|
Astronauts refuse to swear on bible about moon landing.. and get violentRate this:
  
Published Sun 27 May 2007,
1236 Views,
33 Comments
|
| Home | My Friends | My Topics | My Woyano |
Related Items
This Item
Category: Bigups, Video
Tags: criminal, americans, fake, moon landing, angry
Tags: criminal, americans, fake, moon landing, angry
arooka
Share it
Link to this item:
Bookmark this item:
RSS Feed
People who liked this item
33 Comments
I really worry about our country (and about the future of the world) when I see this kind of idiocy on the loose. This kind of denial of history is no better, in my opinion, than the Bush administration's denial of science.
*BAM* lights out buddy
No-one constructs a lie that can easily be disproved. And, at some point in the future, man WILL go back to the moon. And see for themselves. I really hope the brain-dead morons who believe it was a hoax will still be around, to be called liars and see their integity smashed.
Daithe: I have come up with a way to reconcile science and religion. It's so simple. All you need to do is change one word - just one word of the bible:
In the beginning was the word. And the word was: bang!
C'mon, now, get serious for a second. Think about it, AND BE HONEST. You did something, something, very important. There is documentation that you did it. What you did was independently verified. You are proud of what you did. The entire country is proud of what you did, and in fact, the entire WORLD is proud of what you did, because we all share a common humanity.
Now, some idiot (and they ARE idiots) comes along saying, "YOU NEVER DID THAT!!!" Oh, man. I would just ignore them, wouldn't you? Then they say, "PROVE THAT YOU ACTUALLY DID IT." Well, DUH, it's like, "Well read a BOOK, okay?" Then they say, "SWEAR ON A BIBLE!!! SWEAR ON A BIBLE THAT YOU DID IT!!!" Now, you may think this is an entirely reasonable request. If so, I think that says more about your biases than about the objectivity of your assumption. Me? I tell this *sshole to go f*ck himself, and quick.
I'm sorry, I see NOTHING in these astronauts behavior that is inconsistent with the truth of history. Are you living IN THE DARK?
*S*
The Earth has an atmosphere and a magnetic field that deflects the so-called solar wind. Every second, approximately a hundred trillion particles reach the Earth and most of them are deflected. The moon however does not have this protection and so the radiation of these particles bombards it. The sun is mostly hydrogen and helium. At the temperatures in the sun's corona, both hydrogen and helium break down to a mix of atomic nuclei and electrons. The helium nucleus is an alpha particle.
Rocks brought back from the moon and studied by many many scientists have quantities of helium that can only have come from the solar wind. There is no doubt that these rocks ARE from the moon.
Now (hopefully) you and I both know that rocks do not suddenly cut themselves away from the planet they are part of to arrive, suitably packaged ready to be tested, all by themselves.
If I were one of the astronauts, I could think of three reasons why I would not swear on the bible - to anything. These are:
1. I do not believe in God, therefore lying to Him is impossible and equally, swearing on the bible, pointless.
2. The bible is a middle-eastern history book laden with superstitious claptrap to explain phenomena early observers could not understand, and so swearing on it is, once again, pointless, regardless of whether a God exists or not.
3. You (the interviewer), have nothing better to do than call me a liar? Get out of my space!
Actually, if I were one of the astronauts then my answer would probably be "I really don't care whether you believe me or not because you are so far beneath my contempt I've already wasted enough breath saying this much".
You may say that if the astronauts didn't believe in God then swearing on the bible would be an easy thing to do because they would not believe it mattered one iota. I would suggest in that case that the challenge to their integrity is what irked them so much. And, to be honest, I would feel much the same if some two-bit snotty reporter accused me of falsifying a great achievement.
I would suggest though, that IF they did, they would hardly (in the spirit of the times back then) have kindly sent the Americans any, now would they?
As for the radiation - well that's what space suits are for.
I have yet to see one shred of 'evidence' presented by Moon-Landing Conspiracy Theorists that cannot be explained by common sense and a little basic science. Instead of just shouting 'No you didn't (neh neh na-neh nehr!)", give me some 'evidence' that that I can investigate.
Radiation Exposure Assessment
Health Physics. 79(5):507-514, November 2000.
Badhwar, Gautam D. *
Abstract:
mdash;: The radiation environment in low-Earth orbital flights is complex. It is strongly influenced by altitude, orbital inclination, time within a given solar cycle, flight duration, and shielding configuration. At any specified shielded location, both primary and secondary particles generated by nuclear interactions of primary particles with spacecraft structure are present. In addition, there are atmospheric secondary albedo protons and neutrons. No single detector can adequately measure this complex radiation field, and measurements of very high linear energy transfer target fragmentation products are particularly difficult. Crew radiation exposure have exclusively been measured using passive thermoluminescent detectors (TLDs). The cosmonaut exposures on the Mir station, uncorrected for the TLD inefficiency and neutron contribution, have varied from a low of 2.43 cGy to a high of 8.70 cGy. These correspond to dose rates of 144 [mu]Gy d-1 to 468 [mu]Gy d-1. These are consistent with rates observed by the D2 ion-chamber. Using the rates measured by the D1 chamber, dose rates under 4 cm of water vary from about 60 [mu]Gy d-1 to about 350 [mu]Gy d-1. There is variation of about a factor of two between the dose rates at various locations in the same module. There is also a variation of dose rates of about a factor two between various modules. The highest astronaut dose for a Shuttle flight (STS-82) was 3.205 cGy with a dose rate of 3,221 [mu]Gy d-1. Neutron contribution could be 36 15% of the astronaut charged particle dose equivalent. East-West asymmetry of dose rate is significant for spacecrafts that fly in an fixed altitude, such as the International Space Station."
http://www.health-physics...335381!-949856145!8091!-1
Now imagine going up above the area of the planet which provides protection - you must remember Mir and the ISS are protected from raditation, but still both sat in a low earth orbit, and still its crew were/are dosed with sometimes dangerous levels of radiation.
The fact that 'there is radiation up there' cannot be presented as evidence one way or the other.
Radiation Hazards
b. The intensity of radiation in space is
significant. Exposure to radiation has a variety
of short term and long term effects on the human
body based on the type radiation, the intensity
and the length of exposure. It is not presently
known what all of those effects are. Radiation
generating events on the Sun are unpredictable
and occur frequently. Radiation emanating from
deep space is also dangerous but it is more
constant. Exposure to high energy galactic cosmic
rays is not a serious problem in low Earth orbit.
Beyond low Earth orbit, however, shielding
against radiation can be bulky and massive, thus
making the spacecraft heavier to launch.
Additional research on the effects of radiation
and protective materials for the crewmembers is
needed."
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/army/
ref_text/chap09.htm
"The CM was a conical pressure vessel with a
maximum diameter of 3.9 m at its base and a
height of 3.65 m. It was made of an aluminum
honeycomb sandwhich bonded between sheet aluminum
alloy"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/
MasterCatalog?sc=1972-096A
Aluminum Honeycomb Panels
http://www.portafab.com/
aluminum_honeycomb_panels.shtml?utm_source=
Google&utm_medium=PPC&utm_term=aluminum+ceiling+
panel
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/figures/fig23
-1.gif
"Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything;
there is no escaping its deadly effects.
° Facts: Some gamma radiation from fallout will
penetrate the shielding materials of even an
excellent shelter and reach its occupants.
However, the radiation dose that the occupants of
an excellent shelter would receive while inside
this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller
than the average American receives during his
lifetime from X rays and other radiation
exposures normal in America today. The design
features of such a shelter include the use of a
sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy
shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays,
but more penetrating. Figure 1.3 shows how
rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number (but not
in their ability to penetrate) by layers of
packed earth. Each of the layers shown is one
halving-thickness of packed earth- about 3.6
inches (9 centimeters).3 A halving- thickness is
the thickness of a material which reduces by half
the dose of radiation that passes through it.
The actual paths of gamma rays passing through
shielding materials are much more complicated,
due to scattering, etc., than are the straight-
line paths shown in Fig. 1.3. But when averaged
out, the effectiveness of a halving-thickness of
any material is approximately as shown. The
denser a substance, the better it serves for
shielding material. Thus, a halving-thickness of
concrete is only about 2.4 inches (6.1 cm)."
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
http://www.oism.org/nwss/nw014.jpg
Radiation Hazards
b. The intensity of radiation in space is significant. Exposure to radiation has a variety of short term and long term effects on the human body based on the type radiation, the intensity and the length of exposure. It is not presently known what all of those effects are. Radiation generating events on the Sun are unpredictable and occur frequently. Radiation emanating from deep space is also dangerous but it is more constant. Exposure to high energy galactic cosmic rays is not a serious problem in low Earth orbit. Beyond low Earth orbit, however, shielding against radiation can be bulky and massive, thus making the spacecraft heavier to launch. Additional research on the effects of radiation and protective materials for the crewmembers is needed."
http://www.fas.org/spp/mi.../army/ref_text/chap09.htm
"The CM was a conical pressure vessel with a maximum diameter of 3.9 m at its base and a height of 3.65 m. It was made of an aluminum honeycomb sandwhich bonded between sheet aluminum alloy"
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.go...asterCatalog?sc=1972-096A
Aluminum Honeycomb Panels
http://www.portafab.com/a...rm=aluminum+ceiling+panel
http://www.wilderness-sur...l.net/figures/fig23-1.gif
"Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything; there is no escaping its deadly effects.
° Facts: Some gamma radiation from fallout will penetrate the shielding materials of even an excellent shelter and reach its occupants. However, the radiation dose that the occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and other radiation exposures normal in America today. The design features of such a shelter include the use of a sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more penetrating. Figure 1.3 shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number (but not in their ability to penetrate) by layers of packed earth. Each of the layers shown is one halving-thickness of packed earth- about 3.6 inches (9 centimeters).3 A halving- thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half the dose of radiation that passes through it.
The actual paths of gamma rays passing through shielding materials are much more complicated, due to scattering, etc., than are the straight-line paths shown in Fig. 1.3. But when averaged out, the effectiveness of a halving-thickness of any material is approximately as shown. The denser a substance, the better it serves for shielding material. Thus, a halving-thickness of concrete is only about 2.4 inches (6.1 cm)."
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p912.htm
http://www.oism.org/nwss/nw014.jpg
http://science.nasa.gov/h...ines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/w..._Landing_hoax_accusations
"Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm
Science is logical, not a religion - If you have no religion, do not pretend science is yours.
Just be grateful it didn't hit us.
Horseshoe path.. suprising still an orbit.
Define Orbit: In physics, an orbit is the path that an object makes, around another object, whilst under the influence of a source of centripetal force, such as gravity.
Cruithne is earth's Second Moon. Isn't science great?
Recently Pluto has been demoted from planet status to 'lump of rock' status. By the same criteria I suppose the 3 mile wide Cruithne should probably be called a brick.
The Three Moons of Earth
http://www.exo.net/%7Epau...astronomy/threemoons.html
Anyways, moon or your crazy notions, it does not matter - the fact is that the americans have a better chance landed on 3753 Cruithne than on Luna itself because of massive doses of radiation that would kill the astronauts once leaving the protection of our atmosphere.
You can say "of course they did" and blindly believe they did do something. Though, if you wish to blindly believe.. choose another topic to discuse. Looking for logical discusions, not wild insane religious mongering.
ARTHUR: We found them.
SOLDIER #1: Found them? In Mercia? The coconut's tropical!
ARTHUR: What do you mean?
SOLDIER #1: Well, this is a temperate zone.
ARTHUR: The swallow may fly south with the sun or the house martin or the plover may seek warmer climes in winter, yet these are not strangers to our
land?
SOLDIER #1: Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?
ARTHUR: Not at all. They could be carried.
SOLDIER #1: What? A swallow carrying a coconut?
ARTHUR: It could grip it by the husk!
SOLDIER #1: It's not a question of where he grips it! It's a simple question of weight ratios! A five ounce bird could not carry a one pound coconut.
ARTHUR: Well, it doesn't matter. Will you go and tell your master that Arthur from the Court of Camelot is here?
SOLDIER #1: Listen. In order to maintain air-speed velocity, a swallow needs to beat its wings forty-three times every second, right?
ARTHUR: Please!
SOLDIER #1: Am I right?
ARTHUR: I'm not interested!
SOLDIER #2: It could be carried by an African swallow!
SOLDIER #1: Oh, yeah, an African swallow maybe, but not a European swallow. That's my point.
SOLDIER #2: Oh, yeah, I agree with that.
ARTHUR: Will you ask your master if he wants to join my court at Camelot?!
SOLDIER #1: But then of course a-- African swallows are non-migratory.
SOLDIER #2: Oh, yeah.
SOLDIER #1: So, they couldn't bring a coconut back anyway.
[clop clop clop]
SOLDIER #2: Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?
SOLDIER #1: No, they'd have to have it on a line.
SOLDIER #2: Well, simple! They'd just use a strand of creeper!
SOLDIER #1: What, held under the dorsal guiding feathers?
SOLDIER #2: Well, why not?
It is not a difficult thing, simply provide facts, as I did, for the opinions spoken.
"To believe something is wrong, without looking at the evidence, is the sign of a extremly brainwashed mind". -D.I
Are you a sheep? Or are you a logical thinking human being? You decide.
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)