start simple. What makes you think we went to the moon, what evidence do you have of this?

a.) We have moon rock.
b.) We can see the landing sites.
c.) Any random joe with the right tech can bounce a laser off some of the devices left on the moon.
d.) If we didn't, the Russians would have known and broadcast it around the world.
e.) Innumerable 3rd party radio antennas were used to track and relay the broadcasts from the moon.
f.) Amateur astronomers could pick up and visually detect urine dumps and various emissions from the space craft as it travelled to the moon.
g.) It requires a massive international conspiracy, so convoluted, so large and so ridiculous that it could not possibly have occurred.
h.) Almost every piece of evidence shown to support the theory is so easily refuted; and so unbelievably incoherent with a conspiracy that is so meticulous it should have picked up such "obvious" examples.

We have moon rock he says.
http://www.nbcnews.com...
http://www.space.com...

Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.
The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html


The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P

You really believe all that? You seem like a reasonable, well indoctrinated guy, I have a question, what did the Go fast rocket hit at just over 100km? It wasn't destroyed, so it couldn't have been solid, but it wasn't space either. It had enough velocity to go a lot higher, but it slowed down suddenly, as if it hit a very dense liquid, not unlike the undersea lakes that submarine, and no the video w
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 2:48:33 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM, Edlvsjd
Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.

Do you think all the people who have analyzed the moon rock can't tell the difference between terrestrial petrified wood, and moon rock?

Do you think anyone would go to the lengths of faking moon rock; which is still impossible btw, and then purposefully send out something else?

It's not like that when a peice of moon rock is sent, the person sending it walks into a room, picks up a moon rock, and sends it. Multiple departments and chains of requests are normally involved; and a mix up at some point in that chain, especially prior to the Internet is not beyond the realms of reasonability.

The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html

Do you not think it harms your position and credibility when you contest my claim that innumerable independent organizations have analyzed and studied the moon rock; then post a link that cites an independent organization that have studied moon rock?

Considering you do not seem to trust the analysis of multiple independent organizations studying the rock directly; why do you give credence to someone whose only evidence seems to be having looked at pictures of the rock? Why do you consider this more trustworthy?


The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P

You really believe all that? You seem like a reasonable, well indoctrinated guy, I have a question, what did the Go fast rocket hit at just over 100km? It wasn't destroyed, so it couldn't have been solid, but it wasn't space either. It had enough velocity to go a lot higher

Uh. I just pointed out that the time taken to transition the can Allen belt, in all reality isn't likely to have caused even close to a lethal dose to the Apollo astronauts.

This isn't even a coherent response to that.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2016 9:45:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 2:48:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM, Edlvsjd
Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.

Do you think all the people who have analyzed the moon rock can't tell the difference between terrestrial petrified wood, and moon rock?
They don't all have to be petrified wood.
Many of the rocks can be found on earth. http://www.xump.com...

Do you think anyone would go to the lengths of faking moon rock; which is still impossible btw, and then purposefully send out something else?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying either is a possibility, considering the evidence showing the landings were faked. If they could do it, do you think they would tell you?

It's not like that when a peice of moon rock is sent, the person sending it walks into a room, picks up a moon rock, and sends it. Multiple departments and chains of requests are normally involved; and a mix up at some point in that chain, especially prior to the Internet is not beyond the realms of reasonability.
Right, I guess you don't have to be that gullible to believe it after all.

The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html

Do you not think it harms your position and credibility when you contest my claim that innumerable independent organizations have analyzed and studied the moon rock; then post a link that cites an independent organization that have studied moon rock?
Not when several of those studies actually proves my overall position.

Considering you do not seem to trust the analysis of multiple independent organizations studying the rock directly; why do you give credence to someone whose only evidence seems to be having looked at pictures of the rock? Why do you consider this more trustworthy?


The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P

You really believe all that? You seem like a reasonable, well indoctrinated guy, I have a question, what did the Go fast rocket hit at just over 100km? It wasn't destroyed, so it couldn't have been solid, but it wasn't space either. It had enough velocity to go a lot higher

Uh. I just pointed out that the time taken to transition the can Allen belt, in all reality isn't likely to have caused even close to a lethal dose to the Apollo astronauts.

This isn't even a coherent response to that.
https://youtu.be...
The original lunar team knew very little of anything about the belts, and they went right through the middle of them, and came back with zero radiation, why do they now have to go around it? Why not reproduce that mission?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:43:17 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/25/2016 9:45:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:48:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM, Edlvsjd
Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.

Do you think all the people who have analyzed the moon rock can't tell the difference between terrestrial petrified wood, and moon rock?
They don't all have to be petrified wood.
Many of the rocks can be found on earth. http://www.xump.com...

Erm, no. The same types of minerals can; but aside from moon meteorites; the rocks on earth are different in isotopic and general elemental composition than those on earth; which anyone with who buys "Babies first mass spectrometer" would be able to tell.


Do you think anyone would go to the lengths of faking moon rock; which is still impossible btw, and then purposefully send out something else?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying either is a possibility, considering the evidence showing the landings were faked. If they could do it, do you think they would tell you?

It's not like that when a peice of moon rock is sent, the person sending it walks into a room, picks up a moon rock, and sends it. Multiple departments and chains of requests are normally involved; and a mix up at some point in that chain, especially prior to the Internet is not beyond the realms of reasonability.
Right, I guess you don't have to be that gullible to believe it after all.

Actually no. There are a thousand different potential explanations that are possible when you actually look into the details of it.

The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html

Do you not think it harms your position and credibility when you contest my claim that innumerable independent organizations have analyzed and studied the moon rock; then post a link that cites an independent organization that have studied moon rock?
Not when several of those studies actually proves my overall position.

So are you conceding that independent labs have analyzed the moon rock? Despite you implying that they hadn't in your previous reply?

And none of the studies validate your overall position.

Considering you do not seem to trust the analysis of multiple independent organizations studying the rock directly; why do you give credence to someone whose only evidence seems to be having looked at pictures of the rock? Why do you consider this more trustworthy?

Ignoring this?

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P

You really believe all that? You seem like a reasonable, well indoctrinated guy, I have a question, what did the Go fast rocket hit at just over 100km? It wasn't destroyed, so it couldn't have been solid, but it wasn't space either. It had enough velocity to go a lot higher

Uh. I just pointed out that the time taken to transition the can Allen belt, in all reality isn't likely to have caused even close to a lethal dose to the Apollo astronauts.

This isn't even a coherent response to that.
https://youtu.be...
The original lunar team knew very little of anything about the belts, and they went right through the middle of them, and came back with zero radiation, why do they now have to go around it? Why not reproduce that mission?

This is just flat out wrong. Van Allen himself did a lot of research to the belts, and coordainted with NASA to work out the radiation dose, and minimizing trajectories.

Most missions today last a long time, and going through the belt multiple times (if they even get that high) can cause problems; but spending a total of 15 minutes in the most radioactive part isn't going to cause a big problem.

Apollo 14, registered a total dose of about 1.14 rads; that is slightly different from "0" radiation; and depending on the breakdown between alpha and beta particles, is about the allowed limit for radiation workers in a year; but not nearly enough to cause any immediate ill effects.

Whats more; ALL of it's in-line with the radioactivity of the van allen belts and how long they took traveling through them.

All your doing is effectively making stuff up; all of the information you need is publicly available, and simply refutes everything you're saying about pretty much everything; indeed you're failing at the most basic level of critical thought: abductive reasoning.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,549
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 5:13:42 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 2:43:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:45:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:48:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM, Edlvsjd
Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.

Do you think all the people who have analyzed the moon rock can't tell the difference between terrestrial petrified wood, and moon rock?
They don't all have to be petrified wood.
Many of the rocks can be found on earth. http://www.xump.com...

Erm, no. The same types of minerals can; but aside from moon meteorites; the rocks on earth are different in isotopic and general elemental composition than those on earth; which anyone with who buys "Babies first mass spectrometer" would be able to tell.


Do you think anyone would go to the lengths of faking moon rock; which is still impossible btw, and then purposefully send out something else?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying either is a possibility, considering the evidence showing the landings were faked. If they could do it, do you think they would tell you?

It's not like that when a peice of moon rock is sent, the person sending it walks into a room, picks up a moon rock, and sends it. Multiple departments and chains of requests are normally involved; and a mix up at some point in that chain, especially prior to the Internet is not beyond the realms of reasonability.
Right, I guess you don't have to be that gullible to believe it after all.

Actually no. There are a thousand different potential explanations that are possible when you actually look into the details of it.

The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html

Do you not think it harms your position and credibility when you contest my claim that innumerable independent organizations have analyzed and studied the moon rock; then post a link that cites an independent organization that have studied moon rock?
Not when several of those studies actually proves my overall position.

So are you conceding that independent labs have analyzed the moon rock? Despite you implying that they hadn't in your previous reply?

And none of the studies validate your overall position.

Considering you do not seem to trust the analysis of multiple independent organizations studying the rock directly; why do you give credence to someone whose only evidence seems to be having looked at pictures of the rock? Why do you consider this more trustworthy?

Ignoring this?

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Hell, aluminum shielded satellites that orbit through the van allen belts for most of the year take 25sv a year; you'd have to spent 2 months in there to take a lethal dose; slightly more than an hour :P

You really believe all that? You seem like a reasonable, well indoctrinated guy, I have a question, what did the Go fast rocket hit at just over 100km? It wasn't destroyed, so it couldn't have been solid, but it wasn't space either. It had enough velocity to go a lot higher

Uh. I just pointed out that the time taken to transition the can Allen belt, in all reality isn't likely to have caused even close to a lethal dose to the Apollo astronauts.

This isn't even a coherent response to that.
https://youtu.be...
The original lunar team knew very little of anything about the belts, and they went right through the middle of them, and came back with zero radiation, why do they now have to go around it? Why not reproduce that mission?

This is just flat out wrong. Van Allen himself did a lot of research to the belts, and coordainted with NASA to work out the radiation dose, and minimizing trajectories.

Most missions today last a long time, and going through the belt multiple times (if they even get that high) can cause problems; but spending a total of 15 minutes in the most radioactive part isn't going to cause a big problem.

Apollo 14, registered a total dose of about 1.14 rads; that is slightly different from "0" radiation; and depending on the breakdown between alpha and beta particles, is about the allowed limit for radiation workers in a year; but not nearly enough to cause any immediate ill effects.

Whats more; ALL of it's in-line with the radioactivity of the van allen belts and how long they took traveling through them.

All your doing is effectively making stuff up; all of the information you need is publicly available, and simply refutes everything you're saying about pretty much everything; indeed you're failing at the most basic level of critical thought: abductive reasoning.

Does NASA.gov have an explanation for the video released of the original Apollo crew staging a picture of earth from low orbit?
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/26/2016 2:45:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/26/2016 5:13:42 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/26/2016 2:43:17 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 9:45:06 PM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 4/25/2016 2:48:33 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 4/25/2016 6:01:39 AM, Edlvsjd
Yes; there are 380kg of moon rock on earth; that some has been lost, or a mix up meant that someone got given petrified wood; doesn't change that.
You honestly believe that is just a coincidence? They just spent billions to get there rocks, and they get it "mixed up" with some petrified wood? Do they store them in the same container? Can You be any more gullible? Entertain me for a minute and look at that from my angle, you might can see how utterly ridiculous that is.

Do you think all the people who have analyzed the moon rock can't tell the difference between terrestrial petrified wood, and moon rock?
They don't all have to be petrified wood.
Many of the rocks can be found on earth. http://www.xump.com...

Erm, no. The same types of minerals can; but aside from moon meteorites; the rocks on earth are different in isotopic and general elemental composition than those on earth; which anyone with who buys "Babies first mass spectrometer" would be able to tell.


Do you think anyone would go to the lengths of faking moon rock; which is still impossible btw, and then purposefully send out something else?
I'm not saying that, I'm saying either is a possibility, considering the evidence showing the landings were faked. If they could do it, do you think they would tell you?

It's not like that when a peice of moon rock is sent, the person sending it walks into a room, picks up a moon rock, and sends it. Multiple departments and chains of requests are normally involved; and a mix up at some point in that chain, especially prior to the Internet is not beyond the realms of reasonability.
Right, I guess you don't have to be that gullible to believe it after all.

Actually no. There are a thousand different potential explanations that are possible when you actually look into the details of it.

The entire lot of original moon rocks is a hoax, they probably simulated the ones we have available now.


Well, you can google "Lunar Regolith" in google scholar, and see a number of analysis performed by teams around the world for a start.

Apollo astronauts did not bring back moon rocks, for the "moon rocks" contain numerous fossils of neurons and blood vessels, which could not have originated from our lifeless moon that had no atmosphere and little gravity . Fossilized neurons and blood vessels found in the "moon rocks" are described in the following posts:

wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/apollo-16-returned-two-skulls-from-moon.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2012/01/indisputable-nerve-cell-remains-found.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/apollo-11-apollo-17-did-not-bring-back.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/lunar-and-planetary-institute-displayed.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/how-could-moon-rock-contain-blood.html
wretchfossil.blogspot.com/2011/12/moon-rocks-contained-blood-vessels.html

Do you not think it harms your position and credibility when you contest my claim that innumerable independent organizations have analyzed and studied the moon rock; then post a link that cites an independent organization that have studied moon rock?
Not when several of those studies actually proves my overall position.

So are you conceding that independent labs have analyzed the moon rock? Despite you implying that they hadn't in your previous reply?

And none of the studies validate your overall position.

Considering you do not seem to trust the analysis of multiple independent organizations studying the rock directly; why do you give credence to someone whose only evidence seems to be having looked at pictures of the rock? Why do you consider this more trustworthy?

Ignoring this?

The analysis shows they are not terrestrial samples based on their internal composition being unlike earth samples, and dating of the samples indicate a very old age; I highly doubt we could fake these samples in the same degree with the technology available today, leave alone in the 40s.
The 40's? Didn't realize we had moon rocks in the 40's!

Well, that is an obvious Typo; and your reply neatly ignores the problem. We don't have the technology NOW to fake moon rock.

The samples can be obtained from NASA for free; and up to 400 samples are sent out for research and teaching every year.

Still doesn't prove we went to the moon. Unmanned proves? Maybe. Van Allen belt trumps all humans.

No it doesn't. If you chose your trajectory wisely you can bypass the inner layers, and traveling at 25,000 kph, you get through it in the best part of an hour; and even at it's most intense, that's only about 600 msv. Still high; but in reality, given the varying thickness and intensity of different parts of the belt, you'd probably only take about 150 msv; most of which would comprise of beta, and alpha particles, and is mostly going to be shielded by the spacecraft.

Does NASA.gov have an explanation for the video released of the original Apollo crew staging a picture of earth from low orbit?

Do you have any explanation for ANY of the explanations I have put forward? Including giving detailed and justified reason why every single reason you have used to justify your opinion is wrong?