Aslo on the subject of the images of the astronauts in the decontamination pod they do look happy to be back in those photos, so would i if i had been orbiting the earth for 3 days knowing i could die on reentry in the early days of space, still pretty dangerous now even with all the knowledge they now posses on the subject.
It is at the presser that i think it is obvious they never went to the moon with all the figiting twiddling of fingers and just looking very unconformable under the pressure of the world media.
I mean if you had been to the moon and came back alive surely you would be ecstatic and dying to tell of everything you saw and your experience but to me they seemed very muted and not really forthcoming with their answers.

[iWrong. Again why do you keep making habit of it. Here's [url=https://youtu.be/NlXG0REiVzEOne of your own.[/url explaining it can't be done.


If it can't be done that means nothing has ever gone past the Van Allen belt[/i.

Thanks for that. It's actually a fantastic example of a scientifically ignorant person such as you, trying to put scientific 2+2 together and not unexpectedly arriving at 47.

You obviously don't actually know anything at all about the Van Allen belts.

You obviosuly don't understand what the challenge was for the Apollo moon missions.

You obviously therefore don't understand that this is NOT at all the same as for the proposed Orion missions.

In short - you don't know what you're talking about. You've seized on a video presentation (which, btw, doesn't actually say any such thing as its sensationalist title risibly claims) and as usual, because you like the general drift, you link to it uncritically.

If you were to take a few minutes to at least research the basics, you would at least learn the general shape and layout of the Van Allen belts. Clue: It isn't a homogenous "shell" all around the Earth)

The issue for Apollo was that the direct route they had to take to the Moon passed through the Van Allen belts, but not through the most hazardous part. The part of the belt was a comparatively narrow section, and their trajectory was a steep curve as the craft accelerated away from Earth towards the Moon, so basically in and out of it.

The Orion missions are not slated to fly in and out in this very limited way, and so you're comparing chalk and cheese. Which you could have easily discovered, but you prefer to jump to asinine conclusions.



The guy is 100% on the money. No astronaut has ever been exposed to anything like the sort of potential Van Allen belts radiation and as ever scientists have done the numbers theorized what will likely happen and what they need, and planned to experiment and test the theories before sending astronauts up. Kind of what I'd expect, really.

So, the NASA guy made no such blooper as your hoax nut buddies claim - but you just did: the only way there could actually be Van Allen belts around the Earth is if the Earth is a globe. So you revel in the claim NASA "can't send a man through the Van Allen belts" - while elsewhere your position is that there ARE no fscking Van Allen belts, there can't be, as the Earth is flat!

Busted yet again Stan! You're too easy these days.

But perhaps we could reasonably leave the last word to the discoverer of said belts:


Now I have again shown up your ramblings for unscientific nonsense, are you ready to come up with your mad explanation why all those satellites you can see with your own eyes orbiting the globe aren't real?

[iCopy and paste from Rob Stuart in the you tube testimonies section of the video provided. take a look everybody



Seeing as though you've been caught plagiarising other peoples thoughts. We can now confirm you have Zero credibility.



As for the video It was clear as snow. They have Zero technology to overcome the VAB yet. From the horses mouth. Why the angst Why are you so abrasive. Because US stupid conspiracy theorist are ruining the world. This video that stimulated the conversation is by no means a smoking gun but yes I do remain sceptical because I know we are being lied to in so many other areas. Sure it's my opinion and im entitled to it as much as you are yours. You sling mud constantly at people. Your so identical to the people you look down your nose at. Show the science that supports your ideals but turn your back on the science that doesn't. Your as flawed as any. Please reply in your own words,. If you can manage it..Tut TutTut[/i

This is better than the Joynt's Voluntary Tackle thread.

When I copy and paste a quote, I mark it as .. guess what ... a QUOTE!

Novel, huh?

Now, i appreciate that with what passes for your thoughts, quoting seems to be "plagiarising", but as I did actually "QUOTE" the quote, I don't think it is much of a "caught"

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"As for the video It was clear as snow. They have Zero technology to overcome the VAB yet. '"

Precisely the opposite, the video says they have built the craft to do exactly that, and the next step is to test to see if and how well it works. Only a moron or a troll would fail to understand such a simple point.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Why the angst Why are you so abrasive. '"

On the contrary, you invent "angst" etc same as you invent anything else. If anything, I'm enjoying the posts today, as Mugwump has been quite entertaining, and your posts are a bit like the pins in a bowling alley at the moment, it can be good fun repeatedly demolishing them, and you just get right back up!

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Because US stupid conspiracy theorist are ruining the world. '"

You're not, you just aim to

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" This video that stimulated the conversation is by no means a smoking gun '"

Well, quite. In fact it is a pefectly cogent and lucid summary of the Orion project, which makes perfect sense, despite the efforts of purveyors of pseudobabble who know nothing of the subject to use it as a smoking gun.

But, then, why did you link to it with finality, as a smoking gun, then?

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"but yes I do remain sceptical because I know we are being lied to in so many other areas. Sure it's my opinion and im entitled to it as much as you are yours. '"

Let's analyse that. Was Conan Doyle as much entitled to his opinion that fairies at the bottom of the garden were real? Well, yes, in some sense. Was his belief wrong? Of course. Was it risible? Of course. Were the debunkers right to demolish his childish beliefs? Of course. Was it fair enough to respond to his claims with derision and ridicule? Bit harsh, but if you put your head above the parapet and propose patent bullcrap, then you have brought this on your own head.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY"You sling mud constantly at people. Your so identical to the people you look down your nose at. '"

Not at all. I laugh at your gullibility and I deride your more ludicrous remarks and outlandish, ridiculous beliefs, abused on your scientific illiteracy and religious brainwashing. I can treat well-presented and well argued and coherent scientific arguments based on sound scientific evidence and principles with the respect they deserve. But not all claims and theories deserve the same respect, lunatic and misguided claims deserve to be dismissed summarily and I'm afraid you have a full house of them.

Quote ="FLAT STANLEY" Show the science that supports your ideals but turn your back on the science that doesn't. '"

But sadly for you, there is no sound science that "doesn't". I have looked at plenty of it, more's the pity, and it is all invariably bullcrap of varying degrees. That is a considered view and calling it like it is.

How could I provide the considerable number of scientifically based responses to all the rubbish that's been spouted recently on here, if I had "turned my back" on it? Wouldn't you say that i'm probably the only person on the boards who ISN'T turning his back on it, with one or two exceptions who make occasional comments? If I am "turning my back" then what do you actually want? A clear run to spout your drivel? The reason I am the only one for the most part is because when i respond, it entertains me, and I can at the same time post some genuine snippets of real science and facts which I know people will read even if they don't respond.


You only get my own words, Stan, and well you know it. I have challenged you before to demonstrate they are not my own words, but you are happier to repeat your LIE. that is not normal behaviour. And being yourself the king of cut'n'paste it really is ironic for you to make the claim.

And no, I have not forgotten that you keep swerving and swerving all the points I have put to you now in many posts, including your much-anticipated explanation of how come your own eyes can see a myriad satellites in the night sky, if satellites don't exist.

Your pathetic smokescreen doesn't mask your attempt to swerve the simple questions that you never answer. And not just mine.

That thread was a hoax.

A holographic projection onto the whole of the internet.

Sky TV is quite simple.

A cluster of satellites (yes, more than 1) are positions at 28.2 degrees. You point your dish in that direction (Sky dishes are quite forgiving). Provided your house doesn't fall down, there is no need to move your dish.

When a satellite comes to end of life, a planned flyby allows a controlled switch over. Usually at night when less people will notice. The new satellite is manoeuvred in, and in coordination with the old one, has its transponders turned on 1 at a time. The old satellite is then manoeuvred out of the way forever.

Satellites do fail. Google AMOS5 which died recently.

When Sky went 3D with Superleague they actually stopped using real players. I can prove it.

[iI know it is Ground-based Repeaters it's terrestrial It's really cable with a alternate frequency band to Freeview. [/i

Nonsense. 28 degrees is a very shallow pitch which ties in perfect to a Ground Based Transmission. It should be pitched higher for Satellites obviously.

[iAbsolute nonsense Flyby. Whats a flyby hahaha. A space shuttle launches a new satellite replacement just for lucky me. Hahaha. And how can the faulty malfunctioned Satellite be moved if its knackard. Don't tell me Tim Peake does a spacewalk.[/i



[iThis is why its Ground Based Repeaters. Its too cost effective to replace knackard Satellites there would be daily launchesd Flyby's hahaha to accommodate the problem. I've got Sky without them knowing PPV the lot. Satellite not needed. Broadband is what Sky dial into to give you your package if it was Satellite fed Broadband wouldn't be needed. Your talking what you've been spoon fed. Not your fault. Flyby's [/i



[iWhy Do We Never See Satellites From The ISS. Two Birds One Stone because they're both fallacies.[/i
=#BF0000All them Satellites and not ONE authentic picture can be taken of the Earth.Smells fishy to me...

I'm now thinking you must be a WUM. You caught a fish.

28.2 is the orbital position. Not the elevation.

A flyby is where one satellite is moved out of position and a new one moved in. It takes a lot of planning and coordination. The end customers don't usually even notice.

Satellites are moved when they are knackered and old. Its called planning.

Spoon fed? Unlike you I didn't need the internet or wiki for any of that satellite info...

[iDrivel. our dish points to the nearest tower...not to the sky..no difference between a TV aerial and a dish...every Skydish on Earth points to a ground based signal. Always has and still does.....they never point to the sky. With regards to a lot of coordination and planning and customers don't feel the change that defines to Bull. No Flyby's needed with my sky package what they're oblivious too. [/i

Put your hand in front of the LNB and see what happens.

That will show you that the reflector is doing something and not acting as an aerial.

[iif you type like this things seem more truer, fact.[/i

I haven't logged hours and hours on Kerbal Space Program just to be told it's all .

Oooh goody! Another one's escaped! I've got 9 hours to fill so crack on! I'm awaiting Stanleys rebuttal to FAs satellite question with bated breath although he seems to be throwing a deaf 'un!

Stop wailing you pompous jerk. You are good at insulting anyone who doesn't subscribe to your barmpot quasi-religious beliefs (indeed you are among the WORST OFFENDERS I've seen on this site in this regard) so don't come moaning when someone returns the favour with interest.

A simple YES or NO question: If one is familiar with the inverse square law and its effects on LIGHT INTENSITY is it POSSIBLE for you to look at a photograph and arrive at a reliable conclusion about whether a SINGLE LIGHT SOURCE of KNOWN SIZE is close to the subject or far away based solely on the EFFECTS of said light source?

I know the answer to this question and can prove it experimentally. I just want to know whether you have uncovered earth-shattering discoveries which will turn the laws of light and photography on their head.

No one mentioned ANYWHERE that a speedlite is an EXACT DUPLICATE of the sun.

But it can CERTAINLY be placed in such a way that it can fool someone into believing that a photograph of someone was taken with the sun in camera (which tells us what about their relative sizes btw?)

We KNOW this BECAUSE?

The Chinese landed an unmanned vehicle on the moon in 2013. They've just released hundreds of the best quality photos of the moons surface ever recorded. You can access them from the CSNA website, or check them out here...

[url=http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2016/01281656-fun-with-a-new-data-set-change.html?referrer=http://techcrunch.com/2016/01/30/china-just-released-true-color-hd-photos-of-the-moon/?referrer=http://petapixel.com/2016/02/01/china-just-released-a-new-set-of-true-color-photos-of-the-moons-surface/Clicky[/url

What's quite striking is the similarities to the Moon landing photos, including light and shadow.

Of course, the Chinese must be in cahoots with NASA to fake these photos on a set to. Or maybe, there isn't any big conspiracy with the original moon photos at all...

The laws of light and photography are cast in stone. Anyone who understands them can immediately spot problem lighting. Even you.

Or are you saying these laws don't apply on the moon?

As for the Chinese photographs. Aside from a couple I haven't really looked at them. However, I must point out that if someone had used evidence put forward by the CHINESE or the RUSSIANS twenty or even ten years ago they'd have first been pilloried and then laughed out of the discussion. Are we now supposed to accept them FA-style, without question and then shake a paw? Are they the GOOD GUYS?



I should add that it's a lot easier to fake/edit photographs today than it was during the Apollo missions because of CGI. For instance, Photoshop can very accurately simulate how the inverse-square law dictates the appearance of light cones. Given time and high-resolution raw files it should still be possible to recognise issues. But as the technology and computational speed evolves it becomes harder and harder.

It seems as though Apollo "astronaut" [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bbPzX-dfV4Alan Bean[/url doesn't know a great deal about the Van Allen belts, either. You'd think he might just remember a few operational details given that he was in mortal danger of being grilled.

Talk about an emphatic performance.

You post all this internet trawled speculatory evidence Mugwump but I'd like to know YOUR personal thoughts about why a space agency would feel the need to fake then try and convince the whole planet that there has been a moon landing. Why would they go to ridiculous lengths to do it? For what purposes? Who are the winners and losers out of it all? Was it some crazy idea written on the back of a fag packet that got way out of hand or is it part of a grander scheme?

You see, I'm of the belief that it did happen as they say it did, but if it came from the horses mouth in the next half hour that it was all one big illusion it would make absolutely no difference to my life and I'm sure it wouldn't do to millions of others. Life would just go on, just as it does after wars, deaths, celebrations, wins, losses. People would carry on stargazing, looking at the moon and thinking "one day we'll land a man on there..."

Maybe take a look and get back to us with how they've been faked?


Personally, I'm still in the 'why would they bother' camp. Why are all these agencies faking photographs, what do they gain from it etc.

The trouble with people that have time invested into 'alternate versions of reality' is that it is easier to fall further and further down the rabbit hole than change their views and have to climb out. You will never ever find a 'reformed' conspiracy theorist. Once they are in, they are in forever. Admitting that something they may put forward is flaky in the evidence department is a massive no-no. The constant covering of one idea to the next is exhausting. They go round and round in ever tightening circles, until all they can hear is themselves. They get bogged-down in the minutiae of a particular point without realising the ridiculousness of the larger argument.

I think there are only two plausible reasons.

1. They couldn't meet the deadline Kennedy had set with the available technology and did it to save the embarrassment of a multi-billion dollar bust. If the Van Allen belts are as lethal and extensive as I suspect they never had the lifting capacity to put enough shielding into space. But even if they aren't and you can somehow dodge the worst of it (I find it hard to accept that the topology of any complex and chaotic field can be precisely "known" so far in advance - especially back in the sixties) those astronauts would have been bombarded with high-energy solar radiation throughout the bulk of the trip and likely taken a lethal dose. If FA's "magic suit" theory holds water NASA has solved one of the nuclear industry's most pressing problems - the provision of effective radiation shielding for workers asked to clean up the mess left by nuclear piles which have either reached the ends of their lives or done a "Chernobyl". We KNOW that the Apollo command module was a shambles up to the Apollo I fire because of Gus Grissom's comments. Now, we can either accept NASA's side of the story and they somehow managed to fix all their issues to such an extent that every single mission returned home safely and all but one landed on the moon - or we can conclude that this is a cover story.

2. They are already on the moon using novel forms of technology (such as the TR-3B) and have some reason for not telling us which they don't wish to share.